In response to GUEST - Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:23 PM

"1. Turkey at the moment is defacto allied with ISxx, as they are knocking the stuffing out of the Kurds. The Turkish Government has nothing to fear from reproaches that they did nothing, as all they have to say is "we took in millions of you as refugees", and yet at the same time they are able to divide and conquer a possible problem."

Ehmmm NO – Turkey is at present dealing simultaneously with the following:
(a) - A massive humanitarian refugee crisis
(b) – Understandable civic unrest by a large minority ethnic group within its borders, the military wing of which is itself an acknowledged terrorist group proscribed by both the Turkish Government and by the USA.
(c) – Trying to seal a 900 kilometre long border with a country that is in a self-destructive downward spiral.
(d) – Turkey MUST tread very carefully with regard to Syria as the current regime in Syria is closely allied to Russia and Turkey is a member of NATO (Something that you appear to have completely failed to mention)

(THAT factor Steve Shaw is where the WW3 might come into things – NOTHING to do with Jordan)

The Kurds in Turkey, the Kurds in Iraq, the Kurds in Iran and the Kurds in Syria are of no concern at all to the Turkish Government – all three Kurdish groups are actively seeking political dialogue as the means to achieving their goals not as a united Kurdish Nation but as identities within their present countries (In the summer of 2012 President Bashar Al-Assad ceded control of the Kurdish area of Syria including several Kurdish cities to the PYD {Syrian affiliate of the PKK}).



"2. That may seem shortsighted from a Western point of view. But at the same time, it is our self-interest which paints it that way, Turkey asked long enough to join the EU and was consistently told that they need to resolve their human rights policies such as this, and so no longer feels it owes Europe anything."

Turkey as a NATO member can render humanitarian assistance and support – what it cannot do under any circumstances as a country is intervene unilaterally directly in Syria. If on the other hand they can provoke an IS attack on Turkish troops or on Syrian refugees on Turkish soil then IS falls into the NATO treaty Article 5 & Article 6 trap where an attack on one is an attack on all – the precedent is Al-Qaeda and 9/11.
Turkey can provoke this attack by providing support for the Kurds and it could use the situation to its advantage in negotiations with the PKK Leadership. The second the first IS shell lands on Turkish soil the game changes – The US/NATO/Turkey tell Assad in Syria to attack IS and tell Russia either to assist Assad in that attack or keep completely out of the picture. Up until now no real tactical air weapon capable of taking on troops deployed for an attack has been used – once Turkey has been attacked then A-10s and Helicopter Gunships can loiter and hunt out individual IS units.

"3. IS, having secured its rear, may either continue to milk Iraq, or more likely turn right into Jordan and Israel. King Abdulla's alignment with the UK from his Sandhurst days must make him an appealing target."
I would dearly like to know precisely what it is that IS "controls" in either Syria (A broken totally dysfunctional state) or Iraq (A fractured state in the process of reconstruction). There is absolutely no border, or territory for that matter that IS can "secure" as you call it. It is only a matter of time, the "boots-on-the-ground" have to be Iraqi, Kurdish, Syrian boots on the ground and they will take time to raise (particularly inside Syria) Oh and by the way what would make Jordan an appealing target "Guest" has got S.F.A. to do with " King Abdulla's alignment with the UK from his Sandhurst days" but might have a lot to do with:

(a) Robbing their "Anti-Assad" moderate opponents in Syria of attractive and potential training and support bases from which the FSA could attack IS in either Anbar Province in Iraq, or in central Syria.
(b) They might possibly tempt the Israelis into acting due to their presence and thereby enhance their appeal in the "Muslim World"
(c) Obtain for their Caliphate their first free access to a seaport (Aqaba)
(d) They would find themselves parked along the borders of the richest prize of all in the region – The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

"4. If it does continue through Iraq, it's next step will be into the Gulf, to increase its grip on fuel supplies. However, it is still small, and relies on mobility: towns tie their forces down, and make them vulnerable to attack. At the moment, the air forces are based too far away to respond tactically. However, if IS were to attack Turkey seriously (by which I mean the heartland, the Turks will be only too happy to see the refugee camps cleaned out - yes, that's genocide, but they won't be the ones perpetrating it), then IS might find they get bogged in."

They will not "continue through Iraq" as you put it, they have reached their "high water mark" there, from where they are now it is Shia all the way, and they will fight, in Iraq today it has been the Shia and the Kurds that have stopped them and it will be the Iraqi Shia, Iraqi Sunni and the Iraqi Kurds that will forcibly drive IS out of Iraq.
As stated above – If IS attack anyone on Turkish soil it will NATO that comes after them and unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan, IS have no "Pakistan" to run to and hide in in the region. The spin-off will be that NATO will effectively control the airspace over northern, central and eastern Syria and that will allow the moderate FSA further space to train, equip and attack Assad.