My money would be on:
“1) These guys lay siege to Bagdhad, conquer the city and assume control of “Iraq”. The world doesn’t act. They get their Islamic state and suppress the opposition in a constant state of civil unrest.”
Albeit, I’d modify number 1 to read: “These guys lay siege to Bagdhad without completely cutting the city off. The world doesn’t act. They solidify their grip on their Islamic state and supress the opposition in a constant state of civil unrest.
So what I see is sort of a standoff, endless siege. What perplexes me is the lack of action by Iran. I would have expected them to step in to save the Sharia Shrine cities.
ISIS isn’t going to conquer Baghdad.
The towns and villages that they have taken are Sunni majority and the Sunnis largely abandoned their organic militia capacity during the 2006-2008 “surge.” The Shi’ite majority Iraqi army was entirely unable to operate in those
Baghdad has significant Shi’ite militia, well-armed and passably well-trained, and if things go existential, the Shi’ite government can draw upon an unlimited resource of Iranian special and conventional forces.