Well, someone’s buying oil from ISIS, and there are all sorts of suspects. The problem is less the whodunit and more the who’ll-do-it when it comes to actually fighting ISIS. The US isn’t interested in putting up an effective fight, so Barack Obama has put together a coalition of nations that are more likely to start a war with each other than unite against the threat of ISIS. In fact, Turkey and Russia are on the brink of war now after the shootdown of a Russian fighter, to the point where Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard warned that the US should get out of the way before it turns nuclear, Joel Gehrke reports:

White House press secretary Josh Earnest urged lawmakers to pass new legislation providing Obama with the explicit authority to counter ISIS. “This effort is serious, and should be the focus of serious debate,” Earnest told reporters during his Tuesday briefing. “It will take more than three weeks to pass an AUMF, but Congress, in each of these cases, must stop using the fact that these issues are difficult as an excuse for doing nothing.”

Carter got a hint of just how difficult it may be to sell Congress on such legislation when Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) suggested that Obama’s decision to place American fighter jets equipped “to target Russian planes” on the border between Turkey and Syria, and his stated opposition to Russian-backed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, could lead the U.S. into a nuclear war with Vladimir Putin’s regime.

“Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile-defense system increases that possibility of — whether it’s intentional or even an accidental event — where one side may shoot down the other side’s plane,” Gabbard told Carter. “And that’s really where the potential is for this devastating nuclear war.”

Supposedly, the climate change conference in Paris provided an opportunity for Turkey and Russia to calm down the vitriol. Instead, both sides are publicly accusing the other of funding ISIS through oil sales. First, Russia’a minister of defense accused Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan and his family of personally profiting off of the ISIS oil trade:

“Turkey is the main destination for the oil stolen from its legitimate owners, which are Syria and Iraq. Turkey resells this oil,” Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told journalists in Moscow. “The appalling part about it is that the country’s top political leadership is involved in the illegal business — President Erdogan and his family.” …

Antonov did not say what evidence Russia had of Erdogan’s involvement — an allegation that the Turkish leader has denied.

“We understand that some of the Turkish leaders, notably Mr. Erdogan, will not step down and will not admit anything,” Antonov added. “I would like to emphasize that Erdogan’s resignation is not our goal. It’s up to the people of Turkey to decide.”

The government in Ankara responded by accusing Russia of arranging oil sales with ISIS to prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria:

The accusation was angrily rejected by Erdogan, who said he would resign if the claim could be proved.

“I will not remain in this post,” he said. Then he went on the offensive: “But I am asking Mr. Putin, would you remain?” Here’s how the pro-government Daily Sabah described what Erdogan said next:

He stated that a Russian-Syrian citizen has been buying oil from [the Islamic State] and then selling it to Assad regime, which he said was also confirmed by U.S. sources. “First they [Russia] should give an account of this,” he added.

The president also said that Russia’s claim that Turkey bought oil from [the Islamic State] terrorist organization is not ‘moral’, adding “such claims have to be proved.”

It’s not clear what incident Erdogan is referring to or whether the United States has confirmed any actual link between the Islamic State oil trade and the Syrian regime or its Russian clients.

The Washington Post calls this “tit-for-tat slander,” but allegations have to be false to be slanderous. Are they? It’s possible that both are telling the truth, or at least part of it. ISIS has to be selling the oil to clients with enough cash to buy it, and they don’t control any ports. That narrows their distribution to their potential clientele to land routes, and that means Turkey, Iraq, Syria — or the Saudis, who hardly need it. If Syria’s buying, then it makes sense that Russia might be brokering the deal, as ISIS is every bit as opposed to Assad as the Syrian rebels whom Russia has been targeting. The Turks didn’t mind ISIS either while their threat was mainly aimed at Assad, allowing a large influx of recruits to enter into Syria to join them, at least until recently.

It wouldn’t be out of the question to consider that both Turkey and Russia had taken an interest in ISIS’ oil trade until the political situation shifted in the past few weeks, and that both had intel on the other’s involvement. Now that they’re at each other’s throats, they may be using that knowledge to discredit each other. Or both could be lying through their teeth, which also doesn’t build a whole lot of confidence in their value as anti-ISIS coalition members.

The largest point in this diplomatic embarrassment is that it could have been avoided altogether. Had the US stayed on the ground in Iraq, the collapse their could have been prevented. Had we acted on the initial threat assessments on ISIS in the summer of 2012, we could have prevented the massive breakout that created the quasi-state between Damascus and Baghdad without having to get Turkey and Russia to pull our chestnuts out of the fire. Even now, if the US took a leadership position on fighting ISIS, we could push both Moscow and Ankara to the sidelines, prevent another potential military provocation between the two, and actually fulfill Obama’s pledge to “degrade and destroy” ISIS.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen before January 2017. By then, Turkey and Russia may be at war, and ISIS laughing all the way to the oil bank.