Since President Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in late 2011, the country has received little press coverage; that is, until a few weeks ago when the fanatical forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, better known as ISIS, began running wild in northern and western Iraq.

In swift maneuvers that remind us of America’s own shock-and-awe advance to Baghdad in 2003, the Sunni Muslim forces of ISIS have overrun towns that most Americans remember well, such as Fallujah, Tikrit and Mosul. ISIS controls a Syria-Iraq border crossing, and now they stand on Baghdad’s doorstep.

The shocking bloodbath has raised tensions in Iraq and the whole Middle East, with Sunni and Shiite rifts opening wider than ever. Experts say it’s a matter of time before it spills over into surrounding countries.

So, what does this all mean to us Mainers, enjoying the way life should be and beginning to welcome the first waves of tourists driving the turnpike to our summertime shores? It seems just as our economy is showing signs of improvement (housing prices rebounding, unemployment down), the Middle East is now broiling, and with it the energy supply that forms the foundations of all of our lives.

While no one disagrees that we need to wean ourselves off oil for the good of our environment and relationship with the Middle East, we also need to be realistic about what’s happening in the world. It’s neither paranoid nor fanciful to envision a reality where ISIS or some other highly motivated, West-hating group that is willing to die for their beliefs comes to dominate the oil-producing Middle East and hold hostage heavily oil-dependent countries such as the United States. We could be looking at exorbitant prices, or worse, no supply at all from those oil-producing nations. So, before this becomes another part of our “new normal,” it’s time to get serious about which countries we rely on for our energy needs.

Fortunately, America is in a better position, thanks to hydraulic fracturing techniques that extract oil and natural gas from shale deposits. That “fracking” technology, while sometimes controversial, has reaped great rewards for investors and made America a major energy supplier once again. But estimates vary on how long the boom will last. Therefore, we can’t ignore the vast supply to our north. With Canadian oil, the estimated volume of which measures in the trillions of gallons, the supply could last for up to 100 years at current usage rates, according to some reports. And with Islamic extremists saying they’re in a 100-year war against the West, we need to get realistic about our long-term energy supply.

The prospects of ISIS – which is considered more extreme than Al Qaeda and has billions in financing – taking over Syria and Iraq, and its desire to set up a caliphate stretching from Iran to Saudi Arabia, makes us rethink the risk-reward equation concerning extracting and shipping Canadian oil to market.

Many are opposed to extracting the oil from Canada, and they make good points. But every energy source brings with it multiple risks. The same is true with tar-sands oil, which could leak into our fragile environment. Everything in this world has its pros and cons. It’s up to people to decide which risks they’re willing to tolerate.

In deliberations that started Wednesday, the South Portland City Council is going to have to make a decision whether to endorse a newly drafted ordinance that would ban tar-sands transport through the Portland-Montreal pipeline, which terminates on the city’s shorefront. A ban would remove the possibility of the Portland Pipe Line Co. from transporting tar sands from Canada to Casco Bay and on to American refineries and, eventually, world markets. If higher authorities don’t claim jurisdiction over the matter, that is a huge responsibility the council has on its shoulders, and councilors should pay attention to world events, since their local actions could impact markets and people’s lives into the future.

Some may say ISIS is a flash in the pan, and that the risks posed by tar sands are simply too great to bear here in Maine. But it’s good to remember we already live with a lot of risk due to South Portland’s oil infrastructure, and Maine communities along the pipeline already live with constant threat, as all oil production carries risk. Pipelines are considered the safest way to transport crude, and Portland Pipe Line Co. has an excellent track record for the last 70-plus years, so councilors in South Portland also need to consider the broader consequences of a tar-sands ban.

In this teetering world, the environmental risks posed by piping tar sands through the Maine pipeline may be great, but they still don’t outweigh the societal risks posed by Islamists commandeering much of the world’s energy supply.

– John Balentine, managing editor