Complicated Thoughts: Questions on ISIL

Nuclear bombs don't work that way. They really aren't useful against military troops spread across hundreds of miles of empty desert.
YOU CAN'T HUG YOUR CHILDREN WITH NUCLEAR ARMS!
Legally, the US (still) has a policy of not being the first country to use nuclear weapons.

Because that worked so well in Iraq 12 years ago. Beyond that, from a moral point of view, it's pretty much the same as "nuke them all".
We've already been doing that and it hasn't helped.
There's not really much of a difference between "a drone bombs a nightclub" and "a suicide bomber bombs a nightclub".

For all practical purposes, there is no government in Iraq or Syria, definitely not in the desert regions. The blue regions are about the parts of the country that are controlled by the central government authorities.
Southern Iraq (labeled as Basra) is basically running the Iraqi government. The region also controls most of Iraq's oil.
Syria is fighting multiple different rebel groups, both separatist and religious.

The Alawite region (possibly including Aleppo and part of Turkey)
The Kurdish region (including northern Iraq and part of Turkey - Mosul is actually controlled by ISIL)
The "Euphrates" region (eastern Syria and central Iraq - I can't find a good name for this region, "desert" is too general and "ISIL" too specific)
IN ADDITION, there are the normal "we hate Assad"-type rebels. These would probably be described as "pro-democracy advocates" or the like if they're aligned with the US, or "religious groups" if they're not.

Both the Alawite and Kurdish rebels have claims for territory inside Turkish borders. ISIL (as a proto-state, not as a "global whatever") does not. As long as ISIL is fighting other elements within Iraq and Syria, it more or less aligns with Turkey's interests.
There is no real way that the US can work with Iran in any way. Beyond that, there are also Kurdish regions in Iran that Iran would prefer not join an independent Kurdistan. ISIL isn't really fighting in the Shiite areas near Basra, as long as those areas are part of an established state there's no real motivation there either.

Russia actually does have an interest in the "inviolate borders of nation-states" rule of international law being weakened. I don't think the US is ready to "trade the Crimea to Russia to get rid of ISIL". Russia is also a strong backer of Assad.
The Saudi government more or less supports ISIL.
Egypt is still in no position to engage in external military actions after the counterrevolutionary coup by Sisi against the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm suggesting that they already do have their own country. The post-1945 facade of "nation-states are exactly what the UN says they are, and apart from limited regionalism no states shall be created or destroyed" is clearly failing in the Middle East. Various "3-state plans" post-Iraq were discarded as un-workable in 2003.
The Ba'ath party was the main vehicle for "pan-Islamic nationalism" in the Middle East. Any plan for a multi-ethnic state probably has to include some elements of Ba'ath philosophy. Of course, the two main proponents of the Ba'ath party were Sadaam Hussein and the Hafez al-Assad (Bashar al-Assad's father). Between the lack of a "cult of personality" for a leader, and being seen as "government allies", it seems almost impossible for a new multi-ethnic movement to arise in the current environment.

They certainly want to be an international movement.
They certainly are a proto-state. They control territory. They have an army. They collect taxes (or at least tribute). They keep threatening to create a currency. Nobody else claims to be in control of the territory they claim to control.
That said, every "terrorist" in the world wants to be part of a global movement. I don't think they care if it's ISIL or Al-Qaeda or PETA or the NRA.

Complicated Thoughts