Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[CrowBat]

Bill,
the IF just launched a 'major' offensive on the ISIS in Aleppo and Idlib Provinces. First reports indicate heavy losses on both sides, but also the IF overrunning several ISIS bases.

Bottom line: whether the ISIS is even only 'gaining', as some say, or (already) 'leading', as other say, they're not the same like even the JAN, not to talk about the IF, and thus all polemic in this direction (including the one about 'we've got no friends there') is simply surplus.

Regarding LIFG and that WP report (from 2007): Perhaps the CTC-guys should've read the LIFG entry on Wikipedia to get themselves informed? No clue, and I neither have the time to search you various sources of reference that appeared 'even' on the internet in the last 15 or so years, nor can care less any more (nothing personal: it's a decision I've taken nearly 15 years ago), but their report about LIFG-al-Qaida cooperation was definitely 'obsolete' the moment it was published. No surprise: just another of so many fails from that period of time.

Where you got Libya-Syria-Iran axis supporting AQ beats me, one thing Assad and the U.S. had/have in common is a mutual dislike for AQ. Iran on the other hand may use them as proxy for limited operations, but I don't think they would form a coalition with them. They know AQ is responsible for the slaughter of Shia.

Don't know whether it's my 'subtle' sarcasm, but we're simply not at the same level of information and understanding (not even after I posted you a link that would offer you an answer regarding the Iranian involvement in this business).

Anyway, perhaps my memory is 'entirely wrong', but I very much do recall the times when DC couldn't put enough blame upon Tehran 'supporting al-Qaida' (I definitely do recall chatting with quite a number of 'Colonels+', all of whom were 'convinced' this was the case 'because intelligence said so').

As explained above (well, I did try), it was so that specific circles in Libya and Syria found it opportune to 'export' Islamists to Iraq and Afghanistan - for purely commercial reasons; perhaps the LIFG - as such - wouldn't have gone there. Who can know now... Anyway, the Iranians (that is: Khamenei, and, on his order, al-Qods too), found that idea 'not bad', though for other reasons (causing troubles for the USA in Iraq). Eventually, the idea back-fired (upon Iraqi Shi'a), with well-known consequences. But, and that's the point: this 'cooperation' was never born out of 'preference' or anything like political decisions to 'support al-Qaida', whether in Tehran, Tripoli or Damascus, in Qom, Benghazi, Dernah or anywhere else.

The Libyans supporting AQ...

Not even 'Islamist extremist' Libyans (not to talk about 'Q') have ever 'supported' al-Qaida: they established their own organization, the LIFG, and attempted cooperating with al-Qaida. Then they found out what al-Qaida is, and 'divorced'. That's the essence of the - grey, as usually (i.e. no 'black & white') - story I told you above.

Um, that sounds like a non-state network that was established, which earlier you denied existed?

Where did I do that? The last I recall I was wondering how can anybody come to the idea to expect there 'must' be a 'state-sponsored network' in the back of the ISIS....

Some people sitting far away have a lot of contacts up close and personal.

Few people certainly do. Especially those who have spent years taking walks far away on the other side of the border. The rest has meanwhile graduated at Princeton and similar places, and thinks it has 'lots of contacts up close and personal' because nowadays there is something called 'internet'...

Can't speak for the rest of the military, but we were very much aware of the Leninist groups trying to get established in Iraq, but for obvious reasons they didn't garner much of a following.

...which didn't prevent anybody to declare some of these 'Leninist' groups for 'al-Qaida', whenever opportune.

Anyway, gotta rush and get this one to the publisher. Hope to have more time next week again.