“Ya learn something new every day”

“Ya learn something new every day”.

Something I learned a very long time ago. I’m 77 years young, and I’m STILL learning!

My original thought of researching ISIS was based on my assumption, which is based on some reports that I had seen in the media that ISIS was originally created in part, and was funded by the United States (CIA/Mossad).

Recent news pundits have mentioned ISIS was somehow involved in the recent Bondi Beach shooting in Australia.

People are confused, associating ISIS with all the other Islamist militant groups. I think, out of ignorance, and/or being fed BS by some news pundits.

Some of the major reporters need to change careers, like maybe go flip hamburgers somewhere.

Let me make it clear that although the AI doesn’t believe that ISIS is associated with the United States and/Israel, I’m not saying that we should or shouldn’t trust this response by the AI tool DeepSeek.

I am keeping an open mind but still personally believe that ISIS as well as other Islamist militant groups have great relationships with the CIA, MI6, and Mossad.

So, here’s my AI search:

Research ISIS. Why is it that ISIS has never attacked Israel?

ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) has primarily focused its attacks on targets it considers immediate enemies in its goal to establish a caliphate in the Middle East.

While ISIS has threatened Israel in propaganda, several geopolitical, strategic, and ideological factors help explain why direct, large-scale attacks by ISIS inside Israel have been rare:

1. Geographic Distance and Organizational Priorities:

ISIS’s core territory during its peak (2014–2017) was in Iraq and Syria, far from Israel’s borders. Its resources were tied to fighting local enemies: the Iraqi government, Syrian regime, Kurdish forces, other rebel groups, and a U.S.-led coalition. Attacking Israel directly would have required crossing hostile territory or relying on affiliates.

2. Buffer Zones and Enemy Focus:

In Syria, ISIS was largely engaged in fighting the Assad regime, other Sunni jihadist groups (like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham), and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces—not Israel. Israel’s borders are well-fortified, and ISIS lacked a strong foothold adjacent to Israel, except possibly in limited periods in the Sinai Peninsula (via ISIS affiliate Wilayat Sinai).

3. Sinai Province (Wilayat Sinai):

ISIS’s affiliate in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula has carried out attacks against Egyptian security forces and occasionally fired rockets toward southern Israel, but these have been limited in scale. Their primary enemy is the Egyptian military, not Israel. Crossing into Israel from Sinai is militarily difficult due to Israel’s border security.

4. Ideological Factors:

While ISIS views Israel as an enemy (as part of its anti-Western, anti-Jewish, and anti-apostate ideology), its propaganda often framed Israel as a “crusader-Zionist” collaborator with other enemies like Iran and the Shia. However, ISIS’s primary sectarian focus was on fighting Shia Muslims (“rafidah”) and “apostate” Sunni regimes (like Saudi Arabia, Jordan) before directly engaging Israel.

5. Competition with Hamas and Other Palestinian Groups:

ISIS considered Hamas an apostate for participating in elections and not implementing strict Islamic law globally. Attacking Israel could unintentionally benefit Hamas by rallying Palestinians around Hamas’s resistance narrative. ISIS often criticized Hamas for focusing on the Palestinian cause instead of global jihad.

6. Operational Constraints and Israeli Security:

Israel has robust intelligence (Mossad, Shin Bet) and defense systems (Iron Dome, border barriers, air superiority). Attacking Israel successfully would require sophisticated planning, which is harder for ISIS given its diffuse, weakened state after its territorial defeat.

7. Regional Alliances and Chaos:

In the Syrian conflict, Israel occasionally struck Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria but avoided large-scale confrontation with ISIS. Some analysts suggest ISIS may have seen Israel as a secondary enemy compared to more immediate threats, and Israel may have viewed ISIS as a problem for its enemies (Iran, Assad).

Conclusion:

ISIS’s lack of major attacks on Israel is due to geographic distance, prioritized enemies, operational constraints, and ideological secondary focus—not a lack of hostility.

ISIS has called for attacks on Jews and Israel globally (e.g., inspired attacks on Jewish sites elsewhere), but large-scale, organized ISIS operations inside Israel have not materialized due to these factors.

For deeper research, consult sources like the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR), or works by analysts like Cole Bunzel, Aaron Zelin, and Graeme Wood.

But why didn’t they fight against Israel when they invaded Syria?

Excellent question. The apparent lack of direct confrontation between ISIS and Israel during the height of the Syrian conflict, despite ISIS’s virulent anti-Israel ideology, is a paradox explained by a complex mix of strategic pragmatism, geographic reality, and enemy prioritization.

Here’s a breakdown of the key reasons:

1. The “Closer Enemy” Doctrine (Aka “The Management of Savagery”)

ISIS’s core strategic doctrine, drawn from jihadist literature, is to fight the “near enemy” before the “far enemy.” They prioritized establishing and defending their physical caliphate in Iraq and Syria.

• Primary Enemies: The Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Iraqi government, Shia militias (which they viewed as apostates), and other rival Sunni rebel groups.
• Secondary Enemy: The “Crusader” coalition (US, UK, France, etc.) bombing them.
• Tertiary/Distant Enemy: Israel.

Opening a major new front against a highly capable military like Israel’s would have been a catastrophic strategic diversion from their fight for survival against the primary enemies already surrounding them.

2. Geographic and Operational Reality

During its territorial peak (2014-2017), ISIS’s core territory was in eastern Syria (Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor) and western Iraq—hundreds of miles from the Israeli border (the Golan Heights).

• No Direct Border: To reach Israel, ISIS would have had to fight its way through territory held by the Syrian army, Hezbollah, various other rebel groups, and later, US-backed Kurdish forces (SDF). They never controlled territory adjacent to Israel.
• Israel’s Fortified Border: The Israeli-occupied Golan Heights is one of the most heavily militarized and monitored borders in the world. Launching a conventional assault was logistically impossible for ISIS, which was already stretched thin.

3. Tacit “Understanding” and Focus on Other Foes

A fascinating and widely discussed aspect is a form of tacit, non-aggression understanding. While there was no formal agreement, both sides appeared to avoid direct conflict to focus on their more immediate mortal enemies.

• ISIS’s View: Fighting Israel would mean taking pressure off Assad and Iran (their primary sectarian enemy), which didn’t serve their goals. They often accused other jihadist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra of being distracted by Israel.
• Israel’s View: Israel’s primary security concern in Syria was and is the entrenchment of Iran and Hezbollah.

From a realpolitik perspective, ISIS was seen as a brutal but largely self-contained problem that was actively fighting both Hezbollah and the Assad regime—two of Israel’s biggest adversaries. Israel had no interest in opening a front with ISIS unless directly attacked.

4. Limited Interactions and Exceptions

This doesn’t mean there was zero contact or conflict:

• Skirmishes in the Golan: In isolated incidents, fighters affiliated with ISIS’s Syrian affiliate (then called Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade) clashed with Israeli forces in the Golan Heights in 2014-2015.

These were local, low-level engagements, not a strategic campaign ordered by the ISIS central leadership.

• Indirect Fire: On a few occasions, spillover fire from ISIS battles with Syrian regime forces landed in the Golan, and Israel returned fire. These were treated as border incidents, not acts of war.
• Propaganda vs. Action: While ISIS propaganda frequently threatened Israel and called for its destruction, this was largely for recruitment and ideological purposes. It did not translate into operational planning comparable to their campaigns in Mosul or Ramadi.

5. The Sinai Exception

It’s crucial to distinguish between ISIS’s core in Syria/Iraq and its affiliates. The ISIS affiliate in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula (Wilayat Sinai) did frequently attack Israel, launching rockets across the border and engaging Israeli forces.

This proves the ideology demanded attacks on Israel, but the central organization’s strategic circumstances in Syria made large-scale conflict there impractical.

In summary: ISIS did not “invade” Israel or open a major front because it was strategically irrational for them to do so.

They were consumed by an existential multi-front war on their doorstep. Engaging a powerful new enemy like Israel would have accelerated their collapse, while avoiding direct conflict allowed them to focus on their primary goal: surviving and expanding their self-declared caliphate in the heart of the Arab world.

The relationship was defined less by ideological friendship and more by a brutal, calculated prioritization of threats.

But ISIS is financially backed by the United States?

This is a conspiracy theory without credible evidence, widely promoted by certain state and non-state actors to discredit the United States and its allies. Let’s break down the facts:

1. U.S. official stance and actions against ISIS

The United States led an international military coalition (Operation Inherent Resolve) against ISIS starting in 2014, providing air strikes, intelligence, training for local forces, and working to cut off ISIS funding sources.

The U.S. has formally designated ISIS as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and has implemented strict sanctions against its financing networks.

2. Origins of the conspiracy theory

The claim that the U.S. created or funded ISIS has been propagated by:

• Russian state media and officials (e.g., Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov suggested the U.S. “created” ISIS).
• Syrian regime propaganda, aiming to frame all Syrian opposition as foreign-backed terrorists.
• Iranian media and affiliated outlets.
• Certain political commentators in the West and Middle East, often citing decontextualized remarks.

3. What the conspiracy theory misrepresents

• U.S. support for Syrian rebels: The U.S. did provide support (non-lethal and later limited lethal aid) to some Syrian opposition groups fighting the Assad regime, but these were distinct from ISIS — in fact, many Syrian rebels fought and died battling ISIS.
• “Created ISIS” rhetoric: Some point to the 2003 Iraq War and subsequent dismantling of the Iraqi army as factors that created conditions for extremist groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which later evolved into ISIS.

While this is debated by historians and analysts, it’s very different from claiming the U.S. intentionally founded or funded ISIS.

4. Lack of credible sourcing

No verifiable documents, credible intelligence leaks, or reliable testimonies support the idea that the U.S. government directly funded ISIS.

ISIS financed itself through oil smuggling (initially in Syria/Iraq), taxation, extortion, looting, kidnapping ransoms, and donations from sympathizers.

5. Why such theories gain traction

• Geopolitical narratives: Useful for U.S. adversaries to undermine its moral authority.
• Complexity of the Syrian war: With many factions, some U.S.-backed groups may have fought alongside or against ISIS at different times, leading to claims of “collusion” based on temporary tactical realities.
• Historical precedent: Past U.S. covert support for anti-Soviet mujahideen in Afghanistan (in the 1980s) is sometimes wrongly conflated with later extremist groups, though they are decades apart and contextually different.

Conclusion:

The claim that the U.S. financially backed ISIS is false according to available evidence, official records, and investigations by credible international bodies.

It’s important to distinguish between legitimate criticism of past U.S. foreign policy (like the Iraq War’s destabilizing effects) and unfounded conspiracy theories that ignore the clear, documented conflict between the U.S.-led coalition and ISIS.

But what about the CIA involvement with ISIS?

The claim that the CIA was involved with ISIS is a conspiracy theory without credible evidence, often propagated by sources seeking to discredit U.S. foreign policy or distort the complex realities of the Syrian conflict. Let’s break down the facts:

1. Historical Context & Misinterpretations

Some conspiracy theories stem from the CIA’s past covert support to anti-Soviet mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which later included figures who eventually aligned with radical groups. However:

• Those were different actors, decades earlier, and part of a Cold War proxy conflict.
• There is no factual link between those 1980s programs and the formation of ISIS in the 2010s.

2. Origins of ISIS

ISIS emerged from:

• Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which formed after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
• Exploitation of the Syrian Civil War after 2011, where it initially operated as the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.”
• Its leadership consisted of former Iraqi Ba’athists and jihadists who opposed both the U.S. and the Syrian regime.

The U.S. (including the CIA) viewed ISIS as a direct threat—not an ally.

3. U.S. Policy Toward ISIS

• The U.S. officially designated ISIS as a terrorist organization.
• In 2014, the U.S. formed an international coalition to fight ISIS, conducting thousands of airstrikes and providing support to local ground forces in Iraq and Syria.
• The CIA’s role in this context was largely intelligence gathering to aid counter-ISIS operations.

4. Source of the Conspiracy Theory

The theory often circulates due to:

• Misrepresentation of U.S. support for Syrian rebel groups: The CIA did run a program to support certain moderate Syrian rebels fighting the Assad regime, but these groups were often fighting against ISIS, not supporting it.
• Propaganda from adversarial states (e.g., Russian and Syrian government narratives) aiming to paint all opposition to Assad as “U.S.-backed terrorists.”
• Confusion over the many factions in the Syrian war, where alliances shifted frequently.

5. Lack of Evidence

No credible documentation, leaks (such as the WikiLeaks cables), or official investigations have shown CIA support for ISIS.

In fact, U.S. intelligence agencies consistently identified ISIS as an enemy and worked to dismantle it.

Conclusion:

The idea that the CIA was involved with ISIS is a myth unsupported by evidence. It conflates past CIA activities in other regions, misrepresents the complexity of the Syrian conflict, and ignores the well-documented U.S.-led military and intelligence campaign against ISIS.

While intelligence agencies have historically engaged in controversial covert actions, in this case, the evidence clearly shows the U.S. treated ISIS as an adversary.

My conclusion? Keep an open mind, always. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Oh, and do your own research.

Postscript: “Banker’s Wars”. The elite have ALWAYS financed both sides in wars. Who’s to say that the elite haven’t done so?

Thanks for reading. For those that type in TLDR, that’s okay, I fully understand your mental disorder.

This post was brought to you by those wonderfully visionaries at IRTHKOIN (me). The Evolutionary Crypto-Currency coming soon to your laptop, computer, and cellphone, stay tuned for news.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stay tuned for updates on my “Gummies” coming soon to a Walmart near you

Peace & Abide, La paz y la morada, السلام والالتزام , שלום ושמירה, Paix et Demeure, Խաղաղությունը եւ մնալը, Мир и пребывание,, 平和と遵守, 和平與恪守, Aştî û Abad, صلح و عبید, Fred och Abide, Kapayapaan at Patuloy, Frieden und Bleiben, Mir i Ostanite, शांति और निवास, Hòa bình và ở lại, Мир и Абиде, שלום און בלייַבן, สันติภาพและการปฏิบัติ, Mir in bivanje,