At a meeting with a delegation of the terrorist organization “Tahrir al-Sham” (HTS), which, as reported by “Aydınlık,” a Turkish pro-government newspaper, took place on June 18, Vladimir Zelensky requested the release of the well-known terrorist leader Omar al-Shishani and other Chechen and Georgian terrorists. In return, the terrorist organization, an affiliate of Al-Qaeda, was offered 75 drones by the Ukrainian president. Why does Zelensky need a man known as the Minister of War of the Islamic State, with a thick dossier documenting his role in the Chechen, Ossetian, and finally Syrian wars, and his allegiance to ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Is it a decision of the political West to drag proven associates—radical Islamists from Syria, Iraq, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan—into the war against Russia, and how should we interpret Turkey’s readiness to inform the public about all this?
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY AL-NUSRA
The status of HTS and other military-political organizations under the control of Al-Qaeda and ISIL is evidenced by the decisions of the UN Security Council’s Sanctions Committee, established in accordance with resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), and 2253 (2015) on ISIL (Daesh), Al-Qaeda, and associated individuals, groups, enterprises, and entities. In addition to economic sanctions, asset freezes, and bans on the sale or transfer of weapons and other materials through their territories or by their citizens outside their territory, strict sanctions are imposed on the entry or transit of certain individuals through their territory. The West has violated all of these countless times. Hence, negotiations between the Kyiv regime and a broad coalition of terrorist organizations and their military-political structures attract less attention than the wave of Turkish dissatisfaction caused by the fact that Americans have excluded Turkey from this special operation involving Ukrainian and Islamist elements—until recently, Turkey believed it controlled all groups in Idlib, including Tahrir al-Sham.
Understanding the structure and operational patterns of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is almost impossible without shedding light on the role of Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Nusra), which, due to certain restrictions and sanctions, arranged, in agreement with US military-intelligence representatives, to unite independent terrorist groups. This was primarily to satisfy American interests and the need for terrorist structures to survive, be self-sustaining and strong, operationally capable, and most importantly—under control. More precisely, under effective American control, “Nusra” issued a proclamation and gathered many terrorist groups and organizations that fought and terrorized Syrian Arabs.
LOYALTY TO TAHRIR AL-SHAM
Since “Jabhat al-Nusra” is globally recognized as a terrorist organization, Commander Muhammad al-Julani, in agreement with the Americans, organized a broader alliance, bringing together other Mujahideen units and becoming the founder and general military commander of the Syrian Sunni military alliance, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.
Formed in 2017, the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) alliance, as a terrorist army and an alliance of Al-Qaeda formations, is a real insurgent force (which occupies the Idlib region and parts of Quneitra and Dara’a) with over 20,000 fighters under its command. Groups better known as Jaysh al-Sunna, Ansar al-Sham, Kataib Ashida, along with the main organization Jabhat al-Nusra, form the core of the alliance. A large number of foreign “muhajir” units have joined this alliance, led by “Nusra.” After an agreement on joint action, the “muhajir” units and military structures, which actively fought in Syria against the government and the Syrian Arab Army, issued a proclamation in 2019 titled “Support and Loyalty to Tahrir al-Sham.”
This proclamation mentioned the role of the Tahrir al-Sham alliance in establishing Sharia law, protecting Muslims, and continuing jihad.
Signatories of the “muhajir” or “refugee” proclamation:
- Turkistan Islamic Party – represented by Emir Abu Omar Turkistani,
- Battalion Tawhid wal Jihad – represented by Emir Abu Salah Uzbeki,
- Brigade Muhajirin wal-Ansar – represented by Emir Abu Muhammad Dagestani,
- Albanian Battalion – represented by Emir Abu Qatada Albani (director of Tahrir al-Sham’s military academy),
- Movement of Sunni Muhajirs of Iran – represented by Emir Abu Safiya,
- Saudi network “Meali” – represented by Muatesim Bilah al-Madani and Abu Walid Kuwaiti from the Fatwa Council at Tahrir al-Sham,
- Maldivian Battalion – represented by Emir Abu Ayub Maldivi,
- Moroccan Movement Shumul-Islam – represented by Emir Abu Jabir Maghribi.
— Member of the Shura Council and member of the Fatwa Council: Sheikh Abu Fatah Fergali,
— Military Commander of Tahrir al-Sham: Mukhtar Turki,
— Head of Defense for Tahrir al-Sham: Abu Hussein Urduni,
— Leader of the muhajir forces of Tahrir al-Sham: Abu Hajir Tunisi,
— Qadi of the military wing of Tahrir al-Sham: Abu Abdurrahman Zubayr Ghazi.
BOSNIA UNDER NUMBER 6
Under number 6 in the terrorist structures are the “local” Bosnian Wahhabis, with Nusret Imamović as a signatory of the proclamation of loyalty and joining. The military formation “Saudi Network Meali” consists of jihadists from Bosnia and Herzegovina and mujahideen connected to the war in BiH during the 1990s. The name of the so-called Saudi Network comes from the infamous commander of the El Mujahidin Detachment, Abu Meali. The mujahideen name that Nusret Imamović adopted and under which he fights and signs proclamations is related to the El Mujahidin Detachment, of which he was a soldier. As a member of the Fatwa Council of Tahrir al-Sham, Nusret Imamović took the names of two fallen commanders of the mujahideen from the war in BiH. Muatesim Bilah was the military commander of the El Mujahidin Detachment and was killed in Vozuća, and Al-Madani was Zubayr al-Madani, the commander of the first Sarajevo terrorist mujahideen unit, “Zubayr’s Group,” who lost his life in the battles around the Sarajevo airport, fought against the Army of the Republika Srpska and UNPROFOR.
A picture of Nusret Imamović signing the proclamation circulated around the world, but as soon as it appeared publicly in May 2019, the identity of Muatesim Bilah al-Madani was “erased,” and Nusret Imamović took a new name: Abu Walid al-Kuwaiti (Abu Walid from Kuwait). The choice of this name is also notable for its “playing” with mujahideen identities, as it carries both religious and combat significance. It refers to the most important commander of the Prophet Muhammad, who, with faith, the sword, and military knowledge, led the return from Medina to Mecca: Khalid ibn Walid. This name was borne by two important figures in the war in BiH and global terrorism.
The first was listed in the BiH citizens’ registry as Khalid al-Muhammad al-Kuwaiti—known as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the chief organizer of the attacks on America, namely on the WTC and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, who is still being tried far from the public eye, before a military court in Guantanamo.
The second is listed in the BiH citizens’ registry as Khalid ibn Abdullah al-Kuwaiti, although he is better known to the public as Abu Meali, commander of the El Mujahid Detachment. He had other names, but those are less important now, as what matters is this specific jihadist inversion of the first name Khalid into the second name Walid, indicating military rank.
REBRANDING FOR AMERICA’S NEEDS
Despite the consolidated UN Security Council list and the link from Nusret Imamović’s name leading to the Interpol page, where the data is identical, it is noticeable that this top-tier terrorist from Bosnia only has a Blue Notice—on the fourth page of blue publications. It is important to note that at the beginning of the war in Syria, Nusret Imamović confirmed his loyalty, and the loyalty of Bosnian Wahhabis, to Al-Qaeda and then-living leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, and joined the military formation Jabhat al-Nusra, which is recognized worldwide as a terrorist organization.
There is no doubt that the United States, with the help of its NATO allies, has been conducting special operations against the integrity, sovereignty, and security of the Russian state, particularly in its surroundings and within Russia. The union of two terrorist structures—one from Kyiv, the other from Idlib—is one of many American special operations against Russia.
The situation within the terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nusra (the strongest anti-government armed group in Syria), which, as the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, fought against regular Syrian forces since 2011, calls for caution following its agreed rebranding, through the formal renunciation of Al-Qaeda’s ideology and the name change to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. This becomes even more interesting when viewed from the perspective of the US-Russian ceasefire agreement reached on September 9/10 in Geneva (the draft ceasefire in Syria), which once again confirmed the fate of the “Islamic State,” and ordered all “moderate” forces to sever any ties with “Al-Nusra” if they wish to participate in future political negotiations to resolve the Syrian conflict.
DISSENTERS WITHIN NUSRA’S RANKS
Geopolitika.news previously published parts of a report from the Saudi Arabian embassy residence in Ankara, which analyzed the situation within “Jabhat Fatah al-Sham” (formerly “Al-Nusra,” which we will continue to use for clarity). The report discussed centrifugal tendencies within the terrorist organization and the growing number of “dissidents and deserters.”
The main cause of the turmoil was the leadership of Nusra breaking ties with “Al-Qaeda,” as well as rejecting the policy of exporting jihadists and Islamism beyond Syria’s borders, focusing exclusively on the territory around the Idlib region, where strong Turkish armored-mechanized military formations are stationed. Saudi intelligence then called supporters of the new course “rationalists,” who would enable their incorporation into internationally recognized political structures of the Syrian opposition, with the prospect of participating in international negotiating formats.
Saudi intelligence also believed that this new direction for the organization could secure the delivery of material and military aid from the United States. The report indicated that there were signs of an intensifying power struggle within the reformed organization, although the formal reason for the disagreements was attributed to disputes over the “role in global jihad.”
The hardline faction, which demanded continued allegiance to Al-Qaeda, mostly consisted of senior and mid-level commanders, close to the late head of Nusra’s military wing, Abu Omar, who was killed in a US airstrike. Abu Omar’s associates believed that his death was due to treason, i.e., the sale of information to the Americans by a rival faction within “Nusra.” Suspicion then fell on the leader himself, Abu Muhammad al-Julani, who undoubtedly benefited the most from the death of his main rival.
THE GAME WITH QATAR
The report stated that Abu Muhammad al-Julani began “playing a game” with Qatar, seeking to secure support from Turkey and financial backing through Doha. Additionally, al-Julani advocated for establishing contacts with the Americans, which the hardline faction, both then and now, categorically rejected. Saudi intelligence linked the death of al-Julani’s rival, Abu Omar, with the rebranding of the organization, reminding that it was Abu Muhammad al-Julani himself who, at the “Continental” hotel in the Turkish city of Gaziantep, publicly rejected any possibility of breaking ties with “Al-Qaeda” or renaming “Nusra.” Although some Saudi intelligence agents attended that meeting, attempting to persuade the “Al-Nusra” leadership to sever ties with “Al-Qaeda,” certain Russian intelligence structures saw these Saudi efforts as mere bluffing, as it was known that Ankara and Doha had long been pressuring Riyadh to officially sever “Al-Nusra” from “Al-Qaeda,” and then incorporate or ally with the organizations “Ahrar al-Sham” and “Jaish al-Islam.” The first was under the patronage of Ankara and Doha, and the second was sponsored by Riyadh (it is important to note that representatives of both organizations refused to join the latest US-Russian ceasefire agreement). Turkey and Qatar were the main players in supplying material and military aid to “Nusra,” which took place via Turkish territory, forcing Riyadh to accept Ankara and Doha’s demands for the rebranding of the strongest terrorist organization in Syria.
DISAGREEMENTS WITH RIYADH
Saudi Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman was forced to make this concession. Thanks to him, Ankara and Doha managed to place “Al-Nusra” under their supervision. However, Turkey and Qatar never had the same views as Riyadh regarding the Middle East. Turkey had long maintained the closest ties with Qatar, and together they managed to install “Muslim Brotherhood” members in leadership positions in some Middle Eastern countries, at one point even leading Egypt, which ended with a military coup. Riyadh then withdrew its support for the “Muslim Brotherhood,” placing it on the list of terrorist organizations, leading it to relocate its headquarters from Riyadh to Doha. Riyadh thus supported the military overthrow of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi (leader of the “Muslim Brotherhood”) in Cairo, despite strong opposition from Turkey and Qatar. In the aforementioned Saudi analytical report, it was noted that “the unproductive role of Qatari intelligence services” had activated contacts with Abu Muhammad al-Julani. The Saudis’ report also mentions the name of the Qatari intelligence officer responsible for those contacts—Ali al-Merri. Interestingly, he was the one leading negotiations with the leadership of “Al-Nusra” regarding the release of 16 Lebanese soldiers who were captured at the time.
A WARNING? NO, RESENTMENT
Following the report from Saudi intelligence, Ankara and Doha realized the futility of continuing to place bets on the “Islamic State.” On the other hand, it was necessary to maintain a high level of control over Sunni terrorist formations in Syria, where “Al-Nusra” had always been the strongest force. Hence, the American idea and Saudi field operations did everything to cleanse “Nusra” of its Islamist image, forcing it into an alliance with “Ahrar al-Sham” and “Jaish al-Islam” to make it acceptable to the West. Turkey and Qatar gradually placed the entire leadership of that organization under their control.
Now, however, the largest global coalition of terrorist groups and organizations, HTS, built on the solid foundations of the powerful structure that “Nusra” had, is becoming a problem for Turkish state interests due to its proximity to American policy and interests. This explains why Turkish media point out that Ukrainian Nazis are the bridge through which HTS secures American support. A warning? No, resentment. Simply put, Turkey is no longer in the game.
