Divided Allegiances in Dissident Jihadism

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Sep 2, 2020 at 11:52

Jihadi violence comes in wave after wave after wave; every once in a cycle it comes in like a sea surge, a tsunami of sorts, when some perception that a tactical advantage or circumstance of making a 'statement' to capture the attention of a broader audience is sought. Question: does it invoke terror; or does it incur division of loyalties-(are the 'Palestinians' served by jihadist attacks or isolated by them)- Iran seems offended that the UAE arrangement does not help the 'Palestinian' cause; but the isolation of the 'Palestinians' is not the real source of incense as much the 'betrayal' of Sunni influences against Shiite: Arab versus Persian.
At most times, from certain 'outsider' perspectives, it appears tactical more than strategic and a potential reason that has been mentioned before now makes for compelling contemplation. The Iranian Islamic Republican Regime has found it necessary to take on alliances with international political connections otherwise thought inconceivable due to Arab isolation. This is where it gets strategic; the minor skirmishes of fire ballooning in the south while recovery of the Beirut fiasco are stall tactics (tactical); all the while the strategic efforts of becoming a verified nuclear threat do not seem so much as being a terror threat as it is preliminary posturing for going to war with the consent of the European Union for reasons of extreme prejudice of the UAE peace accord recently making the rounds.
It is as if there is the perception that the Iranian Shiite posturing has made itself even more of a threat to the Sunni persuasion of Islam and ancient Persian influences of Islam are the actual resurgency (issues of Turkey notwithstanding) that will bring about the expectant overthrow of the Middle East. It is now thought that the idea of 'reformed Islam' had never been practical for those reasons, that Islam has never been unified in its endeavors of ummah; for no one aspect of understanding its roots can achieve that goal without defeating the other. Is there/where is the flaw in this thinking?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".