Isis is slowly transforming the way that lone wolves are used by jihadis. It departs significantly from al-Qaeda in the way it views attacks by individuals striking in its name. It is mobilising sympathisers as active conscripts in its military campaign, whereas al-Qaeda tends to view sympathisers as part of a long-term effort to build legitimacy.
Amaq, one of the group’s media arms, claimed responsibility for Sunday’s mass shooting carried out by Omar Mateen in a gay club in Orlando, Florida, although the US authorities now believe Mateen simply took the Isis name as a badge and was not a trained operative of the group. Amaq also took credit for the murder of a police commander and his wife near Paris. The news agency described the perpetrators in both cases as Isis “fighters”, a term the jihadi group uses interchangeably with “soldiers”.
The attacks followed a recent speech by Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, an Isis spokesman, in which he urged sympathisers to launch attacks in their countries during the month of Ramadan. This was the second such call made by Mr Adnani in the space of a year. In June 2015, he called on followers globally to make Ramadan a “month of calamity” for disbelievers.
According to authorities, Mateen called law enforcement officials to pledge allegiance to Isis during his rampage, which left 49 people dead. After a previous attack in the US, in San Bernardino in December 2015, one of the perpetrators was linked with a Facebook post announcing her support for Isis.
Al-Qaeda presents itself as a vanguard movement whose aim is to rally the Muslim masses to the cause of jihad. The very existence of sympathisers means its project is working and so is regarded as a gain in and of itself.
Isis, on the other hand, views sympathisers as potential recruits to its army. Al-Qaeda has also done so from time to time, but Isis is different in that it views the mobilisation of its sympathisers strategically, rather than as a revenge tactic or a short-term call for action.
Sources within Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate active in Syria, see small-scale attacks by jihadi sympathisers as counterproductive. They believe that Isis is “bleeding” jihadi-minded Muslims in the west, and regard its strategy as playing into the hands of western governments.
Isis and al-Qaeda also differ in the way they view civilian casualties. Al-Qaeda tends to focus on hitting landmarks — such as embassies and hotels — and it views civilians killed in the course of these attacks as collateral damage, justifiable in religious terms. For Isis, by contrast, civilians are the preferred target. They should be attacked until such time as “every neighbour fears his neighbour”.
In his May statement, Mr Adnani told followers that in western countries there is no such thing as an innocent civilian. He said that those who hesitate to strike against non-military targets should remember that “inside the lands of the belligerent crusaders, there is no sanctity of blood”. Attacking civilians is “more beloved to us and more effective, as it is more harmful, painful and a greater deterrent to them”. This marks a clear strategic departure.
It is important to remember that for most of its existence since it was founded in 2004, Isis has been an Iraqi organisation. It was only after its expansion into Syria in 2013 that it began to focus internationally and extend foreign networks.
In future, lone wolf attacks will form a central plank of its developing foreign strategy, and for this reason, they are likely to become more common, as Isis encourages its sympathisers to join in global jihad.
The writer is a fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy and co-author of ‘Isis: Inside the Army of Terror’