The open war between the al-Qaeda-aligned coalition and the Islamic State's Sahel province since 2019–20: a rupture over territory, taxation and allegiance in the tri-border zone, fought alongside both movements' wars against the states, and responsible for a large share of the region's civilian killing.
對稱的安排:從任一方解讀都相同。撰寫一次,記於一筆紀錄。
安排
- 狀態
- ActiveIn force and operating. Says nothing about how well it is working, or about which way it is heading.Last material change: 2026.
- 涵蓋範圍
- 國防經記錄此安排所包含的類別。並非衡量指標:涵蓋較多類別的關係只是描述得更詳細,而非更為牢固。
摘要
The two movements coexisted in the Sahel until 2019, when competition over recruits, zakat and the Ménaka–Liptako corridor turned into fighting. Since 2020 they have contested eastern Mali, western Niger and northern Burkina Faso directly, with the Islamic State province expanding in the Ménaka region and around the tri-border zone and JNIM holding the centre and pressing south. The province's massacres of communities it accuses of supporting its rival, and JNIM's blockades of towns under the province's influence, are among the region's largest documented civilian-harm episodes. The states fight both and have not been able to exploit the division; each movement presents the other as the deviant. There is no known channel between them and no reported attempt at reconciliation.
為何重要
It is why the map of insurgent influence does not read as one front, why the tri-border zone is the region's most lethal for civilians, and why any settlement with JNIM would leave a second war running. It also sets a limit on what either movement can hold: each is fighting on two sides.
仍然未知的事項
- The date the rupture became open fighting is given variously across 2019 and 2020; the record states the year the relationship is generally dated from and no more.
- Attribution of individual massacres between the two movements is contested in some cases and is recorded on the event records, not here.
- Vigil publishes no strength, disposition or area-of-control claim for either party.
證據同樣支持的其他解讀
- The war between them can be read as ideological — the Islamic State's rejection of al-Qaeda's method — or as a contest for the same resources that would exist under any banner. Observers who follow both draw on each; the record grades the relationship, not the explanation.
列出這些解讀,是因為該紀錄本身的評估並非其來源所允許的唯一評估 — 而不是對上述評估的保留。
此關係涉及的Watch問題
證據經由此關係的常設分析問題,各附最新一次檢視。內容衍生自Watch物件,從不在此重述。
評估截至 — 2026-08 最近檢視 — 2026-09-08