Question:
Why do you say that the same sources who are supporting the mujahideen in Syria are also the same sources supporting El-Sisi?
Answer:
Because it is factually accurate.
In addition to whatever mujahideen are able to aquire through the capture of Syrian military bases and convoys, the major suppliers of weapons, financing, and logistics support have been the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia; and the CIA has played a key role in organizing arms transfers, funding, and other forms of support since at least 2012.
Support from the Gulf states has been both on a direct government level, and an indirect level whereby the regimes tacitly allow private wealthy individuals to purchase weapons for the mujahideen and send financial assistance. This is thoroughly documented.
Saudi Arabia was even proved to have sent death row and long-term inmates to fight in Syria.
It should be noted that sending weapons to one faction instead of another is irrelevant on a practical level for at least two reasons. Firstly, because everyone knows that the weapons will inevitably end up in the hands of the most effective fighting force, regardless of who they are initially transferred to. And secondly, because sending weapons to Syria means, essentially, supplying the Black Market.
The US knows, and has acknowledged that most of the weapons they provide “moderate” rebels end up in the hands of “extremists”, and that does not interfere with the continued flow of weapons from the US. You can rationally conclude from this that the US doesn’t really care who has the , as long as they are being used.
If the Gulf states and the US are not the primary backers of el-Sisi, then I don’t know who is. So, yes, they are the same sources of support, and that is abundantly clear.
That doesn’t mean that there are not other players involved who have no connection to any regime, but their support is minimal compared to the role of the US, Europe, and the Gulf.