StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

New in the news…Christians to host dinner for Ahmadinejad on September 25th in New York. Interesting to me after all of the “chatter” about Christians for Israel. I guess it proves that you can’t generalize about anyone or anything or any group.

Lago Vista priest protests religious dinner honoring Ahmadinejad

Religious leaders, possibly including the Episcopal Church, are reportedly planning to host a Ramadan fast-breaking dinner that honors Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Thursday in New York City. A group planning to protest the event features the invitation on its Web site. Among the hosts is the World Council of Churches, to which the Episcopal Church belongs.

UCC Renewal Leader Calls for World Council of Churches to Cancel Dinner for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Today, United Church of Christ renewal leader David Runnion-Bareford, Exec. Dir. of the confessing movement in the UCC and President of the Association for Church Renewal, called for the World Council of Churches and The Episcopal Church to cancel their plans to host Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a celebrative dinner in New York City on Thursday.

Christian Groups to Host Ahmadinejad and UN Head for NY Dinner

The president of the United Nations General Assembly, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, will be attending a dinner in New York at which Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a featured guest, according to The Forward, a Jewish-American weekly newspaper published in New York City. Brockmann, a Catholic priest from Nicaragua who publicly criticizes the United States’s anti-terror war in Iraq and Afghanistan, will attend the dinner on September 25th, an event which was organized by five American Christian organizations and will be co-hosted by the Iranian mission to the U.N.

Christian Groups have hosted Ahmadinejad in America. Have we lost our minds?

Wow! Light the candles and set off the fireworks. Pour the drinks and start the band playing. We have celebrating to do. Ahmadinejad is in the U.S. again to talk to the very important U.N. and enlighten New York and its dignitaries. Naturally as respect and the generous American Spirit would do, several of our Religious organizations and leaders are formally welcoming him, The American Friends Service Committee, Mennonite Central Committee, Quaker United Nations Office, Religions for Peace and the World Council of Churches. Did I say just welcoming him……no, they are actually HOSTING the event held in New York on Sept. 25th. Isn’t that Precious?

Well, isn’t that an amazing thing?

Ahmadinejad, Christians

No Comments »

Once again, there is a spreading (and almost hopeful) rumor that an attack on Iran is impending. The source? Primarily the Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf. More “stuff” is here. Who knew that the Dutch had spies.

Let’s deal with a few “pointers.”

1) As noted “elsewhere” by one of our readers, AC McCloud, “It would be stupid for Bush to authorize an attack before the election with the Dems tying McCain to his belt loop at every chance.” Note however that the NRO article (below) does argue that an attack while under the new President (regardless of who it is) would be unlikely and that, therefore, an attack with GWB still in office to “clean-up” business could occur (I still don’t think so - but I could be wrong).

2) Despite the “cheering and rooting section” who somehow believe that an attack against Iran would be a good thing (I also read that a pre-emptive strike against Iran would leave Iran powerless to retaliate), it should be remembered that extreme heat will turn desert sand into glass (actually this hapens at approximately 3,600°F which is 1,982°C).

3) I submit that the linkage of the newly emboldened Russian bear with Iran makes a pre-emptive strike against Iran a “poor choice.”

4) About 3 weeks ago, Haaretz (הארץ) published an article detailing how the US had rejected an Israeli plan to attack Iran and denied Israel war materiale for the attack.

5) The regional and Global implications of such an attack are, in my opinion, beyond comprehension.

A little less than a year and a half ago, this was discussed here, Sneak Attack Against Iran This Friday! and yet, it is still “predicted.”

What’s the truth? I suspect that James Robbins of National Review (Another Rumor of War) is pretty close to objective when he writes:

Is an attack along the lines of that reported by De Telegraaf feasible? Critics say our forces are stretched thin, but not the air and naval strike assets that would be used in this type of limited operation. The targets would be hard to hit, but not impossible to take out. The Iranian nuclear program would be delayed, not destroyed — but isn’t delay better than just letting them go ahead? Iran might seek to escalate the crisis in a number of ways — an Iranian general recently said World War Three would break out while being a bit unclear on who would be on what side — but there is no scenario in which the U.S. would not be able to maintain escalation dominance. Iran can do many things to hurt the United States, its allies, and its interests — in fact is already active in Iraq and elsewhere. But Iran will have to calculate whether a demonstration of their unconventional power will be worth the risk of a full scale demonstration of U.S. conventional force. In this vein, witness Syria’s response to Israel’s raid on their nuclear facility last September. We’re still waiting for it.

I have no idea whether any of these reports of imminent action are true. But as the various clocks keep ticking, the strategic logic of active counter-proliferation against Iran becomes more compelling. The U.S. may act, Israel may act, or not. We will know soon enough, one way or the other.

What do I really think? Armageddon is still a way off, regardless of what some of the cyber-sabre rattlers think.

Armageddon, attack Iran, De Telegraaf, Haaretz

6 Comments »

With the release of papers of former DCI Richard Helms, we learn that before the 1973 Yom Kippur War (and after the Munich Massacre), Henry Kissinger instructed the CIA to maintain contact with Arafat, even after the kidnapping and murder of the U.S. Ambassador and his deputy in Khartoum, Sudan.

The released documents cover the period of 1973-1976 when Helms was the U.S. Ambassador to Iran (following his six year stint as Director of the CIA) and show:

● an Egyptian effort to have the U.S. through Iranian channels plead with Israel to withdraw to 1967 boundaries

● a proposal by the Shah of Iran for Egypt to limit their actions to an artillary barrage on Israeli positions in the Suez rather than an invasion

In a telegram Helms sent Kissinger - then Richard Nixon’s National Security Advisor - on July 5, 1973, Helms reported that King Hussein of Jordan told him that Jordanian intelligence had learned of a Syrian attack to recapture the Golan Heights originally planned for June, that had been delayed but could take place at any time soon. One of the Jordanian intelligence sources was the commander of a Syrian armored brigade, and the Jordanians had obtained a copy of the battle plans, which had been coordinated with Egypt and Iraq.

Additionally, Ali Hassan Salameh who was head of the Fatah security apparatus and commander of the Black September group, apparently met with Robert Ames of the CIA, knowing of Salameh’s involvement on the Sudan assassinations. Salameh asked about Nixon Administration intentions toward the PLO, and told Ames that they were planning to remove Jordanian King Hussein and establish a Palestinian homeland in Jordan. The Nixon government response was that it would assist in negotiations but not support the toppling of existing governments. Arafat also threatened Lebanon, apparently claiming that he would burn Beirut to the ground if Lebanon acted against the Palestinians.

Not negotiate with terrorists? But no one can know how the World would have evolved if…

Black September, Egypt, Fatah, Kissinger, Lebanon, Nixon, Richard Helms, Yom Kippur War

2 Comments »

Reality to many is that the World has returned to great instability, although there some among “us” who have known all along that GWOT was intertwined with Global Politics. The question I have is why “we” (our government) are suprised by any of this!

So, what have we got? Long past, I wrote about Uncle Vlad’s desire to re-establish some semblance of the old Soviet Union. Certainly not with the trappings of Soviet Communism. It doesn’t matter, well maybe it does. A Russian form of capitalism, or the oligarchic structure could offer more complex issues for an insensitive U.S. government. What was it, just a few months ago when “all seeing and all knowing” Condoleeza Rice said, “I have a difficult time explaining that speech. It doesn’t accord with either the world as we see it nor with the character of our interactions with the Russians.” That was February 21, 2007 for whoever is watching and listening. WTF?

And back on January 1, 2008 I wrote:

At one point, we were all worried about the misplaced Russian nuclear material and the possibilty that it could be used as the “dirt” in a “dirty bomb.” In the year 2007, we also witnessed a mystery of the radiation poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko…while Putin was “implicated” by Litvinenko’s dying words, no proof emerged. And yet, Vladimir Putin has now emerged as the new Russian bear. Earlier in 2007 I wrote of the coming of the new or second Cold War…it is here! With Russian supplying HEU to Iran for its soon to be activated reactor, Russia is once again emerging as a World power…doubt that? Watch as 2008 brings a new Russian-US confrontation. Finally, one cannot look at Russia and the futur without considering the Chechyn situation…brewing for more than a decade now. Muslim uprising in Chechnya is always a possibility. Given Russia’s new Bear, however, I have to believe that an uprising will result in significant bloodshed.

My Xmas Eve statement was this, Iranian Reactor to Open in 2008:

I believe that we (the Bush Administration) continue to underestimate the renewed power and intentions of Vladimir Putin. Yet, according to one publication, The BulletinOnline, this helps the cause of non-proliferation. The thinking here is that if Russia supplies the HEU to Iran and removes the material, then Iran will not continue its own development, and the uses of the fuel will be more controlled. The question is whether anyone wants to trust Russia and Vladimir and Ahmadinejad.

- AND -

One must ask the serious question is we are watching as this is happening, and what we are planning to do. These deals are being couched as economic and trade…not offensive. Clearly, the Russian bear is revived, and the situation bears watching in 2008 as one of the critical International and National security issues. The question is whether anyone wants to trust Russia and Vladimir.

In October 2007, I wrote, Observing the Game(s) of International Chess and Bluffing

Its time to look at the big picture again and comment on a few of the intriguing chess moves being played out on the World’s stages: Russia and Iran, Turkey-Iraq, China and Tibet. There is alot of stuff going on in the World these days and “All the World’s a Stage.” The answer to the real question lies in figuring out who is bluffing and who isn’t.

[SKIP]

Putin is not bluffing.  He goes to Iran in spite of the assassination threat?  I’ve been making the point for quite some time now that Putin is tired of the U.S. being the only Superpower…he is reasserting the Russian Bear…and frankly, in his plans of installing his own man as his replacement, and leaving the path open for his own return, possibly even laying the groundwork for another “long term” Russian leader (read that “dictator”).  I have made it very clear that I believe we are the verge of a new Cold War.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, arrives at Mehrabad International airport in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2007. Putin arrived in Tehran on Tuesday for a historic visit to hold talks on Iran’s nuclear program and attend a Caspian sea summit. The visit, the first by a Kremlin leader since World War II, is taking place despite warnings of a possible assassination plot and amid hopes that a round of personal diplomacy could help offer a solution to an international standoff on Iran’s nuclear program.(AP Photo/Hasan Sarbakhshian) (Hasan Sarbakhshian - AP)

FOLLOW THESE POSTS TO SEE:
Cold War - Perception versus Reality (UPDATED - I started writing this post a few days ago before “my day job” created its own furor. One man’s perception is another’s reality. It is thus difficult for me to accept a blanket statement by President Bush that “the cold war is over” considering the continuing rhetoric spewed by Vladimir Putin. Saying that “we don’t believe in a zero sum world,” President Bush was on his way to the G8 meeting where he would have a meeting with Vladimir (because George calls him Vladimir.

Cold War? What Cold War? - Just what is happening in Russia these days, and why is it that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, clearly a very intelligent and qualified person, can actually state “I have a difficult time explaining that speech. It doesn’t accord with either the world as we see it nor with the character of our interactions with the Russians.” Something just doesn’t make sense, and I believe that it goes beyond the subtlety of Anne Applebaum’s article in the Washington Post, Our Strange Devotion to the Kremlin.

The Second Coming - Cold War II - Not unnoticed in some circles was the bombast of Vladimir Putin’s speech last week denouncing the U.S. as “overstepping its boundaries” worldwide. The question being posed, dear readers, is whether this White House understands the implications of Putin’s outspokenness…

DEAR READERS, I am but an observer and interpreter, I am not an analyst in the true sense of the word. But someone needs to be asking the very obvious WTF questions of those who are!

We are seeing a re-emergence of the old Soviet model. Instead of communsim, we have their form of capitalism, along with Putin’s interpretation of old KGB tactics. Implications?

- Russian influence on peaceful settlement of any Mideast conflict
- geopolitical control or influence by U.S. vewrsus Russia in Central Asia is in play
- will NATO continue its role in Afghanistan (withdrawal could further destabilize region)
- what role will Russia have in that region?
- a reinstatement of a cold war like mentality between middle Europe (land locked) versus ocean states

Cold war with missiles aimed at each other? Probably or maybe not. Nuclear diplomacy? Watch and see, There is a reason for Putin and Ahmadinejad playing with eachother sub-rosa.  But its more likely about the oil (”stupid”) and about Putin seeing the economic power of the European Union.  I suspect that he literally sees a reforming of the Soviet Union as a means to the end of economic power, as well as a re-emergence of Russia as a World power.

And what of “cousin Pervez?” He is likely to be impeached or otherwise removed from his position as President. This instability shouldn’t be tolerable, but somehow…

Ahmadinejad, Musharraf, Putin

1 Comment »

Considering the US Navy exercise (Exercise Stake Net Protects Persian Gulf) it should come as no surprise that the Iranians test fired missiles.  The situation in the Gulf is unquestionably tense and dangerous…the real question is what happens next (”who blinks”).

One day after threatening to strike Tel Aviv and United States interests if attacked, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were reported on Wednesday to have test-fired nine missiles, including one which Tehran claims has the range to reach Israel.

Everyone, STAND-DOWN! Stand-down, especially those who desire the “end-game” scenario to play out. It is not “the” time!

end game scenario, Exercise Stake Net, missile test fire, Persian Gulf, Straits of Hormuz

4 Comments »

After Iran made noise about blocking the Straits of Hormuz if it was attacked, the US Navy mounted an exercise, “Stake Net” to show our resolve in keeping the shipping lanes open.

Two U.S. vessels were taking part in the exercise alongside a British warship and one from Bahrain, a Gulf Arab ally which hosts the Fifth Fleet. “Stake Net seeks to help ensure a lawful maritime order as well as improve relationships between regional partners,” the fleet’s statement said.

The exercise included ships from the UK and Bahrain. Noted as Combined Task Force 152.

Coalition units participating in the exercise include the dock landing ship Pearl Harbor, frigate Curts, the HMS Montrose, the Bahraini guided-missile patrol craft Al-Taweelah and other regional navies.

So, the regional game of chess continues. Will diplomacy and war games win out over “happy trigger finger” conservatives? Lets hope so.

In “Appeasers make poor patriots,” The Right Truth discusses the potential Iran-Israel “end-game” scenario.  Further, that post draws a Chamberlainesque parallel between today’s World stage and that of 1936-38.  I do not agree with that comparison.  Further, I do not believe that attempting to negotiate a path forward to avoid nuclear conflagration and holocaust in Israel is wrong.    But negotiation is not appeasement. That is not to say that war and conflict is not an option, because it is.  I realize that taking this position opens me to accusations that I am an appeaser, or worse, that I am a “poor patriot.”  Of course, that would be simple drivel.

The World is a dangerous place… One of the dangers of the Internet is that in the blogosphere, people, even well-intended, profer opinions that are dangerous, and yet, people read them and then appropriate them as their own.  To judge someone’s patriotism by their outlook on World events is wrong…simply wrong.

Bahrain, Combined Task Force 152, Exercise Stake Net, State Department, Straits of Hormuz

1 Comment »

I’m interested how those who claim that the economy isn’t “so bad” can explain the following (and still deflect blame). The myopic view of the conservo-pseudo-patriots misses the interplay of economic policy (weak dollar), geo-politics (Israeli-Iran conflict), and the economy (unemployment at 5.5%).

The unemployment rate rose a half of a percentage point to reach 5.5% in May (hasn’t been that bad since 1986).

Understandably, the DJIA lost almost 400 points, but then the price of oil rose dramatically.

Other bad news:

● Oil jumped nearly $11 to close at a record $138.54 a barrel today (there is one source indicating that today’s price jump is a result of a senior Israeli politician raising the specter of an attack on Iran (one of Olmert’s deputies called an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities as “unavoidable“) and the dollar falling sharply against the euro.
● Home foreclosures reached a record high in the first quarter of 2008 to nearly 1% of all homes.
● Lehman is looking to raise another $5 billion to shore up a teetering balance sheet.
● The dollar dropped to a weekly low on speculation that the Fed will not hike interest rates due to the weak employment data.

The recession is here and now. World events play a big role in the price of oil. Federal policy contributes (just like Alan Greenspan played a role in bringing on the last recession, Bernanke’s “efforts” are working hard to pull the economy further into a hole including his statement that the FED won’t be reducing interest rates further). This is bad news, especially for anyone who doesn’t want to see Obama become President.

economy, Iran Israeli, oil price, Olmert

7 Comments »

This is early, and the source is somewhat dubious since ABC has had a recent spate of “breaking news” blurts that diminishes the network to a “blogoburster,” but ABC is reporting that “officials familiar with highly sensitive intelligence on this issue,” that Iran and al Qaeda are in high level discussions. While questioning whether Iran will release bin Laden’s son’s (who are at the core of these discussions), the motives are unclear.

“The Iranians know there would be hell to pay if these guys were set free,” a U.S. official told ABC News.

“Iran likely sees these individuals, as major bargaining chips,” says another official. “How and when they’re going to use those chips or whether they are going to keep them in the bank is part of an ongoing strategic discussion they are having internally.”

Apparently, after September 11th, al Qaeda split into two groups, one heading to the mountains of Pakistan and the other, led by Saif al Adel (an Egyptian), went to Iran (Adel is suspected as the leader of the group that attacked the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 - the US State Department has put a $5 million bounty on his head). The group that fled to Iran is said to include al Qaeda’s shura (management council), and over 2 dozens members including some of bin Laden’s relatives, including two of his sons, Saad and Hamza.

“Al Qaeda would like to get those folks a deal and they’ve been trying to work a deal,” a senior defense official tells ABC News. “Right now there is greater effort being applied by al Qaeda to seek a resolution.” Although Iran has recently signaled a willingness to discuss the issue, this official says, “I don’t see the Iranian government desiring to work very fast or quickly on that. ”

AND

“Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its AQ detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogations or trial,” the report says. “Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some AQ members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.”

Motives behind these reported talks?
* Under one theory, the talks are a reaction to al Qaeda’s recent anti-Iranian rhetoric…Iran may be making an unspoken threat to al Qaeda’s leadership: If al Qaeda attempts to attack Iran, these people will suffer.

* Iran may have initiated the talks as a threat to the United States, that if the U.S. takes hostile action against Iran, these captives could be released, set free to plot attacks against the West.

Either way, I have an issue with the ABC statement: ABC News interviewed several high-level U.S. national security officials for this story. Because of the sensitive nature of intelligence on this subject, all spoke on the condition that their names not be used. We also asked the government of Iran to comment on this story. The spokesman for the Iranian Mission to the United States said he could not answer our specific questions but told us combating terrorism “remains one of the main Iranian political priorities.”

Also covered by the Right Truth in Iran Joining Forces with al Qaeda.

Frankly, I’ll be interested to see how this all plays out in the next few days.

ABC News, al Qaeda, Iran, Kenya and Tanzania bombings, Saif al Adel

2 Comments »

We all know that Iran (Persia) is sponsoring terrorism like Hezbollah and in Iraq. The question is how to address it, and more importantly, to recognize the Persian footprint. This is a simple guide to recognizing a Persian terrorist.

Armed and dangerous…much more than your average pussy(cat).

Persian terrorists

No Comments »

A day later (than others), and short (because of time). It appears that the talks between Israel and Syria being brokered by Turkey at the behest of the Bush Administration could well require a shift in U.S. policy toward Syria. This may be delayed until after GWB leaves office in January 2009 (who will be left holding that bag?). There should be no mistake that this is an Earth moving development, and one that clearly illustrates what I have written before (and which is ignored by many others), that Foreign Policy and National Security decisions are not discretely isolated to one Administration. It must be remembered that there is a fluidity of events that occur across the transition of power in this country. And a successor government will, often by necessity, inherit “issues.”

The U.S. government had asked Turkey to increase efforts to advance negotiations between Israel and Syria, according to a report published by the London Arabic daily Al-Hayat on Saturday.

According to the report, the U.S. request comes in light of the recent political crisis in Lebanon, and U.S. assessments that peace between Israel and Syria will help distance the country from Hezbollah.

This, of course, also comes at a time when Hezbollah has taken control over the Lebanese parliament.

In what is seen as a major victory for Syria and Iran, Hezbollah and its allies are being guaranteed a two-thirds majority in Lebanon’s parliament, just as Israel and Syria are announcing talks concerning the fate of the Golan Heights.

Not surprisingly, anti-Olmert Israeli factions are alluding to the Syrian talks as a “wag the dog” to divert attention from the potential fundraising scandal. But it is hard to believe that the Golan will remain in Israeli hands if these talks progress. On the other hand, there is historic reason to believe that if the “talks” breakdown for any reason that armed conflict could flare up. There is certainly enough room for a breakdown in the talks to occur.

Ankara would like both sides to commit to a signed declaration as a starting point for talks. According to the report, Turkey decided to postpone the proposed sit-down after the Syrians revealed Jerusalem’s stated willingness to withdraw from the Golan Heights in exchange for peace.

No one is going to be happy with this. Two-thirds of the Israeli people are against yielding the Golan Heights. This is not the first time that talks between Israel and Syria have occured. It could well be the last. Further, the “no negotiation” and “anti-appeasement” crowds are going to be rip roaring pissed off-f-f-f about this.

Of course, I don’t have any real inside information, and I’m only projecting a guess or two.

Olmert, peace talks, Syria, Turkey

No Comments »

In a new and still to be authenticated audio, it seems like Ayman al-Zawahiri is making a point of refuting the theory that Israel carried out the September 11th attacks, blaming Shi’ite Hezbollah and Iran of spreading the rumor. The voice however, does sound like AQ#2.

“The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it,” he said.

“Iran’s aim here is also clear — to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq,” he said.

I wonder, with Zawahiri denouncing the “Crusader invasion” of Iraq, and now linking it to mention of “Iranian complicity” or “Iranian agents” if we are beginning to see the emergence of a Muslim versus Muslim conflict. While Zawahiri also include Japan in the list of countries that aided the “Crusader invasion” of Iraq, among the targets of al Qaeda terror. Further, if it is the case that al Qaeda is seeing Iran as complicit in the invasion of Afghanistan, then how does it see the involvement of Iran in Iraq?

Zawahiri concludes with: “The Crusaders and their agents in Pakistan and Afghanistan are starting to fall.”

al Qaeda, Crusaders, Iran, Zawahiri

3 Comments »

End of 1st Q ‘08, so its time for observations again.  Scouting around some of the “usual suspects” on the Internet, much of what I see is “happy talk.”  Despite all of this “happy talk,” it is way too early to declare victory!  At least one unjaded opinion (mine) sees a number of opportunities for disappointment - Pakistan (where I may have been wrong about the transition from Musharraf), Iraq with the post surge upsurge in sectarian violence, Iraq with the trembling of the Maliki gov’t, and still in Afganistan where the resurgence of the Taliban continues and I maintain doubt about Karzai’s future.

The degree and level of Iranian involvement in all of this is still at the root of the discussion about what is really going on.  There are some very reputable experts who see the non-transparent imprint of Iran on what is happening in Iraq today (watching the shoooting war outbreaking in Baghdad and Basra) while others less expert seem to consider al Sadr to be the culprit (while I do not question the role of Iran in all of this, there is also no doubt that al Sadr plays a role, and his Mahdi Army remains a threat worse than al Qaeda - according to Maliki).  In time, we will see the residual effects of the troop surge.  We will also see if the Maliki gov’t can stay power, or worse, what will happen if it fails.  We will witness the impact of Bhutto’s assassination, Musharraf’s electoral loss and the seating of a new government in Pakistan, a Muslim nuclear power.  And finally, we will see the impact when Karzai’s gov’t falls and the Taliban regain their foothold in Afghanistan.

For convenience (mine), I’m simply going to list a few readings:

Taliban declares start of new Afghan offensive-Web

The Taliban announced the start of a spring offensive in Afghanistan, promising “painful strikes” to force all enemy soldiers to leave, according to a Web message seen by a U.S.-based monitoring service on Thursday.

NATO-led forces have conducted wide-ranging offensives in southern Afghanistan to disrupt the insurgents ahead of spring, which each year heralds a surge in violence as the snows melt and fighters emerge from their mountain hideouts.

The Web message entitled “Taliban declares beginning of spring offensive in Afghanistan” was from Mullah Bradar Akhund, who styles himself deputy emir of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, according to a translation by the SITE Institute terrorism monitoring service seen in London.

Taliban again threaten spring offensive

The Taliban says it will use new techniques and draw on years of fighting experience to again increase attacks in Afghanistan this spring.A statement attributed to Taliban senior commander Mullah Bradar also warns Afghans working with the government to quit their jobs or risk being targeted.

Bradar said the Taliban is aiming to collapse the government of President Hamid Karzai. He said the militants would continue their attacks until the government is ousted and U.S. and NATO forces withdraw.

U.S. and NATO military officials dismiss the idea of a Taliban spring offensive and say the only offensive that will take place this year in Afghanistan is one by Western and Afghan troops.

Taliban increasingly turns to suicide bombings

Suicide bombing used to be a subject of debate among the Taliban, as they struggled to decide whether the tactic was too extreme, but the frightening new reality in Afghanistan is that the radicals appear to be winning that argument within the Taliban ranks.

None of the 42 insurgents surveyed by The Toronto Globe and Mail were willing to express any reservations about suicide bombings when confronted by a researcher with a video recorder, and many of them boasted that they were ready to volunteer for such missions themselves.

Some Taliban have previously argued that it’s cowardly to wear an explosive vest, because it prevents an insurgent from fighting his enemy face-to-face. Others suggested that the carnage among civilian bystanders that often results from a suicide blast alienates ordinary Afghans from the insurgency. A Taliban faction even took out an advertisement in one of Kandahar’s weekly newspapers in 2006, blaming recent suicide bombings on foreign fighters and promising to stop the attacks: ”We will punish them,” the advertisement said.

The Impact of Pashtun Tribal Differences on the Pakistani Taliban

Though members of militant Islamic groups such as the Pakistani Taliban and other jihadis have almost the same anti-United States and pro-al-Qaeda worldview, they are not especially disciplined when it comes to organizational matters. Difficulty in this area explains the existence of so many extremist factions operating under different leaders and commanders who sometimes express conflicting opinions on domestic and international issues.

The formation of an umbrella organization, Tehrek-e-Taliban-Pakistan (Movement of Pakistani Taliban, or TTP) on December 14, 2007, was meant to bring the different Taliban groups operating in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) into one formation and improve their coordination (The News International [Islamabad], December 15, 2007). Its spokesman, Maulvi Omar, a shadowy figure using a fake name, claimed that 27 Taliban factions operating in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) were part of the movement. Nobody was surprised when Baitullah Mehsud, amir of the Taliban in the territory populated by the Mehsud Pashtun tribe in South Waziristan, was named as leader of the TTP. He was the most powerful among the Pakistani Taliban commanders and it was natural that he would lead the organization.

PLEASE NOTE AND REMEMBER HERE MY CONSISTENT AND LONG TERM CAUTION ABOUT TRUSTING THE PASHTUN

Al Qaeda’s Resurgence

FOUR YEARS AGO, HIS WORDS WOULD have represented an almost unquestioned consensus view. In late January, the State Department’s counterterrorism coordinator, Dell Dailey, described al Qaeda’s top leadership as isolated, saying that they have “much, much less central authority and much, much less capability to reach out.”

He is not alone in this assessment. In July 2007, Stratfor’s Peter Zeihan argued that while a few thousand people may claim to be al Qaeda members, “the real al Qaeda does not exercise any control over them. . . . The United States is now waging a war against jihadism as a phenomenon, rather than against any specific transnational jihadist movement.” The most prominent proponent of this view has been Jason Burke, a reporter for London’s Observer and the author of Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam. By the time that book hit newsstands in 2003, Burke was already arguing that the “nearest thing to ‘Al-Qaeda,’ as popularly understood,” only existed for a five-year period, and the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001 showcased “the final scenes of its destruction.” Now, Burke contends, we are “in a ‘post-bin Laden’ phase of Islamic militancy.”

Unfortunately, all these men are wrong–and we will fight the war on terror less effectively if we continue to harbor mistaken assumptions about the al Qaeda network. It is important not to overstate what the terror group’s leadership needs to do to remain relevant. Even if the central leadership’s role is limited to connecting terrorist nodes–pairing skill sets, financing, and operatives–it can transform terrorist groups from disunited regional problems into cohesive adversaries capable of threatening Western societies. Moreover, the safe havens that al Qaeda’s leaders have gained in recent years magnify their lethal capabilities.

There are so many moves left in this chess game that no one can adequately predict the outcome, no matter how much they wish to project a positive one [just my opinion].  Wearing rose colored glasses is a fashion statement…putting your head in the sand can do two things.  It can keep you from seeing what is going on around you…and it can get your head shot off when you finally lift it to see how the world has changed, despite the happy talk.

3 Comments »

According to the Russian contractor building the site, the Iranian nuclear reactor at Bushehr will open in late 2008.  The Russians, against the wishes of the U.S., are supplying enriched uranium to the plant.  This clearly solidifies the ties between Iran and Russia.  As I’ve previously commented, there is a new Cold War upon us.  Despite the threats of sanctions, Iran refuses to stop its “domestic” enrichment program.

It insists it is pursuing peaceful power generation only, despite fears it could try to build a bomb.

Washington says Iran has no need to continue its own enrichment programme now that deliveries have started.

It says it supports the supply of enriched uranium to Iran as long as Moscow retrieves the fuel.

Atomstroiexport, the Russian monopoly, is building the $1 billion Bushehr plant under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency. 

I believe that we (the Bush Administration) continue to underestimate the renewed power and intentions of Vladimir Putin.  Yet, according to one publication, The BulletinOnline, this helps the cause of non-proliferation.  The thinking here is that if Russia supplies the HEU to Iran and removes the material, then Iran will not continue its own development, and the uses of the fuel will be more controlled.  The question is whether anyone wants to trust Russia and Vladimir and Ahmadinejad.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Russia’s nuclear fuel delivery to Iran benefits nonproliferation

Behind Russia and Iran’s nuclear reactor dispute

Settling the Iranian nuclear issue

Divided from within (PDF, 256 KB)

When could Iran get the Bomb? (PDF, 539 KB)

A fuel-cycle fix (PDF, 195 KB)

Keep your enemy closer (PDF, 163 KB)

COLUMNS

How Russia’s nuclear fuel delivery to Iran benefits nonproliferation

By Pavel Podvig | 20 December 2007

By supplying Iran with nuclear reactor fuel, Moscow might have taken an important step in preventing countries interested in nuclear power from enriching uranium indigenously.

Of course, in related news, Russia and Libya are now in talks to supply the latter with enriched uranium. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held talks in Libya on Sunday as the longtime pariah state consolidated its return to the international fold.

Lavrov had been expected to offer Russian help for Libya’s plans to develop a civil nuclear power programme, barely four years after it renounced efforts to develop a non-conventional arsenal in a move that launched its rapprochement with the West.

One must ask the serious question is we are watching as this is happening, and what we are planning to do.  These deals are being couched as economic and trade…not offensive.  Clearly, the Russian bear is revived, and the situation bears watching in 2008 as one of the critical International and National security issues.  The question is whether anyone wants to trust Russia and Vladimir.

You can vote for this article at Real Clear Politics or (maybe) here (if you wish, of course)

Atomstroiexport, Bushehr, Libya, new Cold War, nuclear fuel, Russia, U.S. foreign policy

2 Comments »

Everyone watches Ahmadinejad in Venezuela while almost surreptitiously, Iran is now talking about building a $350 mil. port in Nicaragua, and is moving to solidify relations with Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista of old.  Regardless of Ortega’s economic rationale for considering this Iranian investment, it brings Iranian sponsored terrorism a few porous borders away from the U.S.-Texas-Mexican border.

This goes far beyond Iran’s alliance with Hugo Chavez in Venezula.  And an Iranian built port on the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua could well change the dymanics of U.S. policy in South America and the World.

What worries state department officials, former national security officials and counterterrorism researchers is that, if attacked, Iran could stage strikes on American or allied interests from Nicaragua, deploying the Iranian terrorist group Hezbollah and Revolutionary Guard operatives already in Latin America. Bellicose threats by Iran’s clerical leadership to hit American interests worldwide if attacked, by design or not, heighten the anxiety.

“The bottom line is if there is a confrontation with Iran, and Iran gets bombed, I have absolutely no doubt that Iran is going to lash out globally,” said John R. Schindler, a veteran former counterintelligence officer and analyst for the National Security Agency.

“The Iranians have that ability, particularly from South America. Hezbollah has fronts all over Latin America. That is not new. But it’s certainly something we’re starting to care about now.”

From bombings by Hezbollah in South America, most notably Argentina recently, to the Khobar Towers in 1996, Iran’s role in state sponsored terrorism is undeniable.  And make no mistake about the fact that Nicaraguans are among the illegals flowing across the porous U.S.-Mexican border.  Iran’s push into South America represents not only a direct response to the saber-rattling of the U.S. against Iran’s nuclear program, but also represents a clear and present threat to National Security.

In fact, some analysts question whether Iran will actually follow through on it plans to rebuild Monkey Point or pursue any real economic development initiatives in Nicaragua.  Still, its presence in South America clearly represents a launching pad for attacks against the U.S.

“They use their embassies to smuggle in weapons. They used them to develop and execute plans,” said Oliver “Buck” Revell, who served as associate deputy director over FBI intelligence and international affairs. “Diplomats have immunity coming and going. It is a protected center for both espionage and, on occasion, for specific operations. So an embassy in Managua is definitely an area that will be of concern to our national security apparatus.”

It was under the guise of this diplomatic cover that many believe that Iran was behind the attacks in Argentina.  At the same time, the Israeli government is concerned about the Iranian presence in Nicaragua because of the large Israeli business population in Costa Rica and concentrations of Jewish citizens throughout Latin America.

Foremost on the minds of those concerned about Iran’s new relationship with Nicaragua are two suicide bombings in Argentina, now widely ascribed to Iran, which denies responsibility.
March 17, 1992 – A car bomb explodes in front of Argentina’s Israeli Embassy, killing 29 and wounding 250. A subgroup of the Iranian terrorist organization Hezbollah claims responsibility but no formal investigation is launched.

July 18, 1994 – A truck bomb levels the AMIA Jewish Community Center, killing 87 and wounding 100. The bombing prompts a 10-year investigation beset by challenges and controversy.

November 2006 – An Argentine federal judge issues indictments for former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former minister of intelligence, former foreign minister, former commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, three Iranian diplomats and the Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughnieh. An 800-page government report accuses the men of staging the 1994 attack from Iran’s Buenos Aires embassy.

March 5, 2007 – The global police agency Interpol approves arrest warrants for five of the former Iranian officials, and Moughnieh. Iran appeals.

November 7, 2007 – Interpol’s annual general assemply rules against Iran’s appeal. In retaliation, Iran issues its own warrants against Argentinian officials accusing them of ‘actions against the security of the Islamic Republic.’ The 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy remains unsolved.

–Todd Bensman

Diverted attention toward Venezuela leads to the fact that the U.S. is openly opposing the election of Daniel Ortega.  Thus, his cozying up to Ahmadinejad is far from unexpected.  Even if some do not see “nefarious” motives in this budding anti-American alliance, is an absolute threat.  It is reported that Nicaragua permitted 21 Iranians to enter the country without visas.  Considering that Ortega has reason to oppose the United States which worked against him with the CIA backed Contras from 1980-88, why should we trust his motives?

Monkey Point, a hot bed of anti-Sandinistas, and a possible location of an Iranian funded port of entry…and a foothold for Ahmadinejad in our backyard.

Ahmadinejad, border security, Daniel Ortega, Iran, Iran Contra, Monkey Point, Nicaragua, Oliver North, State Department

14 Comments »

While World attention focuses on the NIE and Iran’s nuclear capability (or lack thereof), earlier this week Pakistan tested a nuclear capable missile.  This is now followed by a parallel test by India of a surface-to-air Akash missile.  Also, please refer back to the importance of “missiles” not “fissiles.”

Describing India’s Akash:

The 700-kilogram (1,540-pound) Akash, meaning “sky” in Hindi, can track 100 targets simultaneously with onboard radar, move at 600 meters (yards) a second and deliver a 55-kilogram warhead across 27 kilometer in 50 seconds.

Of the earlier Pakistani test, I wrote:

That’s a piece of news bound to worry people who are already concerned about the emergency-ruled nation’s atomic arsenal.

●  Babur (Hatf 7) missile has a range of 700 kilometres (440 miles) and uses stealth technology 
●  consolidate Pakistan’s strategic capability and strengthen national security,” 
●  “The Babur, which has near stealth capabilities, is a low-flying, terrain-hugging missile with high maneuverability, pinpoint accuracy and radar-avoidance features,” 
●  The latest test comes with the safety of Pakistan’s estimated 50 nuclear warheads under international scrutiny since Musharraf imposed a state of emergency on November 3^rd. 

Other information on Pakistan’s nuclear capable missile test is found here.  So, who do you trust?  Somehow, I still don’t trust Pakistan.  Don’t know why

All the World’s a stage. And its an increasingly nuclear stage.  It is also very clear that India isn’t standing by idly as Musharraf and his government teeter on the brink of falling to the pressures of al Qaeda and its Taliban proxy.  Indian military people see the volatile situation in Pakistan as a potential threat.

Terming the present political situation in Pakistan as “volatile”, a senior Indian Army officer on Wednesday said Islamabad may turn its `jehadis’ on India “to divert attention from its internal crisis.”

“While jehadis (Islamic militant groups) in Pakistan are now fighting the army in Balochistan, Swat and North Western Frontier Province, the same may be brainwashed and made to infiltrate in India,” Lt Gen Noble Thamburaj, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, said.

Watching the World’s event unfold is more than simply reading the newswire.

See “India test fires Akash” and “Pakistan Fires Nuke Capable Missile” for more up-to-date information.

Akash, India, nuclear missiles

No Comments »