Iran on the Horizon

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

The early twenty-first century is an extremely dangerous time, as the United States is forced to fashion a simultaneous response to multiple global threats.  One of the primary threats we face is the development of weapons of mass destruction by rogue regimes, as both Iran and North Korea appear to be quickly developing their nuclear programs at the same time.

The recent allegations by Americans held captive during the 1979 hostage crisis that Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad interrogated captives and demanded harsher treatment of them is sure to push Iran into a greater position of prominence in Americans' eyes.  The Washington Times reports on former hostage and retired Army Colonel Charles Scott's comments on viewing Ahmedinejad after the recent elections:

"As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard," said retired Army Col. Charles Scott, 73, a former hostage who lives in Jonesboro, Ga.

"He was one of the top two or three leaders," Col. Scott said in a telephone interview. "The new president of Iran is a terrorist."

President Bush, in turn, has commented that these claims raise "many questions," but that his more immediate concern is preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.  I've noted before on this blog that Israeli intelligence expects Iran's nuclear program to reach the "point of no return" by the end of the year, when Iran may be able to enrich uranium for military purposes.  For his part, Ahmadinejad has vowed to pursue Iran's nuclear program, but has insisted, "Iran's peaceful technology is the outcome of the scientific achievements of Iran's youth.  We need the peaceful nuclear technology for energy, medical and agricultural purposes and our scientific progress."

Fashioning an appropriate response to Iran's nuclear program is difficult.  Any military threats we make will be viewed with skepticism because, with simultaneous conflagrations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, American troops are already overstretched.  Nonetheless, preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is crucial to building a more secure future.

Creation of a National Security Section within the FBI

By Dennis Lormel

This week, a series of announcements were made by President Bush, his Homeland Security Advisor (HSA) Fran Townsend, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General (AG) Alberto Gonzalez describing the establishment of the National Security Service within the FBI. The FBI's Counterintelligence Division, Counterterrorism Division and Directorate of Intelligence will comprise the National Security Service. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Negroponte will have significant authority over the newly formed entity. An integral part of the successful formation and implementation of the National Security Service will be who is selected as the Senior Executive responsible for heading up the National Security Service. Considerable discussions are ongoing behind the scenes to select the new intelligence chief. Whoever is selected must be uniquely qualified. He or she must be a leader who will command the respect of peers and subordinates; must possess the understanding and interpersonal skills to deal with the external taskings from DNI Negroponte and balancing them with the internal policies and priorities of the FBI; and possesses the level of operational experience to afford him or her the credibility necessary to succeed. Few people possess these requisite skills. It is imperative that those involved in the selection process to include Director Mueller, AG Gonzalez, HSA Townsend and DNI Negroponte fully vet candadates to ensure the selectee is well rounded and suited to meet the challenges at hand. I have a favorite candidate, who undoubtedly is on the short list. It's not appropriate to mention names at this juncture. I wish those involved in the selection process good luck in pursuading the individual I favor to accept the formidable challenge of leading the National Security Service through its important developmental stage.

DISTURBING NEWS FROM AFGHANISTAN

By Larry Johnson

by
Larry C. Johnson

Taliban fighters linked to Al Qaeda shotdown a U.S. military helicopter on Tuesday reportedly with an RPG. According to FBIS reports, a Taliban spokesman claimed that US forces had inserted seven "spies" into the moutains west of Asadabad and that mujahedin had killed some and were pursuing others. About 12 hours after the chopper was downed and before the crash was announced by US officials, a spokesman for the Taliban movement, Abdul Latif Hakimi, said that the group�s fighters have shot down the aircraft in the village of Shorak. Hakimi said that the group had video of the crash and would post photographs on its Web site. So far nothing has been posted.

We now know from US sources that the helicopter's passengers included members of a Quick Reaction Force who were responding to calls for assistance by US troops on the ground who were fighting Islamic militants.

Beyond the tragedy of the deaths of 16 US military personnel, this incident raises some disturbing issues. The ability of the Taliban to communicate with the outside world about activities in a remote area of Afghanistan is equal to if not better than that of the United States. War is not simply engagements on the ground, it also involves information flow. The Taliban are showing a very sophisticated capability in this regard.

More troubling is the possibility that the Taliban forces knew in advance that US forces were coming into the area and were in a position to ambush our people. That is a counterintelligence problem pointing to possible penetrations of US operational plans. Finally it is clear that Islamic extremists along the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan are stepping up their infiltration of Afghanistan in an apparent bid to derail elections there. This is a war the United States cannot fight alone. Unfortunately it appears that our erstwhile Pakistani allies are not doing their part to stem the tide of Islamic militants entering Afghanistan and to locate and destroy the remnants of Bin Laden's forces that have, until this moment, enjoyed safehaven.

Treasury Designates Senior Syrian Officials

By Matthew Levitt

The U.S. Treasury Department designated two senior Syrian officials "Specially Designated Nationals" (SDN) today under Executive Order 13338 for directing Syria's military and security presence in Lebanon and/or contributing to Syria's support for terrorism.

The designations of Ghazi Kanaan, the former chief of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon and current Syrian Minister of Interior, and Rustum Ghazali, Kanaan's protege and successor as chief of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon, are significant steps given the men's prominence in the Syrian hierarchy.

Among the most interesting information made public in the fact sheet that accompanied the designations are revelations about Kanaan's personal role in facilitating Syrian state sponsorship of Hezbollah. According to "information available to the U.S. Government," Kanaan personally delivered a convoy of three rockets from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2002. In May 2001, Kanaan met with Hezbollah "security leaders" and secured a pledge from Hezbollah not to excute military operations without first notifying Syria. At that same meeting, however, Hezbollah agreed to continue its "casing and reconnaissance" operations.

For more on Syrian state sponsorship of terror see "Syrian Sponsorship of Global Terrorism: The Need for Accountability." For more on Hezbollah, see �Hizballah Finances: Funding the Party of God."

SENATE NEEDS TO RESTORE CUTS IN COUNTERTERRORISM PROGAMS

By Michael Kraft

By Michael B. Kraft

Apparently the House of Representatives was not listening or not buying the line when President Bush said in his televised address Tuesday night that �there is only one course of action against them (the terrorists): to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home��

The President has repeatedly used the line in the past, including during the election campaign

Nevertheless, on Tuesday night the House passed a FY 06 foreign assistance appropriations bill that cut by about 9 per cent the Administration�s primary program to train foreign civilian counterterrorism and law enforcement officials to help fight terrorists terrorist abroad.

It also cut two smaller, related counterterrorism programs designed to help stop the terrorists overseas.

Hopefully the Senate, where the Appropriations Committee is marking up its Bill this afternoon, will heed the President�s often used phrase and provide full funding for the counterterrorism programs and then prevail in the conference committee on the final version.

Don't Forget Iran in the Africa Equation

By Douglas Farah

While some attention has deservedly been paid to the spread of Wahhabi influence in the pan-Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa, the competing influence of Iran's radical Shi'ites is almost completely ignored and unexamined. Yet across northern Nigeria, in Sierra Leone, Mali, Guinea, and elsewhere, the Iranian government is pouring in millions of dollars. This includes building mosques, setting up schools and flying thousands of young men to Iran for Islamic training. It is one of the latest incarnations of the traditional competition between the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and most of the Gulf, and the Shi'ites who dominate in Iran and Iraq.

While the Shi'ia, Iran-backed Hezbollah, through the Lebanese community, has had an influence on West Africa for decades, Iran has not been a traditional player in the local Muslim communities. That may be changing.

It is not clear what inroads have been made because it is so difficult to get into this area. But, as Iran elects more hardline leadership, continues to shelter al Qaeda leaders and becomes increasingly active in Iraq, it is worth considering.

The Iranian leadership is unlikely to give trips, mosques and other financial and spiritual inducements without exacting a quid pro quo. Go here for the complete blog.

Protecting Critical Infrastructure: Europe Looks to the Owners

By Victor Comras

Who�s responsibility for protecting critical infrastructure from terrorist attack? The European Commission opened a major debate on the topic at the June 27th New Defense Agenda meeting in Brussels. And its initial planning calls for a modest 140 million Euro 5 year program (2007 - 2012) to help identify and prioritize vulnerabilities. But the Commission is likely to pass on to owners and operators the actual responsibilities to pay for and implement preventive and protective procedures. Magnus Ovilius, a senior administrator at the Commission's DG Justice, Freedom and Security, told the gathering that it shouldn�t be left up to the bureaucrats in Brussels to determine �what should be done on the ground.� �We don't need to spend a lot of money," he said, arguing that the Commission should limit its role to threat assessment. This might include helping to delineate where and when funds could be spent in a relevant manner.
For its part the EU Commission has already begun work on putting together a Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CTWIN) and is setting up a European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). The latter will incorporate aviation and maritime security and inspection oversight. The EU is also considering its role in providing protection for critical infrastructure, such as power plants that have potential trans-boundary effects. However, they will leave to member states the task of delineating local prevention and protection requirements. EU member states are to report back on this by the end of 2005. Details of European thinking on critical infrastructure protection issues are contained in the joint EU Council/Parliamentary report: Critical Intrastructure Protection in the Fight Against Terrorism.

By Walid Phares

               CHOICES OVER IRAQ: QUESTIONS IN PERSPECTIVE

Walid Phares

President Bush is set to address the nation at 8 PM tonight from the historic headquarters of the 82d Airborne Division in North Carolina. His remarks are supposed to cover the current stage of the War on terror and more specifically the ongoing US involvement in Iraq. From a series of interviews on MSNBC and radio shows today here is a summary of my notes:

1. Communications: While the American and Western public would be able to listen to and absorb the US President�s message directly, Arab and Muslim masses will be at the mercy of the �medium� carrying and translating Bush�s address. It is not difficult to guess how networks such as al Jazeera, al Manar and others will cut and paste, then will �analyze for� the people. Hence if the speech is destined to win the hearts and minds on both sides of the Atlantic we can project how at least on one side of the Ocean people will be �updated� about the speech. True that al Hurra and other non-Jihadi media would carry the translation, and true that many Arabs speak English, but nevertheless, we need to factor in the media gap while assessing how Iraqis, Arabs and Middle Eastern would be asked about their reactions

2. Basic attitudes in the US and the West:  You have two schools and a vast mass in between. Those who opposed the principle of War against Terrorism, those who opposed the choice of Iraq and those who disagreed on the prosecution of that War, will continue to criticize the ongoing policies in Iraq, no matter what the situation has evolved into. Do not expect those who didn�t agree on the strategy of taking the war to the Jihadists along with those who believe that the Jihadists will fight the US even more just because American forces have landed in Iraq, to agree with the President and his advisors.

On the other hand, you have those who believe that the current plans and prosecution are the best possible, and that the war is about to be won. Do not expect them to change their views too. In the middle, a large mass of Americans asking an increasing number of questions: In the current equation, these are the people seeking better answers.

3. Initial choice in perspective 

�What are we doing in Iraq?� This is not a question we should only ask when we list the statistics of deaths and expenses. If there is no news from Iraq, ie, bad news, we almost forget we have an army there. But as soon as the first car bomb explodes and we are reminded of the body count, we rush to remember that we have a war going on, and we suddenly re-theorize the premise. The initial strategic choice is just that: a global perspective on the War on Terror. If we have initially rejected the idea to wage unilateral moves, and in this case, in Iraq, our discussion should not be about the tactics and the results. We have to be logical with our choices. If we haven�t agreed to remove Saddam as part of the War on Terror, it is fine. The next logical step is to keep reminding us of the �other choice.� If there was another or a better strategic choice in the global war, let�s not be shy about it. Simply state it: That would be a valid critique of the Administration�s policies. But no alternative-plan is not a plan, and would keep the current one at the top.

If asked, many experts on Jihadism would have proposed different plans or altered plans before the decision to go to war in Iraq. The question today is similar: Now that the war has been launched, what plan would you propose to win that war other than the current process?

4. The War in Iraq: Victory strategy?

But if you were among the supporters of the War in Iraq as launched, as prosecuted and consider it as a generator of positive changes in the region, then your evaluation of the President�s remarks would evolve around the enhancement of the current plans. For there is a major difference between rejecting the strategic choice of a War in Iraq and suggesting policies to win that war. The current debate is confusing the public. For Americans expect from their leaders and experts to provide them with a rational choice: First question: Was the War wrong or it wasn�t. Second question: If the war�s global objective has been approved, either the management of the conflict was wrong or it wasn�t. Third question: Are the current plans perfect or are there better plans for the next stage?

What most Americans and all Iraqis really want from their elites is clarity in explaining: They don�t need the choice to be made for them, they need to select from multiple choices.

Walid Phares

Delusion and Disaster in Central Iraq

By Evan Kohlmann

This evening, President George Bush will present his own view of the ongoing Iraqi insurgency in a televised address to the nation--during which he will reportedly encourage the American public to be patient in expecting further progress and an eventual withdrawal of U.S. military forces.   This message comes on the heels of the stunningly obtuse assessment offered by Vice President Dick Cheney last week that the very same Iraqi insurgency is actually in its "last throes."  Though Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has tried to be more conservative in his own comments vis-a-vis the insurgents, Pentagon briefings on Iraq are also beginning to take on a fanciful character regrettably reminiscent of Soviet propaganda during the Afghan war of the 1980s.  The BBC even aired an interview this morning with an American military representative who attempted to draw a ridiculous comparison between the security situation in the Iraqi capital Baghdad and that of major Western cities like New York or London.  By professing such faulty logic, we are only successful in deluding ourselves--not the insurgents, nor the vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East.

If President Bush wants the American people to understand why a continued military presence is necessary in Iraq, he must level with them openly and honestly.  Unfortunately, the truth today is that Iraq is a catastrophe of immense proportions.  For months, we have desperately sought to avoid adjectives like "quagmire", fearing the consequences of such pejorative language.  But that is exactly what Iraq has become--a quagmire and a lose-lose scenario that is gradually overshadowing the larger international war on terrorism.  Though perhaps in 2003 there was no pressing threat necessitating an invasion of Iraq, in the meantime, we have unwittingly unleashed a Pandora's Box of ethnic and religious conflict in Iraq and we are left with few palatable options.  Nowadays, the U.S. military can no longer safely withdraw from Iraq without causing the near certain collapse of the nascent Iraqi democratic government and the transformation of Iraq into the next Afghanistan.  It should be noted that both native and foreign-born terrorists hiding in Iraq have openly boasted of their intentions to carry out attacks in Europe and North America if our forces are drained clean from the Sunni Triangle.  Indeed, whether or not President Bush admits as much during his expected address this evening, the reality is that we are stuck in Iraq and we aren't going anywhere soon.

GAO: Homeland Security - Actions Needed to Better Protect National Icons and Federal Buildings from Terrorism

By Andrew Cochran

GAO has issued Report Number GAO-05-790 regarding the need to improve protection of monuments and federal buildings at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05790.pdf

The report addresses: The Statue of Liberty, Liberty Island, Hoover Dam Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Mt. Rushmore, and bollards in front of Federal Buildings. Both the General Services Administration and the Department of Interior need to step up their work, the report from the Government Accountability Office finds. GAO recommends that "the Secretary of the Interior (1) link the results of its risk assessments and related risk rankings to its funding priorities and (2) develop guiding principles for balancing security initiatives with Interior�s core mission. Interior did not comment on our recommendations. GAO also recommends that the Administrator of GSA establish a mechanism�such as a chief security officer position or formal point of contact�so it is better equipped to address security related matters related to its federal building portfolio. GSA concurred with the recommendation."

Jeffrey Imm, UnitedStatesAction.com

Lodi Imam Admits to Telling Pakistanis to Fight Americans

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

I've written about the early June arrests in Lodi, California here and here.  Along with Hamid and Umer Hayat (the father and son who were charged with lying to federal agents about the son's training at an al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan), authorities also detained two religious leaders in the Lodi Muslim community, Shabbir Ahmed and Mohammed Adil Khan.  In an immigration hearing on Friday, Ahmed admitted to urging Pakistanis to fight Americans in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks (story also picked up at Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch):

The spiritual leader of the Lodi mosque who was arrested in a sweep earlier this month admitted to the FBI that when he was in Pakistan he gave speeches to Muslims urging them to fight Americans in Afghanistan in the months following the September 11 attacks.

However, in his immigration hearing on Friday, Shabbir Ahmed told a judge that "it was a requirement of all imams.  If you don't people turn against you.  They sort of force you to say something." . . . .

While he admitted making the speeches against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, he said that since he's been in this country he realized he was wrong.  "Having come here, there are true values and respect for human life," Ahmed said, speaking through an interpreter.  "When I saw such a picture, my mind changed.  Now I know what the truth is.  I think there is justice here, respect here."

Comments:  Some countries are dominated by particularly pernicious theological strains that are prone to producing terrorists.  For example, in April 2003 Joel Mowbray examined how Saudi money had touched virtually every stage of the religious development of Asan Akbar, the Army sergeant who killed two of his fellow soldiers and wounded fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait.  Hamid Hayat's religious development has not yet been explored in depth, but an important question is what kind of indoctrination led him to train at an al-Qaeda camp.

Read More »

Hostage Taking: A Growing Source of Revenue for the Iraq Insurgency

By Victor Comras

Hostage taking for ransom is now big business in Iraq and is increasingly being used to fund terrorism and the insurgency. While it is often difficult to distinguish kidnap and ransom for terrorism, as opposed to criminal motives, there are increasing indications that insurgent/terrorist groups are now using this tactic to raise funds. Some 200 foreigners in Iraq have been kidnapped since Saddam fell. In addition, several hundred Iraqis have been taken. Initially, most were killed. But, now the numbers of those held for ransom is surpassing those murdered. Ransom usually entails payments from employers or family members and can reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, there are also indications that governments have engaged in ransom payments. Despite denials from the French, Italian. Phillipines and Australian governments, rumors persist in Iraq and widely among journalists, that discrete ransom payments were, and are, being paid behind the scenes. These payments, when made, are routed to third parties used as middlemen in the negotiations. This shelters the identity of the captors and allows the governments concerned to deny they paid any money to the terrorists. Several journalists in Switzerland and France, continue to maintain that the French government paid up to 12.5 million Euro ($15 million) for the June 11th release of French journalist Florence Aubenas. A similar amount was rumored to have been paid for the release, last December, of Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot. This was substantially above the $1 million allegedly paid by the Italian government to win the release of Italian journalists Simona Toretta and Simona Pari. While both French and Italian government officials maintain their denials, the word has spread throughout Iraq and elsewhere that hostage-taking is an effectively method to raise funds for insurgency and terrorism actions. For its part, the United States seems willing not to interfere in such hostage negotiations, even when a ransom is involved. The US usually holds off from engaging in the matter until after the captive has been released.

Canadian Naji al Kawaiti was taken hostage April 3, 2004 and released May 4, 2004. His captors demanded a $50,000 random. The Canadian MFA admitted playing an important role in his release but refused to indicate whether or not any ransom was paid. Iraqi militants also freed Filipino truck driver Angelo de la Cruz on July 20, 2004, two weeks after taking him hostage. The Philippines withdrew 51 soldiers from Iraq shortly after. Three Romanian journalists and their Iraqi-American guide were freed in late May after nearly two months in captivity. A Swedish national, Ulf Hjertstroem, was kidnapped in early March and released in late May following negotiations on a ransom demand from his captors. And Just a few days ago, Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced that Douglas Wood, a 63-year-old engineering consultant, had been rescued in a military operation. But, there are indications cited in the Australian press that the Australian government may have made cash payments to a senior Iraqi middle-man to locate them and set the stage for the rescue.
For a list of currently held hostages click here.

Iran Khumanists seal off the fortress

By Walid Phares

                         Phares on al Hurra:

            Iran's Khumainists seal off the fortress

NEOCONS DO IT AGAIN IN IRAN

By Larry Johnson

by
Larry C Johnson

From the same crowd who promised us Iraqis dancing in the street and welcoming us as liberators, another cornerstone of the neocon delusional reality has crashed back to earth. I refer of course to Iran's election yesterday, which provided a relatively unknown hardline fundamentalist a decisive victory with over 60% of the vote. Last Monday I appeared with Daniel Pipes on the MSNBC show, "CONNECTED". Pipes described Iran as a place where most of the people are pro-US. Pipes and other neo-con luminaries, such as Michael Ledeen, have pushed the nonsense that Iran is filled with a bunch of neo-westerners eager to throw off the shackles of Islamic extremism. Whoops! Yesterday's election confirms that the force of Islamic fundamentalism remains very strong in Iran. That in turn means that the new Government in Iran is likely to be more aggressive in backing its Shia brethren in Iraq who will press to install Shariah law as the legal basis of the "new" Iraq. It also means that Iran will continue to use terrorism as an integral part of its foreign policy.

Here's a good rule of thumb: Listen to a neocon prediction and then take the opposite position. You will rarely be wrong.

CIA agents wanted by Italy for kidnapping of radical imam

By Lorenzo Vidino

Today Italian newspapers announced that authorities in Milan have indicted 13 CIA operatives for the kidnapping of Abu Omar, a radical Egyptian cleric that "disappeared" from the streets of the northern Italian city in February of 2003. The step represents a major upset to the CIA's "rendition" policy and could create a potential rift with one of its closest allies in the War on Terror.

1364 Versus 1380 and Counting

By Larry Johnson

by
Larry C Johnson

During yesterday's thrashing of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld by members of the Senate and House, the Secretary sought refuge in the notion that we faced setbacks in World War II and we should take that into account in our current war of terrorism. REALLY? Try this on for size Mr. Secretary, the United States and its allies in WWII defeated the Third Reich, Italy, and Japan in 1364 days (that covers the period from 7 December 1941 until 2 September 1945 when Japan signed the surrender documents). By contrast we are 1380 days since the attacks on 9-11 (and counting). Unlike our grandparents who managed to defeat major Armies in multiple combat theatres, we still cannot find and finish Bin Laden. The insurgency in Iraq rages, and we cannot maintain our recruiting levels. The gap between delusional thinking (e.g., the insurgency is in its last throes) and ground truth is wide. Unfortunately US military forces in Iraq are in the untenable position of not having enough resources to complete the mission while being led by politicians unwilling to make tough, politically unpopular decisions.

What I really want to know is why this country at one time could defeat two of the most powerful military forces in the world simultaneously but today cannot control an insurgency led in part by remnants of a third rate military power. That's a trend line I don't like

Jeffrey Imm Joins Us As Visiting Contributing Expert

By Andrew Cochran

Jeffrey Imm of United States Action is joining us as a Visiting Contributing Expert to help me to manage news links. His site is an excellent source for up-to-the minute news links, and we really appreciate the collaboration.

WOE IS US?

By Larry Johnson

by
Larry C. Johnson

GWOT, which is now WOT, may soon become WOE. GWOT, which stands for Global War on Terrorism, has been supplanted by the term WOT, War on Terrorism. However, the White House reportedly is mulling over using WOE, i.e. War on Extremism. Conceptually this is the right step by the Bush Administration, which has finally conceded that you can not wage war on a tactic (i.e., terrorism). From a public relations standpoint, however, WOE will provide terrific grist for late night comedy shows. Was Jon Stewart behind this?

The conduct of WOE leaves much to be desired. At home in Washington the work of WOE has been shifted increasingly to contractors. Now, as someone who makes a few dollars from Government contracting, I am not against this concept in principle. But a curious phenomena is underway at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the newly minted National Counter Terrorism Center. Work that was once done by Government employees, such as analysis and maintenance of databases, has been turned over to contractors. Friends still inside and friends who have left Government employment to take jobs with the contractors, tell me that outside contractors have become bigger players in tasks that were once performed by insiders. Let be clear that I'm not voicing sour grapes because I did not get a taste of this contracting effort. I did not apply and have no interest on working on these projects.

The ultimate irony is that talented people who were working for $60,000 a year as a CIA analyst are now making close to $100,000 as analysts doing the same job but working under the authority of a contractor. The biggest benefit, so I am told, is that the managers for the private contractors are not the big boneheads that CIA and NCTC professionals were.

Some Legislators have some explaining to do

By Walid Phares

Phares on Radio America today:

Legislators must tell us how to win the war on terror before they measure tactical success"

Washington DC, Radio America, BQ 2:45 PM. Mideast Newswire

Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Walid Phares told Radio America today: "The US Legislators who are unsatisfied with the results against the Jihadists in Iraq may have a point. The current tactics can certainly be improved, even changed. One can also adapt the ongoing strategy in Iraq to the Jihadist offensives.

However, as General Abizaid mentioned weeks ago, this is a war with Salafism, a worldwide movement. Hence before the legislators argue about the prosecution of that conflict in Iraq they must explain to the nation their understanding of the Global War on terror, their views of US policies in the Middle East and how their experts would have propsoed to fight Jihadism worldwide and in Iraq, and in different ways. For if some legislators proceed as if Iraq's conflict is a "consumers war," it simply indicate that they haven't grasped why we are in Iraq, what is the current strategy in Iraq, who is the enemy and what does it want to achieve both in Iraq and against the United States. First, Congress must hold a series of hearings on the entire War on Terror before doing business as usual." -Quote by Mideast Newswire

Three Iraqi Insurgent Factions Announce Merging of Operations

By Evan Kohlmann

Is the Iraqi insurgency really in its "last throes"?  Not if you ask the insurgents... three Islamic militant factions in Iraq--including the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI), the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, and the Mujahideen Army--have issued a purported statement announcing the start of joint military operations "hand in hand to attack the infidels and their assistants with an iron fist until we break the infidels... so that [we] can teach the infidels and their assistants that continuing their war will only make us stronger, more harmonious, and more unified."  According to the statement dated June 22, the new unified campaign of violence (principally targeting Baghdad and its environs) will utilize "all available means of warfare", including "some martyrs with [suicide] car bombs."  Today, only one day after the joint communique was issued, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army alone has already taken credit for no less than 13 separate military operations, including many in the region of the Iraqi capital.

Zarqawi Announces "Martyrdom" of Top Saudi Al-Qaida Leader in Al-Qaim, Iraq

By Evan Kohlmann

*UPDATED* (2:30pm EST) - A purported communique from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi posted online by the head of Al-Qaida's Media Wing in Iraq claims that Shaykh Abdullah al-Rashood--a top wanted leader of Al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia--has been killed in recent fighting near the western Iraqi city of Al-Qaim.  According to the statement, al-Rashood crossed through "harsh terrain and the borders of the oppressors" and entered western Iraq in late April or early May 2005.  Within days of his arrival, Rashood joined a local Al-Qaida unit known as the "Al-Khair Brigade" in the Iraqi city of Al-Qaim composed of both native Iraqis and foreign fighters.  During subsequent combat operations against U.S. military forces in Al-Qaim, al-Rashood was reportedly the victim of an airstrike "and Allah granted him mercy, blessings, and paradise."

Click to view English translation of communique c/o Globalterroralert.com
Click to view October 2003 video of Abdallah al-Rashood c/o Globalterroralert.com

Nigeria, al Qaeda and Charles Taylor

By Douglas Farah

Last week the U.S. Consulate in Lagos, Nigeria was closed because of possible terrorist threats. This led, in turn, to the closings of the missions of Germany, Italy, Finland, Russia, Sweden, India and Lebanon. U.S. officials were quoted as saying that the reason was that "some kind of terrorist threat" was called into the U.S. facility. The U.S. Embassy in Abuja stayed open, but with a minimal staff.

While it was the first publicly-stated terrorist threat in Nigeria, Al Qaeda's presence there, as well as the growing Saudi-wahhabi influence in the north, is well-known but long downplayed by the diplomatic community. Many see Nigeria's oil--and hence a good relationship with Nigeria--as vital to U.S. security interests. Even after Osama bin Laden named Nigeria as one of the countries that he would target, along with Spain, the policy community declined to make the al Qaeda presence a factor in bilateral relations for fear of upsetting the fragile Obasanjo government. Obasanjo's government is riddled with corruption, faces staggering problems of holding a disperate nation together and the constant threat of revolt from both the north and the south. These are legitimate concerns, and certainly Nigerian oil, and it functionality as a country, are national security issues that are not to be taken lightly.

But the river of Saudi-wahhabi money flowing into the north, to build mosques, madrasas and greatly radicalize a traditionally-tolerant Muslim population, is also a national security problem that influences other aspects of Nigerian national and international life. To read more, go here.

Youssef Nada (Al Taqwa) Says He's Ready to Testify Before Congress

By Victor Comras

According to a press report today out of Lugano Switzerland, UN Designated Al Qaeda Financier Youssef Nada, has indicated a desire to appear before the US Congress to clear his name. Nada, who headed Bank Al Taqwa and other financial schemes implicated in terrorism financing was one of the first individuals designated by the U.S. Treasury Department and by the United Nations Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee for his involvement in providing funds to al Qaeda. He now lives in Campione d'Italia (a small Italian enclave on Lake Lugano surrounding by Switzerland). The Swiss Prosecutor's Office was forced to drop charges three weeks ago against Nada for terrorism financing because it lacked sufficient evidence on which to try him.(see my earlier blog)

Nada again proclaimed his innocence in an interview posted this morning in Italian on TicinOnline, a Swiss internet portal. He is appealing personally, he said to President Bush, The US Treasury Department, and Congress to reconsider his case. And he indicated that he is willing to testify before Congress in order to clear up the matter. Perhaps some Congressional Committee should take him up on the offer. But please -- without any grants of immunity!

Al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia Claims April Attack on Airport in Al-Qaseem

By Evan Kohlmann

Al-Qaida's Committee in the Arabian Peninsula has taken responsibility for an alleged sabotage attack in late April on helicopters parked at an airport in Al-Qaseem, Saudi Arabia.  According to a statement dated June 11, Al-Qaida claimed that its operatives breached airport security and destroyed three helicopters in retribution for their role in recent counterterrorism raids.  Al-Qaida also called upon its faithful in Saudi Arabia to "prepare as much jihad power as you can to fight your enemies... Do not let fear deter you from your Jihad� Commence your operations in fighting against the enemies of almighty Allah because if you do, then the truth behind your enemies will be revealed and defeating them will become easier."   

Click to view English translation c/o Globalterroralert.com

Hezbollah drug ring broken up in Ecuador

By Matthew Levitt

One June 21, 2005 Ecuadorian police announced their success in breaking up an international drug trafficking ring led by a Lebanese restaurant owner, Rady Zaiter, residing in Quito, Ecuador. According to the police report, evidence �confirms the relationship between this organization and the terrorist movement Hezbollah.� The document further explains that the criminal ring, which earned millions of dollars by exporting cocaine, sent �up to 70 percent of its profits� to Hezbollah.� Ecuadorian police maintained that each drug shipment was worth around one million dollars.

Zaiter (who also was known under the aliases David Assi Alvarez and Almawla Fares) was arrested in Bogota, Columbia last week, and five other men, from Lebanon, Syria, Nigeria, Algeria, and Turkey, along with one Ecuadorian woman, were detained in Ecuador for their suspected involvement with the cocaine-smuggling ring. Ecuadorian police also seized over 170,000 U.S. dollars, 2,000 euros, vehicles and weapons as part of the operation. In Brazil, nineteen other members of the Hezbollah ring were arrested along with $65 million worth of cocaine.

The drugs, bound for Europe, the Middle East, and the rest of South America, were hidden in suitcases or in the stomachs of couriers. According to the police report, Ecuadorian airport officials were recruited or bribed so that the smugglers could evade security checks.

Dismantling this network is a victory in both the war on drugs and war on terror, but proves that the threat posed by Middle East terrorist networks that use countries throughout the world as hubs for fundraising and recruitment purposes is very real. For more on the threat of the cooperation between drug trafficking wings and terrorist networks, read �Hezbollah: Financing Terror Through Criminal Enterprise.�

Contributing Expert Matthew Levitt Testifies at Sami Al-Arian Trial

By Andrew Cochran

Contributing Expert Matthew Levitt testified yesterday at the Sami Al-Arian trial in Tampa, on the concept of "economic jihad" that he discussed here on June 16. Matthew also identified several founders of PIJ, including Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, a former Tampa resident and director of a Palestinian think tank founded by Al-Arian, and the commander of the PIJ since 1995. And from the AP story on the trial: "Also named by Levitt as founders of the PIJ were Bashir Musa Mohammed Nafi, who worked as a researcher at Al-Arian's think tank until he was deported in 1996, and Abd Al Aziz Awda, known as the spiritual leader of the movement who has spoken at conferences organized by Al-Arian."

Zarqawi Denies the Arrests of His Lieutenants, Declares the Formation of an All-Iraqi Suicide Squad

By Evan Kohlmann

Al-Qaida's Jihad Committee in Iraq--led by wanted Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--has officially denied recent claims that assistants loyal to Zarqawi have been arrested in Mosul and in Madrid, Spain.  The statements came in the wake of an announcement last week by the Iraqi government concerning the capture of senior Al-Qaida leader Abu Talha al-Mosuli (a.k.a. Mohammed Khalaf Shakar).  Al-Qaida's Committee in Iraq has also declared the formation of an all-Iraqi suicide brigade--known as the Al-Ansar Martyrs Brigade--that was created as a branch of another Al-Qaida unit known as the Al-Baraa bin Malik Brigade.

Click to view English translations c/o Globalterroralert.com:
- June 17 denial of the capture of assistants to al-Zarqawi
- June 21 denial of the capture of assistants to al-Zarqawi
- June 21 formation of the Al-Ansar Martyrs Brigade in Iraq

FBI GETS BUM RAP

By Larry Johnson

by
Larry C Johnson

The latest reports bashing the FBI for dropping the ball in dealing with terrorism are misleading and wrong. (news link)

I don't have a dog in this fight because I never worked for the FBI nor do I work on FBI contracts. No financial interest here. My experience is confined to the CIA and the State Department. However I have worked with a variety of FBI agents over the last 16 years on terrorism issues and have had a chance to observe first hand their capabilities and qualifications. The pre-9-11 FBI had significant problems. The Counter Terrorism shop, for example, was known within the FBI as the "latte" division because they were always off to Starbucks for a caffeine fix. Nonetheless, they had some genuine success, better than the CIA in fact, in penetrating the Al Qaeda cells. They had recruited at least 3 informants within the AQ ranks. Part of the 9-11 failure was caused by the refusal of FBI HQs personnel to listen to field agents. Remember the FBI guy in Arizona who raised the red flag about the muslims training as pilots? That memo was filed away and ignored.

In the post-9-11 environment Robert Mueller has faced some daunting tasks. How do you reform a recalcitrant, hidebound bureaucracy? Compared to DOD or CIA the FBI has made the most strides of any of the Federal bureaucracies in ramping up to deal with the terrorist threat. The guys brought in to run the Counter Terrorsim effort since 9-11 have been first rate and have had CT experience. Larry Mefford, for example, headed the FBI counter terror effort in 2003. I worked with him back in 1989 when he was the FBI rep assigned to the Foreign Emergency Support Team (an interagency counter terrorism response cell) at State. Not only was he knowledgeable about terrorism but he knew how to run operations and pursue successful investigations. When Mueller tapped him to lead the CT effort at the FBI Mefford helped lead the charge in getting the FBI ready to respond to terrorist events. When an Iranian backed terrorist team blew up a US military apartment building in Saudi Arabia in 1996 the FBI just gathered up any agents they could find and put them on a plane. In many cases you had guys being sent overseas who had only been outside of their home state in order to go thru FBI training. Mefford instituted "fly" teams, which are FBI agents who have language and culture training to work an investigation in a particular geographic region. In other words, if there is a terrorist incident in Iraq the FBI is sending investigators who have Arabic language and culture training.

The FBI is not just sitting around waiting until something happens. They have been very proactive in ferreting out terrorist plots. I have shared an exercise control group seat with the FBI agent who carried off the sting in China that trapped Muslim terrorists selling drugs to acquire man portable surface to air missiles. FBI has also made some important strides in developing information management systems.

Finally, and most astonishing from my standpoint, the FBI is actually putting out intelligence drawn from investigations. CIA and DIA analysts, for example, are now reading FBI FISA material. That's a first.

While there are problems at the FBI caused by the simple fact it is a Washington bureaucracy, Robert Mueller for my money has been something of a miracle worker in pushing the FBI to a new level of competence. He deserves a lot of the credit for the fact that we haven't been hit again since 9-11.

Saudis Dominant Among Foreign Fighters in Iraq

By Evan Kohlmann

According to data compiled by Globalterroralert.com since June 2003, over 50% of known casualties among foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi Arabian nationals.  A total of 300 foreign fighters were included in the study, including 165 men from various locations in Saudi Arabia--including Riyadh, at-Taif, Jeddah, Hail, Mecca, and Hafr al-Batin.  Syrian nationals were the next most populous group of foreign fighter casualties in Iraq, numbering 38 or approximately 13%.

Click to view Globalterroralert.com analysis

Saudi Arabia -- Promises, Promises!

By Victor Comras

According to a press report in the June 19th Issue of Arab News, Saudi Maj. Gen Mansour Al-Turki, the Spokesman for Saudi Arabia�s Ministry of Interior announced that �The Interior Ministry is in the final stages of completing the procedures for establishing a department which will track down illegal financial activities.� On its face this looks like good news. But, the problem is that this is the umpteenth time over the last three years that officials have made such an announcement. A look back over the record shows that the Saudi Embassy in Washington has claimed the existence of such a unit since late 2002. Similar annoucements were made in November 2003 and March 2004. Despite these claims US Treasury UnderSecretary Stuart Levey, on May 23, 2005 called Saudi Arabia to task for failing to move ahead with its promised anti-terrorism financing structure. In that speech he said, "For too long, wealthy donors and multinational charities in Saudi Arabia were underwriting terrorism of all kinds, without any meaningful controls. Since 9/11, our government has worked aggressively to press the Saudis to take action against these financiers and to clean up their charitable sector.... We impatiently await the creation of a commission to monitor the charitable sector, and continue to insist that this commission regulate all Saudi charities, without exception of such groups as the Muslim World League and the International Islamic Relief Organization, or "IIRO." Can we hope that this annoucement really presages the establishment of the anti-terrorism financing mechanisms so long promised by Saudi Arabia.

Biometric Travel Documents -- Europe Continues to Argue -- While the US Agrees to Further Postponement

By Victor Comras

A fresh debate is raging in Europe over the efficacy of biometic passports and identity cards. This new debate is just getting started and follows closely on a US decision to grant European Countries an additional year to get their biometric documents in order for visa-less entry into the United States. Biometric document requirements, including digital photographs and integrated chips in passports, were originally to come into effect under the Visit USA Visa Waiver program in October 2004. The chips were to contain essential biometric data for identification purposes. But no-one was ready, so the program was delayed a year. Now Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has announced a further one year extension until October 2006 for the use of the required biodata inpregnated integrated chips in passports. New passports will have to contain digital photographs, but passports issued without digital photos prior to October 26 will continue to be valid for visa waiver travel, provided the passports are machine readable. Otherwise, travelers will be required to obtain a visa for entry into the United States. The US now provides visa exemptions for 27 countries. Some 15 million people entered the US last year under the waiver program.

This gives Europeans at least another year to argue about privacy issues and the efficacy and cost of biometric documents. New data gathered by government agencies and interest groups around Europe have cast doubt about both cost and effectivenss. A study conducted by a French group � the Forum for Internet Rights, seriously questions whether biometric identity documents can serve to counter terrorism and fraud. They estimated the new documents would cost Europeans some 200 million Euros per year. They also warn that the collection and inclusion of biometric data on travel documents would seriously undercut EU protected personal data privacy safeguards. A similar study by the London School of Economics estimates that the UK�s own biometric identity card system would cost over $500 per card. That report also questions the current reliability of biometric technology. Meanwhile, strong differences continue in national capitals and Brussels as to which technology to use. Well, Europe has another year, at least, during which they can argue for another one year extension. In the meantime please read the disquieting Blog on Fake Documents by Bill West following this posting.

Illegals + Fake Docs + Real Nukes = BIG Problems

By Bill West

The Associated Press and Washington Post today reported that sixteen suspected illegal alien construction workers with false immigration documents were able to enter and work in the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant near Knoxville, Tennessee.