The leaders, as part of Chávez's oil-fueled regional "Bolivarian revolution," have twisted their constitutions like pretzels, run roughshod over due process, worked to silence the press, concentrated power in their own hands, and fomented violence against the legal political opposition. In addition to their current autocratic and anti-democratic governing styles, Ortega led a violent, successful revolution and Chávez led an unsuccessful military coup attempt, making their outrage over a constitutional maneuver, no matter how questionable, ring hollow.

What is more disturbing is the growing ties between the Bolivarian revolutionary states and armed groups in Latin America and across the world, their open embrace of Iran, and the teaching of terrorist methodologies pioneered by radical Islamists as official military doctrine. The sole point of convergence between the Iranian theocracy and the secular Bolivarian populists is a deep hatred for the United States and liberal democracy. Zelaya, hooked on subsidized Venezuelan oil, was following the same autocratic and anti-democratic path pioneered by Chávez and joining an alliance that has strangled democratic development wherever the Bolivarian revolution has taken root.

Zelaya's ouster is the first clear sign that there will be a reaction against the abuses and excesses of the Bolivarian model of radical populism, megalomania and violence, often called "popular democracy" and described as 21st Century socialism. The concern of Chávez and his allies have for Zelaya has much more to do with a fear that the reaction against them will grow than it does with any commitment to democracy. A successful removal of Zelaya could be a model for their own demise.

Make no mistake. Giving the military a leading role in a political drama in Honduras may be akin to giving a pyromaniac matches and can of kerosene. It can end badly. I covered Honduras for 20 years and reported extensively both on the military's egregious human rights abuses and voracious economic appetite that sucked the national coffers dry, although the troops have stayed in the barracks for more than two decades.

But look at the alternatives. Zelaya was illegally attempting the same political move successfully executed by Chávez and Morales-a constitutional change that would allow him to stay in power indefinitely-always among the first actions of the Bolivarian leaders. The nation's supreme court ruled that his attempted referendum was unconstitutional. His party broke with him, his attorney general said it was illegal and the army refused to cooperate in light of the court ruling. Yet Zelaya proceeded, after leading a crowd to burn an army installation in protest of the institution's failure to defy the supreme court decision. He was flown into exile at gunpoint and replaced by Roberto Micheletti, of his own party and head of the National Assembly. Micheletti promises to hold scheduled presidential elections this year and not be a candidate. Time will tell.

The Honduras situation leaves the United States with difficult options. How the Obama administration handles this challenge against a government that was in the process of breaching the constitutional order will have powerful repercussions across Latin America. Similar challenges could appear in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Ecuador as the Bolivarian governments move to consolidate their hold on power and meet resistance.

It is tempting to see the restoration of Zelaya as the democratic imperative, and most of the international community is pressing for this outcome, while not endorsing Chávez's threats of violence. The Organization of American States is set to impose a series of crippling economic sanctions if Zelaya is not allowed to return in some form. But it is worth looking further at the implications of the Boliviarian revolution writ large.

It has been almost two decades since the democratic processes began in Central America, and a few years more since South America moved from military dictatorships and coups to liberal democracies with imperfect but improving institutional processes, transparency and freedoms. I lived in Latin America during civil wars and the difficult transition from decades of brutal authoritarian regimes to the fragile democratic structures, built through sweat and blood.

These still-fragile democracies are now in danger of being choked by the new radical populism, fueled by oil money, deep disillusionment with the corruption and mismanagement of the traditional political classes and exclusion based on race and class. The need for deep reform certainly exists. But Chávez's model is not the solution.

Reasons for deep concern about the spread of the Bolivarian revolution are far deeper than simple ideological disputes, and Zelaya's actions are only one piece of a wider pattern. The threat of Chávez and his allies goes to the heart of the region's democratic processes and institutionality. While the moves against civil society and institutions have been amply documented, the contours of the broader threat of the Bolivarian alliance and its ties to radical Islamist regimes, particularly Iran, are now clearer.

Venezuela has adopted an official military doctrine that is based on strategies Hezbollah and other radical Islamist groups are already practicing, and one embraced to a significant degree by Iran, the primary state sponsor of those groups. The embrace of this doctrine provides an important link in understanding the ties of Venezuela and its allies to Iran.

Since 2005 Chávez has rewritten Venezuela's security doctrine, replacing "imperialist" influences with a doctrine centered on asymmetrical warfare, in the belief that the primary threat to Venezuelan and Latin American security is a U.S. invasion. This doctrine is being taught by Venezuelan instructors to the militaries of Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras.

One of the main books Chávez has adopted is Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetrical Warfare by the Spanish politician Jorge Verstrynge. Although he is not a Muslim Verstrynge's book lauds radical Islam (as well as past terrorists like Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, better known as Carlos the Jackal) for expanding the parameters of what irregular warfare can encompass, including the use of biological and nuclear weapons. He is particularly taken with suicide bombers, whom he praises for their willingness to die for the cause. Verstrynge has lauded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for creating a new type of warfare that is "de-territorialized, de-stateized and de-nationalized," a war where suicide bombers act as "atomic bombs for the poor."

Chávez invited Verstrynge to give keynote address to military leaders in a 2005 conference and ordered a special pocket size edition of the book to be printed up and distributed throughout the officer corps, to be studied cover to cover.

The fascination with asymmetrical warfare may explain why Chávez and other members of the Bolivarian axis maintain close ties to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated terrorist and drug trafficking organization by both the United States and the European Union. Chávez personally requested that the FARC train Venezuelan military and militias in guerrilla warfare in case of a U.S. invasion.

These actions are part of why many who viewed the Bolivarian revolutions in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras with hope are now turning away in disillusionment. With more and more avenues of legitimate protest, dissent and political change cut off, there few options to return to the values so many fought for in decades past-freedom of speech, the rule of law, unfettered media, a separation of powers and chance to replace poor governments with better ones in regularly scheduled elections. Zelaya's removal was evokes old school methods and appears to be ill-considered. But the Obama administration needs to weigh the bigger picture before handing Chávez and his allies an easy victory by backing Zelaya under the illusion that such a move will bring advance democracy in Honduras or Latin America.

Here is an excerpt:

An impending threat from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist group has prompted security establishments to raise an alert along India’s western sea-coast. According to intelligence sources, the LeT’s marine wing is planning a Mumbai-type incursion to target vital installations in the three coastal states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Goa. The group is also reported to have funneled huge amounts of money from its Gulf-based networks to fund jihad activities in India (Times of India, June 30). This is not an isolated intelligence alert. The threat emanating from the LeT was partially revealed following the recent arrest of Muhammad Omar Madni, a close associate of LeT/Jamaat-ud- Dawa chief Hafeez Muhammad Saeed. The arrest and interrogation of Madni revealed several startling details, including new routes used by terrorists, the location of bases inside and outside India, terrorist finances, and the recruitment strategy of Lashkar-e-Taiba.

...........
Besides the usual routes of intrusion in Jammu and Kashmir, LeT has managed to build alternate routes through the porous borders of Nepal and Bangladesh while establishing bases in the Gulf countries. Investigating agencies have now confirmed that LeT is working on a new strategy which involves using Dubai as the center of planning for future strikes against India (India Today, June 22). Past and ongoing terror investigations suggest the Gulf countries have been the major hubs for LeT terrorists and many terrorist plots against India are now hatched outside Pakistan’s territory.
.......
Mumbai’s crime branch probe revealed that the November 2008 Mumbai terror events were financed by LeT’s Gulf cells and Gulf-based operatives masterminded and executed a series of blasts in Indian urban centers ( Bangalore, Ahmadabad, Delhi and Surat) in 2008. These operations were carried out in collusion with militants of the Indian Mujahedeen (IM) and the proscribed Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).

While investigating the August 2003 twin blasts in Mumbai (car bombs at the Gateway of India and the Zaveri Bazaar), Mumbai Police unearthed a strong Dubai link. The plot was hatched by LeT’s Dubai operatives, who colluded with sleeper cells in Hyderabad, Ernakulum and Chennai. The blasts were claimed by an unknown group—the “Gujarat Muslim Revenge Force” (GMRF)—one of the many groups set up by SIMI and LeT following the 2002 Gujarat communal riots to avenge atrocities perpetrated against the Muslim community (Press Trust of India, October 10, 2003). Hanif, one of the Lashkar militants arrested in connection with the blasts, reportedly told police about the planning, logistics and targets of the LeT’s GMRF wing. Since 1993, Hanif worked in Dubai as an electrician and was sent to Mumbai in September 2002 to organize and execute the attacks. Police also interrogated Hanif about his ties to Basheer, a fugitive SIMI figure who fled to Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and one Abu Hamza, affiliated to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) (Frontline [Chennai], September 13-26, 2003).

The recent spurt of terror activities by the LeT in India has a direct connection to contributions from the Gulf-based cells that have planned and financed most of the group’s operations. The LeT’s Gulf based networks are becoming the lifeline for LeT/JuD operations in Pakistan and India. With this threat in view, India is now seeking a comprehensive anti-terrorism treaty with the Gulf nations. For now, Madani and Nawaz’s confessions have provided investigating agencies an outline of the shape of things to come regarding the LeT’s plans for terrorist operations in India.

For Complete Issue, Read Here.

An English translation of the AQIM communique can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website.

According to the announcement on the HTA conference web site, the conference will still be held on July 19th, from 11 am to 5 pm, as originally planned.

The Hilton Oak Lawn reservations department does not have any record of guest rooms held under the name "Hizb ut-Tahrir," or "Khilafah Conference," or "Fall of Capitalism & Rise of Islam." The Hilton's catering department, which keeps a record of the organizations that have booked event spaces at the hotel, was not open at the time of the publication of this article; therefore, it cannot be determined at this time whether HTA booked under its own name or if it has used a cover name to reserve the Grand Ballroom. *** UPDATE: 7/2/09 - Hizb ut-Tahrir reserved the banquet space at the hotel under its own name and apparently did not find it necessary to use a cover name. ***

For more information on HTA and the Khilafah Conference, please see my recent posts on the Counterterrorism Blog.

But the more the FBI confronted him with its painstakingly-gathered evidence - documents, videos, witnesses and interrogations of other regime detainees - the harder it had been for Saddam to lie, spin or obfuscate. By May 2004, he was still defiant - but the chinks in his armor were noticeable.

He admitted as a point of pride that he was “responsible” for everything his regime did, good or bad.

FBI Agent George Piro had mostly kept Saddam in the dark about current events, forcing him to reckon with the hell he brought on his own people. Now it was time to show the ex-dictator he was no longer in charge of anything more than his own thoughts. Now it was time to humiliate him over his failures. Only then would he come clean about what propelled the U.S. and Iraq into war, agents reasoned.

In the FBI’s 21st interrogation session, Saddam asked what was making headlines. He was told Iraq had signed a new constitution, was about to regain its sovereignty, had a new all-Iraqi Governing Council and that elections were on the way. None of that made him happy, according to the Bureau’s files.

Next came intense discussions about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. “Iraq does not have any WMD and has not for some time,” the FBI reported back to Washington, summing up Saddam’s responses. (Charles Duelfer - who had taken over the WMD hunt from the CIA’s David Kay in January - was coming up just as empty as his predecessor.)

Why had he rejected UN weapons inspections and defied President Bush? Saddam’s answer - one never seriously considered inside the Beltway before the 2003 invasion - was shockingly credible. “Even though Hussein claimed Iraq did not have WMD, the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors,” the FBI reported.

Read my full post - with FBI source documents - on Saddam's WMD and Al Qaeda explanations at the New York Daily News' Mouth of the Potomac Blog.

It is hard, on the surface, to imagine what a secular revolution that allows women on the beach in bikinis, salsa music, racy soap operas and rum has in common with a theocracy that tolerates none of those things and believes that divine law should rule the world.

One of the primary unifying threads in the joint narrative is the utopian vision that a human system can be devised that will bring justice and peace. Hence, from this vision, both groups construct a narrative of heroic battling against the earthly forces of evil and corruption, and both have chosen the United States as its primary enemy, followed closely by other liberal democracies that, in their view, have failed to live up to the utopian ideals.

This is where, as I have written about before, the joint fascination with asymmetrical warfare and its desirability meshes with the larger story line. Both sides view themselves as small powers taking on vast world powers, a David and Goliath narrative that imbues a sense of inevitable ultimate victory with the need to find the weapons that will lead to the defeat of enemy.

The keynote speaker at the Hudson event, Spanish parliamentarian Gustavo de Arístegui, has written that those in this alliance, whether secular or religious, view themselves as "legitimate soldiers in an heroic battle within the context of an asymmetrical war of liberation. It is a theory that justifies any kind of violence, including terrorism, if it is used against the most powerful countries, the repressive forces of the West."

This view of the heroism of the actions is in part what gives such a dangerously romantic view of suicide bombings, as espoused in the book Chavez has adopted as official military doctrine: Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetrical Warfare (Guerra Periferica y el Islam
Revolucionario: Orígenes, Reglas y Ética de la Guerra Asimétrica) by the Spanish politician and ideologue Jorge Verstrynge. I have written about that more extensively in a previous post.

There is little doubt that this tactical alliance would shatter if either side were to gain significant ground. The Islamists have shown, particularly in the Iranian revolution that was viewed initially by many as triumph of secular, reformist forces, that it will eat the young revolutionaries for lunch.

But for now, the common view of the struggle against the West, bound by a narrative both can offer as an explanation for their actions, is sufficient. The common enemy is there, and the weapons for the struggle can be obtained.

One of the dangers of this narrative is not just the seduction it holds for messianic leaders like Chavez in Venezuela and Ahmadinejad in Iran, but the lure it holds for non-state armed groups like the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), who increasingly find themselves isolated and without a coherent reason to continue the revolution.

Chavez's willingness to embrace and help write this narrative means that he has shared with his allies in the FARC, and why his pro forma protestations of not supporting the revolutionary cause are meaningless, and will remain so. The FARC needs to articulate a reason for its continuation in the armed struggle. The narrative not only offers that, but well-trained allies (Hezbollah particularly) who can help them advance once a common agenda is established. And that is truly alarming.
(NOTE: My personal site is still under attack. Apologies).

But, as we first reported in the New York Daily News in 2007, Piro - backed up by a team of FBI agents and crack CIA analysts - knew Saddam’s history too well. Where there were gaps, Piro was able to parry with the imprisoned leader to get credible answers. “High Value Detainee-1” was soon blabbing so freely it was hard for him to keep his lies intact.

Once secret FBI files on the Saddam interrogations, which I have been reporting the past week, show that as the weeks wore on Saddam opened up more and more. The FBI-CIA team leveraged its strategy to “overwhelm” - and break - Saddam by confronting the deposed dictator with evidence of his crimes against humanity.

He was soon boasting of terrible misdeeds against his own people - in order to set the historical record straight, which Piro had encouraged.

On Mar. 21, 2004, the FBI team in Baghdad reported they had conducted 16 interviews of Saddam and a dozen with his former henchmen, including ex-foreign minister Tariq Aziz and a death-dealing thug nicknamed “Chemical Ali.” Noting Saddam’s willingness to engage in “dialogue, not an interrogation,” the FBI’s Baghdad agents told Washington that Piro spent several sessions “discussing non-threatening topics,” and that Saddam felt relaxed enough “to talk freely and to boast of past accomplishments.”

But Saddam also quit eating in some unexplained protest, the FBI memo said - though he had grown so dependant on the G-man providing for all his needs that “Hussein announced he was ending his hunger strike for the benefit of SSA Piro.”

“As the rapport and dependency between Hussein and SSA Piro continues to grow, more complex topics are being introduced into the interviews,” such as detailed questions about gassing Kurds in northern Iraq and suppressing the 1991 Shi’a uprising, the once-secret memo reported.

“In the past, Hussein would have refused to discuss these topics. However, he has increasingly allowed himself to be drawn into discussions… [due] to the non-threatening manner in which they are being posed,” the FBI file said.

More on how the FBI needled Saddam into confessing his crimes in my full post at the Daily News' Mouth of the Potomac Blog.

The Pakistani army has initiated military offensive code named “Rah-e- Nijat” in Waziristan to quell terrorist movement there, after flushing out Taliban/TNSM militants from Swat and Malakand region. The government claimed that military operation in Swat is nearing end. However, on the ground, the operation “ Rah-e-Rast” is far from over in Malakand region as security forces are still holding search and sweep operations in Swat and Dir areas. In Upper Dir’s Ghazi Gai area, Taliban and local militias are still confronting each other. It is believed that most of the senior Taliban leaders operating in Swat have either fled to Waziristan or crossed the border to Afghanistan.

Started since Mid June, the ongoing Waziristan operation targets Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan chief Baitullah Mehsud and his band of terrorists, including suspected al Qaeda leaderships hiding in the area. In the latest wave of operations in Ladha and Wana in South Waziristan, Taliban hideouts were targeted. In North Waziristan also security forces are engaged with Taliban militants who have been resorting to ambush tactics on security convoys and IED attacks recently. While the military engaged in shelling Taliban/al Qaeda hideouts there, the government has offered millions of rupees as head money for any information on Mehsud and his accomplices from South Waziristan, Bajaur, Mohmand, and Darra Adamkhel. The other Taliban leaders with head money were identified as Molvi Faqir, Abdul Wali, Qari Shakeel, Hakimullah Mehsud and Qari Hussain.

Taliban’s 'Ustad-e-Fidayeen' Qari Hussain, a close aide of Baitullah Mehsud and chief trainer for suicide bombers, was reportedly among many killed in US drone attacks in South Waziristan recently. However, there is no confirmation as such about his death till now.

The intra-fighting within Taliban leaderships emerged when Turkistan Bhittani, a dissident Taliban militant commander has spoken out against TTP’s Baitullah Meshud. Much before Bhittani’s resentment, another dissident Taliban commander Qari Zainuddin raised the standard of revolt. He was later killed by Baitullah’s followers in Dera Ismail Khan.

Taliban’s tentacles reached Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK) last week when a suicide bomber blew himself up targeting an army vehicle in Muzaffarabad, in an apparent retaliation of June 23 drone (U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles) attacks in South Waziristan. For the first time Taliban forces marked their presence in PAK region which traditionally dominated by ‘Kashmir-India- Centric’ terrorist outfits like HIzbul Mujahidin, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish- e- Muhammad.

Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik in an interview indicated that Swat like situation might arise in south Punjab where a fleeing Taliban could take shelter. Meanwhile, in the latest search operations around Punjab province, Pakistan security forces have arrested nearly 40 suspected terrorists from various parts of the Punjab province as part of a countrywide crackdown. From the capital Islamabad, at least 25 pro-Taliban militants were arrested who were plotting attacks against vital installations and Embassies and security establishments. In Karachi, city police managed to bust a Taliban hideout and neutralized five close associates of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan Chief Baitullah Mehsud in a shootout near Gadap town.

It seems the war against Taliban forces in Pakistan will be long and winding one. The war in Swat province may be over soon, but for now, Islamabad administration is more concerned about the spill-over Taliban forces who might take shelters in or trying to regroup in volatile Waziristan, or Punjab and exterminating the top Taliban leadership there.

Previous Briefs on Swat Operation and Anti-Taliban offensive in Pakistan:

1."Taliban Retaliation, Tribal Backlash and 'Greater Pakhtunistan' Buzz" (June 7, 2009)
2."Rampaging Taliban Militants Spread Chaos Across Pakistan" (May 31, 2009)
3."Rah-e-Rast, Desperate Taliban and Divided Elites" ( May 20, 2009)
4."War, Disintegration and other Narratives" (May 5, 2009)
5. "Keeping an Eye on the Resurgent Taliban" (April 27, 2009)

By mid-February 2004, FBI Supervisory Special Agent George Piro had sat down with Saddam Hussein three times - as I reported exclusively for the New York Daily News on Friday - and listened to the toppled tyrant yap away about his great accomplishments leading ragtag Iraq out of the Stone Age.

The FBI prides itself on “rapport-based” interrogations that have a high success rate for yielding confessions from the likes of 1993 World trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and CIA headquarters killer Mir Aimal Kasi. There was no “ticking bomb” scenario with Saddam - just inherent political pressure - so the interrogation proceeded carefully and cautiously over months.

The strategy involved executing a subtle emotional attack, digging out Saddam’s soft spots and exploiting them. Prick his ego.

Saddam had revealed little, so far - and neither had Piro - other than stating he remained in Baghdad until the day before his capital fell to American-led forces in April 2003. He said he instructed his henchmen in a final meeting, “We will struggle in secret.” After fleeing Baghdad, he gradually dispersed his bodyguards one by one to avoid drawing Coalition forces’ attention. Saddam had evaded capture for nine months, until U.S. viceroy Paul Bremer made his famous exultation in December 2003: “Ladies and gentleman, we got him!”

Piro asked if Saddam ever used body doubles, as was widely believed. “No, of course not,” he scoffed. “This is movie magic, not reality.”

But as the fourth interrogation began on Feb. 13, Saddam wanted answers from Piro.

“Let me ask a direct question. I want to ask where … has the information been going? For our relationship to remain clear, I want to know,” he demanded. Piro replied that he was a “representative of the U.S. Government” and told Saddam many U.S. officials saw his reports, and that readership “may include the President of the United States.” Saddam seemed pleased, commenting that he did “not mind” if the interviews were published.

Piro turned to Saddam’s WMD stockpiles but his quarry brushed it off, saying, “We destroyed them. We told you… By God, if I had such weapons, I would have used them in the fight against the U.S.” Hadn’t Saddam’s own decision to defy the UN on WMD inspections led to crippling sanctions and then a war that ousted him from power? “This is your opinion. I answered,” the stonewaller said. “We (Iraqis) are among the few remaining cavaliers.”

Read my full post on how the FBI began to whittle away at Saddam’s ego - as well as the FBI source documents - at the Daily News' Mouth of the Potomac Blog.

The Aqsa School, an Islamic school located in Bridgeview, Illinois, was announced as the conference venue in the promotional video that was released by HTA earlier this month. The HTA conference web site provides no further explanation for the cancellation. The Aqsa School web site does not mention the Khilfafah Conference-- officially titled "Fall of Capitalism and Rise of Islam"-- or the subsequent cancellation.

It is possible that the school did not welcome the association with HTA, which adheres to extremist Islamist ideology. It is also possible that the board and administrators of the school anticipated unwelcome attention from the public and government officials as a result of hosting the conference.

HTA intends to find a new venue in which to hold the conference, according to the conference web site. Now that HTA has come out publicly, and is thus openly linked to the Khilafah Conference concept, it may be difficult for it to find a venue willing to host the event.

To read more about HTA's history, and its transition from covert to public operating status, please see my recent post on the Counterterrorism Blog.

We are now faced with an even more dangerous Iran – An Iran in the throes of a domestic upheaval that has illegitimized the government as representative of the Iranian people, hardened its position vis a vis the outside world, and made productive dialogue with Iran’s current leaders a virtual impossibility. What Western government leader would, in the present context, now be willing to engage with, and thereby strengthen and re-legitimize the Ahmadinejad administration and his Mullah regime overseers?

Yet, through all the turmoil in Iran there is no indication that those now ruling Iran have indicated any willingness to change course, or slow down their unmonitored uranium enrichment and their daily advances toward nuclear weapons capability. Each day brings Iran closer to that irreversible point after which Iran’s neighbors, and the rest of the world, must consider Iran to be nuclear weapons capable. It is that point that risks setting off an unstoppable proliferation of nuclear weapons programs in the Middle East, and beyond.

If dialogue with the current Iranian regime is not now possible, other options must be pursued. And the one option that stands out is for the West to apply significant sanctions pressure against the Ahmadinejad regime, and the mullahs, IRGC and other quasi military forces that are upholding it. We don’t need a UN Security Council resolution to accomplish this. But, we do need our European allies and friends, and other countries opposed to what is going on in Iran to join us in apply such measures. Europe remains the key. Western Europe alone accounts for Iran’s largest slice of trade and largest sources of revenues. Together we must impress also on the UAE, and especially Dubai, that it can no longer do business as usual with Iran with regard to circumventing sanctions Iran, or providing Iran’s corrupt leaders a safe place to deposit their money.

Let’s be clear. The low-impact sanctions now on the table simply will not work. We need to move forward now on putting in place sanctions that really target Iran’s political and economic vulnerabilities – the elements that can truly heighten the stress on its leaders. These vulnerabilities include Iran’s fragile financial system, Iran’s energy sector, Iran’s transportation and communication sector, and Iran’s elite investment entities..

Iran’s leaders will only change course if and when they are convinced that the international community will, in fact, take the steps necessary to deprive them of the resources they depend on to retain their positions of power and authority, or that they have squirreled away. Iran’s Mullahs and favored business leaders must be made to feel the pinch of sanctions. So far they have enjoyed a free ride, and with corruption running high throughout Iran’s ruling circles, there is quite a bit of their money outside Iran that could and should be frozen.

Europe, Japan and Canada should be convinced to join with us now also in cutting off Iran’s access to high tech items, including potentially dual-use, equipment and expertise. Together, we must put Dubai and the freeport of Jebel Ali on notice that we will no longer countenance their acting as intermediaries for transshipments of such goods to Iran.

With a daily consumption of more than 18 million gallons of gasoline Iran must now import some 180 to 200 million gallons of gasoline per month. The availability of gasoline exports to Iran should be curtailed. Rising petroleum prices have already been the cause of civil unrest, and gasoline shortages could have a significant impact on local business activity and put increased pressure on Iranian leaders to alter course.
Europe, Canada and Japan should also act restrict Iranian ship access to their ports, and refuse to insure or re-insure, or at least impose extra premiums on insuring, Iranian ships and cargoes.

Travel restrictions on Iran’s leaders should also be broadened, and cultural, sporting and scientific exchanges with Iran curtailed.

These are examples of measure that can be taken now to convince Iran we mean business. These are the kind of measures that give us our last best chance of heading off a graver crisis just a few years down the road.

Al-Qaeda and its network are our most serious immediate threat, they may not be our most serious long-term threat….[Hezbollah] has developed capabilities that Al-Qaeda can only dream of, including large quantities of missiles and highly sophisticated explosives.

Hezbollah may be the 'A-Team of Terrorists' and maybe al-Qaeda is actually the 'B' team.

In 1992, exactly one month after Israel assassinated Hezbollah Secretary-General Abbas al-Musawi, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed. Two years later, on July 18, 1994 Hezbollah bombed the Jewish communal offices in Buenos Aires, at least partially in response to Israel’s capture of Hezbollah leader Mustafa Dirani on May 21 and a bombing of a Hezbollah training camp on June 2.

In contrast, it has been almost a year and a half since Hezbollah terror master-mind Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated. Hezbollah has threatened revenge against Israel for the assassination of Mughniyeh. But attempts to kidnap Israeli tourists and bomb the Israeli embassy in Baku have been foiled. Azerbaijan borders Iran and Iran has a very large Azerbaijani population, so Hezbollah and its IRGC allies should have had a relatively easy time carrying out an attack.

Has Hezbollah’s ability to launch an attack deteriorated, or is it merely biding its time? In and of itself, this is an important question – but it achieves even greater significance in light of the unstable situation in Iran. One constraint on Western action is the concern of long-range terror by Hezbollah and its allies in the IRGC. If that threat is not be as significant as previously assessed, then one barrier to action is lowered.

Read the full post here.

These were vital - but still unanswered - questions when the Iraqi despot was yanked out of a spider hole in December 2003 and placed in U.S. military detention. Lives were at stake - along with the entire political rationale for the U.S.-led coalition invading Iraq. Only one man could say for sure, and now that the U.S. finally had him in custody, they had to find out.

There was only one way: Break Saddam.

The FBI’s newly-declassified interrogation files on Saddam Hussein, reported exclusively in yesterday’s New York Daily News, stand in contrast to the dark view espoused by Team Bush: extreme interrogation techniques extract confessions from “high-value” detainees who resist questioning.

The CIA and FBI were intent on getting Saddam to explain what happened to the missing weapons of mass destruction, his operational ties - if any - to Al Qaeda and admit his own crimes against humanity by gassing and slaughtering his own people. CIA WMD hunter David Kay had resigned in frustration in late January 2004, and the missing arsenal was vexing Team Bush just as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was beginning his probe of the White House over leaks in retaliation against Iraq war critic Joe Wilson.

The pressure was intense.

A young, Arabic-speaking, Lebanese-American FBI agent named George Piro was picked to get Saddam to confess. Detailed interrogation plans were drawn up, and Piro sat down with one of the most brutally ruthless world leaders of the late 20th century, prepared to play mental chess with a master of manipulation, whose intelligence ranged from cunning street smarts to quirky political intuition.

The first FBI interrogation of Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti - in a program codenamed “Desert Spider” - took place Feb. 7, 2004, in a dingy cell at Baghdad International Airport. Memos obtained by The News through a 2006 Freedom of Information Act request for Saddam’s file show that top FBI and Justice Department officials had decided Feb. 6 not to read high-value detainees Miranda rights or to identify interrogators to detainees in any way other than as “representatives of the United States Government” or “U.S. Government agents.” Saddam assumed Piro was a top Bush aide - not a low-ranking street agent.

Sizing up the G-man, Saddam observed that Piro (an FBI supervisory special agent) was “smart,” and predicted, “Perhaps a conversation between two such educated people will not be useful or successful.” He decreed that it was only important to him what people say or think about him “in the future, 500 or 1,000 years from now.”

The ex-leader ranted about all he had done for Iraq, which “barely had anything” when he came to power in a bloodbath 40 years ago. Piro asked if he had ever failed in his decades as Iraq’s leader, but Saddam countered, “Do you think I would tell my enemy if I made a mistake?”

His ego as yet undiminished by captivity, Saddam gloated that “the only political parties existing in Iraq are the ones with the weapons” - a reference to the growing lethality of the Sunni insurgency - and said it made no difference what anybody thought about him. “Hussein believes people will love him more after he passes away than they do now,” Piro wrote in his first FBI “302” report back to Washington.

Read my complete post on how the FBI broke Saddam Hussein and the original FBI interrogation reports at the Daily News' Mouth of the Potomac Blog.

For more on the GIMF and the Army of Islam, see NEFA Senior Investigator Evan Kohlmann’s interactive chart, titled “Al-Qaida’s Online Couriers."