Many critics say that the Middle East is a region that will remain at war, plagued by conflicts that can not be resolved. Just as things looked on the rise from the region, the six-month ceasefire with Hamas ended. In an instant, the temporary peace exploded. All the boasting of Israeli ministers on the ceasefire's success disappeared with a fresh volley of rockets.
While many may see this as another example of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is a much bigger event that has the potential to escalate into a catastrophic crisis. The situation has the potential to sink the region into an intensified permanent state of conflict.
Many experts are beginning to assert that the attacks seem to be fairly well-timed, and with the statement from Hizbullah, that responsibility may ultimately lay inside Tehran. With a fresh U.S. administration set to take control, Israel and Syria having had talks mediated by Turkey (now cancelled due to the Israeli airstrikes), and the Arab world again focused on its hatred for Israel, the only real winner is Iran.
There are two major components to watch for in the coming month as the situation continues.
1) What role will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his party, Fatah, address the threat of Hamas?
It is important to remember that Hamas took power of Gaza from Fatah in June 2007. This separation of forces and animosity between the two sides could ultimately intensify the Fatah-Hamas divide if Fatah attempts to intervene. Abbas' presidency is in question already by Hamas, and any action could destroy the Palestinian leadership.
2) How will the Arab world react to the situation?
Needless to say, the Arab world is already blasting Israel for the action. Any military support to Hamas by the Arab world could instigate another Arab-Israeli conflict, which would ultimately involve Hizbullah. With Hizbullah's arsenal increased several times over, it is likely that even the Israeli military would remain stretched by having to confront multiple threats at the same time. The ultimate test to international affairs will be to keep Arab countries isolated and to keep the crisis between Israel and Hamas.
The situation is assuredly a nightmare one at best. It was a matter of time until this happened. A six-month cease-fire only set up this situation. Hamas increased its weaponry, just like Hizbullah after the 2006 conflict. As soon as the cease-fire was over, whether on its own will or under influence by Iranian leadership, Hamas took its weaponry and used it. Now, amidst all the impending transitions in the U.S. and Israel, it appears there is a crisis that has emerged and will dominate the headlines for sometime.
9-11-01
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
U.S.-Syrian relations on the horizon?
During a trip this week, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter stated that he believed under the incoming Obama administration "the situation will improve between the United States and Syria after we have a new president." This type of rhetoric remains in line with Syrian President Assad's commitment to pursue talks with the U.S. once a new administration had been set. Now, the Bush administration is in its final month and prepares to hand off to President-elect Obama.
Syria has increasingly expressed interest in Western relations, specifically through French President Sarkozy. As Syria continues to pledge "peace talks" with the West and Israel, it is important to remember the true face of Syrian politics led by President Bashar Assad.
There is the Valentine's Day assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiik Hariri in 2005. Almost four years later, the circumstances of the bombing remain veiled. Just this week, the lead investigator into the incident told investigators that the blast remains solvable. David Bellemare has not gone so far as the first investigator, Detlev Mehlis, who wrote in the commission's first report:
"...there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act."
The Mehlis report suggests that figures in both Lebanese and Syrian intelligence had knowledge of the attack. The report called on Syrian cooperation investigating the attack, specifically accusing some of the 400 persons interviewed of giving misleading statements. With answers pending in the probe, it is clear that there still remains a great deal of work in explaining Syria's hand in promoting violence throughout the Middle East.
With Syria playing ally to Iran in the war for Middle East influence against Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it is unlikely that any dramatic concessions will come as Iran will cling to its major backer. Since its conception in 2006, the group Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon has been a topic of major controversy in the region. The group, sympathetic to Al-Qaida objectives, has been subject to major debate as to who backs it. Syria has accused Saudi Arabia of founding the group to counter the Shiite power of Hizbullah. Many reports contradict such a claim, linking Syrian intelligence to the group. This could contribute to the inaction that Syria has taken to combat the group until last month when Fatah al-Islam's leader, Shaker al-Abssi, was declared dead in a gun battle with Syrian forces.
Al-Abbsi had a curious history with Syrian authorities. After being arrested in 2000, al-Abbsi spent three years in a Syrian prison for weapons smuggling charges. He then traveled to Iraq and became an associate of Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A Jordanian court had sentenced al-Abbsi to death in 2004 for the killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002. However, al-Abbsi had remained elusive after the Nahr al-Bared seige in Lebanon that killed more than 200 in the Palestinian refugee camp in 2007. It was not until September, when Syria arrested al-Abbsi's daughter, that efforts began to increase against the leader of Fatah al-Islam.
Only until the September bombing in Damascus did Syria reveal any efforts to pursue members of the group, specifically the group's leader. Such spontaneous action has contributed to speculation that al-Abbsi was no longer in line with Syrian objectives and was taking the group in his own direction. The level of pressure that Syria has placed on the group has previously been nonexistent, begging many questions as to why there has not been a precedent of operations targeting the membership of Fatah al-Islam. When writing about Syrian actions against Fatah al-Islam, Walid Phares wrote:
"Some Terrorism commentators in the West and in the US spoke of an “elusive Fatah al Islam.” Unfamiliar with the Levantine nature of the phenomenon, those commentators still struggle with what they describe as “speculation” over the group’s “real motives,” as if they haven’t captured the equation behind Fatah al Islam. First, they conclude that this group can’t have ties to Damascus because the Syrian regime executed four members of the group. Ironically, the news came from the Syrian intelligence itself, which means that the Assad regime can go as far as killing operatives to intimidate the rest of the group, and on top of it, “sell” the news to the world as an “an anti al Qaeda” activity, which by the way would be bought by US officials."
History is taught because it has a unique way of repeating itself. While attempting dialogue with Syria, the U.S. should recall the consequences of failed alliances in the Middle East. I hope Assad is sincere in his objectives, but he has provided little besides mere talk when it comes to abandoning the Iranian regime and terror ties. Actions speak louder than words, and Syria should continue to combat terrorism inside its own country before looking outward.
Syria has increasingly expressed interest in Western relations, specifically through French President Sarkozy. As Syria continues to pledge "peace talks" with the West and Israel, it is important to remember the true face of Syrian politics led by President Bashar Assad.
There is the Valentine's Day assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiik Hariri in 2005. Almost four years later, the circumstances of the bombing remain veiled. Just this week, the lead investigator into the incident told investigators that the blast remains solvable. David Bellemare has not gone so far as the first investigator, Detlev Mehlis, who wrote in the commission's first report:
"...there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act."
The Mehlis report suggests that figures in both Lebanese and Syrian intelligence had knowledge of the attack. The report called on Syrian cooperation investigating the attack, specifically accusing some of the 400 persons interviewed of giving misleading statements. With answers pending in the probe, it is clear that there still remains a great deal of work in explaining Syria's hand in promoting violence throughout the Middle East.
With Syria playing ally to Iran in the war for Middle East influence against Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it is unlikely that any dramatic concessions will come as Iran will cling to its major backer. Since its conception in 2006, the group Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon has been a topic of major controversy in the region. The group, sympathetic to Al-Qaida objectives, has been subject to major debate as to who backs it. Syria has accused Saudi Arabia of founding the group to counter the Shiite power of Hizbullah. Many reports contradict such a claim, linking Syrian intelligence to the group. This could contribute to the inaction that Syria has taken to combat the group until last month when Fatah al-Islam's leader, Shaker al-Abssi, was declared dead in a gun battle with Syrian forces.
Al-Abbsi had a curious history with Syrian authorities. After being arrested in 2000, al-Abbsi spent three years in a Syrian prison for weapons smuggling charges. He then traveled to Iraq and became an associate of Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A Jordanian court had sentenced al-Abbsi to death in 2004 for the killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002. However, al-Abbsi had remained elusive after the Nahr al-Bared seige in Lebanon that killed more than 200 in the Palestinian refugee camp in 2007. It was not until September, when Syria arrested al-Abbsi's daughter, that efforts began to increase against the leader of Fatah al-Islam.
Only until the September bombing in Damascus did Syria reveal any efforts to pursue members of the group, specifically the group's leader. Such spontaneous action has contributed to speculation that al-Abbsi was no longer in line with Syrian objectives and was taking the group in his own direction. The level of pressure that Syria has placed on the group has previously been nonexistent, begging many questions as to why there has not been a precedent of operations targeting the membership of Fatah al-Islam. When writing about Syrian actions against Fatah al-Islam, Walid Phares wrote:
"Some Terrorism commentators in the West and in the US spoke of an “elusive Fatah al Islam.” Unfamiliar with the Levantine nature of the phenomenon, those commentators still struggle with what they describe as “speculation” over the group’s “real motives,” as if they haven’t captured the equation behind Fatah al Islam. First, they conclude that this group can’t have ties to Damascus because the Syrian regime executed four members of the group. Ironically, the news came from the Syrian intelligence itself, which means that the Assad regime can go as far as killing operatives to intimidate the rest of the group, and on top of it, “sell” the news to the world as an “an anti al Qaeda” activity, which by the way would be bought by US officials."
History is taught because it has a unique way of repeating itself. While attempting dialogue with Syria, the U.S. should recall the consequences of failed alliances in the Middle East. I hope Assad is sincere in his objectives, but he has provided little besides mere talk when it comes to abandoning the Iranian regime and terror ties. Actions speak louder than words, and Syria should continue to combat terrorism inside its own country before looking outward.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The need for a global campaign against terrorism
Nearly a week ago, the images from Mumbai of nearly a dozen terrorists crippling a major city was broadcast all over the screens worldwide. Bodies lay in the streets, gunmen walking amongst them spraying police with bullets. The typical Hollywood mass murder attack finally happened. With 163 people dead, an investigation hopes to uncover what exactly went wrong to allow such an attack.
As we look to the future on how to confront the threat of terrorism, the Mumbai attacks set an example of how vulnerable the world still to such violence. While Western countries have taken the lead to address this problem, many developing countries - such as India - refuse to take the role seriously. Consider that the anti-terror squads, the elite groups meant to fight off the attackers, were armed with World War One rifles and defective bulletproof vests. This clearly begs the question as to how much funding India provides its reactionary response to terrorism that clearly failed that day.
Where was the flow of Western money going to for anti-terror training? U.S. forces are training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, which have accomplished nothing in the tribal regions of the country. In August, the EU announced that over the next three years it would increase its economic aid for the lawless Northwest Frontier Province to $63 million for education, trade, and farming projects. This is not an answer to fight terrorism. Sinking money into countries that shy away from confronting terrorists in their borders deserve no aid.
Making a connection between poverty and terrorism is not a factual statement by any means. As one expert I once heard say, "When was the last time you heard of a suicide bombing in Haiti?" This is a simple excuse to allow countries to do what they do to other problems, and try to fix everything with money. What really exists is a war of ideals. For too long, the voices of moderate Muslims have been silenced in their home countries while the West has sat idle.
How come we are behind the curve in fighting terrorism. We still see it as a crime, something that can be dealt with in our courts. It is far bigger than that. Dr. Yonah Alexander, who has authored nearly 90 books on security issues, said:
"This is true especially after 9-11; terrorism was labeled as a threat of war. I'd like to remind all of us that in our lifetime, or at least in my lifetime, we dealt with the Cold War, and since 1979 we've dealt with a "war" with Iran, and the third war is the "war" with jihadism and extremism, personified by the "war" with Bin Ladin."
The war on terrorism is a war, despite being labeled as a "bumper sticker war" by some. As some lawmakers ponder how far is too far in this war, we are losing the fight of winning hearts and minds. It is time to specifically target the propaganda stream from terrorist outfits, filled with the hatred for anything deemed un-Islamic. As Saudi Arabia uses textbooks in the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia that promotes jihad and hatred, the State Department does nothing. The war on terrorism is bigger than a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is something that is spread through paranoia and intolerance by Islamic radicals.
The fight against terrorism is one that encompasses numerous aspects and requires the assistance of the international community. No one country should lead the way, and while the United States took the lead after the September 11 attacks, it is time for organizations to lead the way. This is not just the U.S. response to those attacks, but is the world's voice that it wants to overcome the social fears spewed by radicals. Through a global referendum that addresses the aspects that promote terror and a pledge to confront them, we can make the operations and ability to create new terrorists a more difficult process for those groups.
As we look to the future on how to confront the threat of terrorism, the Mumbai attacks set an example of how vulnerable the world still to such violence. While Western countries have taken the lead to address this problem, many developing countries - such as India - refuse to take the role seriously. Consider that the anti-terror squads, the elite groups meant to fight off the attackers, were armed with World War One rifles and defective bulletproof vests. This clearly begs the question as to how much funding India provides its reactionary response to terrorism that clearly failed that day.
Where was the flow of Western money going to for anti-terror training? U.S. forces are training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, which have accomplished nothing in the tribal regions of the country. In August, the EU announced that over the next three years it would increase its economic aid for the lawless Northwest Frontier Province to $63 million for education, trade, and farming projects. This is not an answer to fight terrorism. Sinking money into countries that shy away from confronting terrorists in their borders deserve no aid.
Making a connection between poverty and terrorism is not a factual statement by any means. As one expert I once heard say, "When was the last time you heard of a suicide bombing in Haiti?" This is a simple excuse to allow countries to do what they do to other problems, and try to fix everything with money. What really exists is a war of ideals. For too long, the voices of moderate Muslims have been silenced in their home countries while the West has sat idle.
How come we are behind the curve in fighting terrorism. We still see it as a crime, something that can be dealt with in our courts. It is far bigger than that. Dr. Yonah Alexander, who has authored nearly 90 books on security issues, said:
"This is true especially after 9-11; terrorism was labeled as a threat of war. I'd like to remind all of us that in our lifetime, or at least in my lifetime, we dealt with the Cold War, and since 1979 we've dealt with a "war" with Iran, and the third war is the "war" with jihadism and extremism, personified by the "war" with Bin Ladin."
The war on terrorism is a war, despite being labeled as a "bumper sticker war" by some. As some lawmakers ponder how far is too far in this war, we are losing the fight of winning hearts and minds. It is time to specifically target the propaganda stream from terrorist outfits, filled with the hatred for anything deemed un-Islamic. As Saudi Arabia uses textbooks in the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia that promotes jihad and hatred, the State Department does nothing. The war on terrorism is bigger than a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is something that is spread through paranoia and intolerance by Islamic radicals.
The fight against terrorism is one that encompasses numerous aspects and requires the assistance of the international community. No one country should lead the way, and while the United States took the lead after the September 11 attacks, it is time for organizations to lead the way. This is not just the U.S. response to those attacks, but is the world's voice that it wants to overcome the social fears spewed by radicals. Through a global referendum that addresses the aspects that promote terror and a pledge to confront them, we can make the operations and ability to create new terrorists a more difficult process for those groups.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
India has been a sitting duck
After yesterday's attacks, many officials remain stunned as to how this breakthrough attack went virtually undetected until its implementation. The plotters of this attack had the significant benefit of India being in disarray when it comes to developing its internal security. Shortly after the July 26 blasts in Ahmedabad that killed 56 and injured over 200, India finally realized that its ability to counter terrorism was already ill-prepared. However, several suggestions by Indian government officials focused only on com batting the traditional remote-detonated devices used in most attacks this decade. The intent to take hostages and to actually use ground forces in such an assault has been one that seemed to have vanished from the scene in India.
Perhaps the greatest setback to Indian domestic security is that it has no nationwide intelligence network. With 28 states, each operating its own individual intelligence apparatus, the state is the ultimate head and is not required to share information with its neighbors. This was proved in the July attacks, when four of the cars used were stolen from Mumbai and then used in the attacks. The cars license plates were not completely altered, and would have found their way on a list by law-enforcement in a state here in the U.S.. However, in India such a network does not exist and the vehicles were able to pass multiple security checkpoints before their use in the blasts. In August, Gujarat province announced that it would create a special intelligence cell specifically to counter terrorism - yet it would only have an intelligence collecting purpose.
Furthermore, while India is quick to suggest Pakistani involvement in yesterday's attack, it acknowledged that it had seen substantial problems in its prison system. Cell phone SIM cards have frequently found their way into prisons that do not have a phone jamming system, allowing communication and other contacts from a supposed "secure" environment. Indian authorities had intercepted messages regarding terror plots being hatched from inside the country's prisons and were finally made aware of this vulnerability. The ability for domestic terrorism to thrive has extended well beyond Kashmir and into numerous systems in India, all of which has never been addressed or countered.
The country's intelligence collecting and sharing abilities are at best - deficient. It was only a matter of time until India felt the affects of an attack that may have been prevented, and yesterday was that point. The anti-terror squads have been tested by the most recent attack and it has proven that India has under equipped what is intended to be their elite services. This time, it will be necessary for the government there to not just talk about making changes and actually implements them in a rapid line. The components of the Mumbai assault leave a dangerous pattern among all countries concerned with international security, and all countries should evaluate the ability to coordinate and distribute emergency services across numerous areas and dealing with waves of militants. The patterns of this most recent attack have sent shock waves among the intelligence community, and it will be an incident that must be remembered for the lessons learned.
Perhaps the greatest setback to Indian domestic security is that it has no nationwide intelligence network. With 28 states, each operating its own individual intelligence apparatus, the state is the ultimate head and is not required to share information with its neighbors. This was proved in the July attacks, when four of the cars used were stolen from Mumbai and then used in the attacks. The cars license plates were not completely altered, and would have found their way on a list by law-enforcement in a state here in the U.S.. However, in India such a network does not exist and the vehicles were able to pass multiple security checkpoints before their use in the blasts. In August, Gujarat province announced that it would create a special intelligence cell specifically to counter terrorism - yet it would only have an intelligence collecting purpose.
Furthermore, while India is quick to suggest Pakistani involvement in yesterday's attack, it acknowledged that it had seen substantial problems in its prison system. Cell phone SIM cards have frequently found their way into prisons that do not have a phone jamming system, allowing communication and other contacts from a supposed "secure" environment. Indian authorities had intercepted messages regarding terror plots being hatched from inside the country's prisons and were finally made aware of this vulnerability. The ability for domestic terrorism to thrive has extended well beyond Kashmir and into numerous systems in India, all of which has never been addressed or countered.
The country's intelligence collecting and sharing abilities are at best - deficient. It was only a matter of time until India felt the affects of an attack that may have been prevented, and yesterday was that point. The anti-terror squads have been tested by the most recent attack and it has proven that India has under equipped what is intended to be their elite services. This time, it will be necessary for the government there to not just talk about making changes and actually implements them in a rapid line. The components of the Mumbai assault leave a dangerous pattern among all countries concerned with international security, and all countries should evaluate the ability to coordinate and distribute emergency services across numerous areas and dealing with waves of militants. The patterns of this most recent attack have sent shock waves among the intelligence community, and it will be an incident that must be remembered for the lessons learned.
India's Mumbai terror attacks continue 24 hours later
The chaos in Mumbai continues nearly a day after the attacks began. With the head of the anti-terror squad killed along with several other senior commanders, the effectiveness of the ATS remains questionable as the army has taken responsibility of operations. As the casualty figures continue to remain sketchy, it will take time to clearly identify the situation as it appears the goal of spreading chaos throughout the city was achieved. It appears that the majority of the hostages have been released, yet reports of explosions at the Taj Hotel suggest that the situation remains tense.
The attack represents a new phase in the fight against terror, as the goal of essentially shutting down a city was achieved in the remarkably coordinated attacks. As the squads were able to hit at least 10 sites across Mumbai, the emergency services were clearly under equipped and ill-prepared for such massive attacks occurring simultaneously. It appears that these squads of gunmen are mostly in their 20s, suggesting a potential recruitment and alliance of the Indian youth mujahideens and larger groups. If yesterday's attacks were merely explosions, this incident would be no different from the Ahmedabad blasts in July in which 21 bombs were detonated across the city. However, the use of "foot soldiers" and the intent of hostage-taking is one that has not been seen in India for some time.
Ultimately, the investigation part of the phase has yet to begin as clues of the attackers are just now being discovered. With such a breakthrough attack the focus should be on outside elements support - specifically the ISI. As of now, the focus appears to be on SIMI and its offshoots. However, a report suggests that the perpetrators reached Mumbai using boats originally from Karachi. The intelligence trail for the preliminary setup for this operation could go as far back as six months ago, with the finding of a barge nearly four months ago. As police have reportedly found at least four boats laden with explosives outside the city, the investigation may have some fairly solid links to help establish the origin and trail of support that masterminded this operation.
The fight of what Walid Phares called "urban Jihad" has hit India and proven to the world that terror groups are capable of striking anywhere at any time. By all means, this attack is clearly a successful hit taking out various targets in nearly every major part of a hub. This type of tactic has yet to be seen in such a violent form, and many Western intelligence officials remain concerned that this could only be the beginning. Undoubtedly, information will be revealed in the coming days describing foreign terror connections once the situation is resolved. Until then, it is my hope that the anti-terror squads and Indian military are prepared to potentially deal with any further crises that could erupt.
The attack represents a new phase in the fight against terror, as the goal of essentially shutting down a city was achieved in the remarkably coordinated attacks. As the squads were able to hit at least 10 sites across Mumbai, the emergency services were clearly under equipped and ill-prepared for such massive attacks occurring simultaneously. It appears that these squads of gunmen are mostly in their 20s, suggesting a potential recruitment and alliance of the Indian youth mujahideens and larger groups. If yesterday's attacks were merely explosions, this incident would be no different from the Ahmedabad blasts in July in which 21 bombs were detonated across the city. However, the use of "foot soldiers" and the intent of hostage-taking is one that has not been seen in India for some time.
Ultimately, the investigation part of the phase has yet to begin as clues of the attackers are just now being discovered. With such a breakthrough attack the focus should be on outside elements support - specifically the ISI. As of now, the focus appears to be on SIMI and its offshoots. However, a report suggests that the perpetrators reached Mumbai using boats originally from Karachi. The intelligence trail for the preliminary setup for this operation could go as far back as six months ago, with the finding of a barge nearly four months ago. As police have reportedly found at least four boats laden with explosives outside the city, the investigation may have some fairly solid links to help establish the origin and trail of support that masterminded this operation.
The fight of what Walid Phares called "urban Jihad" has hit India and proven to the world that terror groups are capable of striking anywhere at any time. By all means, this attack is clearly a successful hit taking out various targets in nearly every major part of a hub. This type of tactic has yet to be seen in such a violent form, and many Western intelligence officials remain concerned that this could only be the beginning. Undoubtedly, information will be revealed in the coming days describing foreign terror connections once the situation is resolved. Until then, it is my hope that the anti-terror squads and Indian military are prepared to potentially deal with any further crises that could erupt.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Mumbai hit again by Indian terror in new wave of violence
Today India experienced a new chapter in its long history of terror attacks, with a series of coordinated attacks on multiple sites throughout the financial hub of Mumbai. Gunmen reportedly ambushed several famed hotels that are frequented by foreigners, taking hostages and lobbing grenades as well. Among the casualties of the attack are the head of Mumbai's "elite" anti-terror squad, as well as several other senior officers. Needless to say that several hours after the initial attack, the situation remains chaotic as casualty figures continue to climb and the fate of the hostages remains unknown.
Sadly, India continues to fall under violence due to jihadist groups thriving in Kashmir. With reported connections to Al-Qaida elements and support for them coming from Pakistan's ISI, these groups face little opposition and have the means to create massive amounts of damage. The perpetrators of today's attacks are yet to be confirmed, but it is reported that an unknown group calling itself Deccan Mujahideen has claimed responsibility. If this is true, it will be interesting to see how connections unravel and if there is a link to any pre-existing Kashmir militant groups.
Animesh Roul posted an article on the Jamestown Foundation's page on the revival of India's terror groups. Read it here:
"India's Troubled Northeast Region: The Resurgence of Ethno-Islamist Terrorism"
Sadly, India continues to fall under violence due to jihadist groups thriving in Kashmir. With reported connections to Al-Qaida elements and support for them coming from Pakistan's ISI, these groups face little opposition and have the means to create massive amounts of damage. The perpetrators of today's attacks are yet to be confirmed, but it is reported that an unknown group calling itself Deccan Mujahideen has claimed responsibility. If this is true, it will be interesting to see how connections unravel and if there is a link to any pre-existing Kashmir militant groups.
Animesh Roul posted an article on the Jamestown Foundation's page on the revival of India's terror groups. Read it here:
"India's Troubled Northeast Region: The Resurgence of Ethno-Islamist Terrorism"
Thursday, November 6, 2008
How we lost Afghanistan
Seven years after invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban regime, the situation in Afghanistan has taken a turn for the worst. The idea that the Taliban had vanished after their 2001 retreat from Kabul was quickly gone after this year's spectacular attacks. There was the April assassination attempt on Pres. Hamid Karzai, followed by the jailbreak of nearly 1000 prisoners from the Kandahar prison in June. Both attacks brought a component that was relatively unprecedented by the group - organization. The insurgency in Afghanistan had previously appeared to be a collection of cells with no connection and means to coordinate, capable only of occasional IED attacks and mortar rounds here and there. After those two attacks, joined by the Indian embassy bombing in July, it was clear that the rosy assessments painted by diplomats on the ground was merely a fantasy lived out in their secure compounds.
In reality, the Taliban do not have the ability to establish control as a legitimate government in Afghanistan. However, their fight has been one that is emerging as a strategic threat to the reconstruction and development in the country. By the June prison break, attacks were up 40% from last year and symbols of development were increasingly being targeted.
Shortly thereafter, reports emerged of the Taliban's "shadow" government systems that supposedly exist in nearly every province. With their own courts based on Shari'a, the Taliban had infiltrated local tribes and had become an alternative to a flawed Afghan justice system vulnerable to bribes.
What happened over the last seven years is of extreme importance to winning back Afghanistan. While the U.S. and NATO declared victory, the Taliban opted to be patient with their efforts and allow the opportunity to strengthen their capabilities. Without state sponsorship any more, they needed to find a means to fund their insurgency and partnered with the international opium market as a replacement. With Afghanistan consistently being the number one supplier of the product, it was an unregulated criminal enterprise that the U.S. and NATO seldom touched.
Either out of fear of turning the impoverished locals that grew the poppies nearer to the Taliban or intervention by Hamid Karzai's opium-profiting governors, over the seven years in Afghanistan nobody has addressed and confronted the issue of poppies. With anywhere between 88-93% of the global opium supply coming from Afghanistan, the Taliban had their moneymaker. During the Taliban's rule in the country, they allowed the farmers to grow poppies until they banned it in 2000. This ban did not curb the amount of opium pouring out of the country onto nearly every street.
Last week, TIME magazine held an interesting report that alleges the Taliban have officially entered the global crime syndicate. The UN's Office on Drugs and Crime announced that over the last three years, anywhere between 6,000 and 8,000 tons of opium have vanished from the global market. Consider that annually, the world consumes around 4,500 tons of the drug. Nearly two years worth of the drug, which retails for around $464,000 a ton, has just disappeared off the market.
The UN Office has not made any official assessments, but theories are circulating as to where such a large stash may have ended up. Officials are skeptical that this was a mere instance of the stockpile being lost in the black market and not appearing, basing their opinion on the global market. With opium being a fairly consistent $70 per kg, such a significant portion of the crop would have lowered prices. That simply hasn't happened.
The concern now is that the Taliban may have spent up to 3 years collecting the crop, and now have a bundle worth anywhere between $2.8 and 3 billion in their possession. Needless to say, with that kind of potential income, the Taliban's tactics and weaponry should continue to increase at the expense of the U.S. and President Karzai's blind eye to the crop. With market manipulation and the Taliban's control on the safety of opium exports, they hold the potential to spike the price and reach record profits all due to their patience. Unfortunately, there is little the coalition can do to prevent this besides stumbling across the stash which could already be on the streets of Europe and the U.S..
Simply put, the U.S., NATO, and Hamid Karzai all made a doomsday mistake by not controlling the poppy situation. We have opted to see the issue as a black and white one, rather than offering an alternative to the farmers. The London-based think tank Senlis Council has advised that the coalition and the Karzai government allow the growth of poppies, however instead of flooding the black market and paying for the bombs that kill our troops, have them sold to pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Then, the hope is that the money will collectively go to the tribes in the area and help pay for the rebuilding of the infrastructure.
It is my hope that President-elect Obama and his administration focus on this problem before the Taliban are able to control it even more. However, only once during the whole presidential campaign season did a candidate mention "opium" and "Afghanistan" collectively. With such a massive supply coming from Afghanistan, not every gram of opium has to end up in the hands of an addict in the UK. By promoting a legal alternative that is internationally acceptable, we can utilize international companies and agencies involvement to win the hearts and minds of the people. By allowing farmers to provide funding for local projects such as their schools and roads, it will be the people of Afghanistan making up the infrastructure and not just international aid. With that type of invested interest, the Taliban can hopefully be seen as the obstacle towards peace in the country and their monopoly on the Afghan poppies can end.
In reality, the Taliban do not have the ability to establish control as a legitimate government in Afghanistan. However, their fight has been one that is emerging as a strategic threat to the reconstruction and development in the country. By the June prison break, attacks were up 40% from last year and symbols of development were increasingly being targeted.
Shortly thereafter, reports emerged of the Taliban's "shadow" government systems that supposedly exist in nearly every province. With their own courts based on Shari'a, the Taliban had infiltrated local tribes and had become an alternative to a flawed Afghan justice system vulnerable to bribes.
What happened over the last seven years is of extreme importance to winning back Afghanistan. While the U.S. and NATO declared victory, the Taliban opted to be patient with their efforts and allow the opportunity to strengthen their capabilities. Without state sponsorship any more, they needed to find a means to fund their insurgency and partnered with the international opium market as a replacement. With Afghanistan consistently being the number one supplier of the product, it was an unregulated criminal enterprise that the U.S. and NATO seldom touched.
Either out of fear of turning the impoverished locals that grew the poppies nearer to the Taliban or intervention by Hamid Karzai's opium-profiting governors, over the seven years in Afghanistan nobody has addressed and confronted the issue of poppies. With anywhere between 88-93% of the global opium supply coming from Afghanistan, the Taliban had their moneymaker. During the Taliban's rule in the country, they allowed the farmers to grow poppies until they banned it in 2000. This ban did not curb the amount of opium pouring out of the country onto nearly every street.
Last week, TIME magazine held an interesting report that alleges the Taliban have officially entered the global crime syndicate. The UN's Office on Drugs and Crime announced that over the last three years, anywhere between 6,000 and 8,000 tons of opium have vanished from the global market. Consider that annually, the world consumes around 4,500 tons of the drug. Nearly two years worth of the drug, which retails for around $464,000 a ton, has just disappeared off the market.
The UN Office has not made any official assessments, but theories are circulating as to where such a large stash may have ended up. Officials are skeptical that this was a mere instance of the stockpile being lost in the black market and not appearing, basing their opinion on the global market. With opium being a fairly consistent $70 per kg, such a significant portion of the crop would have lowered prices. That simply hasn't happened.
The concern now is that the Taliban may have spent up to 3 years collecting the crop, and now have a bundle worth anywhere between $2.8 and 3 billion in their possession. Needless to say, with that kind of potential income, the Taliban's tactics and weaponry should continue to increase at the expense of the U.S. and President Karzai's blind eye to the crop. With market manipulation and the Taliban's control on the safety of opium exports, they hold the potential to spike the price and reach record profits all due to their patience. Unfortunately, there is little the coalition can do to prevent this besides stumbling across the stash which could already be on the streets of Europe and the U.S..
Simply put, the U.S., NATO, and Hamid Karzai all made a doomsday mistake by not controlling the poppy situation. We have opted to see the issue as a black and white one, rather than offering an alternative to the farmers. The London-based think tank Senlis Council has advised that the coalition and the Karzai government allow the growth of poppies, however instead of flooding the black market and paying for the bombs that kill our troops, have them sold to pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Then, the hope is that the money will collectively go to the tribes in the area and help pay for the rebuilding of the infrastructure.
It is my hope that President-elect Obama and his administration focus on this problem before the Taliban are able to control it even more. However, only once during the whole presidential campaign season did a candidate mention "opium" and "Afghanistan" collectively. With such a massive supply coming from Afghanistan, not every gram of opium has to end up in the hands of an addict in the UK. By promoting a legal alternative that is internationally acceptable, we can utilize international companies and agencies involvement to win the hearts and minds of the people. By allowing farmers to provide funding for local projects such as their schools and roads, it will be the people of Afghanistan making up the infrastructure and not just international aid. With that type of invested interest, the Taliban can hopefully be seen as the obstacle towards peace in the country and their monopoly on the Afghan poppies can end.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Assessing Iran and U.S. policy under the next administration
Needless to say, the nuclear standoff with Iran lingers on as the West attempts to threaten the Islamic state with more sanctions. Despite its consistent defiance of the obligations listed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran seems to not be willing to negotiate on many aspects of its "peaceful" nuclear program. As the Bush administration leaves office, it appears Iran will be a situation dealt with by the next U.S. President.
As reports come out that suggest President Bush is willing to give Iran some diplomatic legitimacy by establishing an interests section potentially during his final month in office, one must wonder at what point does a lame duck president sit back and allow his successor to take the reigns. After three years of consistent rhetoric on alienating Iran diplomatically, a sudden reversal of U.S. policy would be detrimental in allowing the next administration to resolve the issue.
While the next administration will likely change the U.S. approach towards Iran, it must continue to declare that an Iranian state that sponsors terrorism and desires to possess a completely unregulated nuclear program is not acceptable. Without Iran providing any reasons to change U.S. policy drastically, preemptively providing a potential incentive to bribe them into coming to the table is not going to be the missing piece to the issue.
The best hope is to potentially pursue paths of alienating Iranian allies such as Syria. By potentially separating an Iranian ally that has historically held an anti-Western approach and providing a new face on U.S. policy in the Mid-East of cooperation with regimes that are willing to change their stance, a new phase of negotiations in this crisis can be achieved. However, if either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to separate state sponsors of terrorism. Without any form of commitment on that regard, U.S. relations should not be pursued with those countries. By removing a strong Iranian ally, the potential to enhance relations could be achieved through Syria's establishment as a comfortable middle-ground and precedent.
Under the new President and his Secretary of State, there is potential for a breakthrough regarding Iran. However, it is necessary that the pressure remains existent on all levels until a reversal of support for international meddling via terror groups is obtained from Iranian leadership. Issues should be addressed one step at a time, and while the U.S. would like to see numerous changes in Tehran, the situation should be dealt with one step at a time. If either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to encourage Iranian participation, not isolation, in international affairs. This issue should be addressed as the primary goal, and could be an issue that if pursued by Iran, could allow easier negotiations on the requirements of its nuclear program.
Only time will tell how Iran will greet the change of American leadership, but it will continue to be a difficult situation so long as each side consistently promotes a division and intolerance for the other. By potentially connecting the cultures in common pursuits, this gap can be overcome. Through forming common partnerships that enhance cooperation in the region, the U.S. can not be seen as an invading force but rather as an ally of the Middle East. The situation is difficult, but there is the hope that doors will open that allow Iran and the West to pursue negotiations and relationships in the future.
As reports come out that suggest President Bush is willing to give Iran some diplomatic legitimacy by establishing an interests section potentially during his final month in office, one must wonder at what point does a lame duck president sit back and allow his successor to take the reigns. After three years of consistent rhetoric on alienating Iran diplomatically, a sudden reversal of U.S. policy would be detrimental in allowing the next administration to resolve the issue.
While the next administration will likely change the U.S. approach towards Iran, it must continue to declare that an Iranian state that sponsors terrorism and desires to possess a completely unregulated nuclear program is not acceptable. Without Iran providing any reasons to change U.S. policy drastically, preemptively providing a potential incentive to bribe them into coming to the table is not going to be the missing piece to the issue.
The best hope is to potentially pursue paths of alienating Iranian allies such as Syria. By potentially separating an Iranian ally that has historically held an anti-Western approach and providing a new face on U.S. policy in the Mid-East of cooperation with regimes that are willing to change their stance, a new phase of negotiations in this crisis can be achieved. However, if either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to separate state sponsors of terrorism. Without any form of commitment on that regard, U.S. relations should not be pursued with those countries. By removing a strong Iranian ally, the potential to enhance relations could be achieved through Syria's establishment as a comfortable middle-ground and precedent.
Under the new President and his Secretary of State, there is potential for a breakthrough regarding Iran. However, it is necessary that the pressure remains existent on all levels until a reversal of support for international meddling via terror groups is obtained from Iranian leadership. Issues should be addressed one step at a time, and while the U.S. would like to see numerous changes in Tehran, the situation should be dealt with one step at a time. If either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to encourage Iranian participation, not isolation, in international affairs. This issue should be addressed as the primary goal, and could be an issue that if pursued by Iran, could allow easier negotiations on the requirements of its nuclear program.
Only time will tell how Iran will greet the change of American leadership, but it will continue to be a difficult situation so long as each side consistently promotes a division and intolerance for the other. By potentially connecting the cultures in common pursuits, this gap can be overcome. Through forming common partnerships that enhance cooperation in the region, the U.S. can not be seen as an invading force but rather as an ally of the Middle East. The situation is difficult, but there is the hope that doors will open that allow Iran and the West to pursue negotiations and relationships in the future.
Monday, October 13, 2008
If we close our eyes, we can say nothing happened (Pt. III)
This is the third of three parts detailing Iran's growing influence in various regions. From Latin America to Africa to Europe, Iran has undeniably risen from the shadows largely due to its mouthy president who emerged in 2005 and its proxies' expansion. In such a short period of time, the growth of the Khomenist state has extended to nearly every hemisphere, facing little resistance by the West and its allies. As the standoff with Iran continues, it is important to understand the reality of the religious state that many say is now the key to Middle East policy.
After President Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, the Western powers lost any successes obtained in negotiating a resolution to Iran's nuclear pursuits. Ahmadinejad has made it very clear that the nuclear "know-how" is part of a vast religious obligation to utilize his power for the coming of the Mahdi. There was one dilemma. Iran was not capable of independently creating its nuclear program, it needed assistance. Once again, Ahmadinejad set out on his goal of forming a strategic partnership with a country that possessed what the Islamic republic lacked.
The criteria that formed the African and Latin American alliances was the same - a leader who was not willing to bow to Western influence and opposed the increasing American Imperialist movement. With North Korea constantly in talks over its program and Libya's agreement to abandonment, Ahmadinejad found a friend in Russia. Russia offered a partnership that elevated Iran from the shadows of international diplomacy and brought it to new levels. With Russian President Vladimir Putin's repeated criticisms of U.S. policy, Iran now had a major voice in international affairs - as well as a country which possessed the ability to veto any measures drafted in the UN Security Council.
With Russia's increased involvement with Tehran, there are several issues of concern. In 2005, it is reported that trade between the two countries was in excess of $1 billion, making Russia the seventh largest exporter to Iran. Estimates suggest that exports from Russia could grow to $10 billion annually within years. With such an invested stake in Iranian exports, Russian desire to impose increased sanctions has predictably been in opposition. It should be no surprise then that on September 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that he saw "no need for urgent measures against Iran." Those comments were made one week after an IAEA report criticized Iran for not allowing the agency to fully investigate certain aspects of the nuclear program.
The chief area of trade that has seen a spike under Ahmadinejad's presidency is arms sales, which has put Russian arms dealers as the chief suppliers to Iran. In 2006 Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Washington's Institute for Near East Policy's Military and Security Studies Program, said that the Islamic Republic was specifically seeking to increase it's air defense capabilities.
Late last year, the announcement came that Russia had agreed to sell Iran its S-300 air defense system, one of the most advanced of its kind. Capable of tracking around 100 targets simultaneously while intercepting up to 12 from a distance of over 100 miles, the reported sale was for deployment specifically around Iranian nuclear sites to dissuade Israel from any air strike on such sites. Now, amid reports that the system could be delivered by late this year, both Russia and Iran refuse to confirm nor deny whether there is such an agreement. The Russian Foreign Ministry has only stated that "we do not intend to deliver those types of arms to countries which are located in troubled regions." However, Russia has deployed the S-300 in Syria and the director for the Russian arms exports agency, Rosoboronexport, was quoted by Russian media on September 17 that his agency was in advanced negotiations to sell S-300 missiles to Iran. The agency later issued a statement denying that it had sold such missiles to Iran, but did not speak to whether or not there were talks for their sale. It is highly probable that Iran will seek to enhance its defenses around facilities such as its Bushehr reactor, which the Russian agency Atomstroyexport has stated should be operational by early to mid 2009.
While the official dealings of the Russian government remain unclear with Tehran, the most frightening component of all remains an ever present force in the Russian economy. Black market arms dealers continue to operate with relative ease in Moscow, creating a dangerous link with the Russian government that could extend into Iran and its proxies such as Hizbullah. To see the cooperation that exists between Russian officials and black market arms dealers, one need not look further than the case of Viktor Bout, the "Lord of War," who was arrested in Thailand in March. After Thai authorities agreed to drop their charges to allow a quicker extradition to the U.S., where he faces several charges related to terrorism, there have been several reports that the Russian Foreign Ministry is attempting to broker military sales with the Thai prime minister in exchange for Bout. According to Douglas Farah, despite a 20o2 Interpol Red Notice requiring Bout's arrest and a Belgian warrant for his arrest for money laundering, Bout resided in Moscow and used at least five Russian passports.
Bout is just one example of how Russia has used the black market to insert itself into the global dynamics, enabling and controlling conflict. Russian weapons were present in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict, which allowed Hizbullah to use advanced armor-piercing Russian missiles. Farah has stated that "such activities project Russian power, at a time when the Putin government is desperate to project Russian power across the world, as well as provide outlets for the sale of Russian weapons." Reports of late, most recently in September by Vice President Dick Cheney, suggested that Russian weapons sold to Syria were ending up in the hands of Hizbullah forces in Lebanon. The increasing concern should be the shadowy trend of Russian deals, specifically regarding the sales of weapons and the continued blind eye given by the Russian government regarding black market operations inside its country.
A growing problem is the scenario of black market sales regarding nuclear material originating in Russia. The growing trend of smuggling nuclear material from Russia has taken a path through the two territories where the Russian-Georgian crisis began in September - Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Most of the time, sellers attempt to sell off spent material that would prove useless in the construction of a nuclear weapon. However, there have been several arrests made by Georgian authorities that involve Russian individuals attempting to smuggle Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Last year, a Russian national was sentenced to eight years in a Georgian jail for attempting to sell 100 g of HEU for $1 million. Experts say that while the quality of the material would be suitable in weapons construction, the quantity remained insufficient. It should be noted that so far in Georgia, there have been publicized arrests in 2003 and 2006 that involved the attempted sale of HEU.
There are substantial implications for the fight against terrorism if the international community can not lure Russia to cooperate in an international effort. While Russia states that it will not do business in "troubled regions," its black market agents are involved in conflicts ranging from Africa to the Mideast to Latin America. The partnership of Russia and Iran brings in the component of a criminal network to Tehran's quest for globalization. The ability by both Iran and Russia to mask their global activities promotes a relationship that is dangerous to international affairs and creates yet another obstacle in resolving the West's standoff regarding Iran's nuclear activities. Through Iran's network of terrorist proxies, as well as Russia's connection to global crime, another dangerous alliance has been formed that compromises international security concerns at a time when the UN has sought to create a comprehensive, global effort to combat terrorism globally.
After President Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, the Western powers lost any successes obtained in negotiating a resolution to Iran's nuclear pursuits. Ahmadinejad has made it very clear that the nuclear "know-how" is part of a vast religious obligation to utilize his power for the coming of the Mahdi. There was one dilemma. Iran was not capable of independently creating its nuclear program, it needed assistance. Once again, Ahmadinejad set out on his goal of forming a strategic partnership with a country that possessed what the Islamic republic lacked.
The criteria that formed the African and Latin American alliances was the same - a leader who was not willing to bow to Western influence and opposed the increasing American Imperialist movement. With North Korea constantly in talks over its program and Libya's agreement to abandonment, Ahmadinejad found a friend in Russia. Russia offered a partnership that elevated Iran from the shadows of international diplomacy and brought it to new levels. With Russian President Vladimir Putin's repeated criticisms of U.S. policy, Iran now had a major voice in international affairs - as well as a country which possessed the ability to veto any measures drafted in the UN Security Council.
With Russia's increased involvement with Tehran, there are several issues of concern. In 2005, it is reported that trade between the two countries was in excess of $1 billion, making Russia the seventh largest exporter to Iran. Estimates suggest that exports from Russia could grow to $10 billion annually within years. With such an invested stake in Iranian exports, Russian desire to impose increased sanctions has predictably been in opposition. It should be no surprise then that on September 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that he saw "no need for urgent measures against Iran." Those comments were made one week after an IAEA report criticized Iran for not allowing the agency to fully investigate certain aspects of the nuclear program.
The chief area of trade that has seen a spike under Ahmadinejad's presidency is arms sales, which has put Russian arms dealers as the chief suppliers to Iran. In 2006 Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Washington's Institute for Near East Policy's Military and Security Studies Program, said that the Islamic Republic was specifically seeking to increase it's air defense capabilities.
Late last year, the announcement came that Russia had agreed to sell Iran its S-300 air defense system, one of the most advanced of its kind. Capable of tracking around 100 targets simultaneously while intercepting up to 12 from a distance of over 100 miles, the reported sale was for deployment specifically around Iranian nuclear sites to dissuade Israel from any air strike on such sites. Now, amid reports that the system could be delivered by late this year, both Russia and Iran refuse to confirm nor deny whether there is such an agreement. The Russian Foreign Ministry has only stated that "we do not intend to deliver those types of arms to countries which are located in troubled regions." However, Russia has deployed the S-300 in Syria and the director for the Russian arms exports agency, Rosoboronexport, was quoted by Russian media on September 17 that his agency was in advanced negotiations to sell S-300 missiles to Iran. The agency later issued a statement denying that it had sold such missiles to Iran, but did not speak to whether or not there were talks for their sale. It is highly probable that Iran will seek to enhance its defenses around facilities such as its Bushehr reactor, which the Russian agency Atomstroyexport has stated should be operational by early to mid 2009.
While the official dealings of the Russian government remain unclear with Tehran, the most frightening component of all remains an ever present force in the Russian economy. Black market arms dealers continue to operate with relative ease in Moscow, creating a dangerous link with the Russian government that could extend into Iran and its proxies such as Hizbullah. To see the cooperation that exists between Russian officials and black market arms dealers, one need not look further than the case of Viktor Bout, the "Lord of War," who was arrested in Thailand in March. After Thai authorities agreed to drop their charges to allow a quicker extradition to the U.S., where he faces several charges related to terrorism, there have been several reports that the Russian Foreign Ministry is attempting to broker military sales with the Thai prime minister in exchange for Bout. According to Douglas Farah, despite a 20o2 Interpol Red Notice requiring Bout's arrest and a Belgian warrant for his arrest for money laundering, Bout resided in Moscow and used at least five Russian passports.
Bout is just one example of how Russia has used the black market to insert itself into the global dynamics, enabling and controlling conflict. Russian weapons were present in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict, which allowed Hizbullah to use advanced armor-piercing Russian missiles. Farah has stated that "such activities project Russian power, at a time when the Putin government is desperate to project Russian power across the world, as well as provide outlets for the sale of Russian weapons." Reports of late, most recently in September by Vice President Dick Cheney, suggested that Russian weapons sold to Syria were ending up in the hands of Hizbullah forces in Lebanon. The increasing concern should be the shadowy trend of Russian deals, specifically regarding the sales of weapons and the continued blind eye given by the Russian government regarding black market operations inside its country.
A growing problem is the scenario of black market sales regarding nuclear material originating in Russia. The growing trend of smuggling nuclear material from Russia has taken a path through the two territories where the Russian-Georgian crisis began in September - Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Most of the time, sellers attempt to sell off spent material that would prove useless in the construction of a nuclear weapon. However, there have been several arrests made by Georgian authorities that involve Russian individuals attempting to smuggle Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Last year, a Russian national was sentenced to eight years in a Georgian jail for attempting to sell 100 g of HEU for $1 million. Experts say that while the quality of the material would be suitable in weapons construction, the quantity remained insufficient. It should be noted that so far in Georgia, there have been publicized arrests in 2003 and 2006 that involved the attempted sale of HEU.
There are substantial implications for the fight against terrorism if the international community can not lure Russia to cooperate in an international effort. While Russia states that it will not do business in "troubled regions," its black market agents are involved in conflicts ranging from Africa to the Mideast to Latin America. The partnership of Russia and Iran brings in the component of a criminal network to Tehran's quest for globalization. The ability by both Iran and Russia to mask their global activities promotes a relationship that is dangerous to international affairs and creates yet another obstacle in resolving the West's standoff regarding Iran's nuclear activities. Through Iran's network of terrorist proxies, as well as Russia's connection to global crime, another dangerous alliance has been formed that compromises international security concerns at a time when the UN has sought to create a comprehensive, global effort to combat terrorism globally.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Update on Pt. II of Iran's influence
As I wrote my piece on Iran's influence in Africa last week, details began to come in over an ongoing incident off of Somalia's coast.
On August 21, a team of nearly 40 pirates armed with RPGs and AK-47s blocked the passage of an Iranian cargo ship. The captain of the MV Iran Deyanat was forced to surrender his ship to the Somali pirates, who were banking on another vessel to add to their captured fleet of nearly a dozen vessels.
Immediately, questions should surface over the Deyanat's declared cargo of "minerals" and "industrial products." Both industries that the Revolutionary Guard holds a heavy stake in.
Affirming suspicions, the MV Iran Deyanat is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), which is a state-owned company run by the Iranian military and included in a list of companies blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury Dept. on September 10. The official statement explains the extent of IRISL's collusion with Iranian entities.
"Not only does IRISL facilitate the transport of cargo for U.N. designated proliferators, it also falsifies documents and uses deceptive schemes to shroud its involvement in illicit commerce," said Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. "IRISL's actions are part of a broader pattern of deception and fabrication that Iran uses to advance its nuclear and missile programs."
Upon the hijacking of the Deyanat, the crew of 29 was separated from the vessel after the pirates moved it to a fishing village in northeastern Somalia, Eyl. Reportedly within days after the pirates boarded the vessel to search the cargo, several of them fell "gravely ill." Andrew Mwangura, Director of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Program, has confirmed the claim by the pirates of several fatalities. The fatalities have been attributed to individuals who came in contact with the ship's cargo containers. Many of the individuals suffered skin burns and loss of hair (which many have suggested is indicative of radiation or chemical exposure).
After news of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the ship reached the government of the region in Garowe, a delegation was dispatched to negotiate with the pirates. Led by Minister of Minerals and Oil Hassan Allore Osman, the team was sent on September 4. Osman has said during the six days of negotiations with the pirates, the group had members become ill and die. Osman's assessment of the vessel:
"That ship is unusual. It is not carrying a normal shipment."
The pirates reportedly threatened to blow up the ship's cargo hold should the government attempt to force a search of the vessel. The pirates stated that they had been unsuccessful at opening the ship's seven cargo containers due to not possessing the access codes. After the standoff, Osman was able to establish contact with members of the ship's crew and ask questions pertaining to the cargo. The captain and engineer of the Deyanat reportedly shared different answers when asked about what they were transporting. What initially was crude oil then developed into minerals over the questioning.
The tale gets more interesting with the establishment of the ransom by the pirates. Set at $2 million, the Iranian government reportedly had agreed to pay the price and had moved $200,000 to a local broker in hopes of finalizing the release. Then came the September 10 sanctions announcement, which triggered Iran to call off the deal. With an increased U.S. naval presence off the coast, the Iranians could not gain access to the ship. All hopes of moving the ship out of the region without interception were shattered, leaving the ship still off of Eyl. Iranian media has reported the U.S. has offered $7 million for the ship.
The ultimate answer of what is on the MV Iran Deyanat still remains in the ship's cargo containers. Officials in Somalia suggest that the ship was carrying weapons destined for Eritrea, and ultimately Islamist militants fighting in Somalia. At the very least, it is known small arms were destined for the country's jihadist movement. However, due to the circumstances surrounding the Deyanat's seizure, it is highly probable that chemical weapons were destined for the militants as well. Iran has an involvement with the Somali rebels, having sent the Islamic Courts Union anti-aircraft and anti-tank weaponry in 2006. Furthermore, a UN report from the same year states that Iran sent two representatives to negotiate with the ICU for access to Somalia's uranium mines.
As Iran's influence in well-established regions of Africa has soared, it's increased involvement in fresh areas should be of great concern. Whatever is on the Deyanat, it is of interest to a great deal of officials. The ship's links to the Iranian government shows that Tehran's military is still flaunting its abilities to circumvent any actions taken against it. Should Iran be able to secure the ship's release from the pirates, chances are the ship will end up scrubbed in hopes of leaving questions unanswered. It remains pretty clear that there is no intention of moving it so long as the U.S. has Task Force 150 perched off the coast ready to intercept.
On August 21, a team of nearly 40 pirates armed with RPGs and AK-47s blocked the passage of an Iranian cargo ship. The captain of the MV Iran Deyanat was forced to surrender his ship to the Somali pirates, who were banking on another vessel to add to their captured fleet of nearly a dozen vessels.
Immediately, questions should surface over the Deyanat's declared cargo of "minerals" and "industrial products." Both industries that the Revolutionary Guard holds a heavy stake in.
Affirming suspicions, the MV Iran Deyanat is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), which is a state-owned company run by the Iranian military and included in a list of companies blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury Dept. on September 10. The official statement explains the extent of IRISL's collusion with Iranian entities.
"Not only does IRISL facilitate the transport of cargo for U.N. designated proliferators, it also falsifies documents and uses deceptive schemes to shroud its involvement in illicit commerce," said Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. "IRISL's actions are part of a broader pattern of deception and fabrication that Iran uses to advance its nuclear and missile programs."
Upon the hijacking of the Deyanat, the crew of 29 was separated from the vessel after the pirates moved it to a fishing village in northeastern Somalia, Eyl. Reportedly within days after the pirates boarded the vessel to search the cargo, several of them fell "gravely ill." Andrew Mwangura, Director of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Program, has confirmed the claim by the pirates of several fatalities. The fatalities have been attributed to individuals who came in contact with the ship's cargo containers. Many of the individuals suffered skin burns and loss of hair (which many have suggested is indicative of radiation or chemical exposure).
After news of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the ship reached the government of the region in Garowe, a delegation was dispatched to negotiate with the pirates. Led by Minister of Minerals and Oil Hassan Allore Osman, the team was sent on September 4. Osman has said during the six days of negotiations with the pirates, the group had members become ill and die. Osman's assessment of the vessel:
"That ship is unusual. It is not carrying a normal shipment."
The pirates reportedly threatened to blow up the ship's cargo hold should the government attempt to force a search of the vessel. The pirates stated that they had been unsuccessful at opening the ship's seven cargo containers due to not possessing the access codes. After the standoff, Osman was able to establish contact with members of the ship's crew and ask questions pertaining to the cargo. The captain and engineer of the Deyanat reportedly shared different answers when asked about what they were transporting. What initially was crude oil then developed into minerals over the questioning.
The tale gets more interesting with the establishment of the ransom by the pirates. Set at $2 million, the Iranian government reportedly had agreed to pay the price and had moved $200,000 to a local broker in hopes of finalizing the release. Then came the September 10 sanctions announcement, which triggered Iran to call off the deal. With an increased U.S. naval presence off the coast, the Iranians could not gain access to the ship. All hopes of moving the ship out of the region without interception were shattered, leaving the ship still off of Eyl. Iranian media has reported the U.S. has offered $7 million for the ship.
The ultimate answer of what is on the MV Iran Deyanat still remains in the ship's cargo containers. Officials in Somalia suggest that the ship was carrying weapons destined for Eritrea, and ultimately Islamist militants fighting in Somalia. At the very least, it is known small arms were destined for the country's jihadist movement. However, due to the circumstances surrounding the Deyanat's seizure, it is highly probable that chemical weapons were destined for the militants as well. Iran has an involvement with the Somali rebels, having sent the Islamic Courts Union anti-aircraft and anti-tank weaponry in 2006. Furthermore, a UN report from the same year states that Iran sent two representatives to negotiate with the ICU for access to Somalia's uranium mines.
As Iran's influence in well-established regions of Africa has soared, it's increased involvement in fresh areas should be of great concern. Whatever is on the Deyanat, it is of interest to a great deal of officials. The ship's links to the Iranian government shows that Tehran's military is still flaunting its abilities to circumvent any actions taken against it. Should Iran be able to secure the ship's release from the pirates, chances are the ship will end up scrubbed in hopes of leaving questions unanswered. It remains pretty clear that there is no intention of moving it so long as the U.S. has Task Force 150 perched off the coast ready to intercept.
Friday, September 26, 2008
If we close our eyes, we can say nothing happened (Pt. II)
This is the second of three parts detailing Iran's growing influence in various regions. From Latin America to Africa to Europe, Iran has undeniably risen from the shadows largely due to its mouthy president who emerged in 2005 and its proxies' expansion. In such a short period of time, the growth of the Khomenist state has extended to nearly every hemisphere, facing little resistance by the West and its allies. As the standoff with Iran continues, it is important to understand the reality of the religious state that many say is now the key to Middle East policy.
Under a new president in 2005, Iran began a push for developing itself as the voice of the Islamic world. One of Ahmadinejad's key principles as the Islamic Republic's president is to take actions that would promote the coming of the Mahdi (the Islamic redeemer who will come and rule the world). Even in his UN General Assembly speech this week, Ahmadinejad threw in references to Islamic rule and the Mahdi.
But Ahmadinejad capitalized on the goodwill of his Islamic beliefs and his "religious obligations," using Islam as a veil to promote Iranian influence among various regions. The most notable of which has been in Africa.
In 2006, President Ahmad Abdallah Sambi was elected president of the Comoros Islands, off Africa's eastern coast. It was then that Iranian influence in the country surged coincidentally. According to a local politician in the country, Iranian elements were given control of President Sambi's security, both inside the island and on his trips abroad. However, Iran also established a presence in other aspects of the Comoros. Since 2006, Iran has created a medical center linked to the Iranian Red Cross, a cultural center, and a center for human aid called the Al-Khomeini Committee for Help in the Comoros Islands.
Iran seems to have capitalized on its investments in the Comoros. It found its link with President Sambi, who studied at religious schools in Iran throughout his youth. The country, which is largely Sunni Arab, has undergone what some see as a Shi'a revolution thanks to Tehran's involvement. Some have accused President Sambi as having become a practicing Shiite, even earning the title of "Ayatollah" (a Shiite religious authority respected for matters of religious law and interpretation).
To illustrate the enhanced partnership between the two countries, just yesterday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, the headline in Tehran was "Iran, Comoros keen to boost ties". Both presidents agreed at UNGA for the increased cooperation on "energy and development fields."
Now, back to the growth of the Iranian proxies in the same region. In May, pictures emerged of purported Hizbullah rallies and supporters in Nigeria. Not a surprise to many officials who have seen the activities of the group expand over the past few years. Dr. J Peter Pham, an expert on Africa, commented that when analysts have been looking at Africa over the years the trend has been to identify an area as "traditionally one thing or another without accounting for the possibility of dynamic change." This has been precisely where terror groups thrive, by supplying what the governments have failed to provide in the third world countries throughout the region. Their aid fills in gaps, breeding a change in favor of the terror group.
Take for instance the establishment of the Islamic University College of Ghana in 1988 by the Ahlul Bait Foundation, an Iranian organization. It is reported that all the administrators and the president of the College are all Iranian. In fact, the school's most recent president, Dr. Gholamreza Rahmani Miandehi, has five listings of work experience in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The school's website discusses how it is intended to provide an education to families, charging a "low fee" and "being open to all qualified persons, regardless of religion, race, ethnic, or geographical background."
It is the lack of transparency of these Iranian establishments abroad that should be of concern to many. The willingness to conduct illegal activities veiled under the guise of Islamic charities is one that has been seen before, whether it be Saudi charities using their status to export weapons to Bosnia and Afghanistan or the many Palestinian charities used for suicide bomber's families.
It has long been reported that Hizbullah had shady ties to the West African illegal diamond trade, laundering potentially tens of millions of dollars annually from the region for the group's support. In 2003, Union Transport Africaines Flight 141 crashed after take-off from Benin, West Africa. Destined for Beirut, a "foreign relations official of the African branch of the Lebanese Hizballah party and two of his aides" were among those killed. Traveling with the Hizbullah officials was nearly $2 million that the group was moving to Hizbullah headquarters. The accident shed a light as to just how profitable West Africa was to the terror group.
Hizbullah has long held a presence in Sierra Leone, dating back to the 1980s. The group, similar to its presence in Latin America, has used the large Lebanese immigrant communities in the country to conceal its operatives and actions. Furthermore, the potential for corruption and bribery amongst the country's law enforcement permits the group to avoid confrontation.
In 2004, two individuals were arrested for suspected ties to terrorist groups and moving weapons and diamonds illegally. Paddy McKay and Khalil Lakish used fraudulent papers to register four aircraft in the country. McKay, a British national with suspected Al-Qaida links, and Lakish, a Lebanese descendant residing in Sierra Leone with reported Hizbullah ties, reportedly used the planes to transport illicit diamonds and weapons to the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. By 2005, the story from the Ministry for Transportation and Communication had changed to “McKay enjoys a normal and professional business relationship with the department of Civil Aviation and the Government of Sierra Leone… all airline operators are properly registered and do not have any terrorist connections.” African corruption at its finest.
In 2004, the UN special envoy estimated that out of the official number of $130 million worth of diamonds exported from Sierra Leone, the real figure laid around $300-500 million. A slight discrepancy in an issue that has provided funds for groups like Al-Qaida and Hizbullah. With the aid of smugglers like McKay and Lakish, groups will always have an ability to move their funds.
Ahmadinejad saw that Iran filled the void where Saudi Arabia had once dominated. Where Saudi charities and Sunni Islamic values had once ruled, Iran was beginning to replace them with Shiite "goodwill missions." Through offering health care, education, and jobs in countries where governments had failed, Iran was able to become a powerful force throughout the struggling African countries. Iranian proxies continued with their well-established presence in certain areas, but sought to expand to vulnerable areas as well. By capitalizing on the weaknesses of a continent, Iran was yet again able to spread its message of anti-Imperialism and its opposition to the Western powers with no resistance. Once again, the U.S. and its allies sat idle as Iran continued its development as a global power.
Under a new president in 2005, Iran began a push for developing itself as the voice of the Islamic world. One of Ahmadinejad's key principles as the Islamic Republic's president is to take actions that would promote the coming of the Mahdi (the Islamic redeemer who will come and rule the world). Even in his UN General Assembly speech this week, Ahmadinejad threw in references to Islamic rule and the Mahdi.
But Ahmadinejad capitalized on the goodwill of his Islamic beliefs and his "religious obligations," using Islam as a veil to promote Iranian influence among various regions. The most notable of which has been in Africa.
In 2006, President Ahmad Abdallah Sambi was elected president of the Comoros Islands, off Africa's eastern coast. It was then that Iranian influence in the country surged coincidentally. According to a local politician in the country, Iranian elements were given control of President Sambi's security, both inside the island and on his trips abroad. However, Iran also established a presence in other aspects of the Comoros. Since 2006, Iran has created a medical center linked to the Iranian Red Cross, a cultural center, and a center for human aid called the Al-Khomeini Committee for Help in the Comoros Islands.
Iran seems to have capitalized on its investments in the Comoros. It found its link with President Sambi, who studied at religious schools in Iran throughout his youth. The country, which is largely Sunni Arab, has undergone what some see as a Shi'a revolution thanks to Tehran's involvement. Some have accused President Sambi as having become a practicing Shiite, even earning the title of "Ayatollah" (a Shiite religious authority respected for matters of religious law and interpretation).
To illustrate the enhanced partnership between the two countries, just yesterday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, the headline in Tehran was "Iran, Comoros keen to boost ties". Both presidents agreed at UNGA for the increased cooperation on "energy and development fields."
Now, back to the growth of the Iranian proxies in the same region. In May, pictures emerged of purported Hizbullah rallies and supporters in Nigeria. Not a surprise to many officials who have seen the activities of the group expand over the past few years. Dr. J Peter Pham, an expert on Africa, commented that when analysts have been looking at Africa over the years the trend has been to identify an area as "traditionally one thing or another without accounting for the possibility of dynamic change." This has been precisely where terror groups thrive, by supplying what the governments have failed to provide in the third world countries throughout the region. Their aid fills in gaps, breeding a change in favor of the terror group.
Take for instance the establishment of the Islamic University College of Ghana in 1988 by the Ahlul Bait Foundation, an Iranian organization. It is reported that all the administrators and the president of the College are all Iranian. In fact, the school's most recent president, Dr. Gholamreza Rahmani Miandehi, has five listings of work experience in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The school's website discusses how it is intended to provide an education to families, charging a "low fee" and "being open to all qualified persons, regardless of religion, race, ethnic, or geographical background."
It is the lack of transparency of these Iranian establishments abroad that should be of concern to many. The willingness to conduct illegal activities veiled under the guise of Islamic charities is one that has been seen before, whether it be Saudi charities using their status to export weapons to Bosnia and Afghanistan or the many Palestinian charities used for suicide bomber's families.
It has long been reported that Hizbullah had shady ties to the West African illegal diamond trade, laundering potentially tens of millions of dollars annually from the region for the group's support. In 2003, Union Transport Africaines Flight 141 crashed after take-off from Benin, West Africa. Destined for Beirut, a "foreign relations official of the African branch of the Lebanese Hizballah party and two of his aides" were among those killed. Traveling with the Hizbullah officials was nearly $2 million that the group was moving to Hizbullah headquarters. The accident shed a light as to just how profitable West Africa was to the terror group.
Hizbullah has long held a presence in Sierra Leone, dating back to the 1980s. The group, similar to its presence in Latin America, has used the large Lebanese immigrant communities in the country to conceal its operatives and actions. Furthermore, the potential for corruption and bribery amongst the country's law enforcement permits the group to avoid confrontation.
In 2004, two individuals were arrested for suspected ties to terrorist groups and moving weapons and diamonds illegally. Paddy McKay and Khalil Lakish used fraudulent papers to register four aircraft in the country. McKay, a British national with suspected Al-Qaida links, and Lakish, a Lebanese descendant residing in Sierra Leone with reported Hizbullah ties, reportedly used the planes to transport illicit diamonds and weapons to the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. By 2005, the story from the Ministry for Transportation and Communication had changed to “McKay enjoys a normal and professional business relationship with the department of Civil Aviation and the Government of Sierra Leone… all airline operators are properly registered and do not have any terrorist connections.” African corruption at its finest.
In 2004, the UN special envoy estimated that out of the official number of $130 million worth of diamonds exported from Sierra Leone, the real figure laid around $300-500 million. A slight discrepancy in an issue that has provided funds for groups like Al-Qaida and Hizbullah. With the aid of smugglers like McKay and Lakish, groups will always have an ability to move their funds.
Ahmadinejad saw that Iran filled the void where Saudi Arabia had once dominated. Where Saudi charities and Sunni Islamic values had once ruled, Iran was beginning to replace them with Shiite "goodwill missions." Through offering health care, education, and jobs in countries where governments had failed, Iran was able to become a powerful force throughout the struggling African countries. Iranian proxies continued with their well-established presence in certain areas, but sought to expand to vulnerable areas as well. By capitalizing on the weaknesses of a continent, Iran was yet again able to spread its message of anti-Imperialism and its opposition to the Western powers with no resistance. Once again, the U.S. and its allies sat idle as Iran continued its development as a global power.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
If we close our eyes, we can say nothing happened (Pt. I)
This is the first of three parts detailing Iran's growing influence in various regions. From Latin America to Africa to Europe, Iran has undeniably risen from the shadows largely due to its mouthy president who emerged in 2005 and its proxies' expansion. In such a short period of time, the growth of the Khomenist state has extended to nearly every hemisphere, facing little resistance by the West and its allies. As the standoff with Iran continues, it is important to understand the reality of the religious state that many say is now the key to Middle East policy.
As a new administration begins to take office and will undoubtedly adopt some policy against Iran that has not been working for over a decade, let's talk about the real threats posed by Iran. For too long, U.S. policymakers have closed their eyes to the growing Iranian influence that is allowing it to take such a hold on the international scale. From Latin America, to Europe, to Africa, Iran quickly began to develop allies in virtually every region of the world while the U.S. did nothing.
In case you haven't noticed, U.S. policy should have changed in 2005, but the U.S. had no plan to confront a changing Iran. Now don't get me wrong, the U.S. did do something, but according to former Treasury Dept. official Matt Levitt, it has been the same thing that it did throughout the 1990s - more sanctions. Levitt says:
"In dealing with Iran sanctions have a large role but this is only one piece of the process. Sanctions are meant to levy diplomatic leverage. Like sanctions, neither diplomacy nor military force will work alone. A coherent combination of these strategies must be applied. We cannot simply engage Iran for the sake of engaging."
As Ahmadinejad won the presidency, the Iran that once lurked in the shadows of the almighty Ayatollah suddenly began - surprise - the process of globalization. The process that the West had pioneered and championed came back to bite it, and Ahmadinejad became a household name within days for championing ludicrous statements about Jews and Israel.
One has to wonder why some Marxist like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela would partner with the religiously motivated Ahmadinejad of Iran. However, Ahmadinejad extended his hand and then gained more influence in the Latin American region than his country had a decade prior to his taking office. Iran soon had ties to Chavez allies in Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and most recently an embassy being established in U.S. friendly Colombia.
The Iranian-Latin American cooperation has surged since its establishment under Ahmadinejad. The partnership of Ahmadinejad and Chavez has been one of the strongest alliances to develop over a short period of time, with the sole basis of "anti-Imperialism" as its cornerstone.
In a region where Hizbullah has operated for decades, primarily for fundraising but still having been involved in attacks on Jewish targets during the 1990s, the group found a government willing to turn a blind eye to its activities thanks to Ahmadinejad.
Conveniently, one of the steps that was taken in May by the two co-conspirators was to partner in a joint banking venture between Tehran and Caracas. Hizbullah and Tehran, both impacted by Western sanctions repeatedly, now had the ability to move and launder money throughout the world without having any system of reporting. Furthermore, how much money was being moved would remain a mystery without having to use any expansive network of banks. But this move was not the first one made that would clearly benefit the Iranian terror network.
In March 2007, the two countries took a huge step. IranAir began weekly flights from Caracas to Tehran, with a stop conveniently in Damascus. In this year's State Department Assessment for Global Terrorism, it was noted that Venezuelan border officials frequently failed to record the information of arriving passengers from Iran and neglected to stamp their passports. It's been reported that the issue has now been corrected.
However, why would you not record who is entering your country at all? It's probably not VIPs traveling into the region through Venezuela, but rather Hizbullah and Iranian terror operatives.
Sure enough, the warning was issued by Shin Bet and Mossad to Israeli citizens internationally a couple weeks ago, advising them to return to Israel if possible. The agencies apparently became increasingly concerned of what they viewed as an active kidnapping threat by Hizbullah cells globally to Israeli businesspeople, specifically over the group's increased claims for spectacular operations in response to the February assassination of its security chief, Imad Mughniyeh. The threat specifically noted Latin America as a primary hot zone for such action.
Intelligence officials have stated that Hizbullah operatives, in coordination with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, created a specific group designed for such action in the Latin American region. The aim to kidnap the individuals and then quickly send them off to Hizbullah's fortress in Lebanon. A difficult maneuver for most terror groups, moving a group of hostages across the world, but one that is undeniably easier when you have your own direct airline.
It was reported that Venezuelan airport employees had been recruited to conduct surveillance on Jewish targets travels. It should be noted that in May, it was discovered that the head of security at Beirut's Rafic Hariri Intl. Airport was a Hizbullah informant and had allowed the group to place cameras throughout the airport, conducting surveillance on Syrian opposition leaders travels. The group has a history of making sure that its operatives can remain distant from the operation until it actually occurs, so such a report is not farstretched. Especially since it is well-documented that Venezuelan military and airport officials are profiting already from the cocaine trade.
Your own airline and your own bank? If terror groups had wish lists, those two items would most assuredly be at the top. But in the realm of state-sponsored terror, Iran can fulfill any fantasy that its Shi'a partners desire.
On a final note of the growing Iranian proxies continued growth throughout the Latin American region, the amount of Colombian cocaine moving through heavy regions of Hizbullah support is on the rise. Doug Farah, who has followed the region for decades, cautions that group's like Colombia's FARC rebels - who, after 40 years, are finally suffering greatly- may begin to form an alliance with Hizbullah. Such an action would create an unprecedented and very dangerous link between the most prolific narco-terrorists and the most expansive Islamic terrorist organization. However as evidenced by the Latin America-Iran connection, two worlds can come together pretty easily.
As a new administration begins to take office and will undoubtedly adopt some policy against Iran that has not been working for over a decade, let's talk about the real threats posed by Iran. For too long, U.S. policymakers have closed their eyes to the growing Iranian influence that is allowing it to take such a hold on the international scale. From Latin America, to Europe, to Africa, Iran quickly began to develop allies in virtually every region of the world while the U.S. did nothing.
In case you haven't noticed, U.S. policy should have changed in 2005, but the U.S. had no plan to confront a changing Iran. Now don't get me wrong, the U.S. did do something, but according to former Treasury Dept. official Matt Levitt, it has been the same thing that it did throughout the 1990s - more sanctions. Levitt says:
"In dealing with Iran sanctions have a large role but this is only one piece of the process. Sanctions are meant to levy diplomatic leverage. Like sanctions, neither diplomacy nor military force will work alone. A coherent combination of these strategies must be applied. We cannot simply engage Iran for the sake of engaging."
As Ahmadinejad won the presidency, the Iran that once lurked in the shadows of the almighty Ayatollah suddenly began - surprise - the process of globalization. The process that the West had pioneered and championed came back to bite it, and Ahmadinejad became a household name within days for championing ludicrous statements about Jews and Israel.
One has to wonder why some Marxist like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela would partner with the religiously motivated Ahmadinejad of Iran. However, Ahmadinejad extended his hand and then gained more influence in the Latin American region than his country had a decade prior to his taking office. Iran soon had ties to Chavez allies in Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and most recently an embassy being established in U.S. friendly Colombia.
The Iranian-Latin American cooperation has surged since its establishment under Ahmadinejad. The partnership of Ahmadinejad and Chavez has been one of the strongest alliances to develop over a short period of time, with the sole basis of "anti-Imperialism" as its cornerstone.
In a region where Hizbullah has operated for decades, primarily for fundraising but still having been involved in attacks on Jewish targets during the 1990s, the group found a government willing to turn a blind eye to its activities thanks to Ahmadinejad.
Conveniently, one of the steps that was taken in May by the two co-conspirators was to partner in a joint banking venture between Tehran and Caracas. Hizbullah and Tehran, both impacted by Western sanctions repeatedly, now had the ability to move and launder money throughout the world without having any system of reporting. Furthermore, how much money was being moved would remain a mystery without having to use any expansive network of banks. But this move was not the first one made that would clearly benefit the Iranian terror network.
In March 2007, the two countries took a huge step. IranAir began weekly flights from Caracas to Tehran, with a stop conveniently in Damascus. In this year's State Department Assessment for Global Terrorism, it was noted that Venezuelan border officials frequently failed to record the information of arriving passengers from Iran and neglected to stamp their passports. It's been reported that the issue has now been corrected.
However, why would you not record who is entering your country at all? It's probably not VIPs traveling into the region through Venezuela, but rather Hizbullah and Iranian terror operatives.
Sure enough, the warning was issued by Shin Bet and Mossad to Israeli citizens internationally a couple weeks ago, advising them to return to Israel if possible. The agencies apparently became increasingly concerned of what they viewed as an active kidnapping threat by Hizbullah cells globally to Israeli businesspeople, specifically over the group's increased claims for spectacular operations in response to the February assassination of its security chief, Imad Mughniyeh. The threat specifically noted Latin America as a primary hot zone for such action.
Intelligence officials have stated that Hizbullah operatives, in coordination with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, created a specific group designed for such action in the Latin American region. The aim to kidnap the individuals and then quickly send them off to Hizbullah's fortress in Lebanon. A difficult maneuver for most terror groups, moving a group of hostages across the world, but one that is undeniably easier when you have your own direct airline.
It was reported that Venezuelan airport employees had been recruited to conduct surveillance on Jewish targets travels. It should be noted that in May, it was discovered that the head of security at Beirut's Rafic Hariri Intl. Airport was a Hizbullah informant and had allowed the group to place cameras throughout the airport, conducting surveillance on Syrian opposition leaders travels. The group has a history of making sure that its operatives can remain distant from the operation until it actually occurs, so such a report is not farstretched. Especially since it is well-documented that Venezuelan military and airport officials are profiting already from the cocaine trade.
Your own airline and your own bank? If terror groups had wish lists, those two items would most assuredly be at the top. But in the realm of state-sponsored terror, Iran can fulfill any fantasy that its Shi'a partners desire.
On a final note of the growing Iranian proxies continued growth throughout the Latin American region, the amount of Colombian cocaine moving through heavy regions of Hizbullah support is on the rise. Doug Farah, who has followed the region for decades, cautions that group's like Colombia's FARC rebels - who, after 40 years, are finally suffering greatly- may begin to form an alliance with Hizbullah. Such an action would create an unprecedented and very dangerous link between the most prolific narco-terrorists and the most expansive Islamic terrorist organization. However as evidenced by the Latin America-Iran connection, two worlds can come together pretty easily.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Letting the next bin Laden go
Word comes out today that Pakistan is accusing the U.S. of a “missed opportunity” to eliminate Tehrik-e-Taliban (the Pakistani wing of the Taliban) commander Baitullah Mehsud. Pakistan suggests that they passed on “actionable intelligence” that on May 24, Mehsud would be traveling via Toyota Landcruiser to his Taliban stronghold in South Waziristan. Apparently, the information was disregarded and the CIA Hellfires that could have fired missiles on the target sat idle.
This claim is almost comical, considering the timing. As reports circulate that the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency) is full of corrupt Taliban sympathizers, the country has sought to accuse the U.S. of not fighting the War On Terror for Pakistan - despite that Prime Minister Gilani said last week while in Washington that the War On Terror was his country’s “own war” and the repeated public claims that U.S. forces had no right to violate Pakistani territory. That’s right, despite the nearly $10 billion that Pakistan has received since the War’s beginning in 2001 (only topped by Israel and Egypt as the top recipient of U.S. aid), Pakistan wants the U.S. to go after it’s high value targets - such as the alleged mastermind of Benazir Bhutto’s assasination.
The intelligence that was passed on is in reality, almost laughable. The reason Mehsud, who doesn’t sleep in the same bed each night and is virtually paranoid, would emerge on that date was for none other than a press conference. Mehsud called nearly 30 journalists to his stronghold to discuss his group’s policies publicly. It is well-known that Mehsud’s tribe is spending substantial amounts (to the tune of $45 million, the NWFP governor declared) on fleets of Toyota and Nissan trucks, which Mehsud uses for convoy travel with an estimated 2-3 dozen armed guards. To place Mehsud in a Toyota in the middle of a region that spans the size of New Jersey is worthless. Without an asset on the ground to confirm Mehsud’s presence, the credibility of such claims would be questioned.
The real question that this whole blame game raises is a very important one. Where is that money going?
Money intended for strengthening the Frontier Corps and Pakistani army troops apparently isn’t doing anything, if they are too afraid to act independently against a terrorist wanted in their own country for the assassination of one of it’s most revered politicians. Perhaps Prime Minister Gilani should remind his ISI and its minions that Mehsud had a warrant issued for his arrest on April 17. The majority of that month was spent with Mehsud’s fighters and the government brokering ceasefires. If Pakistan wants Mehsud’s head on a platter, let U.S. forces enter the region and allow full authorization for air strikes. Otherwise, how about diverting some of those billions in aid to North African countries, who could actually use it?
Just to give you a brief idea of what Mehsud’s organization has been responsible for in Pakistan’s policy evolution, here’s a short list:
-assassinated over 200 tribal elders in region
-abduction of over 200 Pakistani soldiers in 2007, as well as several police attacks (one of which he is charged in the warrant for)
-attempted Oct. assassination of Bhutto, successful attack in Dec.
-group has expressed links to AQ Khan nuclear smuggling network
-has free border access to Afghanistan, where group is orchestrating attacks
This claim is almost comical, considering the timing. As reports circulate that the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency) is full of corrupt Taliban sympathizers, the country has sought to accuse the U.S. of not fighting the War On Terror for Pakistan - despite that Prime Minister Gilani said last week while in Washington that the War On Terror was his country’s “own war” and the repeated public claims that U.S. forces had no right to violate Pakistani territory. That’s right, despite the nearly $10 billion that Pakistan has received since the War’s beginning in 2001 (only topped by Israel and Egypt as the top recipient of U.S. aid), Pakistan wants the U.S. to go after it’s high value targets - such as the alleged mastermind of Benazir Bhutto’s assasination.
The intelligence that was passed on is in reality, almost laughable. The reason Mehsud, who doesn’t sleep in the same bed each night and is virtually paranoid, would emerge on that date was for none other than a press conference. Mehsud called nearly 30 journalists to his stronghold to discuss his group’s policies publicly. It is well-known that Mehsud’s tribe is spending substantial amounts (to the tune of $45 million, the NWFP governor declared) on fleets of Toyota and Nissan trucks, which Mehsud uses for convoy travel with an estimated 2-3 dozen armed guards. To place Mehsud in a Toyota in the middle of a region that spans the size of New Jersey is worthless. Without an asset on the ground to confirm Mehsud’s presence, the credibility of such claims would be questioned.
The real question that this whole blame game raises is a very important one. Where is that money going?
Money intended for strengthening the Frontier Corps and Pakistani army troops apparently isn’t doing anything, if they are too afraid to act independently against a terrorist wanted in their own country for the assassination of one of it’s most revered politicians. Perhaps Prime Minister Gilani should remind his ISI and its minions that Mehsud had a warrant issued for his arrest on April 17. The majority of that month was spent with Mehsud’s fighters and the government brokering ceasefires. If Pakistan wants Mehsud’s head on a platter, let U.S. forces enter the region and allow full authorization for air strikes. Otherwise, how about diverting some of those billions in aid to North African countries, who could actually use it?
Just to give you a brief idea of what Mehsud’s organization has been responsible for in Pakistan’s policy evolution, here’s a short list:
-assassinated over 200 tribal elders in region
-abduction of over 200 Pakistani soldiers in 2007, as well as several police attacks (one of which he is charged in the warrant for)
-attempted Oct. assassination of Bhutto, successful attack in Dec.
-group has expressed links to AQ Khan nuclear smuggling network
-has free border access to Afghanistan, where group is orchestrating attacks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)