Committing to a resolution for Iran

2011 has been a whirlwind year, with the emergence of the "Arab Spring" throughout the Middle East and the recent death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, this is hardly a time for the U.S. to mull presidential candidates with little to no foreign policy backbone. While TIME magazine recognized "the Protester" as its person of the year, it clearly showed how strong an impact one person can have - for better or worse. Now as Syrian protesters continue to be massacred on the streets, the U.S. stays mum to the violence committed by President Bashar Assad. Whatever happens in Syria could be part of a larger trail that could ultimately lead to Iran, resulting in either a stronger Islamic republic under Khomenei or a new democracy. Now, more than ever is the time to act in Iran and to sustain all current actions.

To the West and especially Israel, the largest concern from Iran has been with the undeclared and unregulated nuclear pursuits of a country that seeks to control the region and the world. This is a country that is bigger than its borders, exploiting partnerships in various regions to expand and establish presence inside virtually every corner of the globe. For the time being, Iran's activities have been primarily centered around fundraising. However, recent reports show that the U.S. has effectively diminished the flow of funds from Iran to groups like Hizbollah by as much as 25%. Continued sanctions can help manage the world's largest exporter of terrorism, but it does little to end the threat posed by Iran's proxies. Furthermore, the apparent drying up of money has reportedly pushed Hizbollah operatives in Northern Lebanon to deal drugs in an attempt to make up for losses.

Strategically, now is perhaps one of the most opportune times for the U.S. to capitalize on the revolutionary movements emerging throughout the region as well as the insecurity of Iran's government. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced he will not run in the election in 2013, and the sanctions have proven disruptive to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and its funding of Hizbollah, which is reportedly in turmoil amid reports of internal corruption which reportedly had the group's investment manager having embezzled as much as $1.6 billion. That is how much money we are talking about. Consider Western intelligence having placed Hizbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah to have a net worth of $250 million.

According to reports, Iran's Revolutionary Guard is growing increasingly frustrated with Hizbollah amid the corruption allegations. Hizbollah, regarded as "the A-team of terror" amid intelligence circles, has taken a serious hit and may be at a bypass with many of its senior leaders and the IRGC. With the tension between Iran and Hizbullah building, and an inability to deliver funds, Iran's biggest and most feared proxy is in a weakened state. Combined with upcoming elections in 2013 and the growing movement inside Syria, Iran's biggest assets are in a struggle that they can either emerge stronger or weakened.

Last week, Ahmadinejad announced that by 2013 his country will be a major gasoline exporter. This move is a direct affront to the threat and usage of sanctions in an effort for his country to establish independence similar to its establishment of a joint bank venture with Venezuela.

Opportunity exists for the U.S. to partner with Western countries and regional players in seeking a new Iran that eliminates the violent rhetoric and apocalyptic direction that Ayatollah Khomenei seeks, regardless of who the country's president is. As Rep. Ron Paul questions why the U.S. should be meddling in Iranian affairs, the fact remains that with or without U.S. surveillance, Iran has an undeclared nuclear program, has consistently been the largest state-sponsor of terrorism, and has backed attacks globally on U.S. assets via its network of proxies.

Bin Laden's battle for relevance

This weekend saw the emergence of Al-Qaida figurehead Osama bin Laden and the continued redefinition of Al-Qaida's jihad against the U.S. amid reports of a growing threat faced in Europe. The normally reclusive leader, who releases a handful of audio tapes usually annually, released two tapes this weekend in a ploy to rally support among Muslims. The consecutive releases of tapes raise several concerns, specifically with the recent revelation that OBL was connected to the recent plot thwarted in Europe.


Al-Qaida's resources are dwindling, and the necessities to implement a large-scale plot like 9/11 does not exist. However, the ability to take individuals (such as Faisal Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi) who actively pursue training abroad and then commit to executing terrorist attacks remains the most relevant and difficult threat to counter. The operational war against terrorism is the easiest fight, but the ideological aspect remains difficult to address by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.


Bin Laden's latest tapes went back to an issue released in a recording from January this year - climate change. This issue perhaps gained insertion due to the floods that devastated Pakistan a couple months ago. Bin Laden faulted Arab governments, lending credit to the UN for its response and accusing the regimes around the Middle East for closing their eyes to the suffering. The plight of the Palestinian people is no longer an opportunity for recruitment apparently, as the focus has shifted and the tapes no longer mention the continued stalemate among Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, bin Laden again makes a subtle cry for Muslims to avoid the U.S. economy (perhaps to attempt to gain more finances for his group's diminishing finances) and identifies the significance of each Muslim's role in his battle with the West.


This latest tape continues the normal message of blaming Arab governments for turning a blind eye to the suffering of Muslims. The reality is bin Laden is struggling in the battle to remain relevant. The surge Al-Qaida experienced as the superpower of jihadist groups for 9/11 has diminished, replaced by groups seeking to instigate the Palestinian-Israeli conflict even more. Hizbullah's global dominance and established assets present the clearest threat to Israel and its allies, however the group understands the necessity of maintaining a covert threat. Bin Laden has constantly lost the recruiting power he once held, with his franchises operating in other groups like AQIM, AQAP, and now al-Shabaab. Recruits now are forced to independently travel abroad, in hopes of being considered trustworthy by al-Qaida and Taliban contacts inside Pakistan. Otherwise, they must travel to Yemen or Somalia with the same goal, but the ability to recruit from within the U.S. solely relies on the individual's radical leanings.


OBL now must utilize whatever global development he can, playing the role of the Muslim father trying to protect his suffering Muslim brothers and sisters. However, Sheikh Nasrallah has continuously been considered in poll after poll among Muslim nations that he and his group take up the Muslim fight best. Hizbullah's recruiting has not dwindled, nor its assets, unlike bin Laden. The desperation for OBL to continue to pursue his fight against the U.S. has made the group seem almost uninterested in the Israeli-Palestinian saga that seems almost too easy to utilize if Al-Qaida was interested in establishing legitimacy among Muslims. The dependence on individual's willing to pursue suicide or creating bombs will be the only thing that carries on the jihad when Al-Qaida is no more, with or without bin Laden. It is only when this is adequately addressed by Muslim nations, as well as Western nations, that the struggle to confront terrorism and its roots can begin.

Tackling terrorism..in theory. Why the Nuclear Summit failed.

During the Cold War, many who were alive can recall the "Duck and Cover" videos that cautioned preparedness for a nuclear attack. The fear that the United States would fall victim to a nuclear attack was something that was ever present in the minds of that generation that witnessed missiles sitting just off the coast of the Southern U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This week, President Obama hosted the Nuclear Summit in Washington D.C., requesting all participating countries to take initiatives to deter against nuclear terrorism. To many in the mainstream media, this is a step that is significant in the public relations front of the War on Terror. However, as with many PR-oriented conferences on terrorism, they play to the public perception and continue to miss the mark on the issues that must be addressed in the constant struggle against those seeking to attack and kill innocent lives.


Since the 9/11 attacks, there has been the question of when will the U.S. suffer another attack? Since that day in 2001, we have been attacked by radical jihadist sympathizers, but have yet to see the face of any actual members of radical groups like Al-Qaida. In fact, Al-Qaida has suffered immense financial losses due to Treasury Dept. initiatives targeting their revenue lines. This fact leads to the point that in order to look for the next attack, the risk of an independent terrorist organization being able to piece together a nuclear missile on their own, or hijack a nuclear plant, is at an extremely low probability. Experts have said for years now that the cost/success potential for such a costly operation is drastically low due to the safeguards installed after 2001, even if Al-Qaida, the number one enemy of the U.S. had the funds to coordinate such an operation.


This puts into play the real concern that should be addressed, especially as President Obama was able to get over 40 countries into Washington at one time. Terrorist groups operate freely and gain license from state-sponsors in many countries. The finances of a group are provided by states and/or charity sponsors who may or may not have the knowledge of where their funds are going. Without countries making an effort to halt the flow of money into terrorist hands, many groups would face a difficult fight while trying to recruit and train future militants, as well as fund operations. Hezbollah is a group that still has opportunity to fund raise inside many European countries, who have chosen to turn a blind eye to the group's activities simply because Hezbollah has not targeted them in any attacks. Do we really want to live in a society that turns a blind eye to the atrocities abroad and only wish to respond when we fall victim?


State-sponsors of terror such as Syria, which has sought to pull the Obama State Dept. to them while providing little in return (especially when pertaining to issues regarding Iran) should be what the 40 some countries present this week should be talking about. As the U.S. and other EU countries continue to discuss sanctions, I can't help but remember what I heard one Treasury Dept. official say at a meeting - "Sanctions are not meant to fix the problem, they are meant to bring someone to the table to talk about fixing the problem. If they aren't working, they aren't gonna work unless you can and are willing to target the target's essentials."


The threat of nuclear terrorism is something that would not be addressed at this time if it wasn't for Iran's continued defiance of international cooperation in regulating their program. So long as Iran remains the most active state-sponsor for global terrorism, the international community should not play games and massage a country that has gone rogue to international relations. We haven't seen a nuclear attack by a terrorist group, and there isn't one on the way. Nuclear terrorism is something that makes a great episode of 24, but the real battle against terrorism comes down to those who perpetrate and organize it. Whether its airplanes being used as missiles into buildings or a gunman on the streets, that is the form of terrorism that will continue to thrive. Targeting a method of terrorism is only missing the mark in what should be a clear shot at those who perpetrate it.