Libya: Al-Qaida's rebirth

As weeks have passed since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed 4 Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, answers regarding the exact details of the plot seem to be nonexistent.  I believe that within the hours following the attack, just by assessing the predominate groups operating in the region that would select a U.S. target, AQIM (Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb) would be placed as a prime suspect in the attack.  While Ambassador Susan Rice explained that she believed the attack was a spontaneous assault by elements loyal to Qaddafi, the basis for the target selection just doesn't add up.  Such groups are largely disorganized and lack the firepower to select a target such as a U.S. Consulate, that would undeniably get a response utilizing American firepower, the likes of which they could not withstand.  It would, to say the least, have been a suicide mission.


If this had been a pro-Qaddafi outfit responsible, it would have been more than likely that you would have seen something similar to the likes of Al-Shabaab in the targeting of Somalian and Ethiopian forces as well as the attempted assassination of the new Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mahamud.  That attack came the day following the Libyan and Egyptian incidents.  Shabaab's template is one that seeks to largely destabilize the region and complicate interactions between Ethiopia and Somalia, which have mutually agreed to hunt down the group's fighters and have offered ceasefires.


What is particularly alarming is that with AQIM's involvement in this attack, the group has signaled they are willing to target Americans similar to Al-Qaida's 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.  The group had remained silent since the failed 1993 World Trade Center attack, utilizing the time to organize and equip its fighters for missions.  Now, after 11 years since the attack that killed 3,031, Al-Qaida is continuing a familiar pattern.  Without a doubt the group lacks the ability to perpetrate a large-scale attack like 9/11/01, but it can enhance its ability by perpetrating small-scale attacks on targets that are outside of U.S. borders and largely vulnerable like embassies or consulates.  Make no mistake, the point of surveillance is to find weaknesses and our embassies no matter how fortified we attempt to make them will always have a soft spot without the cooperation of foreign governments to protect the outer perimeters.  If such protection existed in places like Egypt, our embassy there would not have encountered such a threatening scenario as it did had Egyptian police responded and immediately attempted to disperse the crowds.


For instance, the 2008 attempted attack on the U.S. Consulate is an example of how the system should work.  When the attackers approached the compound, Turkish police immediately returned fire killing all three.  Three police officers were killed and one injured during the attempted attack but those officers did their jobs to do what is Turkey's responsibility - insuring that the threat did not make it inside the Consulate's walls.


This situation should ask the real question, and this is not the issue that most seem to make out about the attack in Benghazi.  That rocket was fired from outside the compound on Libyan soil.  The real question we should be asking is how did protesters encounter almost no resistance in storming our embassy in Egypt?  What does this signal as to how safe our facility is if police are either ordered to not intervene or allow such a threat to continue?  Had the groups outside been armed, it would have been exactly like August 7, 1998 when two U.S. installations in Africa were attacked.  However, those attacks were truck bombs blending into traffic and not part of a targeted assault from a mob.  It is incomprehensible to me how Egyptian police could have let people scale our walls, climb our building and yet they seemed to have done nothing to disperse the crowd outside.


It is my belief that the protests were an attempt by either Al-Qaida itself or pro-Qaida groups to utilize unarmed people and provoke a U.S. response once the embassy's territory was breached that would result in what would undoubtedly be labeled a massacre of unarmed martyrs - an undeniable win for Qaida recruiting.  However, I believe that the Libyan attack was the work of AQIM in what either was a concerted effort with regional partners and minimal AQ Central involvement.  This means I do not believe that the leaders of AQ were involved in the details of any of these incidents.  I believe what you are seeing is Al-Qaida's involvement in taking its fights rather from a global jihad, or "glocal terrorism" which mixes local and global, traditional and imported practices, as well as high and low technologies.  The pioneer for this template is Hizbullah, considered the A-team in terrorism by experts.


Despite the opening in 2008 of Africom, the Central command for U.S. operations in Africa, the continent houses what has always been a vulnerable host for terrorism.  Recruiting, financing, laundering, whatever criminal operations that need to take place to promote jihadism all comes from this continent.  Iran and Hizbullah have massive networks in the country, as well as Al-Qaida's previous involvement in the Blood Diamond trade that was journaled in Doug Farah's book "Blood from Stones".  The political instability and lawlessness that comes with it, as well as the Muslim population, make Africa a prime host for the jihad envisioned by Al-Qaida.  Undoubtedly, breaking this mold is something that requires international cooperation and partnerships that will require years to even attempt to tap into and reverse the networks which have been rooted for decades now.  It is my hope that both presidential candidates will take the threats emerging in Africa seriously, as well as AQAP (Al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula) in Yemen and recognize the development of the glocal trend.  

American Foreign Policy Post bin Laden

Post the death of Al-Qaida's most recognized leader, Osama bin Laden, the United States has had to adjust its mission in the War on Terror, recognizing that the threat is indeed broad and the enemy is persistent. Reports suggesting that the number of suspected terrorists has doubled within the last twelve months, that either suggests that the intelligence community has improved it reconnaissance on suspects or the TSA has been very busy. The reality is that terrorism without action, just like before 9/11, exists. Everyday, facilitators recruiting future suicide attackers and raising funds for terror operations exist and are hoping to develop the next big plot against our way of life.


Reports from the hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday suggested that America's most prominent adversary lays in the leadership of Iran. With reports suggesting that despite continued embargoes, Iran is willing and developing plots to attack American interests, both domestic and abroad (as evidenced by the willingness to attempt an assassination of the Saudi ambassador in a Washington D.C. restaurant) should alarm people. Iran's capabilities are unrivaled globally through its use of proxy networks. The question is how capable are its once strong partners, such as with Hizbullah, to instruct and coordinate an attack on American interests?


The reality is that Iran has long positioned itself within the Middle East region to be the most operational terror outfit. Its arsenal, recruitment numbers, and statements speak for itself. Despite setbacks in its leadership in Lebanon (which should raise concern of a splinter within the group that could develop into regional factions similar to Al-Qaida) the group has some of the most dedicated and persistent warriors within its ranks.


With the continued unrest in Syria, the certainty of one of Iran's closest partners in the Sunni-Shia divide is at stake and an opportunity to distract the international community is one of the most practical possibilities in this saga. Iran is in a difficult situation economically and is constantly looking for a way out, as evidenced by the previous reports of it seeking to increase oil exports and other strategic partnerships globally. It has laid a stake in various parts of Africa as well as in South America, particularly in Venezuela.


Strategically, without a unified voice to denounce the killings of protestors on the streets inside Syria, Bashar al-Assad will remain in power. The risks are too high for not only his regime, but also within the Iranian leadership which has aided Assad for years. The religious leadership of Iran, led by its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomenei, views every struggle as part of a religious commitment to fulfill the coming of the Mahdi and bringing about the end of the world. This delusion/ambition destroys the probability of reasoning with the real deciders, Iran's Supreme Council, is null.


Iran is a ticking time bomb that poses a grave threat to Israel, the U.S. and its Western allies as well as the entire Middle East region. The capabilities of Iran, combined with its undeclared nuclear program and its global network of terrorists place an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy and its need to deal and address the issue now rather than procrastinate and allow further development. Iran's leadership is religiously motivated and dependent on the apocalyptic theology and the necessity to bring this scenario about.


With the death of Osama bin Laden, the War on Terror developed into a new phase that determined that the enemy is no longer just one man who we sought to bring to justice, but rather a collection of groups seeking to destroy the fundamental rights of humanity. The reality is Iran utilizes its networks for terrorism, as well as being complicit and involved in actions killing U.S. soldiers inside Afghanistan and within Iraq in the past. U.S. policy must address the lapses in its inability to adequately confront and halt Iran in its quest for what is assuredly for nuclear weapons. Consistently, the largest threat against the U.S. has been Hizbullah. Due to its global networking and capabilities, combined with its complacency in criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, this group will remain the most extensive enemy against the West.

The Arab Spring and the potential to be on the wrong side of history...again

As President Obama continues to push for the "democracies" emerging in Egypt and Tunisia, the question emerging is how much can we trust that the youths on the streets really know the answer to the question everyone seems to be asking once the established government leaders are unseated: "What now?" The fact remains, when the U.S. pulled its support for President Mubarak, shock waves echoed in the halls of the palaces of other U.S. regional partners who suddenly realized that the U.S. could and would redact its support in a heartbeat to accommodate a vision for the region, even at the expense of an uncertain future and potential anarchy.

This movement may have honest beginnings, it may be the legitimate outcry from suffering populations who have reached the breaking point and making Tahrir Square into the next Tiananman Square. However, without careful oversight, the potential for evil forces engaged in jihad and partnered with the global vision for an Islamic Caliphate. Many people have it wrong when using the term jihad, labeling it as solely a blood and guts war against society. There are three variants to jihad, all focusing on different components. Jihad is the term for "struggle," which can indeed relate to citizen/government relations, or a person's internal conflict. Either way, the ultimate goal in jihad is to construct a resilient Islamic mentality in either a Muslim, or society.

With jihad taking form against the Mubarak administration, time will tell how long it will after the elections for the new administration to establish its policies on the Christians that make up Egypt's minority. Mubarak took a great deal of pressure from Muslims worldwide for his acceptance of Christianity inside the country, refusing to bow to calls to establish a Muslim state. Now, with his protection out the window, the potential for sectarian violence (just like in Lebanon with Hizbullah forces in 2008) is on the rise. Just last week, in Cairo Christian-Muslim clashes killed 11 and injured 150.

It was for this very reason that the al-Qiddissin church in Alexandria was targeted in a brutal attack on New Year's Eve. In the weeks following the Mubarak administration rounded up over 50 terrorists suspected of being linked to the plot. Al-Qaida in Iraq had issued a warning that December suggesting the targeting of churches throughout the region, however it was not deemed to be responsible for the plot and it was pinned on the Palestinian Islamic Army.

In a unique twist, the new anti-Mubarak administration opened an investigation implicating the Interior Ministry in a plot to exacerbate sectarian tensions in the country and implicate Al-Qaida militants in a bid to receive increased aid from the U.S. Proclamation 1450 saw an internal affairs investigation that was one of many to follow as President Hosni Mubarak was forced from office. Who stands to gain from the coup that took place? It has been clear, most recently in Lebanon in 2008, that militant groups seeking government legitimacy play a significant role in these movements. Hizbullah was able to topple any internal resistance from within Lebanon, and force a government takeover, while appearing "democratic" in its manipulations. Who ultimately stood to gain from a Hizbullah-led Lebanon? Ask the Israelis and it will be a strong answer of Iran.

Now, as Bashar Assad faces the same domestic revolts that have undermined the governments in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, where is the global response? Rather than pointing all our resources at Qaddafi, the real ploy should be to aggressively aid the Syrian resistance and mandate Assad cease civilian attacks (essentially the same thing we did in Libya, but with more tact). In Syria, we can win a war with the Syrian people's cooperation, and win back our reputation in the region as a protector of human rights and democratic values. At the same time, to topple Assad would change the tables in Lebanon and possibly put the favor back in the hands of the elected officials that swiftly lost any government input at the hands of Hizbullah's 2008 civil war. We could free Lebanon and Syria at the same time, and make things extremely difficult for Assad's closest partner - Tehran.

For the most part, Tehran has sat silent. Now as the situation in Syria begins to make some recognition in the media, it is being forced to respond at a very embarrassing time for the country. The role of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been relegated to completely internal closed door meetings with Ayatollah Khomenei following a dispute over his dismissal of the Khomenei associate, Intelligence Director Heidar Moslehi. Ahmadinejad fired Moslehi on 4/17, then according to MEMRI, was forced to reinstate him under direct orders from Khomenei. For the week following, the usually outspoken and hate mongering Ahmadinejad was confined to his house as the regime leaders dictated the potential wrath for disobeying the Ayatollah.

As Iran's president is carefully monitored to insure he remains the puppet for Khomenei, now is the U.S. opportunity to shake up the region. However, we seem to be only imagining ways to sanction Assad and try and punish him utilizing tactics that are meant to bribe and attract someone to the bargaining table, not as a punishment. Sanctions, just like with Iran's nuclear program, should not be the only measure we take against someone who has so violently abused the power of the presidency. Assad's calculated pullback and then successful monitoring of Lebanon from just outside the mandated area has effectively rendered Lebanon and its Hizbullah-led government as Iran's proxy next door to Israel. With this lingering, how long will it take before the region erupts and we see the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict again? The only difference this time is we can have the support of Saudi Arabia and other anti-Iranian countries who will, as in times previous, arm Israel to confront the trouble.

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.

9/11: Reviving U.S.-Muslim Relations with a new perspective

September 11, 2001, is a date that everyone will remember. The pain and anger that resulted from that day was felt by many worldwide, changing the dynamics of the United States-Muslim relationship. This week, everyone watched as Pastor Terry Jones announced plans to burn the Qu'ran as a demonstration against radical Islam, inciting a flash wave of anger amongst Muslims worldwide. This abuse of freedom of speech, driven by a narcissistic leader of a small congregation, sabotaged a day filled with remembrance for victims. Jones acknowledged he did not know the victims of 9/11, had not read the Qu'ran, and then attempted to state that this was a protest of radical Islam. The fact of the matter is by burning and desecrating a religious text used by followers of any faith, it is not targeting the problem-makers, but rather is offensive to all.


The complexity of the Muslim world is something that has baffled the experts at all levels of government, and accomplished virtually nothing when it comes to official policy. The fact of the matter is the organizations linked to the government - whether it be Department of Justice, the Pentagon, or even in the White House - all are questionable.

-The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the notorious Holy Land Foundation trial. The reality of the matter is the group has held links to terror-financing operations since 1994. This excerpt from a Fox News report by David Lee Miller with CAIR Legislative Affairs Director Corey Saylor was featured in an assessment on CAIR by the Investigative Project on Terrorism:


Miller: Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me - CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?

Saylor: I'm telling you in a very clear fashion - CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them.

Miller: That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah.

Saylor: Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question.

Miller: It's not no. It's not whether I like or dislike it. I was asking you if you can sit here now and say - CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is.

Saylor: The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens.

Video here.


In summary, a blanket rejection of the tactic, but not the groups that use it. Perhaps it's CAIR's links dating back to 1994 to Hamas fundraising that makes it so difficult in denying a group whose founding charter "commits the group to the destruction of Israel." Or the group's claim that suicide bombings are the equivalent to an F-16 fighter jet. Why did this organization ever even receive the time of day with government officials?


Perhaps the biggest embarrassment to attempting to moderate with the Muslim community lies somewhere in Yemen. The new face of terrorism, viewed more dangerous than Osama bin Laden by some, is Anwar al-Awlaki. A former U.S. citizen, Awlaki spoke at the U.S. Capitol just weeks before the 2001 attacks that would evacuate that same building. How did someone with such radical beliefs receive an invitation to become an ambassador for Islam on Capitol Hill?


The list goes on and on of instances where the government outreach to the Muslim community has backfired. The problem is not with Muslims, but rather the sheer incompetence of the government to understand that there is a liability with those that empathize with Hamas and Hezbollah. So long as the groups use terrorism, and the United States designates them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, there should be a firm stance to disregard any individuals affiliated with any groups on that list. Islam is not an organization, but a religion practiced by a fifth of the world. The strength lies in the outreach and ability to communicate with the people, not an organization.

Afghanistan - Why We're Losing

How do we win in Afghanistan? Eight years after the U.S. campaign that ousted the Taliban from power, the country remains a list of "to-dos" that have yet to be checked off. Since President Obama tasked Gen. Stanley McChrystal in charge of forces in Afghanistan, there has been talk of transforming the strategies that many have said made this war unwinnable. The dilemma remains, how can this war be turned around? There seems to a be a vague understanding of what makes this a winnable war - with critics like George Will joining the ranks of Vice President Joe Biden. The Veep has called for less troops on the ground in Afghanistan because he believes we should be pursuing Al-Qaida's havens in Pakistan instead.


I remain a skeptic of how useful Gen. McChrystal can be on the ground. This war has become a political tool for many, breeding lines of bureaucratic red-tape that puts restrictions on those who have fought in wars. While people like George Will and the Vice President sit in their lavish offices in Washington, the people of Afghanistan are waiting for this rhetoric to pan out to action. The attitude of your average Afghan looks back at the Soviet invasion and remembers how "committed" the U.S. was then. The country is used to corruption and being plagued by violence, it has become part of the culture and they do not seek to be used by anyone. At the first sign of their country becoming a means by a superpower, they are willing to confront it - just like the Soviets.


This war has become a failure because of those who were put in charge of the country. The Karzai administration has done nothing for the people in the country, it has bred corruption throughout every level and has enabled those who operate the trafficking of narcotics out of the country. With the contested results of the election that put him into office for another term, Hamid Karzai will continue to be a portrait of all that is wrong in his country.


President Karzai has opted to play both sides in this war, blaming NATO forces for violence in the country and civilian deaths. Meanwhile, he asks for the Taliban to sit around a table and talk about their involvement in a "post-Taliban" society. Mr. Karzai has repeatedly shown he does not have the attitude or motivation to confront the Taliban, seeing them as the coalition's problem.


However, this idea has been embraced by many in Washington who seek to use Lebanon's Hizbullah as a model for bringing a violent group into the political affairs of a country. Maybe it's time that the cubicle monkeys of Foggy Bottom examine the testimony over the years.


"Hezbollah may be the 'A-Team of Terrorists' and maybe al-Qaeda is actually the 'B' team."
-former Dep. Sec. of State Richard Armitage

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


The belief that Hizbullah is a regional player is complete and total B.S. Hezbollah controls Lebanon, it does not fit into the political system of the country. It has killed to get where it is and possesses global capabilities to obtain resources and attack targets. Ask Saad Hariri how Hizbullah has fit into the political system of his father on the Feb. 14, 2006 car bombing that shook Beirut.


If we want to push Afghanistan into a society that is ass backwards, by all means put the Taliban in the "reformed" government. If we withdraw our forces or do not commit to rebuilding their society, they will turn on us even more. They remember the U.S. pullout after ousting the Soviets, the question is do we?

A tragic failure of negotiations

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.

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.

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.

The emerging legitimacy of Hizbullah: a doomsday for the Middle East

As the United States is just months away from choosing its 44th President, the world is anxiously watching. Make no mistake, our enemies are awaiting the choice as well. Both candidates talk freely of a vision in the Middle East and the threat from Al-Qaida, but neither will acknowledge that the Middle East of today is still the house of cards it was twenty years ago.

Last week, Israel reaffirmed its position on the list of countries which succumb to terrorist groups' demands. In a prisoner exchange, five Hizbullah militants - including Samir Kantar, whose release had been sought by the group since the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro - were swapped for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers. Both soldiers had been dead since their capture in 2006.

Contrary to the mainstream media, the swap was a universal victory for terrorist groups. The one country that was seen as their main enemy had succumbed to their demands, releasing its most notorious Arab prisoner. Israel's actions that merely recovered two deceased soldiers have compromised the safety of one of its own. Immediately following the successful exchange, Hamas announced that "it proved Israel was no longer able to dictate terms during negotiations" and that Hamas would raise the stakes for Gilad Shalit, who is being held since his capture as well in 2006.

The ultimate dilemma Israel will face is that Lebanon is now unified by Hizbullah thanks to the inaction of the universal community. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, passed in 2004, called for Hizbullah's disarmament. The lack of compliance in such a situation proved fatal for Lebanon when the nation's second civil occurred. Triggered by government action banning Hizbullah's communications network (built by Iran) and the removal of the Beirut airport chief (who had allowed the group to place hidden cameras to spy on anti-Syrian politicians' travels, reportedly for assassination surveillance), the group launched its campaign. Disabling the U.S. trained army, the group forced Lebanon's parliament to negotiate before the group waged all-out war against the weak U.S.-trained Lebanese military. At the end of the "unity government" negotiations, Hizbullah walked away with Cabinet posts, an uncontested veto power, and Parliament seats.

Not a bad deal for a group that estimates over the past six months have warned is "rearming at an alarming rate." Reports suggest that the group in May had nearly 45,000 rockets, more than before the onset of the 2006 war with Israel, as well as nearly emptying villages in its southern Lebanese strongholds to send for training in Iran and Syria. The group has collected an estimated $30 billion from Iran and Syria. The group's international fundraising have been thriving in South America and have included cigarette-smuggling rings inside North Carolina. Contributing to the group's powerhouse status is that its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is routinely celebrated as the most prominent Arab leader (over Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, Mashaal, etc.).

Hizbullah is clearly the model for international terrorism. They have successfully adapted to counter the global efforts against them, becoming an international enterprise. The group is not by any means at a weak state. Unless Israel begins to focus on its northern border, the group will continue to thrive and enjoy its hijacking of the Lebanese government, resulting in a Middle East consisting of the status quo.