Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 10:43 am
(Caution: This is from the Moonie newspaper)
Does this mean the US will also have to attack Iran?
--------------------------------------------
February 15, 2003
Bin Laden son, al Qaeda terrorists spotted in Iran
By Bill Gertz - THE WASHINGTON TIMES
U.S. intelligence agencies say Osama bin Laden's oldest son, Sad, is in Iran along with other senior al Qaeda terrorists, as Iranian military forces have been placed on their highest state of alert in anticipation of a U.S. attack on Iraq, according to intelligence officials.
Sad bin Laden was spotted in Iran last month, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports. Sad is believed to be a key leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network since U.S. and allied forces ousted the ruling Taliban militia in Afghanistan. Officials said it is not clear what relationship Sad has with the Tehran government, which on Thursday denied congressional testimony by CIA Director George J. Tenet that al Qaeda terrorists are in Iran.
The new reports are the first time senior al Qaeda terrorists have been identified in Iran. Earlier reports have indicated other al Qaeda fighters have been granted refuge in Iran from neighboring Afghanistan. The intelligence on bin Laden's son comes as the Bush administration has released intelligence indicating Iraq is working with al Qaeda terrorists, including a senior associate of Osama bin Laden who has been in Baghdad since May. A CIA spokesman declined to comment when asked about the intelligence reports about Sad's whereabouts.
London's Arabic-language newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, quoting a diplomatic source, reported from Rome on Thursday that Sad was seen in Iran. The newspaper said it is not clear whether other senior al Qaeda are in Iran. U.S. officials confirmed that Sad is among the senior al Qaeda believed to be in Iran after the newspaper report appeared.
Sad, 23, is the oldest of Osama bin Laden's 27 children from several wives. He lived with his father in Sudan and Afghanistan, and fled Afghanistan in December 2001.
Meanwhile, Iranian military forces are on heightened alert and Tehran leaders fear U.S. military forces will use operations against Iraq as a steppingstone for invading Iran. The Iranian military activities appear similar to Iran's response to the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when Iranian military forces built up in large numbers along the border with Iraq. So far, the Iranian forces have not massed near the Iraqi border, but are expected to do so if U.S. military operations against Iraq occur.
Mr. Tenet said at a Senate hearing Tuesday that "we see disturbing signs that al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said yesterday that Mr. Tenet's claim was "baseless," state-run Tehran radio reported. "The seriousness of Iran's fight against terrorism, and its expelling those suspected of links to al Qaeda, has always been clear, sincere and transparent," he said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also said in a Senate hearing in September that the Iranian government is "currently harboring reasonably large numbers of al Qaeda," while keeping the support for the terrorist group from its people.
"The al Qaeda are functioning in that country, both transiting and located, and operating," Mr. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Iran's government has denied repeatedly it has any links to al Qaeda. The chief of Iran's armed forces, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Salimi, said in Tehran on Monday that the Iranian army is "on full alert," according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Gen. Salimi said the armed forces are "on guard against any aggressive move by enemies that would threaten the territorial integrity of Islamic Iran."
Bush administration officials met privately last month in Europe with Iranian officials to discuss Iraq and seek Tehran's help in supporting Sunni Muslims in a post-Saddam Iraq. The meeting was first reported by The Washington Post Feb. 8. Officials said the initiative was put forth by Richard Haas, the State Department's director of policy planning. Intelligence officials said Iran's support for terrorists, including al Qaeda, in the past was carried out by agents of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Qods Force. The Defense Intelligence Agency in 2000 uncovered information linking al Qaeda to Iran's government.
Intelligence from Malaysia showed that two of the September 11 hijackers, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, attended a key meeting of al Qaeda terrorists in Malaysia that year. The two men were the suicide hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. The 2000 intelligence showed they stayed at the Kuala Lumpur residence of Iran's ambassador to Malaysia.
The disclosure about the Iran-al Qaeda ties comes as the United States released intelligence indicating links between Baghdad and al Qaeda, and the release of an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden calling on Muslims to defend Iraq. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the United Nations last week that Baghdad was harboring a network of more than two dozen al Qaeda terrorists headed by Abu Musaab Zarqawi.
The White House said that Tuesday's audiotape broadcast of Osama bin Laden, who called on al Qaeda to defend Iraq, shows Baghdad's link to the group.
"If that is not an unholy partnership, I've not heard of one," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "This is the nightmare that people have warned about, the linking up of Iraq with al Qaeda." Iran's connection to al Qaeda was identified by Italian government authorities in October.
A Tunisian national, Nassim Saadi, was among six suspected al Qaeda terrorists who were arrested at that time and he had been found to have flown from Milan, Italy, to Tehran in January 2002. Iran also backed Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who recently returned to Afghanistan from Iran and has joined forces with the remnants of the ousted Taliban militia and al Qaeda in opposing the government of Hamid Karzai and U.S. troops.
Iranian connection with al Qaeda seems quite probable. Let us wait for further approvals.
There also reported to be in Pakistan. By the criteria of attacking nations on multiple fronts, it looks to me like World War III has gone beyond the planning stages and the Cold War really never ended but was taken up by new players.
WWIII is in process. It is a war of fourth generation, therefore it does not resemble any other war. And the Cold War was its predecessor. Low-scale military actions combined with intensive psychologic war and terror.
According to the immutable logic of this administration, if they were spotted in Iran, an immediate, unilateral preemptive attack is called for... upon Iraq.
About Grenada: IMHO, attack on this country was necessary, since Cuba and the USSR started deploying there military equipment. The situation was somewhat similar to the Carribean crisis, just of the lower scale.
So Iran is the next target?
Where did most of the 11/9 terrorists came from?
Which country is the major supporter of international terrorism and had close ties with the taliban?
And the answer to those two questions is? =>.........
If the Bush-admin really wants to root out terrorism=> they are targeting the wrong countries.
If the Bush-admin wants easy acces to large oilfields by attacking some paria states like Iraq and Iran=> They are on schedual.
Are you so sure that Iran has no connections to terror? And what country sponsors Hizballah, the organization appearing in the "black list" of the international terror organizations? IMHO, these are Iran and Syria. Well, it is never late to change attitude, I mean this of Iran.
steissd wrote:Are you so sure that Iran has no connections to terror? And what country sponsors Hizballah, the organization appearing in the "black list" of the international terror organizations? IMHO, these are Iran and Syria. Well, it is never late to change attitude, I mean this of Iran.
I agree on Iran.
If u wanna talk tough, gotto play tough. If you want to root out all terrorism you can't leave Saudi-Arabia untouched. Iran and Iraq are paria states. Nobody likes them or want to be connected with them. Saudi-Arabia is different because of the Muslim shrines in that country.
steissd - low-scale military actions combined with intensive psychologic war and terror? I don't consider 9-ll to be low scale and I'm wondering if you are assigning that statement to others and not the U.S. itself. In this case, every action could likely have a negative and unequal reaction.
At this moment, the situation is so fluid that no good projections are possible. I think it highly probable that US led forces will bring Saddam down quickly in the next two weeks. The campaign will be intense, and over the country outside dense urban areas will be subdued and occupied within a few days of the onset of hostilities. Saddam doesn't trust an armed populace, so all most all resistance will be from Saddam loyalists. I believe that the victory will be relatively bloodless, and that Allied forces will be greeted as liberators. What happens next is less clear.
A second scenario is that the President will back down in the face of popular demonstrations against using US forces in Iraq. That would result in pulling American forces out of the region, leaving Saddam triumphant. A brief period of "peace" might occur, but in the end a much greater butchers bill will have to be paid. (See my comments on the very active US, UN and Iraq thread within the Politics Topic area). A variation of this alternative is to try maintaining the status quo for an extended period of time. That would be excessively costly, and the fighting edge of our forces would be dulled considerably. To delay now, would probably result in a hiatus lasting at least through mid-September, during which time Saddam would continue his preparations for war. If Saddam isn't on the defense, he will be preparing aggressive, offensive war.
Each of these two basic alternatives have different outcomes. Let us suppose that first alternative is followed. Korea will be faced with evidence that the United States will use military force to back up its threats. Faced with the credible threat of defeat, Kim will more likely shut down his nuclear program and the threat from that quarter will return to the status quo ante. If he does not, then we may close it down for him. That could conceivably trigger a hot conflict on the Korean Peninsula and far greater casualties there can be anticipated than any in Iraq. In Korea there is a real danger that a nuclear warhead may be used against American troops, or Japan. A renewal of open warfare on the Korean Peninsula will result in the defeat of the DPRK. As long as the DPRK exists, it will be a supplier of weapons to anyone who can pay their price. Those weapons will become increasingly sophisticated and effective.
Iran has been mentioned here. If Saddam is left in power, Iran will be encouraged to remain a threat to world peace. First, Iran's drive for a nuclear capability will be justified as a deterrent to Saddam. Import of missiles and other weapons from Korea will increase to bolster Iranian security against an unconstrained Iraq. Iranian rhetoric will become more radical and Al Queda will be quietly sponsored in the hopes that it will be succesfull in defeating the godless west.
If Iraq is liberated and occupied by Allied armies, Iran will indeed be fearful that they may be next. Iranian military forces will continue to be bulked up along the Iraqi border. If the Allies are strong, I don't believe that Iran will attempt to invade/occupy southern Iraq. I expect that their rhetoric will be less hostile than it has been in the past. However, their support for terrorism may either be dropped, or become extemly limited and covert. Import of Korean weapons will be slowed, but internal efforts to develop nuclear capability will probably be quietly stepped up. Iran will feel isolated, but that opens the door to moderation as much as it does to increased aggression.
We are at a crossroad, a major decision point. Let's see how it plays out.
Frolic, I understand that direct assault of the mainly Christian country or coalition against Saudi Arabia that hosts Mecca and Yathrib (aka Medina) may cause unpredictable ramifications. But, IMHO, there is enough time to change regime there without direct military action. In tenure of President Reagan CIA succeeded to completely transform Poland without shooting even a single bullet. I hope that CIA is still in agood shape...
Lightwizard, 9/11 is not a military action at all, it is a terror attack, and of course, it is not a low-scale one. The opposite thing wil be right. The term "low-scale military action" refers to local wars like these in Vietnam, in Afghanistan in '80s and now, the planned war in Iraq. I classify them as low-scaled since these conflicts involved small number of participating countries and relatively (if compared to the WWII) low intensity of the battles.
News to me as this administration in very direct words called it an act of war. I believe is was a horrific terrorist attack but because it was devised under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, it was used as the rationale for a military action in that country. If you're going to support this current U.S. regime, you're going to have to swallow their propaganda. Vietman was hardly a "low-scale military action." You should visit the memorial in Washington and talk to some Vietnam vets if you belive that. Add up all these "small conflicts" and you have a continuing world that is continually at war. Perpetual war for perpetual peace? That's how Gore Vidal characterizes it.
steissd wrote:In tenure of President Reagan CIA succeeded to completely transform Poland without shooting even a single bullet. I hope that CIA is still in agood shape...
This is off-topic, but: the CIA transformed Poland?
And there was I thinking that the millions-strong people's movement in support of undergournd "Solidarity" had something to do with it, disintegrating the Communist dictatorship's legitimacy and effectuating social and economical sabotage as it did.
Or that Gorbachev's courageous - or opportunistic - choice to let Central Europe go and focus on getting his own house in order - his insistent pressure on Poland's communist dictators to start negotiations with Solidarity - had given the final push to the first partially free elections in the Eastern Bloc in 40 years.
But no - the CIA is to credit for it all. I wonder what Geremek, Mazowiecki, Michnik, Kuron and Walesa would say to that.
The most important cause of the end of the Cold War was not Ronald Reagan or George Bush or Gorbachev or the Pope. It was the grass-roots resistance to communism by the people of Eastern Europe. Movements like Solidarity were the real reason that communist governments found themselves undermined and vulnerable and it was the mass of working men and women in Europe that made possible the free elections, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the disappearance of the Iron Curtain that signified the end of the Cold War.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace