Well, looks like we already picked out our next target: IRAN

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Was that MOBIUS, then?

I remember Comrade Tribune hoped that many Americans would die. I don't think he even had a noble aim in sight to make it more palatable.

[lord of the mark]

Dan Darling on Iran, from Winds of Change:

"Iran & al-Qaeda: The Ties That Bomb

I've written about what is in my mind the self-apparent fact that the majority of al-Qaeda's surviving leadership has relocated to Iran. However, it's always nice to have your views reaffirmed in writing, so I was pleasantly surprised the other day when al-Sharq al-Awsat via AFP stated quite up-front that there are over 384 al-Qaeda members, including 18 senior leaders, who are currently living at facilities under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

The al-Sharq piece doesn't say who these people are, but previous press reports have identified Saif al-Adel, Saad bin Laden, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, Abu Mohammed al-Masri, Abu Khayr, Abu Musab Zarqawi, Amer Azizi, Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, Mahfouz Ould Walid, and Abu Khalid as being among the 18 senior leaders mentioned. There are also a number of credible (in my view and those of people I trust) press reports which have claimed that bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have taken up residence Iran as well, leaving behind body doubles in northern Pakistan.

I do know that at least one al-Zawahiri double, an Uzbek by the name of Thuraya (not to be confused with the satellite phone type of the same name) was killed by Pakistani forces during the spring 2004 offensive in South Waziristan. Whether or not bin Laden is in Iran, however, his military chief al-Adel is there - and he is going to be the ultimate architect of any future mass casualty attack on the United States.

Now, the AFP story is important because it identifies the specific locations where these 300+ folks (and I've heard the number cited as high as 500) are based at. Before, the most specific as we ever got before was a piece in Okaz via Rantburg, identifying the Iranian al-Qaeda haven as being located somewhere in the Namak region. AFP got even more specific by naming the two specific locations as being Chalus (Chalous) and Lavizan.

Chalus is a resort town along the Caspian Sea and the lavish villas being referenced here are all owned by members of Qods Force, the elite of the IRGC, which are answerable only to Ayatollah Khamenei. It is perhaps worth noting that Chalus is also quite close to an underground nuclear weapons development facility that has at various times been staffed by Russian, Chinese, and North Korean experts. In case anyone is curious, it is currently being staffed by scientists from North Korea, which is a fairly clear indication in my view that the individuals at the facility are in all likelihood up to no good.

Lavizan is even more interesting - it's one of the biggest and most heavily-defended IRGC bases in all of Iran. It received a fair amount of press not too long ago when its occupants decided to engage in some creative revisions at the Shiyan Technical Research Center prior to an inspection visit by members of the IAEA. Lavizan, I should also mention, is unfortunately nestled right in the middle of the 8,500,000 or so people who make up the inhabitants of the greater metropolitan area of Tehran. This is where Saif al-Adel in particular is reputed to be based, and Iranian assurances of him being "in custody" to the contrary, I am of the opinion that it's probably not a good idea to have one of the most dangerous terrorists on the planet apparently at the same location as the Iranian nuclear program.

Call me paranoid, but there's just something about this that rubs me the wrong way.

If the US suffers a mass casualty terrorist attack in the immediate future, Iran will be the immediate target of reprisal. Period. The decision by the Iranian government, whether it's as a matter of official state policy or simply the private whims of the hardliners, is currently being shoved under the rug by the majority of US policy-makers. We are quite free to leave well enough alone in this regard, just as we did in the late 1990s with Afghanistan harboring the Taliban. However, leaving Iran to its own devices indefinitely is simply untenable, if for no other reason then that we're going to be pretty much guaranteed the same results - this time from what is very likely to be a nuclear power.

Anybody want to take any chances on that one? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Please understand, I do not favor a US invasion of Iran at this point, if for no other reason than it is logistically unfeasible at this point in time. However, if there is another mass casualty attack on the United States, I don't think that any US president is going to have the option of that kind of restraint."

[Ramo]

It's interesting that the evidence of an Iranian connection to al-Qaeda is coming from either exiles or Qaeda detainees. In other words, precisely the same kinds of sources that asserted an Iraqi connection.

Perhaps there's an Iranian INC, and perhaps Qaeda wants to get us embroiled in another unpopular war among Muslims.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Vince278
I feel your pain. I was there 10 years ago. A peaceful solution is always preferable.

Yep, been there and done that.

[GePap]

Given past intelligence screwups, I will take any statements on the locations of top AQ people with a gain of salt. That being said, It is interesting to see if the Revolutionary guard, like the Pakistani military before them, has established links with AQ with only minimal control or oversight from above, IF that were so.

One thing, if Iran does "control" the actitivies of AQ folks right now, in the sense of them being in Iran, then this would probalby be a moderating experience, since Iran is not stupid and have little to gain from anything drastic being done vs the US-not at this point.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's interesting that the evidence of an Iranian connection to al-Qaeda is coming from either exiles or Qaeda detainees. In other words, precisely the same kinds of sources that asserted an Iraqi connection.

Perhaps there's an Iranian INC, and perhaps Qaeda wants to get us embroiled in another unpopular war among Muslims.

In fact there was never much of a case made for an Iraq Al qaeeda connection. Even neocons like Stephen Hayes in his recent book "The Connection" is fairly circumspect. AFAIK there is nothing particular that was asserted regularly prewar about that has been since been debunked. Recall the disputed Prague connection was dispute BEFORE the war. ISTM you are thinking of the WMD intell, NOT the Iraq-AQ connection intell.

I will not challenge your desire to be skeptical about the evidence. Darling, at least on this issue, tends to play strategic pundit for those who sympathize with him, not lawyer marshalling evidence. The admin has not started to make a case against Iran till now, so its hard to say what the grounds for any case they will make will be.

I would point out though that al-Sharq al-Awsat, is, IIUC, an independent arabic paper in London. I dont know what their sources are - Darling doesnt say, and I dont read Arabic. Perhaps the article is up at Memri.

I would point out that Iran HAS acknowledged that several al Qaeeda leaders ARE in Iran, but claims they are in custody.


And btw, surely your last remark was a reference to accusations that Chalabi worked for Iran? No one at all has stated or implied that Chalabi worked with AQ. And I see plenty of reason to doubt the accusation that Chalabi was an Iranian mole, or that that was his motivation for exagerating Iraqi WMD.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Given past intelligence screwups, I will take any statements on the locations of top AQ people with a gain of salt.

Given past intel screwups, will you take all assertions of the US intell community with a grain of salt (like their negative take on the alleged Iraq - AQ connection) or just those of their assertions that conflict with your own POV.

[lord of the mark]

washington Post, August 2003


"Arab Countries Want Accused Terrorists Sent Home

As many as 15 al Qaeda leaders and operatives are currently in Iran, but Tehran is dragging its feet in responding to requests from Arab governments to repatriate the accused terrorists for interrogation and trial, a senior Saudi official said yesterday.

Among the al Qaeda members being held in what Iranian officials describe as "safe houses" are Saad bin Laden, who was being groomed to succeed his father, Osama bin Laden, as al Qaeda's leader, and Saif Adel, an Egyptian described by U.S. officials as the terrorist network's security chief, said the Saudi counterterrorism official who asked not to be identified. "


So is the govt of KSA also part of the plot to get the US bogged down in Iran?

Whos conspiratorially minded now?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Given past intelligence screwups, I will take any statements on the locations of top AQ people with a gain of salt. That being said, It is interesting to see if the Revolutionary guard, like the Pakistani military before them, has established links with AQ with only minimal control or oversight from above, IF that were so.

One thing, if Iran does "control" the actitivies of AQ folks right now, in the sense of them being in Iran, then this would probalby be a moderating experience, since Iran is not stupid and have little to gain from anything drastic being done vs the US-not at this point.

That might account for a return to the strategy of attacks in the Islamic world, rather than in CONUS.

Or, alternatively, they might have accepted the limitations of being in Iran, after determining that their CONUS assets were blown anyway.

Or alternatively, AQ isnt functioning as a single entity anymore. Assuming Adel is in Iran but Zawahiri is in Pakistan (the above WOC post is the first ive heard anyone seriously suggest Zawahiri is in Iran, and frankly I dont believe it) then there could be two AQ leaderships, with limited direct communications. Which would complicate matters.

Or Iran is counting on skepticism about US intel such as is expressed in this thread to shield them from retaliation for AQ attacks on CONUS. (doubtful, if only because such attacks would leave their own trail)

Or Iran is convinced that the US is after them directly by war or indirectly via Spiffs "soft means" whatever they do, so they dont have a lot to lose with an attack on Conus, and possibly alot to gain - IF another attack convinces the US to withdraw from the region. This is unlikely, I suppose, but look at how much AQ has done in KSA and Iraq, and Iranian intell has done in Iraq, with zero consequences to Iran - and how many credible voices, like author of Imperial Hubris, are asserting that the proper response to AQ attacks is to change US policy in the Mideast. A gamblers strategy to be sure.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's interesting that the evidence of an Iranian connection to al-Qaeda is coming from either exiles or Qaeda detainees. In other words, precisely the same kinds of sources that asserted an Iraqi connection.

Perhaps there's an Iranian INC, and perhaps Qaeda wants to get us embroiled in another unpopular war among Muslims.

'Many of the commission’s findings about Iran were discovered only in recent weeks from, among other sources, electronic intercepts and interrogations of al Qaeda suspects in U.S. custody, sources familiar with the commission’s findings said. Even before then, Chairman Thomas H. Kean (R), a former New Jersey governor, said, "There were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq." '


Nope, no exiles. Electronic intel, and AQ suspects. Now what exactly in the AQ suspects statements about Iraq has been proven incorrect?

[Ramo]

In fact there was never much of a case made for an Iraq Al qaeeda connection. Even neocons like Stephen Hayes in his recent book "The Connection" is fairly circumspect. AFAIK there is nothing particular that was asserted regularly prewar about that has been since been debunked.

What universe are you living in? For instance, the INC claimed that there was a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, who prepared for hijackings with a 707 fuselage (the truth, which we actually knew despite trumpetting up the "evidence," was that it was an anti-terrorist training camp in case the Iranians decided to pull something), etc.

I would point out that Iran HAS acknowledged that several al Qaeeda leaders ARE in Iran, but claims they are in custody.

So? It's their trump card, so we won't get out of line by, say, having MAK hit Iran.

I would point out though that al-Sharq al-Awsat, is, IIUC, an independent arabic paper in London.

From what I understand (from Arab-speaking bloggers), the article was saying that that Qaeda members got into Iran (a state with porous borders and a schizo gov't, mind you) with Iranian collusion, and uses as evidence that their passports weren't stamped.

And btw, surely your last remark was a reference to accusations that Chalabi worked for Iran? No one at all has stated or implied that Chalabi worked with AQ. And I see plenty of reason to doubt the accusation that Chalabi was an Iranian mole, or that that was his motivation for exagerating Iraqi WMD.

No, that wasn't what I meant. First off, the two parts of the sentence took care of unrelated groups, the exiles and the Qaeda detainees (I'm not saying exiles = Qaeda). Secondly, I'm just pointing out that the INC has manufactured a vast amount of "evidence" for al-Qaeda connections (as well as WMD's), so who's to say that the Iranian exiles aren't engaged in a similar business?

Nope, no exiles.

I would point out though that al-Sharq al-Awsat, is, IIUC, an independent arabic paper in London.

And Bob's your uncle.

Electronic intel

As in Iraq's case.

and AQ suspects. Now what exactly in the AQ suspects statements about Iraq has been proven incorrect?

There was a high profile Qaeda detainee who recently admitted that he was making up a tie with Iraq. I forgot his name was, but it was reported relatively recently... I'll try to hunt down the article I was reading...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

In fact there was never much of a case made for an Iraq Al qaeeda connection. Even neocons like Stephen Hayes in his recent book "The Connection" is fairly circumspect. AFAIK there is nothing particular that was asserted regularly prewar about that has been since been debunked.

What universe are you living in? For instance, the INC claimed that there was a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, who prepared for hijackings with a 707 fuselage (the truth, which we actually knew despite trumpetting up the "evidence," was that it was an anti-terrorist training camp in case the Iranians decided to pull something), etc.


LOTM - Salman Pak was never specifically tied to AQ. I was discussing Iraq - AQ connections, not all accusations of Iraq- terrorism ties.

I would point out that Iran HAS acknowledged that several al Qaeeda leaders ARE in Iran, but claims they are in custody.

So? It's their trump card, so we won't get out of line by, say, having MAK hit Iran.


LOTM - maybe. Or its their trump card to destabilize Iraq and KSA. Neither of us knows Irans motives.

And btw, surely your last remark was a reference to accusations that Chalabi worked for Iran? No one at all has stated or implied that Chalabi worked with AQ. And I see plenty of reason to doubt the accusation that Chalabi was an Iranian mole, or that that was his motivation for exagerating Iraqi WMD.

No, that wasn't what I meant. First off, the two parts of the sentence took care of unrelated groups, the exiles and the Qaeda detainees (I'm not saying exiles = Qaeda). Secondly, I'm just pointing out that the INC has manufactured a vast amount of "evidence" for al-Qaeda connections (as well as WMD's), so who's to say that the Iranian exiles aren't engaged in a similar business?

LOTM - First the issue of exiles and WMDS is more complex than that - its not proven what INC or anyone else did. But the point that the exiles were NOT the source for the Iraq AQ connection stands. And theres nothing in the current 9/11 report based on Iranian exiles.

Nope, no exiles.

I would point out though that al-Sharq al-Awsat, is, IIUC, an independent arabic paper in London.

And Bob's your uncle.

Electronic intel

As in Iraq's case.


LOTM - yup. And thats never been completely explained. After the war captured Iraqi officers apparently did think that there were CWs around, just THEIR unit didnt have any. It was WIDELY beleived by western intell agencies, most of which were not close to the exiles that Iraq had CWs, I presume based on electronic intell. And we get the whole unwillingness to come clean with inspectors. The only real explanations I have seen are that Saddam wanted the region to THINK he had weapons he no longer had, or that his scientists wanted Saddam to think he had weapons he didnt have. I cant see the same kinds of things going on in IRan wrt to AQ.

and AQ suspects. Now what exactly in the AQ suspects statements about Iraq has been proven incorrect?

There was a high profile Qaeda detainee who recently admitted that he was making up a tie with Iraq. I forgot his name was, but it was reported relatively recently... I'll try to hunt down the article I was reading...

I beleive Hayes discusses that in his book, ill have to check.

[lord of the mark]

BTW, ive recently read about a third of Hayes new book on the Iraq AQ connection and its very interesting reading.

[Ramo]

LOTM - Salman Pak was never specifically tied to AQ. I was discussing Iraq - AQ connections, not all accusations of Iraq- terrorism ties.

The idea with Salman Pak was to connect Iraq to 9/11. But anyways, the an INC guy had been the source in the Prague story, for instance.

LOTM - maybe. Or its their trump card to destabilize Iraq and KSA. Neither of us knows Irans motives.

Really? It's pretty easy to discern them, to me. Iran wants stability. A stable Iraq will be friendly with Iran. Dawa looks like it'll be the heart of any coalition gov't Iraq elects, and Iran loves Dawa.

What exactly does it gain by letting al-Qaeda wreak chaos in Iraq? A civil war instead of a friendly gov't on its border. A US that might be less inclined to ignore Iran's crushing of the Reformist movemnt.

Honestly, why do you guys seem to think that these people are all trigger-happy loonies, incapable of rational thought?

In any case, the proof's in the pudding. Recently, Iran captured a couple hundred Afghan fighters that were trying to enter Iraq. There's been sharing of intelligence, cooperation on security between the two states..

LOTM - First the issue of exiles and WMDS is more complex than that - its not proven what INC or anyone else did.

WMD's were more justified, but the INC had unquestionably been fabricating evidence.

And theres nothing in the current 9/11 report based on Iranian exiles.

I didn't say that. I said an exile wrote the al-Sharq al-Awsat story.

The only real explanations I have seen are that Saddam wanted the region to THINK he had weapons he no longer had, or that his scientists wanted Saddam to think he had weapons he didnt have. I cant see the same kinds of things going on in IRan wrt to AQ.

How exactly does it not apply in this situation. Zarqawi et al. clearly are trying to provoke violence between the US and Shia Musilims (in particular, as well as Muslims broadly)? Remember that letter?

[Ramo]

BTW, I DanSed you by adding some commentary on the exile's article.