The Telegraph reports Western intelligence officials are saying that Ahmadinejad is determined to take advantage of bin Laden’s “declining health” by trying to persuade al-Qaeda to promote a pro-Iranian activist to a senior position within its leadership.
The Iranians want Saif al-Adel, a 46-year-old former colonel in Egypt’s special forces, to be al-Qaeda’s number three man. Al-Adel was formerly bin Laden’s head of security, and was named on the FBI’s 22 most wanted list after 9/11 for his involvement in terror attacks against US targets in Somalia and Africa in the 1990s. He has been living in a Revolutionary Guard guest house in Tehran since fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.
In the same article, The Telegraph cites a British Foreign Office warning that al-Qaeda is determined to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack on the West. A “senior Foreign Office official” said that the terrorists were “trawling the world” for the materials and know-how to mount an attack using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, adding that “We know that the aspiration is there, we know attempts to gather materials are there, we know that attempts to gather technologies are there.”
In a separate article, The Telegraph quotes a senior Western intelligence official as saying that “This is an important power play by the Iranians and the prospect of al-Qa’eda and Iran forging a close alliance is truly terrifying. They have had their differences in the past, but with the survival of both Iran and al-Qa’eda now at stake they realise it is in both their interests to have closer ties.”
Ahmedinejad, it is said, wants to strengthen Tehran’s ties to al-Qaeda in case Iran is subjected to UN sanctions. If al-Qaeda agrees to appoint al-Adel and other al-Qaeda figures currently based in Iran to senior positions, the Iranians have agreed to provide training facilities and equipment.
The possibility of a nuclear Iran allied with al-Qaeda prompted the intelligence official to say “”We are looking at a Doomsday scenario here where al-Qa’eda finally fulfills its ultimate goal of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and unlike other terror groups, al-Qa’eda is perfectly willing to use them.”
As I’ve said before, ever since my teenage years, I’ve been fascinated and dismayed by the myopia that afflicted the leaders of the Western democracies during the 1930s. Time and time again, I’ve wondered how they could possibly have failed to see the destination toward which the events of that decade—in both Europe and Asia—were leading. Now, many years later, I’m finally beginning to comprehend their lack of foresight—because it’s happening again, right before my eyes.
I obviously don’t know how close to the truth these reports published by The Telegraph are. But even if they’re only partially correct, the general intent of the West’s enemies is abundantly clear, our enemies are becoming incrementally but steadily stronger, and the West, in its desire for peace and with the added psychological burden of our foray into Iraq, is playing for time. That’s what the Brits, in particular, did in the late 1930s. London’s mistake was its failure to realize that time wasn’t on its side. If someone could explain to me why time is now on our side, I’d be willing to listen. Unless and until such words are forthcoming, I’ll continue to believe that time is against us. The real tragedy of Iraq is that it has given preemption a bad name, making it less likely to be viewed as a viable policy option at precisely the moment when it may be most needed.
breathtaking
From the Times – London, yesterday:
The first cracks in the united front over Iraq between Tony Blair and President Bush appeared last night as the Prime Minister offered Iran and Syria the prospect of dialogue over the future of Iraq and the Middle East.
Mr Blair said there could be a new “partnership†with Iran if it stopped supporting terrorism in Iraq and gave up its nuclear ambitions. Syria and Iran could choose partnership or isolation, he said.
Is Tony Blair playing the role of an optimist or is he reliving the 1930’s?
Through even a loose alliance with Iran, al-Qaeda will have access to an ungodly amount of nasty weapons, while Iran will have a proxy with global reach—something it currently lacks. The synergies are perfect for both parties. This would truly be a match made in hell: Sunni and Shi’a working together to destroy the West.
Does anyone still have doubts that Iran’s nuclear aims must be thwarted?
I remember all the pundits carefully describing the differences between Sunni, Shia, and secular Saddam and using this as a base for discounting the US evaluation of terrorism. What all these people fail to realize is that power-hungry despots are not interested in the fine points of theological debate. They want to rest power from the west, and they figure that if they are brutal enough in achieving this goal, they will come out on top when the infighting breaks out later. Sociopaths have their own religion.
I recently re-read Churchill’s volume 1 on WW2 and the verbage used in the 30s is exactly the same as you hear today. As idiotic as it seems, it appears to me that the USA requires two “Pearl Harbors” to fully wake up to the threat at hand.
If, as appears likely, Iran and its terrorist allies and minions are stupid enough to pull this off against the stuperous giant, the reaction will be truly terrible to behold.
While one can debate the efficacy of the effort, the Bush administration tried to react to 9/11 with calibrated reactionary force. I doubt this will be the case the next time around.
I agree, Steve. If there is a nuclear terrorist attack on the US, expect Iran and the tribal areas of Pakistan to be hit in retaliation. The calls in the US for an actual crusade will be nearly overwhelming.
A very disturbing report, if true.
once said that to truly understand the news one must look at information through the contextual prism of author and timing. Reading this charge by Con Coughlin, Pundita’s advice immediately sprang to mind.
is a Google search of Con Coughlin’s articles published by the Telegraph. If you have the time, look through it.
One will first note that Coughlin has an easily-discernible perspective. This is a neutral fact, not prejudicial in any way. But it’s also something to keep in mind.
One will also note that he uses a lot of anonymous sources: defense officials, intelligence officers, government contacts—but rarely any names.
An even further analysis will show that Coughlin’s most damning reports usually precede some kind of action or debate. One might say they provide support for a particular side (Coughlin made the reportorial case for the Iraq War by repeatedly tying Al’Qaeda, public enemy number one, to Saddam Hussein).
All of this is not to say that Coughlin is lying, or that Al’Qaeda wasn’t involved in Iraq. My purpose is merely to suggest that, based on evidence, Coughlin seems to be something of a conduit for a particular kind of information. Whether this is (British) government propaganda (propaganda in the normative sense, which doesn’t presuppose truth or falsity), intelligence leaks or whatever, I can’t say. But Coughlin’s effort at tying the specific enemy Al’Qaeda—with all the policy implications that inhere to this organization—to Iran’s approaching nuclear capability deserves a closer look. It is, if true, a significant fact.
A fact, one might say, that demands war.
Leftist Bankruptcy in a Time of Abundance…
Since the time man first appeared on the Savannah, the function of social organizations has been to manage scarcity for the good of the community. Human beings, indeed all living creatures, are in a constant struggle, a competition for resources….