There have been a great many interesting and somewhat contradictory stories floating around back and forth over the last several weeks with regard to Iran, but unfortunately few if any of them are being covered by the mainstream media. While it is by no means my desire to take on the mantle of occasional Winds of Change commenter Michael Ledeen, it is nevertheless worth noting that much of what he has been saying over the course of the last several years with regards to Iran appears to have borne out as correct. This analysis will attempt to identify some of the most recent issues, as well as why they matter in the context of the ongoing war on terrorism.
ANSAR AL-ISLAM
During the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom, US and Kurdish peshmerga forces staged an all-out attack on Ansar al-Islam, attacking the organization's central base at Beyara as well as its chemical weapons labs at Sergat and Khurmal. These attacks destroyed most Ansar's fighting force, but it appears that Abu Abdullah al-Shafei led most of their number across the border and into Iranian Kurdistan, where they were allowed to regroup by the Iranian authorities. At this point, Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi appears to have taken over direct control of the organization (though his recent letter mentions that he was not involved in attacks in the north, a point I'll touch on in a moment) as part of a decision by the Iranian government to open three fronts against the United States in the hopes of entering into diplomatic negotiations with its long-time adversary.
In addition, Zarqawi, who is reputed to be in Iran has called in hundreds of European jihadis to shore up and reinforce the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq. Last winter, European authorities disrupted al-Qaeda (or more specifically al-Tawhid, which is the subsidiary of al-Qaeda controlled by Zarqawi) recruiting operations in at least 5 European countries, the details of which Alphabet City was more than happy to oblige us with. They show a very sophisticated conspiracy run by associates of Zarqawi throughout the Continent as well as in the UK.
More recently, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps hosted a terrorist summit in Tehran in just the last month whose attendees included known al-Qaeda affiliates, suggesting at the very least tacit regime approval for Ansar al-Islam and its activities inside Iraq. However, Kurdish officials are claiming active Iranian support for Ansar, including transportation and weaponry.
In the aftermath of the Irbil bombings that killed over 100, including a good chunk of the Kurdish leadership, as well as two other suicide car bombings (an Ansar hallmark) last week that killed over 100 members of the new Iraqi police and military forces, this is no longer an academic question. If the Iranian government or elements of its military-intelligence establishment have decided to harbor or provide active support to Ansar al-Islam, they are more or less choosing sides in a proxy war in Iraq against the coalition as well as the Iraqi interim authorities. Such a situation cannot be allowed in the event that the US desires a successful transfer of power come June.
THE NEW TALIBAN
In addition to harboring Ansar al-Islam, the Iranian government seems to have very much taken on the role previously occupied by the Taliban as the hosts of al-Qaeda's reconstituted leadership. I first noted this in my special analysis on the subject of the Holiday Terror Alert, but it seems that thoughts on this regard have been bolstered by quite an unexpected source: Spanish anti-terrorism czar Baltasar Garzon.
While I am unaware of Judge Garzon's political leanings, he is the same man who attempted to extradict former Chilean dictator Pinochet long before 9/11 as well as the man responsible for the Spanish investigation into the 9/11 attacks. He is also certainly no fan of either the American neoconservative movement or President Bush and had some extremely choice words to say in regards to the decision to go to war with Iraq.
Nevertheless, it is this very same Judge Garzon who is now being reported as telling the Spanish newspaper El Periodico that al-Qaeda has restructured its "board of managers" inside Iran, as well as hinting at unspecified disagreements between this board and bin Laden (who is also purported to be in-country). Putting this together with all of the other evidence that has been compiled to date on the subject, we can draw the conclusion that these "managers" are operating inside of Iran with either the active or tacit backing of the regime. This is more or less the same function that the Taliban performed for bin Laden prior to 9/11 - too often is it forgotten that prior to the attacks he was officially Mullah Omar's "guest" and only later was it learned that he was the one running the show.
As I outlined in the Holiday Terror Alert analysis, as long as al-Qaeda's central command has a base of operations from which plan, coordinate, and communicate with their minions, another attack on the scale of 9/11 remains a possibility. The recent claims by Tom Ridge and Robert Hutchings that the US has disrupted several "airline plots," a likely reference to the holiday terror threat, would seem to support this conclusion.
Interestingly enough, bin Laden's London-based front man, Saad al-Faqih, is quite up-front about the nature of the relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda.
IRAN AND THE ZARQAWI LETTER
I noted in the recent discussion of the Zarqawi letter in the comments section, any attempt to analyze his strategy must take into account the level of Iranian support for al-Qaeda. The letter, as I read it, more or less proposes a scorched earth campaign against Iraqi Shi'ites and "collaborators" somewhat akin to what the GIA did in Algeria in the mid-1990s with whole villages being massacred. However, several key pieces of data seem to have shifted since then, so I feel prudent to point them out.
To begin with, the US has chosen to muddy the water as to how this letter came into our possession. Was it found in Baghdad safehouse along with a 7 lbs. cyanide brick or found on Hassan Ghul on a CD near the Iranian border? Reconciling these two accounts is extremely difficult, though one possible explanation might be that the same letter was found twice, once in the safehouse and then again on Ghul's CD, which might explain how the US was able to verify the identity of the author.
However, the letter was found, according to the Times version of events, on January 23. and all of the attacks by insurgents since that date have been either against US or Iraqi forces, not Shi'ite targets, suggesting that either the letter never reached al-Qaeda's leadership or that any efforts to target the Iraqi Shi'ites have been put off for the time being, however, there has been a clear effort to target both the Kurdish leadership and pro-coalition Iraqis that is likely to continue for the immediate future.
One final point for those engaging in a bit of tinfoil claims that the US forged this letter: if that was in fact the case, the lack of mention of the ties between Ansar al-Islam and Saddam's #3 is rather noticeable, is it not? And no doubt those who would be willing to believe that the US government forged the letter would also be more than willing to believe that they would cite within such a letter clear evidence of a link between Zarqawi and the highest-ranking Baathist leader still free in order to shore up pre-war claims.
HAMID REZA ZAKIRI AND AN IRANIAN LINK TO 9/11
In the midst of the trial of the now-acquitted Hamburg cell member Abdelghani Mzoudi, the German authorities cited the account of an Iranian defector as evidence of Mzoudi's involvement with al-Qaeda, but according to Der Spiegel (Rantburg Translation), the defector's story went far beyond just Mzoudi being an al-Qaeda operative - he claimed Iranian foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
The story soon reached the United States in the Chicago Tribune, which provided the name of the defector as Hamid Reza Zakiri. That name set off a number of sirens in the heads of several knowledgeable warbloggers, as Zakiri has given interviews to al-Sharq al-Awsat and Insight. Furthermore, according to this story that originally appeared in the Washington Post, most of Zakiri's information has been verified by European (Franco-British?) intelligence agencies. However, Alphabet City noted some discreprancies in the Zakiri account, notably in the models of US targets that he stated were present at VEVAK HQ in Iran.
Given the scope of his claims, the judge in the Mzoudi case wanted them verified by the German Bundeskriminalamt (BKT), the German equivalent of the FBI. Free Republic member longjack, who can read German, kept track of the case and Reuters eventually picked up the story, abeit in a somewhat different manner than that which had been reported to date.
When it came time for Zakiri to testify, however, things seem to have gone in reverse order judging by this Der Spiegel story whose headline my crude Internet-aided translation skills rendered "The Shot Loose - Went to the Rear." As Zakiri's testimony continued, the man offered little if any verifiable proof to substantiate his claims of Mzoudi's membership in al-Qaeda. As a result, Mzoudi was acquitted because of what Ramzi Binalshibh didn't say, not anything that Hamid Reza Zakiri said.
However, there is still the issue of Zakiri's claims about Iranian foreknowledge of 9/11 as well as his own credibility in regards to other matters. In the Insight interview, for example, he presented a document from Ayatollah Khamenei to VEVAK regarding Iranian cooperation with al-Qaeda. There is also the question of his claims to have traveled to the US embassy in Azerbaijan in order to warn them of the impending attacks during the summer of 2001 and the existence of a "Department 43" within VEVAK specifically to facilitate Iranian interaction with al-Qaeda.
Zakiri's former position within the Iranian government is not in dispute. The factual nature of his accounts, however, and given recent US experiences with less than credible defectors provided by Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress prior to the war in Iraq, it is imperative that Zakiri's credibility be either established or knocked down as it's some fairly serious issues that he is discussing here.
Things are speeding up. The mullahs have given up any claim to "legitimacy" (important political science phrase) by refusing to let any candidates run for the Iranian parliament save their own cronies.
At this point only naked force is left.
Nutball regimes become more so under pressure. This is equivalent to the Taliban dynamiting old statutes of Buddha at the behest of Al Qaeda.
In the short run, though, it means Al Qaeda has a new sanctuary in Iran, which will put Iran next on our invasion list.
I expect Green Beret A-teams to deploy in Iran this summer. They will have wide popular support there. It will be interesting to see how well they perform at their originally intended mission.
There may be a revolution b4 then..
The opening gambit of the War in Iran may have begun.
1. Rumor has it that the Iranian train explosion was sabotage on an ammunition train headed for Kandahar in Afghanistan.
2. Supposedly American forces are preparing for a sweep of Afghan tribal areas with Pakistani co-operation.
The regime right now reminds me of the Shah's condition a few months before the revolution.
Oil futures seem like a pretty good bet.
Tom,
It is highly likely that the Special Forces are already inside Iran.
Rowan Scarborough reported here:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040219-123000-1473r.htm
...that the Special Forces have opened a new intelligence center where they will learn spycraft to "generate actionable intellegence" in their terrorist 'hunter-killer' role.
SOCOM has its own procurement authority independent of the military services and it has now been granted the abibity to create its own independent human intelligence networks.
The Office of Strategic Services has just been reborn.
One more thing, this is Bush showing his absolute trust in CIA Director Tenet. He is letting Rumsfeld build a competing intelligence bureaucracy to do what the CIA cannot and won't let anyone else try.
This is classic American Federal bureaucracy at work. If the current bureaucracy cannot do the job, you create a new one that will while tasking the failed bureaucracy with something "important" like long term weather prediction in the South Pacific.
Interesting stuff...
I believe it was Debka that reported the train thing.
Not sure whether or not to believe it, but given some of the reports coming out about Iran, it wouldn't shock me.
And Trent, that sounds like typical D.C. behavior to
me.
Trent,
I assume you meant: "his absolute distrust in CIA Director Tenet"
Lurker,
I think the bolded bit was intended as irony....
FH,
Yep.
Sam,
You got it in one.
Oh please, PLEASE take my mantle :=) It's wonderful to see your fine work, I yearn to get back to my book on Naples.
Two quick points: Judge Garzon is a political maverick, he has been enormously brave in fighting Basque terrorists in Spain, and a bit megalo in going after anyone in the world of whom he disapproves. But he's smart as a whip, he doesn't invent stories, so we can be quite sure that his comments are based on solid information. And the Spaniards have had lots of jihadis over the past few years, so they will have gathered considerable information.
On the train crash, I really don't think much of Debka, and their own "report" is sourced to unconfirmed stories in Tehran. I can "report" most anything I can think of with sources like that...
Michael,
You are quite right to distrust Debka. However, occasionally they are correct. This may be one of those times.
I give the report credence because it fits.
To me the obvious next target is Iran. If I was going to do Iran under the current circumstances I'd do it Afghan style - Special Forces. Not much effort will be needed to topple the mullahs. With some places in Iran in open revolt some serious but "clandestine" pressure on the regime could cause it to fold. Perhaps all it will take is drawing the "Arabs" out of the cities into the mountains to keep the Americans at bay.
Likely the Iran intel services have caught wind of the move and are doing counter moves - arming their allies.
Add in Trent's observations and I think I am not the only one who sees a pattern here. It is also possible a "picture" is being painted.
However, given the uranium situation I think this President chose to start action several months ago. It may be that your warning did not go unheeded in some circles. The fact that you got no overt response is wise. After all you are a journalist. And a very good one. However, secrets are not your stock in trade. If I was going to pull something like this off your complaints of inaction would be good - if temporary - cover. It is quite possible you are being used. In a way that helps you get what you want.
I think this action is likely for other reasons. Every one thinks the President can't act because it is elefction season. Plus our forces are "overstretched". Add in that right now our forces in Iraq are being beefed up due to scheduled "troop rotations" and I'd say the time was right.
The coming "election" in Iran means action is necessary sooner rather than later to keep the "reformers" as a transition government.
All in all I'd say Iran is already on.
I think we will know the game is up with the CIA when it's complicity in drug running is officially uncovered and the President is "shocked".
I expect it after the election.
*Reports of FBI in Afghanistan*
Now who would I send for distraction better than the FBI to make a lot of noise and start setting things up for operations "next month or so".
Obviosly the Iranians are not fooled. They have internal reports of "something happening". The purpose of this little charade is to fool the world press for about two to six weeks.
Nothing happening here folks. Just some beefed up raids against the old regime hiding in the mountains. Special forces are coming in and will round them up. Just another mop up campaign. Nothing exciting.
Another reason this will not be done Iraq style is because it takes too long. And too much criticism is generated.
The best will be if they can pull this off without major world notice. Second best if the forces involved are noticed but do not need B-52 help.
What to watch for is more "accidents" like the train accident and village uprisings in the north. I expect reports ought to start coming in a week if it is actually happening and to be flooding the air waves in 3 or 4 weeks.
I give the Mullahs six to eight weeks max. If the war is on.
The first thing required is to draw the security services out of the cities.
The Army will be a realtively small problem and a definite distraction because security will be needed to keep track of the disloyal units.
The purpose of this little adventure is to put the Norks on notice that we can rip them apart from the inside if they do not behave. We are supermen.
When the history of this era is written our Generals will go down as not only as some of the best individuals ever but also as one of the greatest groups of generals ever.
Rummy will probably be accounted the Greatest Secratary of War up til now. Of any where, ever.
Of course it is possible that I have an overactive imagination.
The crucial point Dan made is that Iran has given Al Qaeda sanctuary from which to attack us at home. Preventing attacks on Americans at home is a vital American interest. Never attack the vital interests of someone bigger than you are unless you are willing to risk your own.
The Bush Administration gave the mullahs a very blunt warning about giving Al Qaeda sanctuary right after 9/11. The mullahs admitted receiving the threat, said they wouldn't give Al Qaeda sanctuary and pretty much kept their promise until after we invaded Iraq.
At this point there are multiple indications that the wheels have come off in Teheran. The faction in charge now has gone thoroughly nutball like the Taliban did in the six months before 9/11.
We're going to take them out. I wouldn't be surprised if the overt runup starts before November.
M.Simon,
The original Special Forces mission was to foment insurrections behind the Iron Curtain. The A-Teams are currently the ones tasked withh the Start Rebellion mission.
Tom H.,
Thanks.
M. Simon, would you like to make a cash bet on where the mullahs are eight weeks hence?
What an echo chamber of teenage-boy fantasies, 00* hiding out in the mountains of Iran ready to score another blow for freedom.
We don't have the military personnel to back them up if and when the Iranians resist. Just supposing, somehow, that the clerical government was disbanded by our special forces, can you imagine the chaos we would prouce in a country where probably 30%-plus (the armed 30%, too) are genuine supporters of the mullahocracy, and we have no regular troops to send to try to protect the reformers? It ain't 1953 anymore.
A little while back, Stratfor (yes, I find their take on US-Iran relations vis-a-vis Iraq a little strange) had a comment on the development that the US Iraq command will soon be a four-star billet. Stratfor noted that this will allow CENTCOM to concentrate on other things, and that getting a staff together for the 4-star would take most of the spring, and the team would gel over the summer, making way for actions in the fall, most probably right after the election.
Ledeen's report that senior Iranians are moving money out of the country suggests they know what's coming. And, as Tom Holsinger notes, they're acting as if they're committed to conflict anyway, come what may.
So what's their move? What will Iran and al Qaeda do?
Well, the first part seems to be underway - intensified bombing campaign in Iraq. Especially truck bombs. Iraqi leadership targets and coalition bases. The Kurds got boomed a couple weeks ago, and the Poles just had a narrow escape. I wouldn't be too surprised to see Zarkawi and Imad Mugniyah running this show. With Hek's Hard Boyz thrown in for *a few laughs.*
Even if Iran's leaders have deluded themselves that they have enough popular support to hang on in the face of US military action and or a popular uprising, al Qaeda certainly won't make the same mistake that they made in Afghanistan. In late 2001, they thought they had a lot more time to get out than they actually had.
Additionally, remember that one of the foremost goals of al Qaeda is to re-establish a caliphate, with Osama as Caliph. There were several fatwas earlier this year authorizing action against the leaders of Saudi Arabia.
Question: might al Qaeda attempt to overthrow the Saudis this year? They've got support enough in the Western portions, probably, and especially around the southwest. There's widespread discontent in Saudi Arabia - could al Qaeda succeed in a coup?
Al Qaeda might put some effort into a bombing campaign in Iraq, to serve as a feint. While US in concentrating on whack-a-mole bomb hunts in Iraq, and Iran for the end of the year, al Qaeda prepares its move into Arabia.
Such a move would represent a huge gamble for Al Qaeda. A good portion of their income comes from Saudi donors, and Saudi Arabia's wealth doesn't come from the vaunted Saudi aerospace, pharmeceutical, or agricultrual sectors. Any disruption in the Saudi oil supply would mean a big revenue loss for al Qaeda.
But al Qaeda is running out of places to go.
Andrew,
I have heard that it is more like 9 to 1 against the mullahs.
You might also consider that the American revolution was carried off with 30% pro - 30% con and 40% don't care.
These days situatons of 9 to 1 are carried off without force of arms once the "leaders" lose their nerve and the military is tame or pro the 9.
Under circumstances like that all that may be needed is to put the "leaders" under pressure and let the civilians do the work.
A few thousand Sidney Rileys might be enough to do the job.
Under those kinds of circumstances we would not need a lot of boots on the ground and they need not stay after the job was done.
In any case afteer looking for more indications I am more convinced than ever. However, betting on such outcomes is not my strong point.
There was a case about a year or two back when I was sure Israel was going after Syria. Didn't happen. Was I wrong? Yes and no. A general involved reported several months after the fact that they were within two hours of getting the go order.
It is possible my analysis is correct and still nothing overt may happen.
Still given Iran's nuke ambitions I'd give the odds in favor of what I said 3 to 1.
Andrew,
The Iranians have been self governing for 25 years. With mullah veto. They are in the habit of elections and a somewhat civil society.
The reason for Iran now is that once the revolution is over they will NOT be a big burden.
Which is why Syria is not on today's short list.
The Iranian hardliners retain the loyalty of about 25% of the general population, though I think you'll see that percentage of support rise much, much if you poll those institutions that actively profit from the continuation of the regime: VEVAK, IRGC, Baseej, et al. Those are the folks, incidentally, who will be involved in suppressing any attempt to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
I believe that regime change in Iran can possibly be accomplished without a major war, but we need to have our troops in Iraq ready to back the Iranian people if they do - we don't need a replay of the Kurdish and Shi'ite uprising against Saddam Hussein in 1991.
Dan,
The Iranian opposition is atomized, incoherent, and knows Uncle Sugar is coming to do in the Mullah's.
Why should any of them risk jack to take down the Mullahocracy when the US Army is going to do it for them?
Less of them will get killed by American military forces for being in the cross fire than will die at the hands of the Mullah's regime security forces if they rise up.
That is why it will take an American invasion.
I expect, when we go into Iran (IMO 9-18 months from now) to eliminate its use as Al Qaeda sanctuaries and to stop the mullah's nuclear weapons program, Abu Frank will contend that we should take the mullahs' word for it that they are not developing nuclear weapons or letting Al Qaeda operate bases there.
Abu Frank told Marc Buehner in an older thread that he believed the contention of Saddam Hussein's regime that it was using Salman Pak for anti-terrorist training in how to stop airline hijackings, as opposed to training terrorists in how to hijack airliners.
If Abu Frank believed that about Saddam Hussein & company, he'll believe Iran's mullah regime too.
Tom's evidence for the terrorist hijacker training at Salman Pak consists of statements from two defectors provided by the Chalabi factory, all of whose other products have been repudiated as unreliable. Oh, and one official who, at least as of the time he was quoted, still believed them.
Abu Frank's refutation pointed out that- Iraq had a genuine need for counterterrorism operations. Indeed Iranian (or Iran-based anti-Saddam) guerrillas had already conducted a hijacking.
- Neither the 9/11 hijackers nor the various take-me-to-Cuba folks we used to suffer had any need to practice taking over the cockpit, and there is no evidence that they did so. (The 9/11 crew trained on simulators since they intended to murder the pilots.)
- In the ten months since we have held Salman Pak, the story has gone nowhere, despite our access to the facility and (one imagines) to most of its officers and trainers.
I suppose this will be mis-taken as Saddam apologia, but if someone from the Iraqi National Congress announced that Saddam used pita bread made from the blood of sacrificed Christian babies, Holsinger et. al. would be all over the story, ridiculing everyone who didn't fall straight into line. Meanwhile, it's quite touching to see the video-war crowd's confidence that despite evidence we have our hands full (stop-loss order anyone?) in Iraq—and will continue to do so, protecting whatever indigenous government arises from civil war—we're really poised for Operation Iranian Freedom. Sure. Notwithstanding thatPlanet Earth calling, come in please.
Andrew:
I am not arguing for immediate military action against Iran - the logistical difficulties in of themselves are quite staggering to anyone who's given serious thought to such things. However, there is still the point to be made that if the Iranians are hosting al-Qaeda's top brass as a Spanish official who is quite within the circle of those who would know and is quite untainted by neocon allegiances - that is a problem and one than has to be dealt with at some point. Especially if they were complicit in the killing of a good chunk of the PUK leadership.
As for Salman Pak, I have never regarded it as a serious part of the 9/11 plots if for no other reason than that I don't believe that one can place any or all of the hijackers inside Iraq with enough time to conduct such training. Indeed, if they used Salman Pak to train, why did they bother investing a substantial amount of time (and al-Qaeda's money) in flight school training in Florida, given that every moment they spent in the US would have involved an opportunity for them to be intercepted by law enforcement.
However, I see no serious objections to this account translated from an Iraqi daily alleging that al-Qaeda fighters were trained at Salman Pak as well as at al-Nahrawan immediately prior to the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom given that it would seem to fit with numerous other reports about the foreign fighters who battled alongside Saddam Hussein's forces during the war.