The Iran Factor

[adios]

The 9/11 commission is going to report that Iran helped the 9/11 hijackers more or less. A few posters have claimed that there's no evidence and it's highly unlikely that Iran would help Al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq. If the 9/11 commissions report is accurate regarding Iran's involvement in helping the 9/11 hijackers then is it reasonable to assume that Iran is assisting the insurgency of Al Qaeda in Iraq? Obviously it is although I'm sure I'll read the usual posts saying that this is wrong. If the 9/11 commission is wrong then the credibility of all their findings comes into question. The 9/11 commission has been critical of the Bush administration as well. So if the report is not credible, then the reasons for the criticism of the Bush administration in my mind come into question. I fully expect people to "cherry pick" portions of the report to make their case and ignore portions that refute their case. It's SOP in American politics. After all the politicians do it all the time and provide us with the example of how to do it.

The Iran Factor
Tehran may have facilitated terror by giving safe passage and ‘clean’ passports to Al Qaeda members, says the panel investigating the attacks


Iranian security services are said to have reached out to Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek
Updated: 1:04 p.m. ET July 17, 2004

July 16 - In its report due next week, the September 11 commission will disclose new evidence suggesting Iranian government officials may have helped facilitate the terror attacks by providing Al Qaeda members with safe passage and “clean” passports as they traveled from Osama bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan through Iran, NEWSWEEK has learned.

Citing a recently discovered December 2001 memo buried in the files of the National Security Agency, the commission report states that Iranian border inspectors were instructed not to place stamps in the passports of Al Qaeda fighters from Saudi Arabia who were traveling from bin Laden’s camps through Iran, according to U.S. officials and commission sources familiar with the report.

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

But, citing the NSA memo, the report discloses for the first time that eight to ten of the so-called “muscle hijackers” on September 11 are believed to have traveled through Iran between October 2000 and February 2001—the same period of time that Iranian border guards were facilitating the movement of extremist jihadis entering and exiting the Afghan training camps.

Those same hijackers, most of whom probably had no knowledge of the September 11 mission themselves, began entering the United States in April 2001 with no stamps on their passports indicating their recent travel to Afghanistan and Iran-red flags that might have prompted heightened scrutiny from U.S. border inspectors.

The new discovery about Iran’s assistance to Al Qaeda is among the most surprising new findings contained in a mammoth, 500 page report on the September 11 attacks that is due to be released by the commission next Thursday. Officials familiar with the findings say it provides far stronger evidence of the Iranian government links to bin Laden’s organization than was found of connections between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al Qaeda—a major bone of contention between the 9/11 panel and members of the Bush administration.

Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said the 9/11 report confirms a judgment that U.S. counterterrorism officials had reached soon after the attacks. At the time, the Bush administration was seeking evidence pointing to Iraqi involvement in the attacks. “See if Saddam did this,” Bush instructed Clarke on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, according to Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies.” “See if he’s linked in any way.”

In fact, Clarke said, while there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity, "there were lots of reasons to believe that [Al Qaeda] was being facilitated by elements of the Iranian security services. We told the president that specifically. The best evidence we had of state support [for Al Qaeda] was Iran."

Bush did identify Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, as part of the "axis of evil" in his January 2002 State of the Union speech. Iran had also long been identified by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism because of its close relationship with Hizbullah, a Shiite Muslim terror group with a major presence in Lebanon. But the president chose not to threaten military action against the Iranian regime, like he did with Iraq, in part because of a concern about possibly alienating "democratic forces’ within the country who might be in a position to modify Iranian behavior, according to Clarke.

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

One White House official called the report “confusing” on this point. However, another U.S. official said the general understanding of the U.S. intelligence community is that Iran was specifically seeking to assist “extremist jihadi” or “Afghan Arabs” traveling to and from the Afghan camps.

Another major captured Al Qaeda operative, Tawfiq bin Attash, also known as "Khallad," is cited in the report as telling interrogators that Iranian security services had reached out to bin Laden after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 and proposed a strengthening of their relationship. But bin Laden, according to the 9/11 report, rejected the overture for fear of alienating his Sunni Muslim base in Saudi Arabia.

The new evidence about Iran cited in the 9/11 report builds on findings contained in an interim staff report which challenged the long-held idea among many U.S. intelligence analysts that bin Laden’s Sunni Muslim populated terrorist group would shy away from collaboration with Shiite Muslim terror groups like Hizbullah that are associated with Iran.

In fact, the interim report found that in the mid-1990’s, “Bin Laden’s representatives and Iranian officials had discussed putting aside Shia-Sunni divisions to cooperate against the common enemy. A small group of al Qaeda operatives subsequently traveled to Iran and Hizbullah camps in Lebanon for training in explosives, intelligence and security. Bin Laden reportedly showed particular interest in Hizbullah’s truck bombing tactics in Lebanon in 1983 that had killed 241 U.S. Marines.”

Perhaps most surprisingly, the panel found what it called “strong but indirect” evidence that bin Laden’s organization played a role in the 1996 bombing of a U.S. Air Force housing complex at Khobar Towers in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, an attack that killed 19 Americans injured 372 others. That attack had been previously blamed by U.S. officials on a Saudi Shia Hizbullah group that was receiving direct assistance from Iran.

But the 9/11 panel noted that there were reports in the months before the attack that bin Laden was seeking to facilitate a shipment of explosives to Saudi Arabia. On the day of the attack, the interim staff report said, “Bin Laden was congratulated by other members of the Islamic Army."

[jokerswild]

I don't recall anybody arguing about Iran. I've seen just arguments supporting the clear statement from the 9-11 commission showing that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

Iran is the obvious next target of US expansion in the region. Buzz regarding the Iranians has increased as the administration attempts to steer people away from focussing on it's lies.

It's clear the CIA as an agency is not happy with Bush trying to blame it for Bush's folly in Iraq, or the book Imperial Hubris would not have been approved for publication.

There isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans. I will grant you that. More evidence exists tying US foreknowledge to 9-11 than either Iraq or Iran.

Nevertheless, if Bush wins ( which I still believe is more likely than not due to better stealing tactics), then the draft will more than likely be reinstated. Iran can be expected to be invaded. The deficit will grow from 7 trillion today to 10 trillion by 1-20-09, and the endgame will be the same. At some point the US will withdraw, and thousands more Islamic radicals will have been created. Bush's folly has turned into a new crusade. Ten years from now, the public may finally decide that history repeated itself. The West will eventually lose under current economic and military strategy.

[natedogg]

"The West will eventually lose under current economic and military strategy. "

You'd like that wouldn't you? Luckily that is not going to happen.

natedogg

[jokerswild]

No you are wrong, Mr. Necon. You are wrong on all counts.
1. I don't think these wars for oil companies are needed.
2. America has already lost both deomcracy at home, soldiers, and it's dignified pursuit of war as the non-agressor.
3. Islam won the crusdaes.
4. The US will eventually pull out.
5. The deficits are untenable for the country under anything other than a military dicatatorship.

It has already happened.

[trippin bily]

What color is the sky in you little world of conspiracies joker? I wish I could put your rants in a movie...o yeh..michael moore already made that movie.

[MMMMMM]

"3. Islam won the crusdaes."

Well they ain't gonna win the Jihad.

[adios]

Actually I view this post as a positive one in the sense that you've given your take on the situation in a non hateful manner. Nice to see that for a change.

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
More evidence exists tying US foreknowledge to 9-11 than either Iraq or Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the evidence?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall anybody arguing about Iran. I've seen just arguments supporting the clear statement from the 9-11 commission showing that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

Iran is the obvious next target of US expansion in the region. Buzz regarding the Iranians has increased as the administration attempts to steer people away from focussing on it's lies.

It's clear the CIA as an agency is not happy with Bush trying to blame it for Bush's folly in Iraq, or the book Imperial Hubris would not have been approved for publication.

There isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans. I will grant you that. More evidence exists tying US foreknowledge to 9-11 than either Iraq or Iran.

Nevertheless, if Bush wins ( which I still believe is more likely than not due to better stealing tactics), then the draft will more than likely be reinstated. Iran can be expected to be invaded. The deficit will grow from 7 trillion today to 10 trillion by 1-20-09, and the endgame will be the same. At some point the US will withdraw, and thousands more Islamic radicals will have been created. Bush's folly has turned into a new crusade. Ten years from now, the public may finally decide that history repeated itself. The West will eventually lose under current economic and military strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
But Corporate America (primarily defense-related contractors) will have profited tremendously! Adding a few trillion to the national debt, creating new Islamic radicals, reinstating the draft and creating an international atmosphere of hatred towards the US is a small price to pay for extended corporate profits. Think trickle-down....

[nicky g]

In the papers today Iran is saying that the hijackers crossed its borders from Afghanistan without it knowing, which IMO is not unlikely given the long border and the ease with which people have been able to sneak across other borders (eg Iraq). What its position is on how they left the country (or where they went to from Iran - the article doesn't say) I don't know.
It still strikes me as a big stretch that Iran would be helping AQ in Iraq at the same time as AQ is supposed to be blowing up Shia pilgrims and Shia gatherings etc in Iraq (as well as in Pakistan), or that it was deliberately aiding Taliban allies (AQ) at the same time it was officially at war with the Taliban and backing the Northern ALliance. Putting aside such enmities would not be something done lightly - Wahabbism's main focus is on "heretics" within Islam ie Shias and Sufis. Perhaps there are opportunistic elements/factions on both sides.

[ACPlayer]

You'd like that wouldn't you?

So, how exactly did you figure this out?

[ACPlayer]

Come on, try not to confuse the guys with mere facts.

[adios]

Thanks for responding. I've acknowledged that your position is a valid one.

In my post I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure I'll read the usual posts saying that this is wrong. If the 9/11 commission is wrong then the credibility of all their findings comes into question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If what you're stating is true (and again it think what you state has a lot of validity) then the commission's findings are way off the mark regarding Iran, at least if this article is accurate. To me that brings into question the credibility and thus the usefulness of the report itself. Yet I'm sure people will cite this report to bash Bush. Before the usual (not from you) knee jerk reaction of I'm acting in knee jerk fashion in defending Bush, that isn't the case at all. This isn't direct at you btw. If those that hate Bush aren't interested in discerning the truth, I find that to be at best irresponsible. Yes parts of this report may be accurate even if other parts aren't accurate but FWIW I believe people must question how the commission arrived at it's conclusions before making a determination about the accuracy of any portion of the report if part of it is very flawed.

[nicky g]

I guess. We'll have to see how the report plays it or what extra evidence it comes up with. If it makes a big deal out of the single fact that some of the hijackers were in Iran but didn;'t have their passports stamped I'd begin to doubt their credibility too. On the other hand I'm not totally unwilling to be swayed by evidence of a connection if it's presented; I just think there's a huge ideological gulf and I'd need to see something fairly strong to think it had been bridged. I'd be interested to know more on the background to the claimed Iranian policy of not stamping Saudi or "Afghan Arab" passports. I couldn't find much on it from a very brief search.

[MMMMMM]

"July 19, 2004, 8:38 a.m.
The Discovery of Iran
Are you sitting down? Iran is a terrorist state.


The organizers of the Council on Foreign Relations special task force to promote the appeasement of Iran must be cursing their uncommonly bad luck. They scheduled a meeting in Washington today to call for increasing normalization of relations between the United States and Iran. With a fine eye for dark comedy, the Council persuaded two relics of the catastrophic Carter years to appear: Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates. The principal advocate of the policy, however, is undoubtedly the president of the Council, Richard Haas, who has long seen rapprochement with the mullahs as an "historic opportunity" for the United States. Haas was the head of Colin Powell's Policy Planning Staff.

Whatever chances they had of successfully advancing appeasement were shattered over the weekend, as some talkative source at the 9/11 Commission told the old media (notably Time and Newsweek) that there was new evidence documenting the longstanding relationship between al Qaeda and Iran, including the fact that ten of the 9/11 terrorists had crossed Iran from Saudi Arabia the year before the attacks in this country, and the Iranians were careful not to stamp their passports, so that the Iranian connection could not be documented.

To be sure, the Commission leaker was careful to say there was no proof that the Iranians were witting of the 9/11 conspiracy, but that is hardly a surprise. Given the track record of CIA's "intelligence" on the role of the mullahs in the terror network, it would have been astounding if we had had any such evidence.

News stories on Sunday reminded readers that Richard Clarke had written that there was considerable evidence of collusion between Osama and the mullahs, and Asharq al-Awsat reported on the 15th that "more than 384 members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are present in Iran, including 18 senior leaders of Osama bin Laden's network." These terrorists were not, as the Iranians were quick to pretend, under arrest. Nor, as Iranian officials put it the day after, had the al Qaeda groups been destroyed. Many were living in villas near Chalous on the Caspian Sea, while others were in Lavizan, either in or near a big military base.

As luck would have it (and for this information I am indebted to the redoubtable Dan Darling), Chalous is the locus of a major underground nuclear facility that has been heavily reinforced of late, while Lavizan houses the Shiyan Technical Research Facility within one of the largest Revolutionary Guards bases in the Central Province.

What a surprise! Terrorists at Iranian military bases! Who ever would have imagined such a thing? Well, aside from NRO, which has long proclaimed Iran to be the safest of havens for Osama & co., the Iraqis not only imagined it, they knew it. Listen to the fine Iraq blogger at Iraq the Model early in July: "An Iraqi military check point...was subjected to Iranian fire on Friday.... Colonel Dhafir Savah Al Timemi mentioned that this was the 4th time the Iranians have opened fire on Shehan check point during the last week in addition to several other aggressions...Colonel Timemi said also that Iraqi border guards have captured 83 Iranians who were trying to cross Iraqi-Iranian borders illegally...."

And of course there is the ongoing slapstick routine at the United Nations Atomic Energy Agency, which constantly finds Iran cheating on its promises to tell all and show all about its atomic project, but never does anything to impose its will, bringing to mind Groucho's classic words, "I've got principles. And if you don't like them, I've got other principles."

This is all very inconvenient for Haas, Brzezinski, and the others who keep deluding themselves into believing that we can make a reasonable deal with the mullahcracy in Tehran. This is a very dangerous delusion, akin to Neville Chamberlain's conceit that he had achieved peace with Hitler, when, as Churchill put it, given the choice between war and dishonor, Chamberlain chose dishonor and got war. The Council is making the same humiliating choice.

Meanwhile, the mullahs and the other terror masters in the region quite sensibly continue to wage war against us. At the recent meetings in Tehran between a Syrian delegation led by President Bashar Assad and the Iranians, including Supreme Leader Khamenei and top deputies including strongman Rafsanjani, the head of intelligence Yunesi, several leading officials of the Revolutionary Guards, and Foreign Minister Kharazi, the two sides agreed on five key points:

A common strategy involving Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah to thwart American plans for the democratization of the Middle East;

Coordination of joint operations against the Coalition and the interim government in Iraq;

Coordination of political strategy to influence groups and countries that oppose the American presence in Iraq;

Planning for revenge should Israel attack Iranian nuclear, chemical or missile sites, or Syria's chemical and missile sites, or Hezbollah bases;

Full cooperation to prevent the reelection of President Bush, including all possible measures (such as sabotage of oil pipelines and terminals) to drive up the price of oil.

Advocates of rapprochement with Iran should be running from their announced principles as fast as they can.

Those of you who have followed along these little therapy sessions of mine know of my despair regarding this administration's fecklessness concerning the mullahs. It has pained me enormously, especially because I still believe that this president has a solid understanding of the evil of the Islamic Republic, despite the efforts of the State Department — even after the departure of Haas — to convince him that a really good deal is just minutes away. I have been reduced to begging "faster, please," but I have long since recognized that nothing would happen until after the elections (a potentially suicidal policy). Now the London Times has found a nameless someone in the Bush administration who promises that a second term for W. would bring vigorous support of democratic revolution in Iran, and decisive action against the atomic project. It is beyond me why anyone would take seriously such claims, given the fact that after four years in office this administration still has no Iran policy, and the deputy secretary of State, Richard Armitage, has never backed off his claim that Iran is a democracy, nor has he been gainsaid by any other top official. I certainly hope the Times is right, but I have my doubts. I'm afraid we're not going to get serious about Iran without another 9/11.

In the 20th century we were often saved from our own isolationism and self-delusion by our enemies, who attacked us and thereby resolved our foreign policy debates in favor of honorable self defense. Check this one out with the Germans regarding World War I, with the Japanese regarding World War II, with Stalin regarding the Cold War, and with Saddam concerning two Gulf wars. Osama bin Laden made a terrible mistake on 9/11, sealing the doom of the Taliban and a goodly number of his own killers, and depriving the remnant of vital support. If the Iranians approved yet another attack on Americans or on American soil, they might, let's say it as delicately as possible, no longer benefit from the benevolent shelter offered by the Middle Eastniks in the CIA and State, supported by the likes of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Maybe that would finally produce an Iran policy worthy of the name: support for democratic revolution against the mullahs. But Khamenei's and Rafsanjani's experience with the United States leaves them pretty sanguine about that risk, because every time we come up with some devastating bit of information on Iran, we immediately follow it with "but that doesn't mean that the leaders knew about it, or that it was the actual policy of the regime." You find half of bin Laden's family and top assistants in Tehran? Not to worry, maybe the mullahs didn't know. You discover that that 9/11 band crossed Iran and were assisted by the border guards and customs officials? Not to worry, that wasn't necessarily the actual policy — this from the lips of the acting director of Central Intelligence on Fox News yesterday. Scores of Iranian intelligence agents are found in Iraq, some in the act of preparing bombs? Some bright bulb in the intelligence community puts out the line that Iran is actually helpful to us, and has actually restrained Hezbollah. We find Iranian involvement in the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? The evidence is quashed by the Saudis, with the complicity of State and large sectors of the intelligence community.

So why should the men in the blood-soaked turbans fret over the consequences of aiding and abetting yet another murderous assault against Americans? I'm unfortunately betting on the second half of October, based on their happy experience with the Spanish elections last March.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute."

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200407190838.asp

[adios]

nicky wrote in part today:

[ QUOTE ]
It still strikes me as a big stretch that Iran would be helping AQ in Iraq at the same time as AQ is supposed to be blowing up Shia pilgrims and Shia gatherings etc in Iraq (as well as in Pakistan), or that it was deliberately aiding Taliban allies (AQ) at the same time it was officially at war with the Taliban and backing the Northern ALliance.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I saw this little news item today.
Iraq Envoy Expects Better Ties with Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040719/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_diplomat_5)

Which I think more or less lends some support to nicky's statement.

From the article you posted:

[ QUOTE ]
News stories on Sunday reminded readers that Richard Clarke had written that there was considerable evidence of collusion between Osama and the mullahs, and Asharq al-Awsat reported on the 15th that "more than 384 members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are present in Iran, including 18 senior leaders of Osama bin Laden's network." These terrorists were not, as the Iranians were quick to pretend, under arrest. Nor, as Iranian officials put it the day after, had the al Qaeda groups been destroyed. Many were living in villas near Chalous on the Caspian Sea, while others were in Lavizan, either in or near a big military base.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's Richard Clarke, one of the Bush basher darlings stating that Iran and Al Qaeda are in bed together. Let's say that Richard Clarke is right, then the Iraqi envoy's statements seem non sensical to me. I can't imagine why relations would be getting friendlier with a country that's supporting terrorism against your people. Let's say Richard Clarke is wrong, then I think it calls into question his entire testimony before the commission which includes some very serious charges against Bush. It appears to me that Clarke is THE star witness for the commission and it also appears to me that he may very well be a total incompetant. Given that the U.S. intelligence seems to be very faulty I'm not sure I have all that much faith in the conclusions that are being reached by the 9/11 commission at all.

[MMMMMM]

It does seem somewhat strange, or at least there are pieces of the puzzle missing.

I have read elsewhere that Iran is trying hard to destabilize Iraq. I think it makes sense to say that Iran has a vested interest in seeing the democratic experiment in Iraq fail, or better yet (from their standpoint) that it never really get off the ground.

I think Iran's interest in not seeing democracy take root in the Middle East might well be sufficient to for it to overcome its differences with others for this specific purpose. Likewise since they so hate the U.S. a similar copoperation might be reached with the aim of striving against America (and the West, and Israel).

Clarke seems a rather enigmatic character.

I agree it is hard to form certain definite conclusions re. the recent commission etc. One conclusion I have formed over many months of reading related articles is that Iran (or those supported by Iran) is indeed active in Iraq and trying to destabilize the country. Whether that is solely to thwart the democratic experiment and the USA, or whether Iran has more ulterior motives remains to be seen. I did read one report not too long ago that Iran had readied some key concentrations of troops near the border which could enter Iraq once the US leaves, ostensibly to try to fill the power vacuum at that time. That however was just one report whereas the earlier stuff about Iran operatives at work in Iraq for destabilization purposes was found in multiple articles.

Also worth noting: one reported reason for those Shi'a gatherings being blown up is that it was a plot to foment civil war between the Shi'a and Sunnis (since the Shi'a would be likely to think the Sunnis did it). Didn't something like a tape of Zarqawi at least imply that? I forget the exact details. While thst reported plot theory could be wrong, it doesn't take much stretch to conjecture that Iran could have a lot to gain by this. Iran has long considered Iraq an enemy, and a weakened, bloodied, Iraq further split by civil war might be a target for an Iranian supported Shi'a coup or even a military takeover by Iran itself (after the US leaves) as they still possess a huge army. Even if Iran's hopes or aims are not so grandiose, there is no way the mullahs want to see democracy succeed in Iraq.

All in all some very complex scenarios and not all of the puzzle pieces are on the table. I somewhat suspect that Richard Clarke may have a couple of them hidden in his jacket pocket.

[nicky g]

Where is Mr Ledeen getting all this information? No sources for: "These terrorists were not, as the Iranians were quick to pretend, under arrest. Nor, as Iranian officials put it the day after, had the al Qaeda groups been destroyed. Many were living in villas near Chalous on the Caspian Sea, while others were in Lavizan, either in or near a big military base."
Or
"At the recent meetings in Tehran between a Syrian delegation led by President Bashar Assad and the Iranians, including Supreme Leader Khamenei and top deputies including strongman Rafsanjani, the head of intelligence Yunesi, several leading officials of the Revolutionary Guards, and Foreign Minister Kharazi, the two sides agreed on five key points"
Given what we've since found out about a range of necons' unsubstantiated assertions on Iraqi WMDs and ties to al-Qaeda , I see little reason to take any of his assertions on faith.

[nicky g]

What has Clarke said about Iranian ties to AQ beyond the passport story? By itself, that's not a particularly substantial or significant accusation.
Another point on possible Iranian backing for AQ in Iraq - if they wanted to destabilise the country why wouldn;t they simply use Shia extremist groups, which they presumably have better relations with?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
What has Clarke said about Iranian ties to AQ beyond the passport story? By itself, that's not a particularly substantial or significant accusation.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the original article I posted:

In fact, Clarke said, while there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity, "there were lots of reasons to believe that [Al Qaeda] was being facilitated by elements of the Iranian security services. We told the president that specifically. The best evidence we had of state support [for Al Qaeda] was Iran."

Don't know how accurate this quote is but my impression is that Clarke is stating more or less that Bush ignored the threat that Iran presented in their support of Al Qaeda.

[ QUOTE ]
Another point on possible Iranian backing for AQ in Iraq - if they wanted to destabilise the country why wouldn;t they simply use Shia extremist groups, which they presumably have better relations with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok point taken.

[nicky g]

Sorry, I should have reread it before posting that.

[nicky g]

Tom,

Thought you might be interested to see this, if you haven't already: More Evidence of an Iran-Al Qaeda Connection (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/)

I don't think this is particularly interesting and the title overstates it, for the usual reasons - all it shows is that al-Shibh went to Iran, which he could have done for any number of reasons - to get into Afghanistan, to meet an underground AQ cell there etc. No evidence of any government involvement. I mean, you coud build a case for the Dutch being somehow involved if this is the standard of evidence - he came form Holland, Iraqi WMD components are supposed to ahve been found in Dutch warehouses (being shipped to teh cell al-Shibh left behind no doubt /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)etc. Things we know al-Qa'ida also did in Pakistan and Saudi are being used to show Iranian backing. But I suppose those with suspicions will see it as adding to the pile. The stuff at the bottom about the supposed Iranian defector is interesting, I hadn't heard it before. The "doubts about his credibility" remind me of when a lot of Iraqi defectors with similar doubts, now largely proven correct, hanging over them started popping up in the run up to the Iraq war. Which further makes me think that something is cooking regrding Iran. But draw your own conclusions.

[ACPlayer]

There are two questions here:

1. Is Iran trying to meddle in Iraq. IMO there are most likely interests in Iran (whether it includes the govt or not is not clear to me) that would like to see Iraq collapse. But then there are interests in Saudi for one that would also like to see the Iraq boondoggle fail as their power will be threatened -- and this includes the official formal Saudi leadership!.

2. Is there a connection between Iran and Al Qaeda. This connection seems as far fetched as the purported connection between Iraq and AQ. Again there may be some people in Iran who support Iraq but it is highly unlikely that either the Iranian Mullah's or their govt support AQ. Here is a common sense reason: Bin Ladin is a fanatical Sunni surrounded by like minded Sunni fanatics, Iran is Shia, a sect that the Sunni's despise for historical reasons. Iran has a long history of fighting against the Taliban (as a supporter of the Northern Alliance for example) and by extension against the AQ. There is virtually no way that before the Iraq war the Iranian establishment was supporting AQ - now after our misadventure in Iraq, we may have made them into strange bedfellows (but even this is not likely given the history).

Going after Iran, which I think Bush would do in a second term would be the second piece of foolishness if the war on terror is the reason. If the reason is oil and Israel perhaps the strategy then is aligned with the objective -- however the objective then is a false one and hence the strategy is incorrect.

[MMMMMM]

Interesting what the 9/11 commission report had to say about Iran (besides the Saudi hijackers matter). Also notable what Iran has been up to lately.



"Iran's Growing Threat
By Rachel Ehrenfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 23, 2004

Recent events have made it clear that the threat posed by Iran should be dealt with sooner rather than later. Today's 9/11 Commission report documents extensive ties between Iran and terrorism, and the mullahs' drive to create a nuclear weapon is well known. In recent days, Iranian officials and clerics have increased the incitement for violence against American and Coalition forces in Iraq. However, ending the real threat this fundamentalist Islamic theocracy poses to the United States and the West may be impossible, thanks to the Left’s and the pro-Islamists non-stop assault on the president's credibility.

The case against Iran should be air-tight. The Bush administration is now armed with:

[1] The 9/11 Commission’s report, documenting the logistical, operational and material support from Iran and Hezbollah (Iran’s international terrorist arm) to al-Qaeda;

[2] Iran’s own admission of its intention to develop nuclear weapons;

[3] Iran’s increasing anti-American rhetoric; and

[4] Iran’s growing support of terrorism in Iraq.

According to the just-released 9/11 Commission Report, Iran’s support of al-Qaeda dates back to 1991, when operatives from both sides met in Sudan and agreed “to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States.”

By 1993, “al-Qaeda received advice and training from Hezbollah” in intelligence, security and explosives, especially in “how to use truck bombs.” The training took place in the Bekaa Valley, Hezbollah’s stronghold in Lebanon.

The commission further reports that “at least 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi ‘muscle’ operatives traveled into and out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001,” and that Iran facilitated “the travel of al-Qaeda members through Iran on their way to and from Afghanistan.” Yet in an ostrich-like move, the commission refrained from accusing Iran of supporting al-Qaeda.

This is how the commission phrased it: “There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9-11 hijackers…however, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence...[and] we found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.”

Indeed, the commission recommends that further investigations should be carried out, but looking at the body of evidence about Iran’s leadership role in worldwide terrorism and the war against the U.S., one can only hope that we can act in time to restrain it.

"Iran is closer to nuclear capability that it was two years ago," said Dr. Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, earlier this week. And U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, R-KS, also added that Iran is clearly developing nuclear weapons. Pakistan, as we found out earlier this year, provided Iran with information on how to build an atomic bomb.

Iran’s admission that they are working on developing nuclear capabilities was made in November 2003 by a member of the Iranian Parliament, Ahmad Shirzad. He made reference to the existence of a then-unknown essential nuclear facility, at a time when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iranian opposition had identified at least 8 different nuclear facilities in Iran. Despite all the evidence, it is unlikely that the international community will take steps to disarm Iran any time soon – indeed, the IAEA and EU overtures have been disastrous. And undoubtedly, China and Russia will block any real disarmament efforts.

Iran denies that it is developing nuclear weapons; however on July 6, 2004, the Iranian daily, Kayhan’s editorial warned that, "The entire Islamic Middle East is now a volatile and tangled trap, and will be set off by the smallest bit of silliness – and will reap many victims of the sinful adventurers…Indeed, the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of Hell that will burn to ashes everything that has been built.” Earlier, according to reports in the Kuwaiti, Al-Siyassah, Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the Expediency Council stated, "The present situation in Iraq represents a threat as well as an opportunity... It is a threat because the wounded American beast can take enraged actions, but it is also an opportunity to teach this beast a lesson so it won't attack another country.” He ended his speech calling for "Death to America, Death to Israel.”

Iran’s support of the growing terrorist activities in Iraq and its attempts to destabilize the interim government resulted in warnings issued this week by the Defense and Interior Ministers of Iraq in an interview for the London based Arabic-daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. The Defense Minister, Hazem Al-Sha’lan, after accusing Iran of supporting terrorism on Iraqi soil, warned, “We have the capability to move the assault into their country[ies].”

If you think that Iran has its hands full with terrorist activities already, think again. Last month, according to Reuters, the Islamic Republic of Iran – through the proxy known as the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign – launched a new campaign calling for volunteers to carry out suicide attacks against U.S and Coalition forces inside Iraq, as well as missions targeting Israel and author Salman Rushdie. Since the 10,000 volunteers already registered are not enough, they distributed a “Preliminary Registration for Martyrdom Operations” application for the position of “martyr.” Announcing this new campaign, the cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati urged the public that "It is the duty of every Muslim to threaten U.S. and British interests anywhere.”

So, what are we waiting for? The president's impaired credibility, a dividend of the perpetual partisan assaults of the political Left, most elements of the Democratic Party in general, and the pro-Islamists anti-American elements in Europe and elsewhere now poses a grave danger to our security at home and abroad. Since the Democratic Party has embraced its activist core, its politicians have denounced the war in Iraq as unjustified and immoral, each American and Iraq death the intended by-product of President Bush's wilful lies. Ted Kennedy claimed the war was "cooked up in Texas" months or years before it was launched; Al Gore screeches that President Bush "betrayed us!"; and the Left at large has claimed the president massaged intelligence to manipulate the public into attacking the benign despot of Iraq. The 9/11 Commission’s and Lord Butler’s report debunked the Left’s and the pro- Islamists’ allegations, but the damage was already done. Having tarnished the president's veracity specifically on the War on Terror for political advantage, the Democrats hope is to render us impotent to respond to the genuine threat posed by Tehran. If the damage they have caused cannot be reversed, their self-seeking rhetoric may prove to have mortal consequences.

*Rachel Ehrenfeld is the author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It and is the Director of the American Center for Democracy. "

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14353

[adios]

This Iran-Al Qaeda connection is mentioned in too places. Disturbing.

[adios]

Iran, Saudis Feel Vindicated After Report (http://news.yahoo.com/News?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040723/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_sept11)

Iran, Saudis Feel Vindicated After Report

2 hours, 14 minutes ago

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - A powerful Iranian politician told anti-American worshippers Friday there was nothing in the U.S. Sept. 11 commission report to incriminate Tehran's government — even though the panel said as many as 10 of the hijackers passed through Iran while heading to the United States.


Saudi Arabia also found exoneration in conclusions drawn by the inquiry into the deadliest attack on American soil. The panel said it found no evidence the Saudi government directly contributed money to al-Qaida or its Saudi-born leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) — a point that Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, noted in a statement on an official Web site.


The commissioners also said Saudi Arabia itself was threatened by the terror network, which accuses the Saudi royal family of being insufficiently Islamic. But the panel criticized what it saw as lack of Saudi cooperation with U.S. investigators of al-Qaida before the 2001 attacks and called the kingdom "a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism."


The commission report, which followed a 20-month independent investigation, said intelligence pointed to contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaida figures. It also found Iran allowed eight to 10 of the Sept. 11 hijackers to pass through its territory on their way from Afghanistan (news - web sites) and other countries without stamping their passports.


While the commissioners said no evidence had been found that conservative, Shiite Muslim Iran was aware that extremist, Sunni Muslim al-Qaida was planning the attacks on New York and Washington, "we believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government."


During his sermon at weekly prayers in Tehran, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani — still a key figure in the country — said it was not certain that the hijackers passed through the country.


"Every day, thousands of people come and go. ... Such people usually carry false passports. Moreover, many can illegally cross the border. It has been always like this," Rafsanjani said.


"Even if it's true that they have passed through Iran, can you really incriminate Iran with this bit of information?" he said in a sermon that drew chants of "Death to America!" from the thousands of worshippers.


Rafsanjani also accused Washington of creating al-Qaida to fight Iran and weaken both Islamic factions. America's critics often point to U.S. support of the guerrilla war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s as proof it helped create al-Qaida. Bin Laden was among the thousands of Arab fighters inspired by Islamic fervor to fight in Afghanistan.


Rafsanjani said Americans should blame their government for failing to uncover the plot and protect Americans instead of pointing fingers at others.


The commissioners said the United States must "confront problems with Saudi Arabia in the open and build a relationship beyond oil, a relationship that both sides can defend to their citizens and includes a shared commitment to reform."


The panel criticized the lack of Saudi cooperation with U.S. investigators of al-Qaida before the attacks. It said that in late 1998 U.S. officials were denied permission to question an important al-Qaida financial officer in Saudi custody, Madani al Tayyib.


In his government's first response to the report, Prince Bandar ignored the criticism. In a statement on his embassy's Web site Thursday, he pointed to the commission's findings that the Saudi government had not directly contributed money to al-Qaida or bin Laden and was pursuing the terrorist mastermind.


Bandar concluded the commission "has confirmed what we have been saying all along. The clear statements by this independent, bipartisan commission have debunked the myths that have cast fear and doubt over Saudi Arabia."


The panel said it could not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship might have diverted funds to al-Qaida. But it said it found no evidence of financial support by the Saudi government or individual senior Saudi officials.


The panel concluded that the Sept. 11 hijackers spent as much as $500,000 to plan and launch the attacks, but acknowledged there is some mystery about the source of that money.


The terror network typically collected money from Islamic charities and private individuals, which comprised the so-called "Golden Chain" of bin Laden's organization, the report said.





The commission said some donors knew they were supporting bin Laden's campaign of terrorism, but others did not.

The report praised the Saudi royal family's action in 1999 and 2000 that helped U.S. officials understand bin Laden's finances and the amount of his personal inheritance, which amounted to roughly $1 million each year until 1994, when his wealthy family cut him off. That was far less than the U.S. government's previous estimates of a $300 million lump sum inheritance.

The commission said bin Laden's dispute with the Saudi government dated to the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq (news - web sites), when Saudis rebuffed a proposal by bin Laden to summon Islamic fighters to retake Kuwait.

Bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's decision instead to join the U.S. coalition in the Gulf War (news - web sites) and to permit U.S. troops to be based there, and the government responded by taking away his passport and, years later, freezing his bank accounts and revoking his citizenship.

[nicky g]

Some of ther report's findings seem to contradict my own theories. Tenacious as I am, I will however offer some rearguard rebuttals:

On the passport issue, from the LA Times:
"Intelligence officials, however, downplay the significance of the travel route. One senior U.S. intelligence official who has seen the commission report, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Islamic jihadists, particularly Saudis, "routinely were allowed to transit Iran without being impeded or without being questioned carefully or without having their documents marked in any way. The official stressed that "this was not unique to Al Qaeda" and that the travel was not evidence of special Iranian collaboration with the terrorist network"
Al Qaeda Relationship With Iran Is Debated (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran21jul21,1,2079073.story?coll=la-headlines-world)

- 1992 and 1993, when the Sudan meeting was alleged to have taken place, were a long time ago. Just several years before that the US was actively funding the same sort of people in Afghanistan. The report shows little indication of recent cooperation or links beyond the unstamped passports business.

- Another point is that at least one of the sources the report relies on for the Sudanese meeting (quite possibly the main source) and the Hizballah connection is arguably shaky to say the least (the sources are listed in note 52 to chapter 2 of the report). Two of the sources are an FBI interview with Jamal al-Fadl, an al-Qa'ida defector, and the transcript of evidence al-Fadl gave at a trial in 2001. Firstly, defectors/single witnesses are notoriously unreliable intelligence sources, as Iraq has shown. Secondly, in his testimony, al-Fadl doesn't refer to Iranian operatives. He refers to one Sudanese-based Iranian from a government-owned centre to convert Sudanese Sunnis to Shi'ism. This doesn't really amount to very much in the way of evidence for government backing for the meeting/collaboration. See 288 (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/binladen/binladen20601tt.pdf), p 259/288. Assuming this is the meeting they refer to, either that was the extent of Iranian involvement in it, or Fadl isn't a reliable witness. He does say some AQ members trained with Hizballah on bombing tactics.

The other sources mentioned are an intelligence report and an FBI interview with a "confidential source" which we don't get to see. Regarding them I would say that Iraq showed a lot of intelligence to be dubious at best and that at least some of it is likely to be based on al Fadl (it is date Jan 31 1997, shortly after his defection in 1996) given his prominence. It's also worth noting that Hizballah representatives and the Iranian government both condemned the 9/11 attacks.

All in all I would argue that an alleged meeting, the existence of which is based at least partly on a defector's story that doesn't even suggest Iranian government backing, that took place over a decade ago, along with alleged co-training with an Iranian sponsored group that also took place over a decade ago if at all (also at least partly based on this guy's evidence) does not amount to an awful lot of significant AQ-Iran relationship. It's also worrying the amount of prominence this is being given. On the other hand, perhaps the commission is right to reccommend the matter be further investigated; but not over-blown.

As you can see, I got a lot of work done today. To the pub.

[adios]

It's troubling to me because I'm not sure where the truth lies and if the 9/11 Commission etc. has got the Iran-Al Qaeda connection pegged wrong then subsequent actions based on the commsissions finding are likely to be horribly misguided. From the article I posted below:

While the commissioners said no evidence had been found that conservative, Shiite Muslim Iran was aware that extremist, Sunni Muslim al-Qaida was planning the attacks on New York and Washington, "we believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government."

Now I don't think it's a stretch to say that conservative, Shiite Muslim Iran and extremist, Sunni Muslim al-Qaida do not seem like they'd get along all the well. My perception is that in the U.S.A. not too many people are questioning the nature of the connection between Iran and Al Qaeda. Hopefully this will be debated further.

[MMMMMM]

I agree it's worth considering and that it bears further investigation.

Even the USA and USSR put aside their differences temporarily when fighting Hitler. If that can happen, I really don't see why Shiites and Sunnis can't put aside their differences when fighting the USA, which they both consider to be The Great Satan. The fundamentalist hard-line Shiites are in the Iranian government and the fundamentalist hard-line Sunnis are in al-Qaeda and they both probably hate us equally and regard us as the overarching enemy.