SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (61723)1/31/2013 9:33:33 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Israeli Jets Blast Arms Shipment Inside Syria
Updated January 30, 2013, 8:16 p.m. ET

By FARNAZ FASSIHI, JULIAN E. BARNES and SAM DAGHER
Israel bombed a suspected shipment of antiaircraft missiles in Syria on Wednesday, according to regional and U.S. officials, in its most ambitious strike inside its neighbor's territory in nearly two chaotic years of civil war there.

The early-morning strike in a border area west of Damascus targeted a convoy of trucks carrying Russian-made SA-17 missiles to Hezbollah, the anti-Israel Shiite militant and political group in Lebanon, according to a Western official briefed on the raid.

Israeli officials declined to comment on the report, and to a Syrian allegation that Israel had bombed a Syrian military facility.

A strike draws Israel further into Syria's conflict—a civil war that has already deepened the region's divides as its powers have taken sides with arms and funding. It also marked a challenge to Iran, which has backed and financed Hezbollah.

"An attack of any kind is a major escalation," said Timor Goksel, an expert on Hezbollah and a professor at American University in Beirut. "Why would Israel do this out of the blue?"

The answer, according to several Western officials and security analysts, is that Israel took a calculated risk that Syria's government, strained by its own internal war, would choose not to retaliate. Meanwhile, Hezbollah and Iran—both facing coming elections and financial challenges—would also be unlikely to strike back at Israel now.

In addition to taking out weapons that could be used by Hezbollah against Israeli warplanes in a future conflict, Israel sent what amounted to a message of warning to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iran against attempting to transfer any chemical or biological weapons to Hezbollah, U.S. and Western officials said. The use of such weapons has been singled out by President Barack Obama as a "red line" that could trigger a U.S. intervention.

Syria maintained that the accounts of a strike on an arms convoy near the country's border with Lebanon were wrong. Instead, Syria's military said, Israeli jets had attacked a military facility near Damascus.

"Israeli warplanes violated our airspace at dawn today and directly struck one of the scientific research centers responsible for elevating resistance and self-defense capabilities in the area of Jamraya in the Damascus countryside," Syria's military said in a statement carried by the official Sana news agency. The attack killed two workers and injured five others, it said, and "caused significant material damage and the destruction of the complex" and an adjacent parking lot.

Syrian activists say the Jamraya site is in a mountainous area of military facilities and training camps located on a heavily guarded road just off the main Damascus-Beirut highway.

Later Wednesday, a U.S. official said the accounts of two targets—a convoy of weapons, and a military site—weren't mutually exclusive.

The U.S. believes Israeli warplanes bombed a Hezbollah-bound convoy of antiaircraft missiles, U.S. officials said. The vehicles may have been close to a military facility, they said, cautioning their information remained incomplete.

Tensions in the broader region have been building for days. On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel is vigilantly watching the disintegration of Syria and the fate of its "deadly weapons.'' Israel's army deployed an Iron Dome missile-defense system in northern Israel that same day.

Two days later, four Israeli jets flew low over villages in southern Lebanon, a violation of the country's airspace, according to the Lebanese military. A spokesman for the United Nations' peacekeeping forces in Lebanon said the group had recorded a higher-than-usual number of Israeli jets entering Lebanon's airspace in the past few days.

Hezbollah keeps a stockpile of weapons in military bases in Syria located near the Lebanese border, according to security officials in Iran and Lebanon.

As Syria's security has deteriorated, Hezbollah has grown increasingly concerned that its weapons cache could fall into the hands of rebels, said Gen. Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese security official.

"Hezbollah has decided that it's no longer safe to keep the weapons sheltered inside Syria," Gen. Hanna said, adding they want to "bring them back before it's too late."

For months, Israeli officials have also spoken of the risk that Syria's weapons caches might fall into the hands of Hezbollah amid the civil war, and vowed to act if necessary. Israel has worried about specific types of weapons that would mark a "game changing" shift on the battlefield in a future conflict with the Shiite militia. Though most attention has been focused on Syria's chemical weapon stockpile, if Hezbollah were to obtain the SA-17 missiles, it would limit Israel's air superiority in Lebanon, said analysts.

Hezbollah denied that Israel had attacked a convoy of its weapons in Syria. "We have no information about this issue. We are not concerned at all," said Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi.

An attack on Syria would be a relative rarity for Israeli forces. In November, Israel said its forces had targeted and hit a Syrian military vehicle after a Syrian mortar shell landed in the Golan Heights. The retaliatory attack was the only previously reported Israeli attack inside Syria in its nearly two years of internal conflict.

For much longer, though, Israel has been tied to attacks aimed at blocking weapons from reaching the country's regional foes. Israel is widely believed to have attacked a site in Syria in 2007 that was suspected of being a nuclear facility under construction. The Israeli government has declined to confirm or deny that strike.

In late October, Sudanese officials accused Israel of using fighter jets to attack a weapons factory inside Sudan. Israel has viewed Sudan as a conduit for arms to the Palestinian militant group Hamas, according to regional intelligence analysts. Israel didn't comment publicly on the strike, which came about two weeks before Israel and Hamas fought an eight-day battle in the West Bank.

"Israel has a long history of intercepting and preventing weapons that are on their way to terror groups, whether it is Hamas or Hezbollah,'' said Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar Ilan University.

Israel has typically maintained silence amid allegations of pre-emptive attacks, a stance Israeli analysts and Western officials alike view as an effort to avoid escalating hostilities.

"The usual way this plays out is the Israelis won't take credit, whoever suffered the effects will divert attention or try to down play it," said Aram Nerguizian, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank. "The Israelis got their point across. If anyone had any questions that Israel would act on what it perceives to be its red lines…now they have an answer."

—Adam Entous, Joshua Mitnick and Nada Raad contributed to this article.
Write to Farnaz Fassihi at farnaz.fassihi@wsj.com, Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com and Sam Dagher at sam.dagher@wsj.com


online.wsj.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (61723)3/19/2013 2:08:11 AM
From: greatplains_guy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Partners in Terror?
Iran, al Qaeda, and the secret bin Laden files.
By THOMAS JOSCELYN
Mar 25, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 27

The arrest earlier this month of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and former spokesman, has sparked renewed interest in an old question: What is the extent of the relationship between the Iranian regime and al Qaeda?


Some folks didn’t get the memo.


Along with a cadre of other senior al Qaeda operatives, Abu Ghaith was sheltered inside Iran for almost the entire post-9/11 period. The U.S. government has never quite known what to make of this fact. The Iranians have repeatedly supported al Qaeda henchmen even while holding some others under house arrest. This seemingly contradictory policy has baffled counterterrorism officials, who are, in any event, not keen to connect too many of these dots because of the possible policy ramifications for the war on terror the administration would prefer to be over.

Since Abu Ghaith’s arrival in New York City, where he is to be tried for conspiring to kill Americans, journalists have attempted to grapple with the Iran-al Qaeda nexus. Their published accounts are a mix of fact and speculation. But the press has missed an important storyline. The Obama administration has refused to release the best evidence for evaluating the relationship: Osama bin Laden’s complete archive.

The Weekly Standard previously reported that hundreds of thousands of documents and files were recovered during the raid that killed bin Laden in May 2011. The Obama administration has released just 17 of them. A year after the raid, West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) published this paltry set online.

The documents released were chosen by White House officials to push their preferred spin: Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda is on the verge of extinction. Many documents that contradict this politicized narrative remain behind a classified wall.

Al Qaeda operatives do discuss their relationship with Iran in some of the 17 documents the CTC received. But those records provide only a narrow window into complex, decades-long ties. The administration-approved set highlights tensions between bin Laden’s terrorists and Iran’s functionaries. But other documents, according to several U.S. officials with direct knowledge of bin Laden’s files, show extensive collusion. The administration did not give those documents to the CTC and has not released them to the public.

The White House’s selective release of bin Laden’s documents has distorted the public discourse. Consider the effect it had on Joby Warrick’s article in the Washington Post last week, “Iran, al-Qaeda relationship is showing cracks, U.S. officials and analysts say.” Warrick did a far better job than most journalists in reporting on the Iran-al Qaeda axis. He offered a balanced view of the relationship, juxtaposing evidence that cut both ways. Unlike many reporters, Warrick did not shy away from evidence of ongoing collusion.

Warrick noted that the documents released to the CTC demonstrate al Qaeda’s “wariness” in dealing with Iran. “The Iranians are not to be trusted,” bin Laden wrote in one email. “It is possible that they may plant chips,” he warned, to track al Qaeda’s terrorists. Those documents also reveal that al Qaeda kidnapped an Iranian official, and then used this official as leverage with the regime. Some have cited these documents as evidence that the entire relationship is hostile.

What Warrick and Washington Post readers don’t know is that the CTC selection presents Iran-al Qaeda relations in the worst possible light. It is true that there have been, to use the CTC’s description, “antagonistic” episodes between the two. It is true that bin Laden did not fully trust Iran. Then again, al Qaeda’s CEO likely trusted few people wholeheartedly—he may have had his own mentor killed. None of this conflict stopped bin Laden from seeking or receiving the Iranians’ assistance.

“We believe that Iran continues to allow al Qaeda to operate a network that moves al Qaeda money and fighters through Iran to support al Qaeda activities in South Asia,” Warrick quoted David S. Cohen, the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, as saying.

The Treasury and State Depart-ments have led the way in shedding light on the Iran-al Qaeda partnership. Since President Obama was first sworn in, these departments have designated numerous al Qaeda terrorists who operate on Iranian soil. Several U.S. officials contacted by The Weekly Standard say that Osama bin Laden’s documents, along with other evidence, played an important role in these designations, which highlight the Iranian regime’s support of al Qaeda.

In July 2011, for instance, the Treasury Department reported that al Qaeda’s Iran-based terrorists operate “under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian government.” This agreement was part of a formerly “secret deal.”

In December 2011, the State Department announced a $10 million reward for the terrorist who leads al Qaeda’s Iran-based network, Yasin al-Suri, making him one of the U.S. government’s most-wanted men. A Treasury Department official noted at the time that the Iran-sanctioned network “serves as the core pipeline for al Qaeda to funnel operatives and facilitators from the Middle East to Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

In February 2012, the Treasury Department found that Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) “has facilitated the movement of al Qaeda operatives in Iran and provided them with documents, identification cards, and passports.” The MOIS has also “provided money and weapons to al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) .??.??. and negotiated prisoner releases of AQI operatives.”

In October 2012, the Treasury Department designated additional al Qaeda operatives who work inside Iran. Treasury’s Cohen explained that the designation “builds on our action from July 2011” and “further exposes al Qaeda’s critically important Iran-based funding and facilitation network.” Cohen added: “We will continue targeting this crucial source of al Qaeda’s funding and support, as well as highlight Iran’s ongoing complicity in this network’s operation.”

Obama’s national security team did not release to the CTC the documents used as evidence in support of these designations. The files showing cooperation between Iran and al Qaeda would have undoubtedly undermined the narrative being pushed by John Brennan, then President Obama’s senior counterterrorism adviser and now CIA director. Brennan, who announced the release of the documents by the CTC, has been eager to proclaim al Qaeda’s demise. But if al Qaeda is working with the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism—and it is—that argument becomes much more difficult to make.

That some Treasury officials continued doggedly to pursue the Iran-al Qaeda relationship, even as other administration brass pushed a disingenuous narrative to the public through the CTC, is an honorable testament to their hard work.

According to Warrick’s account, there is evidence that Abu Ghaith, the formerly fire-breathing al Qaeda spokesman, was finally expelled from Iran earlier this year. Some were quick to cite Abu Ghaith’s putative expulsion as evidence that the relationship between the Iranian regime and al Qaeda is beginning to fray. But the two have always had significant points of disagreement.

Today, the fight in Syria complicates their partnership, as they support opposing sides. Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front, the most deadly Syrian insurgency group, is battling Bashar al-Assad’s Iran-backed forces. Ironically, as Cohen noted to Warrick, al Qaeda’s Iran-based network is supporting the al-Nusra Front even as Iran’s mullahs desperately seek to keep Assad in power. Such incongruity is not uncommon in the terrorist underworld.

The war in Syria may very well take Iran-al Qaeda relations in a new direction. But one of the enduring characteristics of this alliance is that it has survived despite especially contentious differences of opinion. Iran colluded with al Qaeda before 9/11, even though bin Laden’s network was sheltered by the Taliban, then the Iranians’ bitter foe. The Iranian regime also continued to allow al Qaeda to operate a network on its soil even as Al Qaeda in Iraq mercilessly targeted Iraqi Shiites.

The only way to judge the true extent of Iran’s sponsorship of al Qaeda is to examine every bin Laden document, not just the ones some administration officials found useful. Perhaps Joby Warrick and the Washington Post will join us in calling for the release of all of bin Laden’s files dealing with Iran.

Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

weeklystandard.com