I can't decide if this is a legitimate warning, or if the intelligence community is convinced that there will be another attack of some kind at some point, and just wants to keep us on our toes.
The analysis in this article seems a bit stretched, so I'm inclined to the latter position right now. I believe if bin Laden had the assets to strike, he would have already used them, before all the stuff that's happened in the Middle East. After all, no matter what happens in the USA now, the Islamofascists are against the wall in most of the Middle East.
Which may put them in a desperation mode. I agree with your posting, though. Considering what is going on in the ME, if he had the means, he would attack and let the consequences playout afterward.
I wouldn't put much stock in this theory ... how many of these have we heard?
The author would have strengthened his claims if he would have given evidence of the above. The article is premised on the immanency of the next attack due to a "speech cycle"--but the evidence seems to conflict with itself a bit. He compares the present round of speeches to the ones before 9/11, arguing they are the same. Then he cites the criticism Bin Ladin endured from Muslims to show the new speeches are different. Then he assumes this proves the next attack is near. The logic is unimpressive. Thus, like you, I am leaning toward the latter--they just want to keep us on our toes.
I don't think the intelligence community cares if we are on our toes or not. They do analysis and report it to the powers that be. How the rest of the government interprets it is up to them.
"The analysis in this article seems a bit stretched..."
This is written by the ridiculous Michael Scheuer aka "Anonymous" who is arguably the person chiefly responsible for our failure to capture or kill Bin Laden, as he was in charge of so doing. A recent review of his book reveals his analysis and prescriptions to be self-contradictory and hysterical. Basically he can't make up his mind whether we should just KILL ALL THE TERRORISTS -or-SUBMIT TO THEIR REASONABLE DEMANDS. Notably, he warns that we must abandon our support for Israel, and asserts the anti-Semitic canard that the American nation is "controlled" by Israel. His thinking is a toxic mixture and it is disturbing to think that a person like this held a high post in our national security apparatus.
Think about the authors points again. Al-Qaeda needs to have the Muslim world on it's side for it to survive right? If Bin Laden was truly criticized after 9/11 for not following Holy Law (Something OBL says he is following for justification to attack us) then he may submit to those criticisms visibly to keep the Muslims on his side and keep Al-Qaeda recruitment up. I think the whole thing is plausible if in fact he was criticized for not doing those 3 things prior to 9/11. That is the only part of the article that doesnt have footnotes as to where, when and whom critisized Bin Laden.