Posted on 01/10/2006 10:15:10 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
the three subs cruising near the bottom of the Persian gulf and Med will do just fine by themselves.
"many of them are still playing the old Commie came. US establishes "Spheres of influence" in Iraq and Afganistan, we need to develop a client in Iran to "off set" the Americans."
There may be some truth to this, but I feel that the Russians have really revised their old game---made it much lighter, hard-hitting in some ways, and more efficient for themselves.
While pretending to be nice guys and crying about the Chechnyan terror, I believe they are still heavily influencing terror throughout the world. After all, they created the terror phenomenon in the second half of the 20th century.
I realize that there is some weird Islamic stuff around. Here's my problem with seeing it as the cause of this terror wave: this same weird Islamic stuff (Wahibbism) has been around for 300 years. So something had to happen just now to trigger it. Something coincidental with the breakup of the Soviet union and Russia "officially" leaving the terror game. Such as the Russians themselves revising their old terror operation to be more "deniable".
It seems to me that they are utilizing Iran as a potential permanent base for terror---replacing Afghanistan which formerly had that function. Of course, Soviet control of terrorists was never complete. Even Suvorov made that clear in his 1987 book (inside the GRU). Nor, I'm quite certain, is Russian control over Iran and anything like the Soviet control was over Eastern European countries.
It is quite possible that the Russians are not behind this latest Iranian ploy of threatening imminent nuclear attack. I believe it is possible that the Iranian government is panicking in the face of public discontent within Iran.
I still like the "Khusikstan" strategy in Iran. All of the arena will is in one small province rate next to Iraq. Furthermore, this (relatively small) province is inhabited by Arabs who hate Persians. I really think a contingent of Marines, preceded by some special forces, should snatch this province off, which could probably be done within a 24-hour period.
Then, having cut off the Iranian cash flow, we could sit tight and see what they do next. At the same time, I would flood the country with small arms available to practically anyone who wanted them---along with a scattering of special forces people to lead anyone who wanted led.
Yep. There is a story to be told there. This would be a great book. Something like "Breeding the Monster. The KGB and Modern Terrorism." I think however, you are forgetting Afganistan. I think the KGB created the Modern Terrorists system then lost control of it. The current crop is overly religious where the terrorists of the 1970-80s was overtly political. I think after the Taliban took Afganistan the "Holy Warriors" looked around and simply scooped up the terrorirrst expetise and struture left available by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Whabists simply adopted the available resourse to their goals with some helps probably from the Chinese. I suspet the world is going to discover Chinese State run Capitalism is going to be a lot more bare knuckled in practise. Sort of a return to the Lazie Faire Capitalism of the late half of the 1800s.
"I think however, you are forgetting Afganistan. I think the KGB created the Modern Terrorists system then lost control of it."
Good point, but my take is a little different. The Soviets tried to defeat Islam, in effect, in Afghanistan and central Asia (Khazakstan, etc.) It is integral to Communism to destroy religious groups. The Soviets failed.
The Soviet Union broke up, partially solving the Russian problem in this regard.
"The current crop is overtly religious where the terrorists of the 1970-80s was overtly political."
Then the Russians took the "can't lick 'em, join 'em" approach, fusing their terrorist operation with Islamacism. This could only happen after the Russians had abandonned their own religion (Communism.)
note:
A RUSSIAN AGENT AT THE RIGHT HAND OF BIN LADEN?
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=23472
By Evgenii Novikov
The Arabic television channel Al Jazeera broadcast an audiotape on December 19, 2003, that was said to be from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the right hand man of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In it, Zawahiri claimed that his group was chasing Americans everywhere, including in the United States. This claim helped raise the terror threat level.
But where is Zawahiri, whose head now carries a price of US$25 million? Recent media reports have said that he is hiding in Iran, though Iranian authorities deny this. Yet it could be that Russian intelligence knows exactly where he is and may even have regular contact with the elusive Egyptian.
Zawahiri as Prisoner
There are many accounts of Ayman al-Zawahiri published in the press. These stories cover Zawahiri's childhood and his relatives, his study of medicine, his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, his involvement in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, his close relations with Osama bin Laden, and his role in major terrorist attacks against the United States. But there are few authors who mention that Zawahiri spent half a year in close contact with representatives of Russian intelligence while in their custody.
Significantly, these contacts led to a change in Zawahiri's political orientation. Long talks with Russian intelligence officers "forced a critical change in his lethal planning. ...America, not Egypt, became the target... Freed from Russian jail in May 1997, Dr. Zawahri found refuge in Afghanistan, yoking his fortunes to Mr. bin Laden. [Zawahiri's group] Egyptian Jihad, previously devoted to the narrow purpose of toppling secular rule in Egypt, became instead the biggest component of al Qaeda and a major agent of a global war against America. Dr. Zawahri became Mr. bin Laden's closest confidant and talent scout." [1]
The story of Zawahiri's Russian experience begins on December 1, 1996, when he was traveling under the alias "Mr. Amin" along with two of his officers--Ahmad Salama Mabruk, who ran Egyptian Jihad's cell in Azerbaijan under the cover of a trading firm called Bavari-C, and Mahmud Hisham al-Hennawi, a militant widely traveled in Asia. The group was accompanied by a Chechen guide. They were trying to enter Russia between the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus Mountains in an effort to discover whether Chechnya could become a base for training militants. It was here that the group was arrested by Russian police for a lack of visas. They were soon handed over to the Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB.
When Zawahiri's computer was later discovered in Afghanistan by two journalists, it provided insight into Zawahiri's side of the story. In short, it goes as follows:
The Russians failed to: 1) find out Zawahiri's real identity and the goals of his visit to Chechnya; 2) read the Arabic texts in his laptop, which would have revealed the nature of his activities; and 3) read the coded messages that he sent from custody to his friends.
Zawahiri's Version Debunked
Yet based on my own twenty years' experience with Russian intelligence people involved in Arab affairs, these claims simply do not ring true. The Soviet KGB had good--albeit indirect--connections with Islamic fundamentalists, including the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Jihad. The curriculum of Arab terrorists who studied at Moscow International's Lenin School placed special emphasis on cooperation between Marxists and Islamists. Soviet instructors would encourage Arab terrorists to consider the Muslim Brothers and other Islamic extremists as "allies in class struggle."
Good contacts between the KGB and Islamic fundamentalists existed at the time of the Egyptian Jihad's 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat, after which Zawahiri was jailed by Egyptian authorities. Since the KGB followed these events very closely and may have even been indirectly involved in the plot, the KGB would have put Zawahiri's name into its records at that time. Therefore, when Zawahiri crossed the KGB's path again, that organization likely would have soon discovered his real identity.
Additionally, local Islamic organizations flocked to Zawahiri's aid during his detention and trial in such large numbers that the Russians and even Zawahiri's own lawyer were puzzled by the outpouring. [2] This would have been another tip-off to the authorities that they had more than just a mere merchant (Zawahiri's reported claim) in custody. Also, the fact that he was arrested along with a Chechen should have raised additional suspicions.
Perhaps most difficult to believe from Zawahiri's version is that his captors would not have read the Arabic information contained within his laptop computer. Russian intelligence has probably the best Arabists in the world. One of them--Dr. Evgeny Primakov--headed the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service from December 1991 until January 1996 and made a considerable efforts to bring many talented Arabists into this service. These individuals would have been able not only to read Zawahiri's Arabic text, but also to decode his encrypted messages without any problem.
Thus, with Zawahiri's true identity and purpose uncovered by the Russians, these authorities would have been faced with several options. One would have been deportation to either Egypt or the United States, with gratitude from those governments for Russian President Yeltsin, burnishing his image as a fighter against terrorism. But apparently the Russians decided not to do this, believing perhaps that their national interest was better served by another alternative.
One should bear in mind that at the time of Zawahiri's capture, Chechnya was enjoying a period of actual independence from Moscow. The Kremlin was having great difficulty finding "agents of influence" among the Chechen people. At the same time, Moscow knew that representatives of al Qaeda and other foreign Islamic fundamentalists were present in Chechnya and exercised strong influence on the Chechen leaders, especially on the military commanders. It would have been logical, therefore, for the Russians to try to persuade Zawahiri to cooperate with them in directing the activities of Arabs in Chechnya, in getting information about the plans and activities of Chechen leaders, and in influencing the Chechen leadership.
It may not have been too difficult for Russian officers to persuade Zawahiri to go along with such a plan. The prisoner would have been very frightened by the prospect of being deported to Egypt or remaining jailed in Russia. Furthermore, methods of torture during interrogation used by KGB officers would have truly almost scared Zawahiri to death. Execution very likely was just one threat.
Once made aware that the KGB knew of his true identity, Zawahiri would have realized that it would be useless to lie further. At a minimum, Zawahiri would have had to agree to cooperation with Russian intelligence to save his life and to buy his freedom. It is possible that the Russians also offered some form of assistance to Zawahiri and al Qaeda. This could have been in the form of explosive technology or other weaponry.
It is notable that Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan received regular re-supplies of Russian arms. The man responsible for these deliveries was Victor Anatolievich Bout, the son of a top KGB officer. His father's connections helped establish Bout in the arms trade, which is linked to the Russian government and particularly to its intelligence services. Bout and his family currently reside in the United Arab Emirates. [3]
It is also not difficult to imagine that the Russians managed to get some information from Zawahiri about his colleagues that could have been used to blackmail him if he tried to avoid cooperation after his release. With an agreement reached between Zawahiri and the Russians, the authorities would have taken steps to make the Egyptian look "clean" to his Arab comrades and the Chechens. It would not have been difficult for them to stage Zawahiri's trial, at which the judge gave him only a six months' sentence, much of which he had already served.
A final note: Arabs are still very active among the Chechen militants today, and yet the Russians appear to turn a blind eye toward their infiltration and do not hunt them particularly. Even the most influential among the Arabs, Khattab, may well have been killed by his own people. Arabs have also never been listed as POWs. Perhaps the Russian forces have an order to kill Arabs on the spot: Nobody wants them to reveal unwanted information during interrogations. Thus left alone, the Arabs exercise significant influence over the activities of Chechen commanders according to orders from Zawahiri. Presumably they do so without understanding that they could well be the Trojan horses who actually execute the Kremlin's orders. For example, the Arabs apparently do not encourage Chechen militants to direct any attacks against Russian leaders in Moscow. This could be accomplished simply by refusing to pay for such operations.
In contrast, the Arabs do seem to encourage the taking of hostages from among the common people, as in the Moscow youth club Nord-Ost incident, thus making it easier for the Kremlin to stoke public anger against "Chechen terrorists." This in turn helps Vladimir Putin garner popular support for his own authoritarian actions as well as those of his former KGB colleagues who now occupy 65 percent of top governmental positions. Dr. Zawahiri may thus be the queen in the Kremlin's chess game not only in Chechnya, but also in Russia's power struggle at the highest levels. If so, it is not likely that the Russians would surrender him merely to help win the global war on terror.
Dr. Novikov is a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.
Notes:
1. "Saga of Dr. Zawahri Sheds Light On the Roots of al Qaeda Terror;" Andrew Higgins and Alan Cullison; The Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2002.
2. Ibid.
3. "International Business of Russian Mafia," Sueddeutsche Zeitung, February 1, 2001.
Intresting thoughts for me to chew on. Added Jamestown to my must read list. Thanks.
"Thanks."
You're welcome.
I don't find it objectionable to focus on the murdered at all. I just find it stupid and patronising that the term 'homicide bomber' has been contrived as if we need such phrases to understand what an horrific prospect a person detonating a bomb strapped to themselves is.
All I am arguing is that Homicide bomb is not an accurate description for either the method of employment, nor is it a measure of the heinous act against civilians. As I have stated, Homicide may have criminal connotations but this is a mis-understanding of the legal definition.
For instance, our troops in Iraq are committing legally defined homicide every day, except in this case it considered justifiable homicide through virtue of 'causus belli' or homicide persuant to wartime.
So ok if were are going to drop the name suicide by virtue of it only being a side-effect then at least let's cut through the editorialising boloney and call it what it is, A person Bourne Explosive Device.. A PBED if you like.
Khuzestan you mean. The ethnic situation is far more complex there than you paint. It is hardly likely that we could just swan in there and expect them to form a partisian army to do our bidding.
That's a troubling anecdote. Here's the quote that caught my eye:
"They then say it does not matter anyway because by June Israel will either have the option to disarm and move or perish. The choice will be theirs."
Amazing.
Iran's rulers are nuts. That whacko they just 'elected' said he saw a 'blinding light' and that he was annointed. Of course he'd use nukes. He'd blow up the whole world.
Their answer was that they don't care "Back where they came from."
They are quite serious about this.
There is a lot of talk about killing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - but keep in mind that this was not President Ahmadinejad speaking. There are many many Iranians who feel this way.
One can only hope that we keep the pressure on, that Europe comes to the realization that all negotiations with a regime like Tehran is pointless. Waiting to long would be de facto accepting Iran as a nuclear power. That poses a huge threat to regions beyond the Middle East. The US itself may be reluctant to act, that's Iran's conclusion as well. They see our rhetoric as hollow threats and are possibly even right.
Negotiations are often used to stall. That's all Iran wants - stall, lie, fake claims of conforming to resolutions..... It's a big game where they feed the Europeans who want to be appeased just enough BS to stall a bit more. In the meantime they build missiles, cut the seals etc. The danger here is that Iran "may" be right in its assumption that the West lacks the resolve to act. The Europeans are impotent, want to appease and any bone the Iran's throw them they will cling to like Chamberlain "We have peace in our time". The US militarily is much more capable that the media or pundits think who make false claims of a over burdened over stretched military, but the real issue with the US is the internal political climate. Even the US may not really have the political resolve right now to act. In my opinion, that's good for Iran but very baaaaad for the West as a whole. Long term the consequences of a nuclear Iran would be "huge".
No doubt we are already considering the advent of a nuclear Iran. Why do we want radar early warning stations in the Ukraine? Why are we building a missile defense system in Poland? Iran is surly part of the "threat picture" that is driving these multi billion dollar security investments. If Iran should de-facto go nuclear we already have a plan "B" so to speak, but this is the least desirable situation. We are defensive and reacting once again. We are then at the whims of a tin pot radical fundamentalist regime in Tehran.
Lets hope the political leadership in the US has the intestinal fortitude to do the hard right, not the easy wrong.
Red6
I think one has to consider that Iran may subscribe to the "use it or lose it" mentality. Ahmadinejad's looking at this unfolding situation like a big, juicy fastball right in their wheelhouse. This is the best opportunity in history for Islam to rid the world of Israel. They're willing to suffer huge losses to do this.
Something that gets lost in the analysis is the scope of Islamic history. Iran is not viewing the world from a narrow, 20th/21st century perspective. They're viewing it from 20 centuries in the past. The thought of erasing Israel from the ongoing history of the world in the name of Allah supercedes their present status as a nation. If the destruction of Israel will help usher in a world ruled by the caliphate, they will do it. Regardless of the "temporary" losses on their side, the "permanent" destruction of the state of Israel is worth it to them.
He might be willing to, but he can't. Hundreds of nukes have been detonated over the years, including some very large yield devices, and what is there to show for all the fireworks. Russia and the US could just barely blow up a medium size country if they concentrated eveything they have. Nukes are vastly overrated.
The fact that lunatic Islamic Fundamentalists are running Iran since Carter Administration is nothing new.
The Islamic government's direct involvement in worldwide terrorism has been ongoing for, at least, last 2 decades.
The fact that Islamic government in Iran has been extremely vocal about its nuclear ambitions has been very visible for over a quarter of the century and more so in last several years.
Here are some dumb questions:
Why was it so urgent and dire to attack Iraq which didn't have any nuclear weapons and when she was especially crippled after the first gulf war?
Whatever we think about Saddam and his atrocities, he was running a secular nation vs the obviously more threatening Iran with its Mullahs. Why was Saddam removed so urgently and we are still in diplomatic negotiations with Iran?
Why did we not foresee that the Iranian influence in advocating instability in current Iraq when Iranian support for terrorist organisations has been well known and documented?
Why didn't and don't we go for the locus/source of the problem (Islamic Republic) ?
Iranians are not Arabs. Yes, the majority are Muslims but they are Shi'ite Muslims vs Sunni Muslims (most Arab countries are Sunni and don't like the Shi'ites). There would have been less support from Sunni Arabs for Iran if the regime were to be removed.
Do you think that America with its current military commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq and the instability in both countries has the resources to attack Iran? I am not talking about a few days of massive fireworks, that America will win. But what happens thereafter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.