World Terrorism: News, History and Research Of A Changing World #4.

Tehran & Damascus Move to Lebanon Lebanon-born Walid Phares is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Author of the recent book Future Jihad, he was also one of the architects of 2004’s United Nations resolution 1559, which called for the disarming of Hezbollah. NRO editor Kathryn Lopez recently talked to Phares about what’s going on in the Mideast, what happened to the Cedar Revolution, and this war we’re all in.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What is “Future Jihad”? Are we seeing it in the Mideast now?

Walid Phares: “Future Jihad,” which has already begun, refers to a new and potent form of Islamic terrorism, characterized by a Khumeinist-Baathist axis. These are the two trees of jihadism, so to speak — the Salafism and Wahabism embodied in al Qaeda and the sort of jihadism led by Iran and also including Syria, Hezbollah, and their allies in Lebanon.

The alliance has not been in entire agreement as to strategy. The al Qaeda branch began its “Future Jihad” in the 1990s; its efforts culminated on 9/11 and have continued explosively since then. The international “Salafists” aimed at the U.S. in the past decade in order to strengthen their jihads on various battlefields (Chechnya, India, Sudan, Algeria, Indonesia, Palestine, etc.). “Weaken the resolve of America,” their ideologues said, “and the jihadists would overwhelm all the regional battlefields.”

As I argue in Future Jihad, bin Laden and his colleagues miscalculated on the timing of the massive attack against the U.S. in 2001. While they wounded America, they didn’t kill its will to fight (as was the case, for instance, in the Madrid 3/11 attacks). I have heard many jihadi cadres online, and have seen al Jazeera commentators on television, offering hints of criticism about the timing. They were blaming al Qaeda for shooting its imagined “silver bullet” before insuring a strategic follow up. But bin Laden and Zawahiri believe 9/11 served them well, and has put a global mobilization into motion. Perhaps it has, but the U.S. counter strategy in the Middle East, chaotic as the region currently appears, has unleashed counter jihadi forces. The jury is still out as to the time factor: when these forces will begin to weaken the jihadists depends on our perseverance and the public understanding of the whole conflict.

The other “tree” of jihadism, with its roots in Iran, withheld fire after 9/11. They were content to watch the Salafists fight it out with the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention within the West, as terror cells were hunted down. Ahmedinejad, Assad, and Nasrallah were analyzing how far the US would go, and how far the Sunnis and Salafis would go as well.

The fall of the Taliban and of the Baath in Iraq, however, changed Iran and Syria’s patient plans. The political changes in the neighborhood, regardless of their immediate instability, were strongly felt in Tehran and Damascus (but unfortunately not in the U.S., judging from the political debate here), and pushed the Khumeinists and the Syrian Baathists to enter the dance, but carefully. Assad opened his borders to the jihadists in an attempt to crumble the U.S. role in Iraq, while Iran articulated al Sadr’s ideology for Iraq’s Shiia majority.

A U.S.-led response came swiftly in 2004 with the voting of UNSCR 1559, smashing Syria’s role in Lebanon and forcing Assad to withdraw his troops by April 2005. In response, the “axis” prepared for a counter attack on the Lebanese battlefield by assassinating a number of the Cedar Revolution leaders, including MP Jebran Tueni. In short, the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah and the kidnappings of soldiers were the tip of an offensive aimed at drawing attention away from Iran’s nuclear weapons programs and Syria’s assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri. Hezbollah was awaiting its moment for revenge against the Cedar Revolution too.

What we see now is 1) a Syro-Iranian sponsored offensive aimed at all democracies in the region and fought in Lebanon; 2) Israel’s counter offensive (which it seems to have prepared earlier); and 3) an attempt by Hezbollah to take over or crumble the Lebanese government.

Phares: Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the Cedar Revolution was failed. The masses in Lebanon responded courageously in March 2005 by putting 1.5 million people on the streets of Beirut. They did it without “no-fly-zones,” expeditionary forces, or any weapons at all, for that matter, and against the power of three regimes, Iran, Syria, and pro-Syrian Lebanon, in addition to Hezbollah terror. The “revolution” was for a time astoundingly successful; since then it has been horribly failed, and first of all by Lebanon’s politicians themselves. One of their leaders, General Michel Aoun, shifted his allegiances to Syria and signed a document with Hezbollah. Other politicians from the “March 14 Movement” then stopped the demonstrations, leaving them with the support of God knows what. They failed in removing the pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud and brought back a pro-Syrian politician to serve as a speaker of the house, Nabih Berri. Meanwhile, even as they were elected by the faithful Cedar Revolution masses, they engaged in a round table dialogue with Hezbollah, a clear trap set by Hassan Nasrallah: “Let’s talk about the future,” he said — with the implication, of course, that they forget about the Cedar Revolution and the militia’s disarming. While political leaders sat for months, enjoying the photo ops with Hassan Nasrallah, he was preparing his counter offensive, which he unleashed just a few days before the Security Council would discuss the future of Iran’s nuclear programs.

The Lebanese government of Prime Minister Seniora also abandoned the Cedar Revolution. His cabinet neither disarmed Hezbollah nor called on the U.N. to help in implementing UNSCR 1559. This omission is baffling. The government was given so much support by the international community and, more importantly, overwhelming popular support inside Lebanon: 80 percent of the people were hoping the Cedar Revolution-backed government would be the one to resume the liberation of the country. Now Hezbollah has an upper hand and the government is on the defensive.

The U.S. and its allies can be accused of certain shortcomings as well. While the speeches by the U.S. president, congressional leaders from both parties, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac were right on target regarding Lebanon, and while the U.S. and its counterparts on the Security Council were diligent in their follow up on the Hariri assassination and on implementing UNSCR 1559, there was no policy or plan to support the popular movement in Lebanon. Incredibly, while billions were spent on the war of ideas in the region, Lebanese NGOs that wanted to resume the struggle of the Cedar Revolution and fighting alone for this purpose were not taken seriously at various levels. Policy planners thought they were dealing with the “Cedar Revolution” when they were meeting Lebanon’s government and Lebanese politicians. The difference between the high level speeches on Lebanon and the laissez-faire approach from lower levels is amazing. Simply put, there was no policy on supporting the Cedar Revolution against the three regimes opposing it and the $400 million received by Hezbollah from Iran.

The Cedar Revolution was basically betrayed by its own politicians and is now essentially without a head. Nevertheless, as long as the international support remains, the Revolution will find its way and will face the dangers. The one and a half million ordinary citizens who braved all the dangers didn’t change their minds about Hezbollah’s terror. The resistance and counter-attack was to be expected. Unfortunately, thus far Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah have outmaneuvered the West and are at the throats of the Cedar Revolution. The international community must revise its plans, and, if it is strongly backed by the U.S. and its allies, including France, the situation can be salvaged. The good seeds are still inside the country.

World War III is already started in Europe and it is not about terrorist...

Wrap: Moscow continues tough line on Georgia after officer release
19:08 | 03/ 10/ 2006

MOSCOW, October 3 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's foreign minister continued the diplomatic offensive against Georgia Tuesday in the wake of an acrimonious dispute centering on four alleged spies that were released Monday.

Sergei Lavrov accused the Georgian government of pursuing a patently anti-Russian line and announced Moscow would seek to close channels of illegal funding from Russia to Georgia because money was ultimately being used for military aims. He also said a Russian ban on travel and postal links would remain in force for the time being.

Although Tbilisi handed over the four Russian officers at the heart of the scandal Monday evening, Lavrov made it clear that Moscow saw their arrest was part of a broader strategy aimed against Moscow.

"The actions of the Georgian leadership have unquestionably become consistently anti-Russian," Lavrov told a news conference.

Since Mikheil Saakashvili came to power in Georgia on the back of the 2003 "rose revolution," both the government and parliament have visibly sought to remove Russian peacekeepers from conflict zones with two self-proclaimed republics and force the withdrawal of Russian troops from two Soviet-era bases that are due to close under agreements in 2008.

Lavrov said the espionage scandal was perfectly in line with the anti-Russian policy persistently pursued by the Georgian government in recent years.

"The officers' [case] is not even the culmination, but a reflection of the policy conducted by the Georgian leadership," he said.

Travel bans stays

With the European Union and United States appealing to both Russia and Georgia to avoid provocations in the ongoing dispute, Moscow seems likely to maintain economic sanctions against its southern neighbor.

Moscow banned Georgian wine and mineral water imports, a major source of revenue for the struggling Caucasus economy, earlier in the year. And on Monday Moscow announced it was closing travel routes to Georgia and suspending postal services. It also hinted it might suspend banking operations and money transfers between the two countries, which would hit Georgia's economy given that around 300,000 citizens of Georgia are said to work in Russia to support their families at home.

Asked Tuesday whether Russia will restore transport links with its former Soviet ally, which has a population of 5 million, Lavrov said. "Not yet."

Although the Organization for Security and Cooperation Europe officially received the freed Russian officers Monday night, Lavrov dismissed suggestions that international mediators should become involved in the dispute. He said sarcastically that third countries were already energetically involved in their relations.

"We have many times drawn the attention of those third parties, you may call them sponsors - those who supply weapons to Georgia and blocked a resolution at the UN Security Council designed to make Georgia take on obligations - to the problem," Lavrov said.

Moscow moved last week to refer the arrest of the army officers, which it dismissed as unsubstantiated from the start, to the Security Council, but the ambassador of the United States, which has provided financial aid and military training to Georgia, blocked the initiative pending, as he put it, White House approval.

Situated at the strategically important crossroads between the Caspian and Black seas, Georgia has become a subject of serious rivalry between Moscow and Washington in recent years. The U.S. has invested heavily in an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan via Georgia to Turkey and recently announced that it would provide $10 million to help Tbilisi's bid to join NATO.

Territorial issues

Lavrov also said the disputes with breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia were conflicts between Georgia and its regions, rather than the Russian-Georgian issues.

But he said the Georgian leader wanted to use NATO, which his country wants to join in 2008, as a cure-all for the ongoing standoffs. "It is clear now that Saakashvili's main goal is accession to NATO," Lavrov said. "He is hoping to resolve all other problems through this."

He also said Moscow had warned Western countries about the danger of conniving at the Saakashvili regime's policies with regard to Russia, its own people, and the conflicts on Georgian territory.

He pinned the blame for the persisting problems with South Ossetia and Abkhazia on Saakashvili, who he said has refused to fulfill agreements with the self-proclaimed republics. Lavrov said the country has also rejected the UN and OSCE's proposal to sign agreements not to use force while addressing problems with the breakaway regions.

"If the agreements had been honored, then the way to resolving [the problem] would have been simple," he said. "Unfortunately, all the problems are down to the Georgian side's rejection of agreements adopted earlier."

The minister said Tbilisi had backtracked on its commitment to set up a center to coordinate cooperation between law enforcement bodies of Georgia and South Ossetia in August and to resume a railroad service with Abkhazia.

Instead Georgia stepped up demands for Russian peacekeepers' withdrawal, Lavrov said, suggesting Georgia had received closer cooperation promises from NATO at the time.

The NATO foreign ministers decided in September that the alliance would step up contacts with Georgia to facilitate its bid to join the organization, whereas the U.S. promised financial support to help the country join the alliance this year.

Russia has been uneasy about its southern neighbor's NATO ambitions, which were declared by Saakashvili as a core objective for his government.

Georgia's "militarization"

Against the backdrop of Georgia continuing to build up its army and its defense minister reiterating a pledge to celebrate New Year's in the capital of breakaway South Ossetia, Lavrov said Moscow was alarmed by Georgia's militarization.

The foreign minister said the country had been purchasing large quantities of weapons financed, among other sources, by Russian criminal groups.

"They are purchasing arms in violation of regulations on the international arms market," he said, adding the weapons were mainly of Soviet or Russian origin earlier exported to countries in eastern and central Europe on contracts prohibiting re-sales to third countries.

He said Russia would not connive at the military preparations and pledged to shut down criminal channels in Russia and substantially cut the flow of illegal funds to Georgia. Just prior to the news conference, the Interior Ministry announced that it had temporarily shut down a Moscow casino that allegedly was controlled by the Georgian mafia.

Lavrov said the release of the Russian officers has not improved the situation.

"We do not want things to be as they were before, because everything was very bad," he said. "In addition to military preparations, to obvious preparations to seize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, repeated anti-Russian rhetoric and insults at the highest level, including personal insults cannot be ignored."

Although Russia resumed the withdrawal of two Soviet-era bases - another irritant for Georgia which demands their withdrawal ahead of schedule in 2008 - suspended following the arrest last week, the bases remain on high alert.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061003/54486806.html

Articles like this and this very one are floating all around...

Crossfire War - Organized Criminal Syndicates Could Work with Tehran
By Willard Payne

Crossfire War - TEHRAN WATCH - Global Theatre: Tehran - New York - Moscow - Macau - Beijing/Rome - Washington; International Crime Terrorism Pentagram at Tehran's Disposal - Target Europe - North America
Night Watch: NEW YORK - Tehran's avenues and vehicles for attacking the West have increased. AP reports that a Contract Study for the Pentagon stated that the chances of organized crime families in New York and their working with Islamic terrorist groups have increased. The study said, "Although terrorism and organized crime are different phenomenon, the important fact is that terrorist and criminal networks overlap and cooperate in some enterprises. The phenomenon of the synergy of terrorism and organized crime is growing because similar conditions give rise to both and because terrorists and organized criminals use similar approaches to promote their operations." [ASHARQALAWSAT]

Crime syndicates have highly sophisticated networks that have long been able to acquire goods and services and money all for a price. Matt Heron, head of New York's FBI organized crime unit, said the reason for the Mafia's possible willingness to help terrorists has nothing to do with sympathy or ideology but with greed. "They will deal with anybody if they can make a buck. They will sell to a terrorist just as easily as they would sell to an order of Franciscan monks. It's a business relationship to them. If the mob has explosives and a terrorist wants them and they have the money they could become instant friends."

Though there is no direct evidence of such syndicate-terrorism connections one indication did occur when the FBI prevented a man from selling military weapons to an informant posing as a middleman. The man who was arrested was an Armenian immigrant, Arthur Solomonyan, who claimed to be able to deliver shoulder fired missiles using his connections in Russian criminal circles, 17 others in New York, Florida and California have been charged in the case. Each state has important financial-industrial-military targets which can be heavily damaged or even destroyed by terrorist groups detonating weapons of mass destruction. The attack would also result in a massive loss of life much larger than the 9/11 attacks. "We are continuing to look for a nexus," stated Joseph Billy Jr., FBI's top counter-terrorism official, "We are looking at this very aggressively. We have developed an ability to look harder and broader in a pretty enhanced way to see if there is any crossover."

There are a number criminal services Tehran has al-Qaeda employ, which crime syndicates are active in: facilitating money transfers or laundering, human smuggling, identification fraud or explosives and weapons acquisitions. In New York there are five established La Cosa Nostra crime families that have a century of criminal operations behind them, coupled with the legal and political connections that have protected them to the extent where only the most extreme, out of control, are arrested. But there are also Russian crime syndicates that reach from Brighton Beach Brooklyn to Moscow. There are also Asian crime networks which are active in Islamic countries where al-Qaeda has branches. Those networks can work with Beijing who has long been arming the Islamic world with advanced weaponry.

Pat D'Amuro, retired senior FBI official, now Chief Executive of Giuliani Security, said a major Mafia boss once acknowledged that the mob would help terrorists. "I am aware of a high-level Mafia figure, who was cooperating with authorities, being asked if the Mafia would assist terrorists in smuggling people into Europe through Italy. He said the Mafia will help whoever can pay."

This network, now at Tehran's disposal, would not be interested in any explosives or weaponry these criminal organizations have access to. Rather Tehran would be more interested in employing their smuggling services due to the considerable influence syndicates have in international shipping circles. The ability to have equipment and consignments pass through customs without inspection. The advanced weaponry, nuclear material, Beijing could have Asian syndicates obtain from Pyongyang, and shipped into either Europe or North America, which can be detonated by Islamic operatives trained in Iran-North Korea-China. The operatives could also have been smuggled into the country, using Mafia connections, supplied with false identity and all the money they require.

Money is no obstacle, in operations of this magnitude, funds from Tehran are practically unlimited. Profit however may not be the only motive for organized crime to work with Tehran. Syndicates could easily see their assistance as a way of weakening governments, in North America and Europe, who still occasionally investigate and arrest them. This diseased syndrome is the result of a sophisticated-corrupt-established mentality that is virtually identical to the engineering services headquarted in San Francisco that decided to construct military bases for Iran. CNN showed their London branch office the day after the Gulf War ended in 1991. Conncections on that level of society control the foreign policy of both the US/UK.

Perhaps the Mafia got their cue from them. Everyone knows the Jihad pays well. This is why sanctions are no threat whatsoever to Iran's nuclear weapons program. It of course means more business for their reconstruction contracts after the war. There will be a lot of pieces to pick up after this one. A U. S. statesman, George Kennan, once said the greatest threat to the West was within itself. There is obviously a lot of truth in that observation. That is why I have often written that corruption is Tehran's greatest weapon. It's a hell of a situation
http://newsblaze.com/story/20061003145352payn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html

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.