Posted on 05/02/2007 12:45:53 PM PDT by Froufrou
Al Qaeda terrorists are attempting to provoke a war between the United States and Iran in the hopes that they will "take each other out," a Middle East analyst said Thursday.
"The al Qaeda organization sees Iran as one of its great enemies," Bruce Reidel, a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said during a conference call briefing.
This was because al Qaeda - "a very strict Sunni Islamist organization" - views Iran's Shia faith as apostasy, he said.
"What al Qaeda in Iraq now most fears is not the continuing deployment of American forces," he argued. "They've come to the conclusion we're going to leave, whether it's in 2008 or 2009."
Reidel said the terrorists' key concern is "what comes afterwards" and specifically the worry that Iraq will be "very Shia-dominated" and "very closely aligned with Iran."
"So they've openly talked about the advisability of getting their two great enemies to go to war with each other" in the hopes that they will "take each other out," he added.
"Al Qaeda would especially like a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran, which would presumably oust the Shi'ite regime in Tehran, further antagonize Muslims worldwide and expand al Qaeda's battlefield against the United States," Reidel argued.
"The biggest danger," he added, "is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a 'false-flag' operation - say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing.
"The United States should be extremely wary of such deception," Reidel said. "In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work.
"In the ultimate world of al Qaeda, they envision freeing the Muslim world of Western influence and forcing Western powers out - and by that, they also mean Israel, which they see as the ultimate example of Western intrusion into the Muslim world," he asserted.
"During 2002, we had al Qaeda on the ropes in Afghanistan and Pakistan," Reidel said. "We should have relentlessly gone after the al Qaeda leadership. We should have put unremitting pressure on the Pakistanis to do everything they could, and we should have sourced, funded and manned the effort in Afghanistan to finish the job.
"Instead, we made a mistake, a decision to go after a war in Iraq that we didn't need to fight, which diverted resources and created a cause celebre that al Qaeda has exploited quite effectively," Reidel said.
'Complex Bank Shot'
The analyst suggested that to regain momentum in the war on terror, the West needs to "decapitate the leadership. We need to go after Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and their lieutenants in the badlands of Pakistan.
"Secondly, we need to do more in the battle of ideas," he said. "Al Qaeda has been able to exploit the American and British invasion of Iraq as a recipe of western colonialism again."
Reidl also argued for "a phased, orderly withdrawal from Iraq ... in a way in which we enhance the legitimacy of the Iraqi government that we're going to leave behind."
He conceded that al Qaeda terrorists would claim credit "for any American defeat" but argued that "I think it's time we recognize that Iraq is more a trap than an opportunity."
Reidl praised the State Department for its handling of Iran.
"We now have two United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran cease development of its nuclear weapons program and starting to apply targeted, specific sanctions," he noted.
Such an approach will require patience and building international consensus, but "engaging in more gunboat diplomacy with the Iranians is a recipe for falling into an al Qaeda trap once more," Reidl said.
Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, described Reidel's contention as a "complex bank shot."
"The idea we should be wary of al Qaeda deception, luring us into various kinds of deeper involvement in the Islamic world, is an argument that's been used in regard to both Afghanistan and Iraq," he told Cybercast News Service.
"I don't think we should put much credence [in Reidel's theory]," Donnelly added. "At the very least, we can't really know if al Qaeda's strategy is following such a line."
At the same time, "we have a number of pressing concerns about Iran, from its nuclear program to its support for terrorist organizations like Hizballah and Hamas," he said.
"These kinds of concerns would far override how Osama bin Laden would react to U.S. military action against Iran - not that I'm anxious to get into such a conflict," Donnelly said.
"The danger for al Qaeda, of course, is that an extended American presence is actually a huge defeat for them, as has been the case in Afghanistan and is actually in Iraq," he added. "I'm also quite sure that the one thing al Qaeda would most celebrate as a victory is an American withdrawal from Iraq."
This ranks barely one step above a vanity.
It’s a little late for that. If they did not like Iran, they should have attacked them instead.
If that’s the case why is there cooperation between Iran and Al Qaeda, Syria and Iran, & Hisbollah and Syria??
Al Qaeda is collaborating with Iran to blow up NY in 2010, I say. Seven Steps to Caliphate plus what we know of Iran’s nuke program, possible N purchases.
Libs laying the groundwork for their arguments against attacking Iran in response to an Iranian attack on the US.
First we’ll let the Shia kill Alkayda in Iraq, and foment revolution among the young Iranians who hate the Mullahs.
Iran wants to lead us into war with Iran too. And they want to win. They don’t like the “Satanic” USA. Too many kufir over here.
Recycling old talking points huh...
Not until a strong, conservative leader emerges within Europe will this generational war be won. Even though our projection power is unmatched, we will still need our “other lung” against the rising caliphate.
This guy appears to be guessing.
In that case, my GUESS would be that AQ strategy is a shambles since they can barely communicate at the moment. Iraq has been a disaster for them.
They are praying for a Democratic administration, more than anything. Dem leaders are far easier to manipulate and bully using terror, intimidation, propaganda and lawfare.
This sounds more like speculation from the Arab states in the region about what AQ might be thinking. They are all afraid of Iran.
Long term US plans count on using Iran’s threat to keep everyone else in line, while continuing to isolate and contain them.
Ironically, I would vaguely speculate that a President Clinton would be far more likely to get us into war with Iran, in order to show Democratic toughness, just as Johnson did.
poor, misguided and uninformed foools have NO idea what they are up against.
I sit here in west africa and hear negative anti american stuff, but the same game. After I explain the Texas Economy is approaching twice that of Iran’s .... and thats just one state.... they then sit in awe.
if you are uninformed, you are uniformed. thats their state.
“Long term US plans count on using Iran’s threat to keep everyone else in line, while continuing to isolate and contain them.
Ironically, I would vaguely speculate that a President Clinton would be far more likely to get us into war with Iran, in order to show Democratic toughness, just as Johnson did.”
I’d buy that. And regardless of the anti-Bush propoganda, I’d say he’s a better ‘strategerist’ than ANY Dem!
the softest win?
donate computers and open internet access to their highschool kids. Once they discover how backwards the third world islamic nations are, the tune will change.
knowledge is power....
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.