Iran Officials Admit to Holding Al Qaeda Operatives

1 posted on 05/22/2003 8:00:21 PM PDT by ewing

To: ewing; Coop; Dog

They're in custody alright, but it sure looks from here like the protective variety.

2 posted on 05/22/2003 8:10:01 PM PDT by Angelus Errare

We need to make July 9th a huge day in Iran, otherwise we've lost a massive chance. The demonstrators on Anniversary of Student Uprising need massive financial, moral support to combat the regime. It's 100 percent in the interest of our country to underhandedly aid the demonstrators.

3 posted on 05/22/2003 8:10:25 PM PDT by freedom44

4 posted on 05/22/2003 8:10:41 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)

I'm sorry but I had trouble accessing your link. Thanks very much for this info!

5 posted on 05/22/2003 8:16:21 PM PDT by Lady In Blue (Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rice 2004)

Here's another version--one which suggests Iran is worried about the US AND the Saudi reaction.
Special Dispatch Series - No. 506
May 22, 2003 No.506

Iranian Source: Seif Al-'Adel and Osama Bin Laden's Son Left Iran Only After Riyadh Bombings

In an article in today's Saudi-owned London Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, correspondent 'Ali Nouri Zadeh quoted an Iranian source who said that contrary to Iran's denials, some Al-Qa'ida officials had been staying in Iran and had left after the Riyadh bombings. The following are excerpts from the article:

The Exodus of Al-Qa'ida Leaders from Iran

"An Iranian source close to the [Revolutionary] Guards leadership revealed the collective exodus of some heads of the Al-Qa'ida organization, following last week's bombings in Riyadh. The source clarified that senior Guards officials had been fired from their sensitive posts after it became clear that they had protected Al-Qa'ida members."

"Al-Sharq Al-Awsatwas told that Seif Al-'Adel, who by some reports was military commander of Al-Qa'ida, Sa'ad Osama bin Laden, and a senior Al-Qa'ida official named Abu Khaled left Iran on Wednesday, May 14, 2003, together with their men, and it is expected that more Al-Qa'ida and Ansar Al-Islam members will depart in the coming days for Afghanistan, at the triple convergence of the borders of Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan."

The Iranian Denial

"Senior American officials said that the orders to carry out the recent terror attacks in Riyadh came from Seif Al-'Adel. However, Iran stressed yesterday [May 20, 2003] that it was determined to fight terrorism, particularly Al-Qa'ida. Iranian Foreign Ministry speaker Hamid Reza Asafi told a press conference that there is no harmony between Iran and Al-Qa'ida, and denied the American charges that Al-Qa'ida members were in Iran. According to him, Iran was acting in accordance with its obligations under U.N. resolutions in the event that it encountered Al-Qa'ida members... He said further that 'Iran has no plans to conduct negotiations with the U.S….'"

Iran Expelled Al-Qa'ida Members also in February

"In February 2003, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi declared that Iran had expelled from its territory over 500 infiltrators suspected of being linked to Al-Qa'ida. Some sources connected Iran's expulsion of Al-Qa'ida members to unofficial talks at the beginning of the week held in Athens by General Mohsen Rezai, former Revolutionary Guards commander and currently secretary of the Expediency Council, with American figures close to the Bush administration. A source close to Iran's reformist movement said that Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was behind [the expulsion of Al-Qa'ida members]; Khatami had, he said, recently received information from an Arab country friendly to Iran and close to the U.S. regarding the presence of Al-Qa'ida's terror network in Tehran, Meshhed, and Zahedan."

"The source added that Khatami was surprised by the information and even more [surprised] by its details, and appointed Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi and one of the commanders of the military to investigate where the Al-Qa'ida members were located. It turned out that Seif Al-'Adel, Sa'ad Osama bin Laden, and Abu Khaled were living in a special [Revolutionary] Guards guest house in the Namk Abroud district, which had in the past housed some diplomats held by the students of Khomenei's supporters at the beginning of the revolution, towards the end of the time they were being held hostage."

"Regardless of the results of the meetings in Greece or Khatami's clear-cut instructions to put an end to Al-Qa'ida's presence in Iran, there are signs that Iran's supreme leadership has taken recent American warnings very seriously. According to an MP close to Khatami, the president is proud of his relations with the Saudi leadership and considers them one of the most important achievements of his presidency, and thus will not permit anyone to place these relations at risk by protecting Al-Qa'ida members and supporting them financially and morally – even if it means public confrontation with the radical group within the Revolutionary Guards and the security apparatuses that are subject to the oversight of Al-Vali Al-Faqih [Khamenei]. According to the MP, the national security council of the Islamic Shura Council is carefully and thoroughly studying information about the movements of Al-Qa'ida, with the knowledge of some of the commanders of the Revolutionary Guards…"[1]

[1]Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 21, 2003.

6 posted on 05/22/2003 8:20:25 PM PDT by the Real fifi

I was able to access full article just now. Thanks.

7 posted on 05/22/2003 8:20:47 PM PDT by Lady In Blue (Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rice 2004)

To: Lady In Blue

8 posted on 05/22/2003 8:35:53 PM PDT by Shermy

What about the ones not in "custody"???

9 posted on 05/22/2003 8:37:43 PM PDT by Shermy

For a bit of a different perspective:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/iran030522_alqaeda.html

It says that the al-Sharq story is disinformation.

10 posted on 05/22/2003 8:39:29 PM PDT by Angelus Errare

11 posted on 05/22/2003 8:41:56 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)

Bush and Rumsfeld should tell the Iranians that they have to turn over the operatives right now or the B-52 strikes on Baghdad will be a firecracker compared to what will happen to Tehran. And if the al-Qaeda rats "escape", Tehran will face exactly the same fate.

12 posted on 05/22/2003 9:05:06 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Beware of Doug.)

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

Before the B-52s are unleashed on Tehran, please send over Jimmy Carter on a peace mission. He should be present when the bombs start flying so that he can enjoy a little payback for what happened to the hostages during his administration.

13 posted on 05/22/2003 9:10:52 PM PDT by Young Rhino (Does God Wear a Tinfoil Hat? Is he a member of the CFR and Trilateral Commission?)

Saudi Arabia is fighting terrorism. Iran is fighting terrorism. Hey, this thing is almost in the bag! </sarcasm>

14 posted on 05/22/2003 9:47:00 PM PDT by dmeara

...so that he can enjoy a little payback for what happened to the hostages during his administration.

He needs some payback for the failed hostage rescue, too. Jimmy managed to make the finest military in the world look like bumbling amateurs in front of the whole world. Typical DemonRat, never pass up a chance to screw the military.

15 posted on 05/22/2003 9:51:30 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Beware of Doug.)

To: Angelus Errare; Cindy; Shermy; the Real fifi; ewing

It says that the al-Sharq story is disinformation.

I anticipate that the article is close to the truth. There is infighting within the Revolutionary Guards and some of them are working according to "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" but the others despise the Talibans and al Qaeda. Expect more of them in the former category to be fired and put in jail.

This will as well be used by Khatami to get more power to the presidency.

However, the link between Mullah Krekar and Zawahiri is now more substantiated. see here

16 posted on 05/22/2003 10:47:10 PM PDT by AdmSmith

17 posted on 05/22/2003 10:59:34 PM PDT by the Real fifi

Keep in mind that the UN Security council just voted to end sanctions by a 14 to 0 Vote with Syria Abstaining. The Syrian Abstention was an empty abstention though because they made it clear that if the vote had been held a couple of hours later they would have made the vote Unanimous. That bit of news will not be reported in the Arab Press so the syrians are safe.

The vote in the UNSC had less to do with Iraq than it had to do with Iran. Intelligence sources had noted previously that Al Queda was lodging itself in Iran, and would not have launched attacks on the Saudis without the tacit approval of the Iranian Government. This information is inflammatory to relations between Iran and ... ehhh... Just about everyone.

In order to be able to do anything about the Iranians and their harboring Al Queda operatives, the US needed to make nice with the United Nations. Some major horse trading went on here. Apparently the United Nations, the french and the germans got to keep the majority of their blood money they had pocketed from the 'Oil for Blood' program that had been used by Kofi Annon to milk the Iraqi people like the Tommyknockers (see stephen king). In exchange the United Nations lifts the sanctions on iraq and heals up alot of the tensions between the western nations over the Iraqi conflict. This frees up the political capital for whatever needs to happen to get the Iranian mullahocracy under control.

It's a fascinating time to be watching foreign policy.

18 posted on 05/22/2003 11:21:16 PM PDT by Samurai_Jack (Im just asking)

I think the bottom line is that Iran will tolerate Al-Qaeda as long as they are doing their terror thing against western nations, but attacking other islamic nations is just too close to home. The Shiites and the Wahabbis hate each other dearly.

19 posted on 05/22/2003 11:25:31 PM PDT by powderhorn

To: All; piasa; backhoe

20 posted on 05/22/2003 11:29:59 PM PDT by Cindy

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794