Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network. He has written extensively on al Qaeda and its allies, including Iran. He is the author, most recently, of Iran’s Proxy War Against America, a booklet published by the Claremont Institute and available for download at its web site. (Click here to download the booklet.)
FP: Thomas Joscelyn, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Joscleyn: Good to be here Jamie.
FP: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia has sparked great controversy. Yesterday, Ahmadinejad announced in front of the U.N. General Assembly that Iran will defy U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that his regime suspend its uranium enrichment.
What should the American people know about Ahmadinejad and the regime he represents?
Joscelyn: Ahmadinejad is a puppet for the Ayatollah and his attending mullahs, who have the real power in Iran. This clerical regime, which rose to power in 1979, is intrinsically opposed to America and her allies throughout the world. When they chant “Death to America,” they mean it. The Iranian regime is also dedicated to revolution. That is, they want to export the Iranian revolution throughout the Middle East and the world. And they have often done so on the backs of terrorists.
Iran has provided vital assistance to terrorist organizations in at least all of the following nations/areas: the Palestinian territories (Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Lebanon (Hezbollah), Egypt (the Islamic Group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad), Sudan (a variety of terrorist groups), Somalia (Sunni terrorists), Algeria (an al Qaeda affiliate), Saudi Arabia (Saudi Hezbollah), Southeast Asia (various terrorist groups, including affiliates of al Qaeda), Iraq (both Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups), Afghanistan (Iran now even arms the Taliban, its one-time enemy), the Gulf States, and elsewhere.
So, Iran is the fountainhead of terrorism.
Much of the public outrage over Ahmadinejad’s visit has focused on Iran’s ongoing support for our terrorist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as his nation’s burgeoning nuclear program. These are, of course, legitimate and grave concerns. Unfortunately, however, there has been little focus on the relationship between Iran and al Qaeda, despite the fact that the relationship reportedly dates back to 1990.
Is Iran involved in terrorism? Absolutely. Iran is and has been a state sponsor of terrorists for many years.
But: "Iran is the fountainhead of terrorism."
The implication of that statement is that if we deal with Iran, there will be no more terrorism.
I don't buy that, at all.
Saudi Arabia is busy funding extremist Sunni terrorists. Much of Al Qaeda's support comes from Saudi Arabia, even though the Saudi authorities may deny it. Denial is also a problem in our White House these days.
If Iran were suddenly neutralized as a source of terrorism, terrorists would still crop up all over, and get support from other places.
One thing that does strike me, though: Iran and Saudi Arabia are enemies. Saudi Arabia's brand of Wahhabi Islam makes takfir out of the Shi'ites in Iran, so Wahhabi hatred may actually be more dangerous to Iran than to infidels in the West.
Saudi Arabia, however, does not have the military strength to deal with Iran, and neither would any coalition of Sunni countries that Saudi Arabia could put together. This is a big part of the reason why the Saudis have sought a nuclear weapons program, run by proxy in Pakistan, and ballistic missiles. This is also a big part of the reason why Saudi Arabia wants state-of-the-art fighters and fighter-bombers; Iran is also a big part of the excuse why the West authorizes the sale of such hardware and technology to such a backward, authoritarian country that so routinely, so thoroughly and so openly violates human rights.
This stinks.
What we are being set up for is a military strike on Iran in support of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family & billionaire sheikhs know they can count on Jorge bin Bush to do their bidding for them; after all, not everybody in Washington is taking orders from the Turkish Deep State.
FP: What evidence ties Iran to al Qaeda as early as 1990?
Joscelyn: According to Lawrence Wright in his book The Looming Tower, a top al Qaeda operative named Ali Mohamed told the FBI that Ayman al Zawahiri and the Iranians agreed to cooperate on a coup attempt in Egypt in 1990. The Iranians have long targeted Hosni Mubarak’s regime and so they were very willing to assist Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (“EIJ”) in a coup attempt. According to Mohamed, the Iranians gave Zawahiri $2 million and trained his EIJ operatives for the coup attempt, which was ultimately aborted.
Coming from Ali Mohamed, this is especially damning testimony. Mohamed was one of the U.S. Government’s star witnesses during the trial of some of the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the August 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Mohamed himself admitted to his involvement in the embassy bombings – he did the surveillance that was used to plan the operation. He also looms large in al Qaeda’s early history: he compiled al Qaeda’s first training manual, trained bin Laden’s security guards, helped organize al Qaeda’s move from Afghanistan to the Sudan in the early 1990’s, and was trusted by Zawahiri to penetrate America’s intelligence and military establishments (he even feigned cooperation with the CIA as an informant and went on to become a sergeant in the U.S. Army).
So, Mohamed’s testimony is good evidence that the Iranians and al Qaeda were cooperating all the way back in 1990.
I have not written about this Ali Mohamed guy before, but I have read enough about him.
Let's just focus on this guy's resume based on what is said by Joscelyn here.
-- U.S. Government's star witness during trial of al Qaeda terrorists for 1998 Kenya & Tanzania bombings
-- Admitted his own involvement in those bombings
-- Compiled al Qaeda's first training manual
-- Trained bin Laden's body guards
-- Helped relocate al Qaeda from Afghanistan to Sudan in the 1990's
-- Penetrated America's defense and intelligence establishments
Whose side is this guy on?
If he was the government's star witness in the trial for the 1998 bombings, then he has betrayed al Qaeda.
Or has he so successfully penetrated the US defense and intelligence establishments that we believe him, despite the fact that we know he was sent to penetrate the US defense and intelligence establishments?
This guy is a stinker.
I am not ruling out alliances between al Qaeda factions and factions in Iran. The sands of jihad can be shifty, as the Prophet himself preached.
But, al Qaeda's origins are in this same Wahhabism that sees the Shi'ites as the Islamic world's internal enemies, as much as it sees the United States and Israel as its external enemies. How convenient would it be to have the Islamic world's internal enemies, which include Iran, battle its external enemies, which include the United States?
FP: And the cooperation didn’t end there, did it?
Joscelyn: No, it did not end there. There is evidence of cooperation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda from 1990 through the present. I go into more detail about this evidence in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, but let me provide some of the highlights here.
According to the 9/11 Commission, the Iranians and al Qaeda held discussions in the early 1990’s. During the embassy bombings trial we learned that one of these meetings involved a sit down between Imad Mugniyah, who is Iran’s master terrorist as well as Hezbollah’s chief of terrorist operations, and Osama bin Laden. As a result of these meetings, Iran and al Qaeda agreed to cooperate on attacks against America and Israel. Al Qaeda terrorists were then trained in Iranian and Hezbollah training camps in Lebanon, Sudan and Iran.
Mugniyah had a profound impact on al Qaeda’s transition from an Afghani-based insurgency group into an international terrorist empire. As a result of the cooperation between Mugniyah and bin Laden, al Qaeda consciously modeled itself after Hezbollah in many ways. As Lawrence Wright notes in The Looming Tower, there are good reasons to suspect that al Qaeda even adopted the use of suicide bombers because of Hezbollah’s influence. I think that prior to 1993 (there may be an isolated incident or two prior to then), suicide attacks were an anathema to Sunni Islam. They were strictly prohibited. The Shiite Hezbollah, however, had used suicide bombers since as early 1983, when Mugniyah’s suicide truck bombers destroyed the U.S. embassy and the U.S. Marine Barracks in Lebanon. Zawahiri and al Qaeda adopted suicide attacks as their modus operandi only in the early 1990’s, after Hezbollah had shown them the utility of such operations.
According to Bob Baer in See No Evil, the CIA uncovered evidence that Mugniyah helped facilitate the travel of an al Qaeda terrorist en route to an attack on the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan in 1995. In June 1996, according to Gerald Posner in Why America Slept, the CIA obtained reports from a terrorist summit in Tehran. The reports indicated that al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah had agreed to step up their attacks on American targets throughout the Middle East. A few days later, on June 25, 1996, Hezbollah – under direct orders from Tehran – bombed the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia.
The 9/11 Commission found that in addition to strong evidence of Iran’s involvement, there were also signs that al Qaeda played a role in the Khobar Towers bombing. Al Qaeda had reportedly been planning a similar operation in the months prior to the attack and intelligence officials found that bin Laden was congratulated by senior al Qaeda members, such as Ayman al Zawahiri, shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous reports by the CIA and the State Department noted that Iran and al Qaeda were both suspects. Therefore, although we don’t know for sure, there is, at the very least, a strong possibility that the Khobar Towers operation was a joint operation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
The 9/11 Commission found that the al Qaeda cell in Kenya, which was responsible for bombing the embassy there on August 7, 1998, was trained by Hezbollah for the operation. The 9/11 Commission also found that there is evidence that Iran and Hezbollah facilitated the travels of 8 to 10 of the hijackers responsible for the September 11 attacks.
There is strong evidence that Iran helped al Qaeda and Taliban members escape from Afghanistan in late 2001 and, therefore, evade American justice. Finally, Iran harbors senior al Qaeda leaders such as Saif al Adel (al Qaeda’s military chief) and Saad bin Laden (Osama’s son and heir) to this day.
This is just some of the evidence of Iran’s involvement in al Qaeda’s terror.
First of all, the Bush Administration did not want to have a 9/11 Commission. Only when compelled to by public lobbying did it establish one, but then starved it of funding until pressured again by the family members of those who were killed in the attack.
Once established, the 9/11 Commission was very selective in what information it considered, and in what information it ultimately published.
It buried the reports from Sibel Edmonds that the blueprints from US skyscapers had gone overseas to the Middle East -- that information is critical to understanding how al Qaeda targeted the World Trade center.
The 9/11 Commission also buried reports from Edmonds about Turkish organized crime infiltrating the FBI.
Keep in mind that much of the information reported by Edmonds had been substantiated by CBS' 60 Minutes newsteam, by the staff of two US senators, and by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General.
The 9/11 Commission was nothing but a rubber-stamp for the Bush Administration; quite frankly, despite excellent, well-documented testimony from many competent witnesses, to a large extent, the 9/11 Commission was just another stinker.
FP: So in your opinion, what is the strongest evidence of Iran’s support for al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: The simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. As I explain in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, there is strong evidence that: (1) Bin Laden and al Qaeda deliberately modeled the attack after Hezbollah’s simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and a headquarters for French paratroopers in Lebanon in 1983. (2) According to the 9/11 Commission, Iran and Hezbollah trained at least one of the cells responsible for the attack. They showed them how to execute this type of operation. (3) There is evidence that Iran supplied al Qaeda with a large amount of explosives used in the attack. (4) Iran gives safe haven to the senior al Qaeda terrorist wanted for his involvement in the bombings, Saif al Adel, to this day.
Therefore, we have Iran and Hezbollah inspiring, training, arming and giving safe haven to the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the embassy bombings. And this was al Qaeda’s most successful operation prior to 9/11. If this isn’t support for al Qaeda, then I don’t know what is.
If we are going to look at these connections, let's look at all the connections, and see where they lead, and then go and stomp everyone who helped in that attack.
But, if we do that, Saudi Arabia would be much higher on the list of priorities than Iran is, or even than Afghanistan was.
FP: So in your opinion, what is the strongest evidence of Iran’s support for al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: The simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. As I explain in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, there is strong evidence that: (1) Bin Laden and al Qaeda deliberately modeled the attack after Hezbollah’s simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and a headquarters for French paratroopers in Lebanon in 1983. (2) According to the 9/11 Commission, Iran and Hezbollah trained at least one of the cells responsible for the attack. They showed them how to execute this type of operation. (3) There is evidence that Iran supplied al Qaeda with a large amount of explosives used in the attack. (4) Iran gives safe haven to the senior al Qaeda terrorist wanted for his involvement in the bombings, Saif al Adel, to this day.
Therefore, we have Iran and Hezbollah inspiring, training, arming and giving safe haven to the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the embassy bombings. And this was al Qaeda’s most successful operation prior to 9/11. If this isn’t support for al Qaeda, then I don’t know what is.
The fact that one terrorist group models its operations after a successful attack of another terrorist group only means so much.
Still, this should be looked into.
FP: So wait a minute then, could it be fairly said that Iran was, to one extent or another, behind 9/11?
Joscelyn: I do not think that Iran was “behind 9/11.” I think that, just as the 9/11 Commission found, there are open questions about Iran’s and Hezbollah’s involvement in the September 11 attacks. If you read pages 240 and 241 of the 9/11 Commission’s final report very carefully you realize there are a lot of dots connecting Iran and Hezbollah to the travels of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers. However, the 9/11 Commission sort of kicked the can down the road, so to speak, on this issue. The commissioners called for further investigation into this matter in 2004, but more than three years later no such investigation has been launched. That’s one of the reasons I wrote this booklet.
I would also point out that the 9/11 Commission did not cover all of the threads potentially tying Iran and Hezbollah to 9/11. As Newsweek first reported, Ramzi Binalshibh – al Qaeda’s point man for 9/11 – made a very suspicious trip to Iran during the planning stages of the operation. And shortly before the attack he left Germany on a flight that landed at Tehran International Airport. Thus, one of the main al Qaeda conspirators involved in 9/11 found it convenient (or something more?) to travel to Iran during the key stages of the 9/11 plot. Binalshibh reportedly told his CIA interrogators that there was nothing to any of this, but one has to wonder if he wasn’t simply lying. And certainly we shouldn’t take his disavowal at face value.
FP: Some on the left will no doubt accuse you of trying to bolster the case for a war with Iran. How would you respond to this allegation?
This idea has occurred not just to those on the left.
Joscelyn: I think this hits on a big problem we face right now as a nation. The discourse has become too politicized. The focus in this nation is largely on our own domestic political situation and the Bush administration. I think we would be better served by asking more of the tough questions about al Qaeda that need answering.
Some of those tough questions lead back to the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration has been very active in seeing that the tough questions do not get asked -- hence the gag orders on Sibel Edmonds.
In the booklet, I explicitly argue that an invasion of Iran would be disastrous. I do not think that military strikes should be taken off the table entirely, but I have doubts about their efficacy. And force may be required to stop Iran’s sponsorship of terrorists who are killing American servicemen inside Iraq. But the point of the booklet is not to advocate for a particular course of action. The reason I wrote it was to stir debate about what I think are a significant body of facts and evidence tying Iran to al Qaeda. I don’t think the public interest is served by pretending that none of this evidence exists.
That sounds reasonable.
FP: Why is there such reticence to engage the evidence of Iran’s involvement with al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: It seems to me that al Qaeda is an enemy we have never really understood. Ignorance is widespread. We face a large network of terrorists, but many prefer not to get into the nuts and bolts of how they actually work. For example, we often hear that the Sunnis of al Qaeda and the Shiites of Iran and Hezbollah are incapable of cooperation due to their theological differences. A cursory examination of Iran’s and al Qaeda’s behavior reveals, however, that this is nonsense. When it comes to facing their common enemies the two have been more than willing to set aside their differences. In fact, Iran has long supported Sunni terrorists, including groups such as Hamas, which is the ideological cousin of al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission also explicitly found that ideological or theological differences did not prevent Iran and Hezbollah from cooperating with al Qaeda.
More than six years have passed since 9/11. I think it is about time we got rid of some of our more shallow assumptions about our terrorist enemies.
More than six years after 9/11, we are still in the dark. And I feel that darkness is to the benefit of more people than just al Qaeda.
And perhaps we should start asking President Ahmadinejad why it is that his nation harbors scores of al Qaeda terrorists to this day.
I think we should be asking that of the Saudi Royal Family.
FP: Thomas Joscelyn, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Joscelyn: Thank you Jamie.
1 comment:
In theory, where there is triangular [or more-sided] conflict - as is usually the case: there are rarely only two sides - it's a neat idea to let your two mutually hostile enemies fight and bleed each other while you stand aside as much as possible. This rarely works in practice - it didn't in World War 2, and it won't in the Middle East now.
What the USA should be doing is to entirely reassess its real interests in the region, but this is highly unlikely for many reasons which you have frequently pointed to, YD.
One question you should be asking yourselves is how far it really benefits America to identify so closely with the Israeli Zionist hawks who are obviously itching to drag you into a war with Iran.
Post a Comment