BrendanLoy.com: Homepage | Photoblog | Weatherblog | Photos | Old blog archives

« Previous post | Next post »
The Iran link, the ICBM plot, and more
Posted by on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 12:33 pm

The standard Big Media headline on the 9/11 Commission’s report this morning is the lack of “credible evidence” tying Al Qaeda to Iraq. But really, that’s old news. There’s a lot more interesting stuff in the report (as explicated by the Washington Post), like for example, the fact that there is credible evidence tying Al Qaeda to Iran:

The June 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that killed 19 Americans and injured 372 others… was carried out by a Saudi Shiite Hezbollah group with assistance from Iran. Initially, because of the historical hostility between bin Laden’s extremist brand of Sunni Islam and Shiites, analysts had discounted cooperation between [Al Qaeda and Hezbollah/Iran].

“Later intelligence, however, showed far greater potential for collaboration between Hezbollah and al Qaeda than many had previously thought,” the report says. It describes contacts between al Qaeda and Iran, including a visit to Iran and Lebanon by a small group of al Qaeda operatives for training in explosives, intelligence and security.

“We have seen strong but indirect evidence that [bin Laden’s] organization did in fact play some as yet unknown role in the Khobar attack,” the report says.

And here’s a frightning tidbit that’s new to me, at least:

As al Qaeda developed, its terrorist training camps in Afghanistan provided fertile ground for its operatives “to think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,” it says. Among the ideas that were raised: taking over a nuclear missile launcher in Russia and forcing Russian scientists to fire a nuclear missile at the United States, carrying out mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iran, spreading poison gas through the air conditioning system of a targeted building and hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into an airport terminal or nearby city.

The report also contains fascinating new details about the evolution of the 9/11 plot:

The terrorist attacks carried out on Sept. 11, 2001, were originally envisioned as an even more spectacular assault involving 10 jetliners on the east and west coasts …

In addition to the targets that were hit on Sept. 11, [Khalid Sheikh] Mohammed initially proposed crashing hijacked planes into the CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear power plants and the tallest buildings in California and Washington state,” the report says.

“The centerpiece of his original proposal was the tenth plane, which he would have piloted himself,” it says. Instead of crashing it in a suicide attack, Mohammed would have killed every adult male passenger on the plane, contacted the media from the air and landed the aircraft at a U.S. airport. Then he would have made a speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East before releasing all the women and children, the report says.

When bin Laden finally approved the operation, he personally scrapped the idea of using one of the hijacked planes to make a public statement, the report says. …

Bin Laden, the report says, “had been pressuring [Mohammed] for months to advance the attack date,” even asking that the attacks occur as early as mid-2000 after Ariel Sharon caused an outcry by visiting a contested holy site in Jerusalem. According to Mohammed, bin Laden later pushed for dates of May 12, 2001 — the seven-month anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen — and then for June or July, to coincide with a visit by Sharon to Washington.

“In both instances,” the report said, Mohammed “insisted that the hijacker teams were not yet ready. Other al Qaeda detainees also confirm that the 9/11 attacks were delayed during the summer of 2001, despite bin Laden’s wishes.”

The final date was likely influenced in part by the targets chosen, investigators also found. An electronic communication between Atta and Binalshibh showed that Atta finally selected a date after the first week in September “so that the United States Congress would be in session.”

Bin Laden strongly favored targeting the White House, and Binalshibh urged Atta to agree. But Atta was concerned that the presidential mansion was too difficult to hit, and backed the U.S. Capitol instead. The matter appears to have been unresolved as late as two days before the attack.

Also very interesting is the report’s description of Al Qaeda’s financial and operational structure:

“Contrary to popular understanding,” the report says, “bin Laden did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses,” and he never received a $300 million inheritance. He actually received about $1 million a year over about 24 years as an inheritance, a significant sum but not enough to fund a global terrorist network.

“Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fundraising network developed over time,” the report says. It says the CIA estimates that al Qaeda spent $30 million a year, with the largest outlays ($10 million to $20 million annually) going to fund the Taliban.

“Actual terrorist operations were relatively cheap,” it says.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, “al Qaeda’s funding has decreased significantly,” the report says. But the group’s expenditures have decreased as well, and “it remains relatively easy for al Qaeda to find the relatively small sums required to fund terrorist operations,” the report warns.

Now, the organization is far more decentralized, with operational commanders and cell leaders making the decisions that were previously made by bin Laden, the panel found.

In conclusion:

Al Qaeda remains interested in carrying out chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks against the United States, the report says. Although an attempt to purchase uranium in 1994 failed — the material proved to be fake — “al Qaeda continues to pursue its strategic objective of obtaining a nuclear weapon,” according to the report.

By any means possible, it warns, “al Qaeda is actively striving to attack the United States and inflict mass casualties.”




5 Comments on “The Iran link, the ICBM plot, and more”

  1. Andrew Says:

    Interesting stuff. For the most part, it sure seems to back what Michael Ledeen and some other analysts have been saying about Iran and the role of terrorists outside the immediate bin Laden network of al-Qaeda terrorists.

    “We have seen strong but indirect evidence that [bin Laden’s] organization did in fact play some as yet unknown role in the Khobar attack,” the report says.

    Funny, some conservatives have been calling for action against Iran since the late ’90s for the exact same reason. Wonder why it took a 9/11 commission before anybody else started considering this threat credible….

    …taking over a nuclear missile launcher in Russia and forcing Russian scientists to fire a nuclear missile at the United States…

    Good thing we’re not wasting our money on a missile defense shield anymore because the only real nuclear threat is an atomic suitcase smuggled aboard a ship or plane! [/sarcasm] Man, am I glad Clinton and Bush ignored those “conventional wisdom” Big Media bozos that roundly criticized missile defense through the ’90s and even beyond 9/11.

    …carrying out mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iran…

    See, it’s all about Israel; if Israel would only stop oppressing the Palestinians, the Middle East would be peaceful and Jews would have nothing to fear. [/sarcasm] Of course, here we have a Jewish population living peacefully within a fully fundamentalist Islamic Republic, presumably under dhimmi status, and yet they’re still a target. So does that mean the Left will stop their blind justification for terrorism by saying that it’s only anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism? Somehow I doubt it.

    “Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fundraising network developed over time,” the report says.

    So I guess that means we will soon see a newfound, widespread appreciation on the Left for the Patriot Act and for how we are clamping down on Muslim charities and meetings, right? I won’t hold my breath.

    Now, the organization is far more decentralized, with operational commanders and cell leaders making the decisions that were previously made by bin Laden, the panel found.

    But if we just catch bin Laden, we will have won the war on terror! No more need for any of Bush’s evil wars; no more of this “Axis of Evil” nonsense; no more evil Patriot Act! [/sarcasm]

    Interesting report. Thanks for the good post.

  2. Sean Vivier Says:

    So, Bush has been getting his intelligence from Alan Jackson? “I watch CNN but I’m not sure I could tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran.”

  3. Brendan Says:

    LOL!

  4. Andrew Says:

    From Instapundit:

    BUSH LIED TOLD THE TRUTH!

    “A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain’s spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein’s regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.

    “The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers on Wednesday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned the UK government’s claims about the threat from Iraq. . . .”

    “The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK’s intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.

    “Intelligence officials have now confirmed that the results of this operation formed an important part of the conclusions of British intelligence. The same information was passed to the US but US officials did not incorporate it in their assessment.”

    [Editor’s note: LIED should be strikethrough, but the tags for that don’t work for whatever reason]

    As for Iran concerns, I think Andrew Sullivan has a good observation:

    “The truth is that the ‘resistance’ to the liberation was always formed around Baathists, Jihadists and Iranian and other foreign meddlers. But until sovereignty was transferred, they could always be portrayed as fighting America, not fighting Iraq. Now, within days of the power transfer, we are seeing the new dynamic. It seems to me that the best reason for voting for Bush this fall is Iran. We know they will fight back soon. We also know that Kerry is closer to the ’see-no-evil’ French approach to the Iranian mullahs. This is the next phase of the war. It has already started in Iraq.”

    I think it’s appropriate to remind everybody on the day of Iranian protests how vital it is to the war on terrorism and democracy in the Middle East that we guarantee the overthrow of the mullahs in Iran. I’m not satisfied with Bush’s pace on this issue, but I am more than certain that Kerry is on the completely wrong side of our strategic interests here. That should be reason alone to vote against him.

  5. Andrew Says:

    The BUSH LIED meme is beginning to collapse.


This is an archived post. Comments are closed.

To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.


[powered by WordPress.]