| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran planning to retaliate with al-Qaeda, Hezbollah if nuclear sites attacked |
| 2006-04-02 |
| As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide. Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said. U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said. Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives. But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah's terrorist organization, "as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation," said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism. The possibility of a military confrontation has been raised only obliquely in recent months by President Bush and Iran's government. Bush says he is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but he has added that all options are on the table for stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Speaking in Vienna last month, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, warned the United States that "it may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll," although he did not specify what type of harm he was talking about. Government officials said their interest in Iran's intelligence services is not an indication that a military confrontation is imminent or likely, but rather a reflection of a decades-long adversarial relationship in which Iran's agents have worked secretly against U.S. interests, most recently in Iraq and Pakistan. As confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has escalated, so has the effort to assess the threat from Iran's covert operatives. U.N. Security Council members continue to debate how best to pressure Iran to prove that its nuclear program is not meant for weapons. The United States, Britain and France want the Security Council to threaten Iran with economic sanctions if it does not end its uranium enrichment activities. Russia and China, however, have declined to endorse such action and insist on continued negotiations. Security Council diplomats are meeting this weekend to try to break the impasse. Iran says it seeks nuclear power but not nuclear weapons. Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory "would be regarded as an act of war" by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. "There's no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action." Before Sept. 11, the armed wing of Hezbollah, often working on behalf of Iran, was responsible for more American deaths than in any other terrorist attacks. In 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241, and in 1996 truck-bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service members. Iran's intelligence service, operating out of its embassies around the world, assassinated dozens of monarchists and political dissidents in Europe, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East in the two decades after the 1979 Iranian revolution, which brought to power a religious Shiite government. Argentine officials also believe Iranian agents bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 86 people. Iran has denied involvement in that attack. Iran's intelligence services "are well trained, fairly sophisticated and have been doing this for decades," said Crumpton, a former deputy of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. "They are still very capable. I don't see their capabilities as having diminished." Both sides have increased their activities against the other. The Bush administration is spending $75 million to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including funding non-governmental organizations and alternative media broadcasts. Iran's parliament then approved $13.6 million to counter what it calls "plots and acts of meddling" by the United States. "Given the uptick in interest in Iran" on the part of the United States, "it would be a very logical assumption that we have both ratcheted up [intelligence] collection, absolutely," said Fred Barton, a former counterterrorism official who is now vice president of counterterrorism for Stratfor, a security consulting and forecasting firm. "It would be a more fevered pitch on the Iranian side because they have fewer options." The office of the director of national intelligence, which recently began to manage the U.S. intelligence agencies, declined to allow its analysts to discuss their assessment of Iran's intelligence services and Hezbollah and their capabilities to retaliate against U.S. interests. "We are unable to address your questions in an unclassified manner," a spokesman for the office, Carl Kropf, wrote in response to a Washington Post query. The current state of Iran's intelligence apparatus is the subject of debate among experts. Some experts who spent their careers tracking the intelligence ministry's operatives describe them as deployed worldwide and easier to monitor than Hezbollah cells because they operate out of embassies and behave more like a traditional spy service such as the Soviet KGB. Other experts believe the Iranian service has become bogged down in intense, regional concerns: attacks on Shiites in Pakistan, the Iraq war and efforts to combat drug trafficking in Iran. As a result, said Bahman Baktiari, an Iran expert at the University of Maine, the intelligence service has downsized its operations in Europe and the United States. But, said Baktiari, "I think the U.S. government doesn't have a handle on this." Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently. A report by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks cited al-Qaeda's long-standing cooperation with the Iranian-back Hezbollah on certain operations and said Osama bin Laden may have had a previously undisclosed role in the Khobar attack. Several al-Qaeda figures are reportedly under house arrest in Iran. Others in the law enforcement and intelligence circles have been more dubious about cooperation between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, largely because of the rivalries between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Al-Qaeda adherents are Sunni Muslims; Hezbollah's are Shiites. Iran "certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur," said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. "That they might react with all means, Hezbollah inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon, this is certain. Al-Qaeda could become a tactical alliance." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #15 Pimple at a distance with underground shock waves in an encirclement. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-04-02 22:50 |
| #14 never happen either. W did say we would come to the defense of Israel if she were attacked. That's clear enough |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-02 19:47 |
| #13 'US has decided to let Israel use, unconditionally, the entire US military power, including all of its nuclear arsenals to protect Israel whenever it wants to use these even if used as the pre-emotive astride except in the situation when American interest is involved.' Look, I like Israel and all, but that's just silly. |
| Posted by: Colt 2006-04-02 18:43 |
| #12 nothing Zen. It's clear as glass to those who want America's best interests. I bet Dr. Dean. Harry Reid, and Pelosi would disagree... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-02 17:23 |
| #11 What more clear statement of intentions do we need from Iran before we finally recognize Iran's declaration of war upon the United States as exactly that? This theater of the absurd needs to become a military theater with a very short run. Iran's decades of incessant perfidy do not entitle them to any nation building, like we have so gallantly tried in Iraq. We go in, we break their face and we leave. If they install another mob of wingnuts, we go in and break their face too. We cannot wait for Iran to mount some dastardly proxy attack using a nuclear weapon. Their legs must be cut out from underneath them right away. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-04-02 16:39 |
| #10 http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=560 This part in particular is something you may want to consider: Iran is the second country that al-Qa'ida seeks to involve in this conflict. Iran expects that the United States and Israel will strike a number of nuclear, industrial, and strategic Iranian facilities. Abu-Mus'ab thinks that the US-Israeli confrontation with Iran is inevitable and could succeed in destroying Iran's infrastructure. Accordingly, Iran is preparing to retaliate by using the powerful cards in its hands. The area of the war will expand, pro-US Shi'a in Iraq and Afghanistan will suffer embarrassment and might reconsider their alliances, and this will provide al-Qa'ida with a larger vital area from which to carry out its activities. If this is al-Suri's stated objectives, then it dovetails nicely with the objectives of the IRGC, since attacking the Iraqi Shi'ites would have the side-effect of radicalizing them in favor of individuals like Sadr who are far easier for them to manipulate and control. Regardless of Zarqawi's own stated prejudices against Shi'ites, al-Qaeda's endorsement of his activities as they relate to Iraq might well be considered not so much as an endorsement of his sectarian agenda as a calculated move on their part. From this perspective, Zarqawi, while entirely sincere in his "kill 'em all!" rhetoric, should not be seen as representative of the organization as a whole on this one - a position further supported by the dim view that al-Zawahiri took of his sectarian campaign in his letter from last summer. |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2006-04-02 15:48 |
| #9 No Dan...If you have a link it would be most appreciated. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-04-02 15:34 |
| #8 I believe W said as much in a lot fewer words last week. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-02 15:26 |
| #7 Did you see the ICT analysis the other day on al-Suri's manifesto, DG? |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2006-04-02 14:50 |
| #6 The sources said Iran has harbored leading Al Qaida operatives and enabled them to plan major attacks that would be launched upon Teheran's approval. What message are we supposed to garner from this report? If Iran is either substantially threatened or outright attacked Tehran’s proxies (Hezbollah) will unleash a bloody reprisal. Whoaa Nelly…there’s some expert insight! But wait…there’s more. There’s indication that AQ has broken falafel with the mullahs and have agreed to mount attacks post military assault on Iran’s fledgling nuclear facilities. While there’s evidence of past collaboration between the Shiite and Sunni syndicates (ie. Bosnia), does AQ really need another impetus to strike western targets? Short of the usual “We all agree we hate the Crusaders and Zionists more then we hate each other”; the AQ types are most reticent about assisting a growing Shiite regional dominance. (If present day Iraq is any indication) Of course there is always the wild card possibility of the “attack on Islam” ideology that seems to bring vipers of different stripes together. In the end, I’m leery of these recent reports regarding this subject. (Especially ones from Rodan’s boys about leaked classified information) Seems to me, hard evidence of Tehran giving AQ the green light would be an enormous breach of intelligence security compromising sources and methods. My 2 cents. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-04-02 14:20 |
| #5 See Iranian exile's bitter profile of the Mullatyranny. http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_12824.shtml |
| Posted by: Listen to Dogs 2006-04-02 14:13 |
| #4 Read some of Ahmadenutbar's ravings (esp. Oct. 26, 2005): http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/speeches/index1.htm |
| Posted by: Listen to Dogs 2006-04-02 11:48 |
| #3 Folks, it is time to tell the world a very simple thing. Let US declare that the existence of Israel is openly threatened by Iran and Hezbollah and US has decided to let Israel use, unconditionally, the entire US military power, including all of its nuclear arsenals to protect Israel whenever it wants to use these even if used as the pre-emotive astride except in the situation when American interest is involved. You can not talk to the barbarians. LetÂ’s get over with it once and for all. at least, You will change the whole dialog in UN. Russia and China will pressure Iran and Hezbollah to behave once they belive what is going to happen. Folks,Israel is openly threatened, give Israel whatever support it needs and they will take care of this whole islamic terrorism. You listen to too many of the experts and you loose. Think about Afghanistan. The whole word expected that US will make Afghanistan a big dirt ball after 9-11. Unfortunately, US listened to the stupid experts and you all know what we got there - a whole bunch of our young kids killed just to support the same Taliban stupidity and the drug running warlords. In Iraq we lost thousands of our youngs for what - to let Iran control that country. This great nation has to know when stupidity is the stupidity. |
| Posted by: Annon 2006-04-02 09:40 |
| #2 Of course Iran is also planning to retaliate with al-Qaeda, Hezbollah even if the nuclear sites aren't attacked.... Difference is that in this case they |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-04-02 07:13 |
| #1 Better get the cash up front. |
| Posted by: Crush Ebbailet4307 2006-04-02 04:03 |