A new reason not to attack Iran

[Каие]

e accused Iran, and its Hezbollah allies, of trying to discredit Osama Bin Laden's network. Correspondents say the comments underline al-Qaeda's increasing public hostility towards Iran.

Zawahiri went on to criticise Iran for co-operating with the US in its 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, that helped to oust the Taleban.
"Iran's aim here is also clear - to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.
This is the second verbal attack on Iran, a predominantly Shia Muslim country.

Earlier this month, in an audiotape marking the fifth anniversary of the fall of Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein, the al-Qaeda deputy accused Iran of planning to annexe southern Iraq and the eastern part of the Arabian peninsula.

BBC security correspondent Rob Watson says such messages appear designed to play on Sunni fears throughout the region of growing Iranian influence, and to present al-Qaeda as the best bulwark against Tehran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7361414.stm

I just came across it now, and what i can see from this is the Terrorists hate Iran, so wouldn't an invasion of Iran cause this to be the single greatest hotbed for terrorism the world has ever seen, 50 times worse than Iraq?

For the sake of the Iranian people, and for the sake of the war on terror an attack on Iran would not be a good thing, all that would do is increase the shia resentment to the US as well, as well as triple the recruitment numbers of the terror organisations.

[Mangalore]

...
For the sake of the Iranian people, and for the sake of the war on terror an attack on Iran would not be a good thing, all that would do is increase the shia resentment to the US as well, as well as triple the recruitment numbers of the terror organisations.

It's kind of sad how the US government has lumped together those countries in the Near East as evil terrorist supporters that are the least likely to support Al Qaeda. Well, actually it's pretty stupid... I saw an interview where McCain had to be corrected when he said precisely that nonsense and corrected himself that Iran doesn't support Al Qaeda but Shiite militants...

[Kraut]

It's kind of sad how the US government has lumped together those countries in the Near East as evil terrorist supporters that are the least likely to support Al Qaeda.

In case of Iran, it is not about Al Quaeda, but Hezbollah

[Mangalore]

In case of Iran, it is not about Al Quaeda, but Hezbollah

Not according to the Bush and McCain which is scary.

[Каие]

But Hezbollah have nothing to do with the US or the global war on terror, as they do not wish to attack every nation on earth or the US for that matter.

Hezbollahs beef is with Israel.

[Georgy Zhukov]

But Hezbollah have nothing to do with the US or the global war on terror, as they do not wish to attack every nation on earth or the US for that matter.

Hezbollahs beef is with Israel.

But its still a terrorist organization, regardless.

[Каие]

But its still a terrorist organization, regardless.

So is the IRA where was the US then, oh i know...

I believe an attack on Iran would be only justified if it is found that they are close to having nukes. And then it would be mandatory and hugely important.

By all means bomb there rocket fields etc. I don't want them to have Nukes, but i am more concerned about Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel, then i am about Iran. Because they at least are not confirmed and according to the CIA they are not currently.

Saying "You shouldn't attack them and keep them from getting the most dangerous weapon in the world because Al Queda dosen't like them" is ridiculous.

I'm saying don't invade and occupy, becasue this time the civilians won't be on your side, plus the terrorists will have the greatest hotbed etc.
At the moment Nukes isn't the question becasue they are not developing them, Nuclear capability is another thing.

But an invasion or even attacks becasue you think they are supporting Al Qaeda, then its ridiculous, because they don;t support Al Qaeda.

[Bokks]

Well, supporting any particular terrorist organization is irrelevent, but in my personal opinion this is not a good reason to go to war with anyone, nor is it the reason why that we've gone to war with anyone, either. Supporting a terrorist and harboring a terrorist are two completely different things, should we invade every country that "just" supports any terror organization then the US would have already invaded every country in the Middle East except for Israel. If we invaded any country on the motivation that they are not fully "democratic" with fully free elections it would be the same outcome. It's when there are blatant disregards to UN authority and individual respocibility--as in the case of Iraq, which had besmirched UN regulated peacekeepers for four years after a mandate given to them after losing a war, and certianly made every act of having weapons of some kind, should they not have, before the US finally invaded, or harboring fugitives and internationally wanted terrorists, in the case of Afghanistan.
Iran, however, while it is quite vocal and acting--sorry to any Iranians here--like a child about many issues (and i admit also that the US does the same) Iran has done nothing to warrant any aggression, therefore there is no aggression going on right now nor is there in the forseeable future unless some highly aggressive act is done. Tensions are high, that's for sure, but neither country is going to make a move, and so no action will be done.

Stoma also makes a great point, this animosity in particluar is fed by religious vindictiveness.

[LSJ]

One reason not to attack Iran is that they were a vital ally in ousting the Taliban. They supported the anti-Taliban and pro-democracy groups in the north, have regularly fought against the Afghan drug and arms trade, and linked the US special forces up with tribal leaders and anti-Taliban militants in the early stages of the occupation. The region where the Taliban presence is strong still is where Iran did not have much influence, and where Pakistan would have been the vital ally (Waziristan and southern Pakistan/Afghanistan)
Iran has been an important player against al-Quaida and its supporters for years.

As for Hezbollah and various Shia militias in Iraq, I can't conclusively say that they are actively supporting them, but they aren't exactly taking a stance against them...

[s.rwitt]

I just came across it now, and what i can see from this is the Terrorists hate Iran, so wouldn't an invasion of Iran cause this to be the single greatest hotbed for terrorism the world has ever seen, 50 times worse than Iraq?

For the sake of the Iranian people, and for the sake of the war on terror an attack on Iran would not be a good thing, all that would do is increase the shia resentment to the US as well, as well as triple the recruitment numbers of the terror organisations.

I believe an attack on Iran would be only justified if it is found that they are close to having nukes. And then it would be mandatory and hugely important.

Saying "You shouldn't attack them and keep them from getting the most dangerous weapon in the world because Al Queda dosen't like them" is ridiculous.

In fact, I'm suprised we haven't done anything yet after capturing their Republican Guard "soldiers" in Iraq training and equipping terrorists and insurgents.

[Mangalore]

...
Saying "You shouldn't attack them and keep them from getting the most dangerous weapon in the world because Al Queda dosen't like them" is ridiculous.

These are two separate issues. Keeping them from getting the most dangerous weapon and pondering that in a global war of terror against Al Qaeda it might have been a good thing to consider teaming up with the other guy that hates Al Qaeda nearly as much as you do.

An why was Pakistan not attacked? More nukes, closer ties to Al Qaeda...

In fact, I'm suprised we haven't done anything yet after capturing their Republican Guard "soldiers" in Iraq training and equipping terrorists and insurgents.

Maybe because at least some of them were actually there with the consent of Iraqi government officials?

[stoma]

The only reason they hate them is because they are not Sunni.
The terrorists piss their pants about them because they have nothing else to do.

[PurpleScotch]

Al Qaeda hates everyone. Before talking about saving Iraq and Afghanistan they should first stop killing Iraqis and Afghanis! I'm glad there more and more people are going against Al Qaeda.

Btw, Hezbollah isn't even close to Al Qaeda. Hezbollah defends Lebanon from Israel using guerrilla tactics, while Al Qaeda use cowardly suicide bomb tactics to kill innocent civilians...big difference eh?

[Heinz Guderian]

Btw, Hezbollah isn't even close to Al Qaeda. Hezbollah defends Lebanon from Israel using gorilla tactics, while Al Qaeda use cowardly suicide bomb tactics to kill innocent civilians...big difference eh?

its guerilla my friend. from the spanish "he/she who participates in small wars".

I think its hard to classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation if you look at both sides of the conflict. Unfortunately, neo cons and right wing Israelis will be adamant it is one, whilst Arabs and left wingers will say its a social organistaion with a military wing.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between.

However, AQ is an evil organisation. Their aims may not necessarily be evil, but their actions are.

[Aziel]

Btw, Hezbollah isn't even close to Al Qaeda. Hezbollah defends Lebanon from Israel using gorilla tactics, while Al Qaeda use cowardly suicide bomb tactics to kill innocent civilians...big difference eh?

Ever heard of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, 1983 United States Embassy bombing, 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires and many more ?

[Heinz Guderian]

Ever heard of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, 1983 United States Embassy bombing, 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires and many more ?

Wouldnt you consider the attack on the barracks as a military target?

The US Embassy attack resulted in the death of at least 8 CIA agents (think of the US attack on the Iraqi Muhabarat/Intel Servies which killed agents and civillians) during a time of civil war and American attacks against Lebanese targets as well as aid to Israeli/Pro-Israeli factions.

The Israeli Embassy attack was most definately a terrorist attack. Hezbollah, who do like to blow their own trumpet (i.e. say how powerful they are) and claim attacks, have denied any involvement, as well as the attacks still being unresolved and of disputed origin. Maybe Hezbollah did do it, but its still not clear cut.

Whats more, is we know that senior AQ operatives met with Iranian paramilitary heavyweights in '96, in Tajikistan. The subject of the meeting was a proposal from bin laden to join forces against the US. We never did find out definitively what the end result of those meetings were though.

do you have a source for this. Baer would be an unreferencable source as he does not/cannot reveal his sources.

AQ has also has a cooperative relationship with Hezbollah, they have assisted Hezbollah with general operational knowledge in the past. They both have a presence in Khartoum, Hezbollah's being a bit more official as they have offices, along with other terrorist groups. They all exist on one street in Khartoum, called terrorist row. Its also where bin laden had his offices before he was expelled under enormous pressure.

i would find this extremely perplexing. AQ hate the Shia, and undervalued their performances in the 2006 conflict. They are often called heretics and non muslims by AQ operators. As for existing of one street in Khartoum, like a line of banks, i would be willing to see a source on that.

Some have also gone on to speculate that the more shadowy elements of the Iranian military might have very well played a part in 9/11. These are elements in which the Iranians have in the past had trouble controlling themselves. Similar to the trouble Pakistan has had with their intelligence service, the ISI, which the government is wary of. Its quite the wild card to have though, and often seen as well worth the trouble. Iran, knowing that the West knows they have a hard time controlling some of their paramilitary units, can simply claim no contest.

Linking Iran to 911 is a bold statement. Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz would probably argue with you on that one.

[mrmouth]

do you have a source for this. Baer would be an unreferencable source as he does not/cannot reveal his sources.

That is the first place I read it. Then I also read about it in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Volunteer-Incr...8975442&sr=1-8

I don't know what kind of sources they could provide that would really be anything that would make any difference to us, they both put it as fact, but don't claim to know what the end result of the meeting was, just that it took place.

In the context Baer was describing the meeting, he was stating his belief that AQ simply couldn't have pulled off 9/11 alone, without the benefit of formidable counter-intelligence assets from a Muslim nation or a intelligence/paramilitary service 'friendly' with AQ.

i would find this extremely perplexing. AQ hate the Shia, and undervalued their performances in the 2006 conflict. They are often called heretics and non muslims by AQ operators. As for existing of one street in Khartoum, like a line of banks, i would be willing to see a source on that.

On the surface all that is accurate, but as a means to an end, I think they would put aside their differences, and have, to cooperate just enough to hurt the US and the West in general. Baer goes into cooperation between both groups in his book.

As far as Khartoum goes, its commonly referred to as the terrorist capital of the world. Its one of the only places on earth that Hezbollah is allowed to have a fully functioning office. The neighborhood in which their office is located is also home to other groups; Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Movement, etc. It was also home to offices of Abu Nidal and AQ at one time. Its the equivalent of Manhattan for terrorists. Local banks hold their funds and training camps are just outside the city. For decades it has been a meeting point for terrorist masterminds.

Bin Laden met with Hezbollah's heavy hitter, Imad Fayez Mugniyah in Khartoum, in '93. Around the same time Hezbollah was carrying out attacks in Lebanon against the US and the French. The link between Mugniyah and Iran is quite clear. He was a shining star, and had ties directly to the Iranian paramilitary units operating in Lebanon. Baer also makes the assertion that the Iranians helped direct the Israeli embassy operation, along with Mugniyah.

Linking Iran to 911 is a bold statement. Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz would probably argue with you on that one.

Nobody can make the link definitively, or if they have, we don't know about it. It might simply be a case of plausible deniability, Iran knows, that we know, they have had trouble controlling their own assets in the past. In that sense it might not be worth making public.

[Cliomhdubh]

So is the IRA where was the US then, oh i know...

well the us goverment under clinton did support the peace process for a large part of their history alot of their income after crime was from us citizens kinda ironic

[mrmouth]

There are any number of reasons why Zawahiri might have went public with his complaints. Yes, Iran did actually prove useful in the early stages of the invasion of Afghanistan. Although the US had a fairly lengthy history in Afghanistan and its own contacts to fall back on, in the decades after the Soviets packed it in, we rarely kept up with our contacts. So Iran stepped in and offered to broker some meetings.

In the end, the people we were introduced to, were often the less than cooperative types, who had a hell of a time keeping their own men in check. After we routed the Taliban and company, these warlords proved to be more of a problem than anything else. We actively took up fighting a few of them until they got the point that they might as well fall in with the government or just sit on their hands. Unfortunately some have gone on to aid the Taliban insurgency since.

So some have speculated that Iran might have had ulterior motives. To come across as helpful, making sure Taliban insurgents didn't flee into their country, while knowing that the warlords they had relationships with would prove problematic for us in the end.

Whats more, is we know that senior AQ operatives met with Iranian paramilitary heavyweights in '96, in Tajikistan. The subject of the meeting was a proposal from bin laden to join forces against the US. We never did find out definitively what the end result of those meetings were though.

AQ has also has a cooperative relationship with Hezbollah, they have assisted Hezbollah with general operational knowledge in the past. They both have a presence in Khartoum, Hezbollah's being a bit more official as they have offices, along with other terrorist groups. They all exist on one street in Khartoum, called terrorist row. Its also where bin laden had his offices before he was expelled under enormous pressure.

Some have also gone on to speculate that the more shadowy elements of the Iranian military might have very well played a part in 9/11. These are elements in which the Iranians have in the past had trouble controlling themselves. Similar to the trouble Pakistan has had with their intelligence service, the ISI, which the government is wary of. Its quite the wild card to have though, and often seen as well worth the trouble. Iran, knowing that the West knows they have a hard time controlling some of their paramilitary units, can simply claim no contest.

So in the end, Zawahiri could simply be trying to deflect some of the heat from Iran. Or they could have had a falling out, who knows.

[Mangalore]

http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/kham...rogram-no.html

Interesting speech. The Iranian Grand Ayatollah clearly declaring that Iran will never start a war (with any government) and that nuclear weapons are unIslamic and too expensive to maintain for the country.

Well, you can obviously interpret it however you want but it's quite a commitment by him and will make him look pretty bad if he's found lieing. The thing is that when Iran says nukes are bad and they don't want any and the world says nukes are bad and they don't want Iran to have any. Shouldn't there be a way to simply take those guys by their word and work out a deal ending with both sides doing what they are saying?

Yeah, it's more complicated than that but that speech imo offers multiples angles where one could take the Iranians by their word and challenge them to simply do what they say they want to do anyway in a _defined_ and provable manner.

The US really has nothing to lose. They can still blow them up afterwards if they want to. I'm just confused given that the US secret services thus far support what the Iranians are saying where the problem with a deal is?

The US let Cuba live with and without nukes, until now! So why not another country 6000 miles further away?

Call me naive if you want to but normally the problem should be fixable...