Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Zarqawi is not Al Qaeda

This is the first time that it has been made
explicit that Zarqawi is not an Al Qaeda activist.
The interview is credible and Al Hayat would not have
carried it if the source was not credible.

Jordanian militant Ahmed A Khalayleh, better
known as Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who is blamed for the
wave of guerrrilla attacks, kidnappings and beheadings
in Iraq, has never been an Al Qaeda activist; nor has
he sworn allegiance to Osama Bin Laden although he
shares Bin Laden's militant ideology.
This is the assertion made by an unidentfified source
— an "Islamist Arab" — who is said to have recently
met Zarqawi in the Iraqi town of Fallujah, according
to an interview carried by the respected London-based,
Saudi-owned Al Hayat Arabic-language daily.
Al Hayat quoted the source as saying in reply to a
question whether Zarqawi and Bin Laden were linked
with each other:
"I wish that he (Zarqawi) was an Al Qaeda
representative in Iraq. But the truth is that Zarqawi
has his own organisation. He is not an Qaeda member
and has no connection to Sheikh Osama (Bin Laden).
They only employ the same method.
"There is no organisational connection between them –
on the contrary, many Arab youth have said that they
will swear allegiance to Zarqawi provided that he
swear allegiance to Sheikh Osama. They say that so far
he has not sworn allegiance, and that he used to say:
'to this day I have not sworn allegiance to Sheikh
Osama and I am not acting in the framework of his
organisation..'.."
The assertion of the source fitted in with the view of
seasoned observers in the retion that Bin Laden and
Zarqawi were not working together.
Reports have spoken about how Zarqawi went to
Afghanistan in late 80s, but was disappointed that the
Soviet army had by then left that country, worked as a
writer before returning to Jordan where he was
imprisoned for several years because of suspected
links with Bin Laden.
However, observers and analysts say that there has
never been any evidence that Bin Laden had enlisted
Zarqawi in is Al Qaeda group.
Those who knew Zarqawi in prison in Jordan say he was
too independent-minded to affiliate himself with Bin
Laden.
Zarqawi went back to Pakistan/Afghanistan in late 1999
and stayed there but he operated his own group based
in Peshawar in Pakistan and in Kandahar in Afghanistan
where he had his own camp unconnected with Al Qaeda.
No one has reported seeing Zarqawi and Bin Laden
together.
Zarqawi has never claimed to speak on behalf of Al
Qaeda; he has said he leads the Al Tawhid Wa'Al Jihad
organisation, which he calls an independent group
dedicated to "replace Arab regimes" with Islamist
leaders.
In the interview carried by Al Hayat, the unidentified
source made the following points (Pls note the quotes
and unquotes):
Zarqawi believes that "we are fighting in Iraq but our
eyes are raised not only to Iraq but also to other
places, such as Jerusalem." He "has a strategy and an
aspiration to expand the fighting to the entire
region."
Zarqawi "came to this arena only to expel the
Americans from the Muslims' country (Iraq) and to
establish an Islamic government. This is part of the
goal, because if this is not done, how will we be able
to bring about coups d'etat in neighboring countries?
How can we rescue Jerusalem when we have no base from
which to set out? Rescuing Jerusalem and the
neighbouring countries will come only after the rise
of an Islamic state from which the youth will set out
to liberate the neighboring areas."
On killing of hostages, according to the source,
"Zarqawi is convinced that his operations are
permitted by Shari'a [Islamic law], and that the
hostages are not truly hostages. There is a difference
between a hostage and a spy or a captive. The sentence
for spies is death. But there is some dispute about
how it is to be carried out – by the sword or by
shooting."
According to the source, Zarqawi "accepts comments"
from ulema (Muslim religious leaders) regarding
whether his killing operations are permitted or
forbidden according to Islam — provided that the ulema
are not connected to a regime and are offering
opinions out of personal conviction, and not to please
their rulers."
Zarqawi believes that "there is evidence in the
Shari'a that his killings are permitted, even if they
include the mutilation of corpses: 'Allah has
permitted us to repay them in kind, with the same
means that they use. If they kill our women, we will
kill their women'."
Zarqawi rejects the suggestion that he is attacking
Shiites in Iraq.
According to the source, "Zarqawi's position [on
Shi'ites] is clear… The entire Salafi stream believes
that the Shi'ite is an infidel ideology. I believe
this and Zarqawi believes that the Shi'te is heresy.
But this does not mean that we declare the Shi'ite
masses infidels. We must call upon them to atone to
Allah."
Zarqwi maintains that "anyone who enters this country
(Iraq) together with the Americans in the context of
their occupation is an infidel. We are not talking
about an apostateregime, regarding which there is
disagreement whether it should be declared infidel.
(But) there is no dispute regarding anyone who
collaborates with the occupation – he is a traitor and
he must be killed, regardless of whether he is a
Sunni, a Shi'ite, or a Turk."

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Year-ender 2004 Palestine

IN SHARP CONTRAST with the situation when we entered the year 2004, the New Year this time around holds out a ray of hope, at least for apperance sake, for some movement in the Israeli-Palestinian track for peace. Let us put aside all our reservations and scepticism for a moment and welcome the year 2004 with guarded optimism that the new realities on the ground would usher in a fresh atmosphere conducive to realistic progress towards peace in Palestine.
However, we should not lose sight of the constants in the equation ie. Israel's predetermined state of mind not to recognise, respect and honour the central pillars of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people — their right to set up an independent state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital and a fair and just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees, a problem that has been haunting the world for more than 56 years now.
The most positive plus point for the Palestinians, the underdogs who are pitted against an country and government backed to the hilt by the world's sole superpower, would be that the person who would lead the effort to make peace with Israel would be undeniably their own choice exercised in transparent democracy. That is what they would be doing on Jan.9.
Israel's hawkish camp led by Ariel Sharon would not be able to argue against whoever emerges the winner in the Palestinian presidential elections next week. They would not be in a position to assert that autocracy is the rule of the day for the Palestinians and brush aside all efforts to renew negotiations for peace.
As things stood this week, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) appeared to be headed for victory in the elections (although the decision by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to throw its weight behind Marwan Barghouthi would indeed have an effect on the elections).
We know Abu Mazen as a man committed to his people's cause. We know of his unwavering rejection of any compromise of his people legitimate political and territorial rights although Sharon seems to be betting that he would be able to twist Abu Mazen around his fat thump.
The responsibility for the course of the peace process from Jan.9 rests with the United States. On Jan.10, the US, and the international community at large, would indeed have a Palestinian president to succeed Yasser Arafat and who is committed not to spare any effort to achieve peace in Palestine based on the rights of the Palestinians.
Despite all criticism of the US bias in favour of Israel, we are aware that the administration in Washington, whether led by George W Bush or anyone else for that matter, has its limitations while dealing with Israel. It requires a sea change in thinking in Washington to be more realistic and objective in its approach to efforts to solve the Palestinian problem.
We have heard Bush reaffirming his vision of a "two-state solution" to the Palestinian problem. Indeed, that is the only solution. But then, what matters is the shape and nature of the Palestinian segment of the two-state solution. If Bush or anyone else believes that the Palestinian state should be confined to the Gaza Strip and some parts of the West Bank then that is no solution. It is only the best recipe for continued bloodshed in Palestine.
We are not appealing to the US to rally behind the Palestinians and take on Israel at whatever cos. Far from it, if anything.
All that Bush and his Mideastern strategists have to do is to step out of the shackles imposed on them by Israel and its powerful supporters and think and act with an independent mindset based, first and foremost, on American interests.
It does not need years of research to figure out that the present US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict only harms American interests. The Americans should know it themselves without we having to point it out, but then they seem to be in a slumber and it is incumbent upon us to remind them of some of the facts of life.
The American administration is deceiving no one but itself and the American people at large when they argue that the threat of terrorism that they face has to do with a hatred towards their way of life. They are deliberately ignoring the truth that their successive governments' strange commitment to uphold Israeli interests over American interests had given birth of the anti-American sentiment that was evident in the Sept.11 attacks and is very visible in the continuing assaults against American and allied targets around the world.
One does not have to look far to realise that the US-led "war against terror" has collapsed far short of achieving anything tangible in terms of averting the threats that the security of the people of America.
Today, the Americans are living in perpetual fear, conceived or otherwise, that someone, somewhere is plotting terror attacks against them. Is it because the plotters hate the American way of life? Well, that is what the Bush administration would like them to believe and that is exactly where the White House has to do some soul-searching.
The US is a great country founded on the noblest of noble principles that uphold the dignity of people and their right to determine their future without any external influence. All the Bush administration has to do is to ensure that these principles are the basis for all conflicts involving foreign occupation and an occupied people.
We know that it is wishful thinking that things were as simple as that. But then, is that asking for too much?

Saturday, September 25, 2004

"Zarqawi" in beheading video?






The beheading of an American on video by
militants who said it was in retaliation for American
abuse of Iraqi prisoners has highighted the intense
focus on Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the man who has emerged
as the key Al Qaeda militant active in Iraq.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has said that it
tends to believe that the masked man who was seen as
sawing off Nicholas Berg's head was indeed Zarqawi as
the video, released ll May 2004, is titled: "Abu Musab
Al Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American."
A CIA assessment of the video showing Berg's death
concludes it is a "high probability" Zarqawi is the
hooded speaker who is shown decapitating Berg.
According to intelligence information made available
to Malayalamanorama, Zarqawi, 37, a
Jordanian-Palestinian Sunni, leads a group called
Jamaat Al Tawhid wa'l-Jihad (Unity and Jihad Group) as
well as Ansar Al Islam, which is said to be linked to
Al Qaeda.
Zarqawi, who real name is Ahmed Fadeel Al Khailaleh
and who is also known as Ahmad Fadil Nazzali Abu Al
Mu'ataz, comes from a prominent Palestinian family
which fled to Jordan when Israel was created in
Palestine in 1948.
He worked with Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in
Afghanistan in the 90s and maintained his own unit and
camp in Herat, Afghanistan, until the US-led invasion
of that country in 2001. He financed himself to a
large extent from funding received from a business his
family operated in Europe.
The US is offering a $10 million reward for
information leading to his capture dead or alive.
Following is a summary of the intelligence information
available on Zarqawi:
He has ties with several groups, including Al Qaeda,
Asbat Al Ansar and Hizbollah as well as Beyyat Al
Imam in Turkey. He was behind the October 2002
killing of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman.
He was earlier indicted indicted in absentia in
Jordan for his role in an Al Qaeda Millennium bombing
plot targeting the Radisson SAS hotel in Amman as well
as other American, Israeli, and Christian religious
sites in Jordan.
In Iraq, he is said to have been behind the bombing of
the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad in 2003.
Nearly 120 alleged members of his group have been
arrested in various countries, including Germany,
France, Spain, Turkey and Jordan.
His links with Al Qaeda dates back to 1999 when he
went to Pakistan and contacted Bin Laden with a
request that Jordanian militants be trained in use of
weapons and making of bombs. as well as chemical
weapons. Bin Laden agreed.
Subsequently, Zarqawi moved to Afghanistan and
supervised the flow of Jordanians and
Palestinian-origin Jordanians for training at Al
Qaeda's Al Farouq camp. He called his followers Jund
Al Sham. He was in Kandahar in June and July 2001.
He moved to northern Iraq in an area beyond the reach
of Saddam Hussein when the US invaded Afghanistan in
2001. There he set up an Ansar Al Islam camp. The camp
was cited by the US government as evidence that Saddam
has links with Al Qaeda. But, the intelligece report
shows that, there was no such link and Washington
officials were totally off the mark when they said
chemical weapons were stored in the northern Iraq
camp. When the claim was made, international media
organisations rushed to the site and found no trace
whatsover of any chemical weapons. "The closest to any
chemical we found there was detergents to wash
clothes," said one newspaper report.
While in Iraq, Zarqawi established contacts with
Lebanon-based secretive Asbat Al Ansar, which the US
has designated as an international terrorist
organisastion, and Hizballah of Lebanon in order to
smuggle Palestinian fighters into Israel to fight the
occupation forces in Palestine. Some of the fighters
managed to make it while others were caught. Those who
made it have given training on explosives, poisons,
and remote controlled devices to other Palestinians in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Zarqawi travelled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for
medical treatment and stayed for two months during
which secret meetings were held with Iraqi groups and
fellow militants from the Arab world who had gone to
Iraq to meet him.
His Iraqi contacts helped him co-ordinate the movement
of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq
for his network. He received funds from Bin Laden, but
there is no estimate of the amount.
There is no evidence to support charges that he had
met with senior Saddam Hussein aides during the two
months he spent in Baghdad.
(An earlier intelligence report has said that Zarqawi
was wounded in the Afghan war and he reached Iraq
through Iran and that he had one of his legs amputated
during the two months of "medical treatment" in
Baghdad. He was fitted with a prosthetic device).
Abuwatia, said to be a Zarqawi follower and detained
by the US during the Afghan war, has admitted to
dispatching at least nine North African extremists to
travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive
attacks. They planned chemical attacks with various
toxins in Britain, France, Georgia's Pankisi Gorge,
and Chechnya, says the intelligence information.
According to Matthew A. Levitt, a senior fellow in
terrorism studies at the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy:
"The Zarqawi network highlights the matrix of
relationships that define today's international
terrorist threat. Indeed, international terrorism is a
web linking many disparate groups. Senior US and
European officials have noted that although Hizbollah
and Al Qaeda do not appear to share operational
support, they have engaged in logistical cooperation
on an ad hoc and tactical basis, as well as
co-operative training."
Zarqawi is blamed for the March 2 bombings in Baghdad
and Karbala in which at least 181 people died and the
coordinated suicide bombings in Basra in April in
which at least 74 people, including many
schoolchildren, were killed.
Zarqawi was targeted for killing on three separate
occasions for US military strikes since June 2002,
according to NBC News. And three separate times the
attack was called off.
German intelligence information shows that Zarqawi
heads Al Tawhid ("unity of all the faithful" ), which
is a core Palestinian Sunni movement with roots in
Jordan and waging a campaign against the Jordanian
royal family.
The group advocates "jihad" as a "fight against
non-believers and crusaders."
The group, which was set up in Beckum, Germany around
the same time as the Sept.11 attacks in the US,
included as members Mohamed Abu Dhess Shadi Abdallah,
Ashraf Al Dagama and Ismail Shalabi.
It group specialised in smuggling militants and
forging passports of dozens of countries. It planned
to carry out an attack on a busy square in a German
town or city and to explode hand grenades in another
German town in the immediate vicinity of an Israeli or
Jewish property with the aim of killing as many people
as possible. The plans were foiled because German
intelligence was keeping tabs on the group and
arrested Shadi Abdullah, Mohammed Abu Dhess, Ashraf
Al Dagma and Ismail Shalabi as well as
Dusselfdorf-based Jamal Mustafa on April 23, 2002.
All five of them are currently in detention in
Germany.
Zarqawi slipped through the fingers of Jordanian
security agencies in mid-September 2002 when he was
there planning and financing the murder of Lawrence
Foley. He managed to evade capture and entered Syria,
from there he crossed into Iraq and went to the Ansar
Al Islam camp in northern Iraq.
That camp was attacked by the US invaders in March and
April 2001 during the war that toppled Saddam Hussein.
Several key Zarqawi aides were caught alive and now
they are in US custody.
Zarqawi again managed to elude arrest and went
underground. Since then, he appeared in Baghdad
several times, but the US forces were not able to
capture him. He left a hideout apartment in the Dora
neighbourhood of Baghdad less than 10 hours before the
US forces stormed the place late last year.

Editors (For your information only):
Please note that it is widely held among the Arabs
that the Berg beheading was staged by American agents
in order to deflect public opinion from the Abu Ghraib
prison abuses. The Arabs who favour this theory
believe that Zarqawi died sometime in Iraq and the
Americans are maintaining that he is alive in order to
keep reports of the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda terrorism
link, which Washington has not been able to prove.
It has been suggested that Berg was in American
custody shortly before his decapitated body was found
by the roadside outside Baghdad).
Both Pravda and Al Jazeera have questioned the
authenticity of the Nick Berg video (as has this guy).
The thesis is that Zarqawi has a prosthetic leg, but
the tape's alleged Zarqawi seems limber. Zarqawi
identifies himself by name on the tape but wears a
mask, presumably to hide his identity. why?

Monday, September 20, 2004

Betting on confusion

pv vivekanand

GEORGE W Bush is betting on the American people's
confusion over the outcome so far of his war against
terrorism to see him through to another four years at
the White House. Bush's challenger John Kerry's
scathing criticism, citing the administration's
failure to remove the threat of terrorism in the US,
is at best dented since there has been no extremist
attack in the US since the Sept.11, 2001 air assaults.

Most Americans have difficulty in judging whether the
Bush administration succeeded or failed in its
anti-terror campaign.
On the internal front, the majority of Americans seem
to believe that the campaign has so far been fairly
successful, notwithstanding the fears that senior
administration officials have been drumming up of an
impending Al Qaeda attack in the US.
On the external front, it is not lost on the US
electorate that removing the Taliban from power in
Afghanistan and ousting the Saddam Hussein regime in
Iraq has not brought down the level of threats that
the Americans face outside their country.
The Americans are aware of the administration's
failure to capture Osama Bin Laden and his top aides
and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. However, in the
absence of any terror attacks within the US since
9/11, they seem to be satisfied with the performance
of the Bush White House so far in this context.
If indeed, the administration could capture Bin Laden
and parade him for the benefit of the public (as the
Americans did with Saddam Hussein) ahead of the
elections, then it would seal the outcome of the polls
in favour of Bush. At this juncture, it could not be
ruled out either.
On Iraq, the president is coming under increasing
criticism. A commentary carried by the Washington Post
pinpointed where he went wrong and is going wrong in
the American perspective.
"His description of Iraq is bland to the point of
dishonesty," it said on Sunday, adding that Bush has
been saying "despite ongoing acts of violence," Iraq
has a strong prime minister, a national council and
that it will hold elections in January.
"Not only has Mr. Bush not said how, or whether, he
intends to respond to the worsening situation - he
doesn't really admit it exists," the Post said. "This
duck-and-cover strategy may have its political
advantages, but it is also deeply irresponsible and
potentially dangerous," it said.
Notwithstanding such criticism, the reality that the
US has only reaped more hostility and enmity from the
anti-terror war and that the Bush administration
resorted to deception and false intelligence to
justify the war against Iraq has not yet dealt a
serious blow to Bush's re-election prospects. That is
what we could judge from the lead that Bush has shown
in recent opinion polls.
Otherwise, the situation in the ground in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the worsening strife in both countries
should have damaged Bush beyond repair ahead of the
elections in November.
In Afghanistan, the situation is fluid ahead of that
country's first post-war presidential elections in
October. The country remains largely lawless in many
parts where warlords with conflicting agendas reign
supreme. The Taliban seem to be regrouping and gaining
strength. The attack last week on the helicopter
carrying President Hamid Karzai was the best evidence
of the uncertain security situation there.
In Iraq, two weeks of murderous attacks by insurgents
as well as the US-led coalition forces have underlined
the truth that control of the country is drifting
farther from the US military and its allies there.
Without dramatic action that would result in massive
civilian casualties, the US would not be able to
prepare the ground for Iraqi elections in January.
However, Bush re-election strategists are also aware
that images of massacres in Iraqi towns which resist
the US presence in the country would detrimental to
Bush if they are flashed to the Americans before
Nov.2.
Probably that is why they have opted to give an
impression through the US military that an assault on
insurgent-controlled areas like Fallujah, Ramadi,
Baqouba, Samarra and others would come only after the
November elections, perhaps as late as December.
Again, it could easily be predicted that insurgent
attacks against American and allied forces in Iraq
would go up dramatically in the run-up to the
elections, leaving the US strategists no option to
but to retaliate with a heavy hand.
Obviously, there is no consensus or agreement among
the various groups fighting the coalition forces in
Iraq on what strategy to follow.
If it was left to Al Qaeda, that is, of course, if the
group has its own political strategists, then it is a
safe bet that it would follow a course that would
ensure that Bush returns to the White House for a
second term. For, only then Al Qaeda would continue to
benefit from mounting Arab and Muslim anger over the
US policies, particularly in the Palestinian and Iraq
contexts.
The other groups — Saddam loyalists, independent and
Sunni factions and Iraqi "nationalists" as well as
"foreign Islamists" —  taking part in the guerrilla
war against the coalition forces are hoping to wear
down the US military into leaving the country.
Ironically, most of them do not seem to have realised
that quitting Iraq is not an American option.
However, it is unlikely that they would call off their
war even if they did realise that maintaining control
over Iraq and building a powerful American advance
base in the Gulf to deal with any eventuality is a
strategic objective of the US.
In any event, Kerry seems to be rolling up his
sleeves to fight Bush where the incumbent president is
deemed vulnerable by his election strategists:
Exposing that Bush has taken the US deeper into abyss
of international hostility that is the breeding
ground for extremist threats against Americans and
thus he failed in his war against terrorism.
Kerry has six weeks to thrust home his message to the
American people, and a lot could happen in those weeks
that could work either way. But, in a conservative
perception, six weeks is too short a period to swing
American voters except without a mighty weapon, and
the current resident of the White House is better
equipped to wield  whatever that might be than his
challenger.

Friday, September 10, 2004

Veilng the truth


September 10 2004

Veiling the truth and hoping for best


THE Bush administration does not want the Americans to be told of the grim realities of Iraq. It has maintained a tight veil against media coverage of American soldiers being brought home in body bags . No journalist, photographer or television cameraman is allowed into any US military base when the body bags arrive. The recent exposure of dozens of American flag-draped coffins was an accident. A Pentagon employee cleared those images for release to the public without realising he was breaking a taboo. Sure enough, he was packed off to a faraway place where he posed no threat the media strategists of the Bush administration.

I bet not many Americans know that several thousand American soldiers are maimed for life in guerrilla attacks in Iraq. They will never be normal again.

Such details are not released by the US military. No major American newspaper has undertaken an effort to collect any statistics on them.

One would think that had there been a loophole in the freedom of information in the US, the administration would have clamped down totally on any confirmation of American soldiers' death in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would have banned every media outlet from reporting any development in Iraq that would cast a negative cloud on Washington's assertions of "progress" in bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

Recently, the US military has limited itself to terse sentences on American casualties in Iraq.

"One US marine, assigned to the First Marine Expeditionary Force, was killed on Wednesday while conducting security and stability operations in Najaf."

Not a word more. What was the soldier doing in Najaf? Of course, "security and stability" operations. What exactly do they mean? Patrolling the street and looking for the occasional burglar?

More details of how the soldier died fighting with the forces of Moqtada Sadr in a battle that is worsening the American quagmire in Iraq might get carried by a few "small-time" newspapers in the US. None of the majors would carry those details since they have more important things to report, like a $12 million contract signed for garbage collection in Baghdad that would create a few jobs, as Britan Coughley, a seasoned American commentator observes in an article titled "Moral Cowardice, as Practiced by Experts."

Coughley writes: "In the unlikely event of a prominent newspaper or television company getting details of how this Marine was killed, they would spread it as an important story (except Fox, of course). But they don't know (or want to know?) what is going on, and, therefore, neither does the American public, because sure as eggs the Bush administration isn't going to tell them." (www.counterpunch.org).

Mind you, it is an American commentator's words and of an Arab or Muslim or even someone from the developing world.

No doubt, such comments would not appear in newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Now, look at what is happening in the media scene in Iraq itself.

The interim government has closed down the offices of Qatar's Al Jazeera television for one month. Obviously, the US authorities approved the move.


What was Al Jazeera's fault?

Obviously, the US authorities and the interim government could not digest that Al Jazeera was beaming the realities on the ground in Iraq, including kidnappings, death threats and executions. These vivid images go a long way in letting the world know that the US military or the US-backed interim authority is not exactly having a picnic in post-war Iraq. Simply put, the US is steadily losing countrol of the country, and, as every day passes, the US and the interim government are making more enemies and creating more resistance guerrillas with the scorched-earth policy. That is the message contained in the real life footage from Iraq.

Forget Al Jazeera. Iraqi and Arab journalists working in Iraq have been told to tone down their criticism of the interim government or face prosecution (expulsion for non-Iraqis).

But then, isn't freedom of information — the right to know the truth and reality — an essential part of democracy? And isn't it democracy that the US says it wants to bring to Iraq?


Where is the problem then?

It is not simply that Washington has made a switch in its approach in the context of the war in Iraq. It goes much deeper than that to the point that the Bush administration does no longer care to respect the very founding principles of the US, whether democracy or the right of the people to know.

Bush's spin doctors want to limit media coverage of events in Iraq that tear the mask from the "business-as-usual" in Iraq image that they want to show the American public. That is all the more important in the run-up to the race for the White House in November.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Israel-Iran face-off

September 8 2004

New clear crisis in the Middle East
pv vivekanand

CONVENTIONAL wisdom says that Israel or Iran is unlikely to launch any attack on each other at this juncture in time despite the heightened tensions in the wake of American and Iranian statements.

The situation in the region is too tense for such a course of action and everyone involved knows too well that an Israeli-Iranian conflagration could trigger unpredictable consequences.

The US military is bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire and any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could be not only be disastrous to American efforts to pacify the Iraqis, particularly the Shiites in the south, but also would also herald grave dangers to its soldiers present in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

It is no coincidence that Iran, which is not believed to have developed a nuclear weapon, has warned the US of "pre-emptive" strikes against American soldiers in the region. Tehran has also warned to hit back at Israel if the Jewish state attacked Iranian nuclear installations.

The Iranian-Israeli military equation burst forth again following the successful testing of Israel's Arrow-2 missile last month. Two weeks later, Iran test-fired a new version of its ballistic Shahab-3 missile, which it said had been upgraded to match Israel's' weapons development. The Shahab is already capable of reaching Israel, and Israeli experts said Arrow-2 missile needed more work to be able to hit and destroy Shahab-3 while on flight to targets in Israel.

Obviously, Tehran is disturbed by unexplained American military movements across the border in Iraq as well as in the Gulf and feels that it had to deal with the issue on the international scene particularly after recent American statements that any means would be adopted not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

For the moment, the US has opted avoid a war of words with Iran after the warning by Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani of the possibility of pre-emptive Iranian action against US or Israeli forces in the region.

State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli said he was not interested in "chasing statements" by foreign officials. But he said he would certainly characterise Iranian concerns about the US presence in Iraq as "unwarranted."

Ereli argued that the US military is part of a multinational force in Iraq at the invitation of the country's interim government and in line with UN Security Council resolutions. He said they are present to help support the stability and security of Iraq so there is "no cause" to see them as a threat.

However, Iran, and indeed the rest of the world, is aware that the US is working behind the scenes to stir trouble for the theocratic regime in power in Tehran and a hyped up situation brought about by military action could be the forerunner of an American effort for "regime change" in Iran with help from what Washington considers as restless Iranians.

Apparently, Iran also fears that the administration of President George Bush might be tempted to use the Iran card to create a new situation where the American voters would not have a choice but to rally behind Bush in November's presidential elections.

At the same time, there is no definite clue to what course of action the Bush administration against Iran.

It is known that "regime change" in Iran is one of Bush's priorities in the Middle East. He has pledged to topple the Iranian regime if he is re-elected for a second term at the White House. If he remains true to his promise, then he is unlikely to undertake the risky action of military strikes against Iran ahead of the elections.

Simultaneously, there are signs that Israel, which is believed to have at least 200 nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them, is getting impatient to close the "Iranian nuclear file" by decimating Iran's nuclear facilities. And Tehran asserts that neither Israel nor the US would launch any attack on its nuclear facilities because it has the ability to hit back at anywhere in Israel with its Shihab-3 long-range missiles. Iran needs only medium-range missiles to target American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Interestingly, the Israeli expert opinion that the Arrow-2 missile system — said to the most effective missile defence network — needs more work to be effective against Shihab-3 missiles is seen by many as a ploy to drag Iran into a long-range missile war where Israel would feel free to use its own long-range missiles as well as fighter bombers against Iran.

In 1981, Israeli long-range warplanes bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant saying Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.

Israel does have a strong military edge against Iran. It has an advanced Dolphin-class submarine patrolling the Arabian Sea, keeping an eye of Iran's as well as Pakistan's nuclear facilities. The sub is said to be equipped with long-range missiles capable of hitting anywhere on the Indian subcontinent as well as Iran if fired from the right range.

Apart from newspaper editorials, there has been no Israeli response to the Iranian statements.

Military analyst Zeev Schiff wrote in the Haaretz that Iran might have sensed that Washington had given Israel the green light to attack Iran's nuclear facilities when Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that all means are being considered to prevent Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Schiff argued that Tehran now believes that until after the US presidential elections, Washington will not dare to open another military front.

That is definitely what Shamkhani had in mind when he said: "America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq."

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

In the hyped-up situation, the ball is in the Israeli court since as long as it stays away from carrying out a pre-emptive attack against Iran the situation is unlikely to worsen. But if it does, then the biggest loser is likely to be the US, whose forces would be sitting ducks in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Friday, September 03, 2004

Neocons itching for Iran

PV Vivekanand


THE so-called neoconservatives in Washington have emerged again, although not necessarily on their own but dragged out by revelations of Israeli spying at the Pentagon and, more importantly, of their behind-the-scene moves, away from the eyes of the Bush administration, to prepare the ground for regime change in Iran. It is possible that Israel, backed by the neocons, might be tempted to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities before the US presidential elections in November and thus herald unpredictable consequences not only for the American military presence in the Middle East but also for the region itself.
A REPEAT of the Iran-contra scandal of the Reagan administration years seems to be in the offing in the wake of revelations that top-level Pentagon officials were involved in back-channel contacts with Iranian dissidents to advance Washington's quest for "regime change" in Tehran.
The revelations came following a report that Lawrence A. Franklin, a veteran Defence Intelligence Agency analyst, had passed on to Israel a White House draft directive on Iran through the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the strongest Washington lobbying group which could "swing anything in the US if it puts its mind to it," as some analysts observe.
Franklin worked under Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's number three official and an avowed non-conservative who has made little secret of his commitment to serving Israel and who played a major role in creating the false intelligence that was cited by the Bush administration to justify the war against Iraq.
Two aspects to the spying affair are of immediate relevance to the Middle East. The first is the reality that Israel has always kept itself abreast of administration thinking in Washington with a view to exploiting it to its best advantage, including influencing policy decisions and strategies. This has always worked against Arab interests since no Arab country has such intelligence access to Washington's secrets.
The New York Times has said: "American counterintelligence officials say that Israeli espionage cases are difficult to investigate, because they involve an important ally that enjoys broad political influence in Washington. Several officials said that a number of espionage investigations involving Israel had been dropped or suppressed in the past in the face of political pressure.”
The second is the existence of a parallel group in the corridors of power in Washington engaged in a relentless drive to implement an Israeli agenda using American resources —  political, military, human, financial, technical and whatever else — to serve the interests of Israel.
Many believed that this group —  the so-called neoconservatives — had lost its clout in Washington in the wake of the debacle that the Bush administration finds itself in since the neoconservatives had fabricated the ground for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the name of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. More importantly, they convinced Bush it would be a cakewalk to take over Iraq.
(Alexander Cockburn, editor of Counterpunch, writes: "The neo-cons told Bush that eviction of Saddam would rearrange the chairs in the Middle East, to America's advantage. Wrong. They told him it would unlock the door to a peaceful settlement in Israel.Wrong. They told him that there was irrefutable proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq. Wrong. They told him the prime Iraqi exile group, headed by Ahmad Chalabi, had street cred in Iraq. Wrong. They told him it would be easy to install a US regime in Baghdad and make the place hum quietly along, like Lebanon in the 1950s. Wrong).
Franklin's boss Douglas Feith oversaw the work of the Office of Special Plans and the Counter-terrorism Evaluation Group, two bodies established by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in order to have the Pentagon's own intelligence analysis on the Saddam Hussein regime's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs and links to Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group.
The two offices worked independent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and all other similar arms of the American intelligence network. More importantly, they co-ordinated closely with a special intelligence unit set by Sharon — meaning that the Israelis played a key role in providing the false intelligence that set the ground for the war against Iraq.
The analyses supplied by the Office of Special Plans and the Counter-terrorism Evaluation Group and endorsed by Feith disregarded CIA findings and formed the basis for the Bush administration's publicly presented arguments for the war against Iraq.
The analyses were found to be based on false intelligence findings since no weapon of mass destruction or Saddam's connection with Al Qaeda was found in post-war Iraq.

Deceptive games

The crisis that hit the US in the face in Iraq — both in terms of credibility at home and on the international scene as well as American casualties in what is proving to be a no-win situation — has done little to weaken the neoconservatives, who are continuing their wheeling and dealing in Washington to advance their agenda of removing all potential threats to Israel, including Iran, Syria and groups like Hizbollah and others.
More importantly, the neocons, many of whom occupy key executive positions in the administration, are willing to circumvent the executive authority as represented by the White House in their determined campaign. Their clout is not scaled down by changes in the White House since their influence is bipartisan. That partly explains why American administration are often found to be flouting the very founding principles of the United States regardless of who occupies the White House.
According to James Bamford, author of the recent book Pretext for War, "The neoconservatives surround themselves with people who are fanatically pro-Israel, and maybe they were too over confident, or felt that no one would notice or no one would care, or that they were running things so it wouldn't matter, but luckily the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is independent of the Pentagon."
Under the effective guidelines supported by law, any US government official seeking the co-operation of foreign nationals to take secret action against other countries need a so-called presidential finding to engage in such activity. There is no indication yet that this was the case with the neocons' involvement with Iranian dissidents in planning regime change in Iran at the behest of Israel.


The Franklin affair

It is not the first time American officials have been found passing on American secrets to Israel or violating American laws and guidelines behind the back of the administration to serve Israeli interests.
The AIPAC officials involved in the Franklin affair have been identified as Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman.
Rosen is AIPAC’s director of research and said to the most influential people in group. . He has been with AIPAC since 1982, and "mentored both Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s current executive director, and Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel," says the Jerusalem Post.
Weissman is deputy director of foreign policy issues and specialises in relations with Iran, Syria and Turkey.
Franklin is also said to have had several meetings with Naor Gilon, described as the political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington, and a specialist on Iran's nuclear weapons programme.
Founded in the early 50s, AIPAC claims it has 65,000 members spread out through the US and says its central mission is to support US interests in the Middle East and to strengthen the US-Israeli relationship.
The group's self-professed agenda includes "Stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
Predictably, the Israeli government and AIPAC have refuted the spying allegation.
Israeli officials say the government had forsworn against spying in the US after Jonathan Pollard, a naval analyst, was found to have given Israel top-secret information relevant to the Soviet Union as well as details of American weapons and military equipment sold to Arab countries in 1985. Israel in turn traded the information with the Soviet Union in return for Moscow increasing the number of Russian Jews allowed to migrate to Israel.
According to John Davitt, former chief of the Justice Department's internal security section, "when the Pollard case broke, the general media and public perception was that this was the first time this had ever happen.
"No, that's not true at all. The Israeli intelligence service, when I was in the Justice Department, [1950-1980] was the second most active in the United States, to the Soviets."
Jewish American leaders have voiced concern that the new scandal could have on the reputation of AIPAC and Israel, but, in all probability, the issue would be played down and buried soon, say some analysts.
"I would describe the reaction to this scandal in the intelligence community as one of anger and of contempt, but not of surprise," said Jason West, who has written extensively on US military and intelligence issues. "No one believes, at all, that Israel does not spy on the United States, and no has believed that since Pollard. ... Of course," he said in comments carried by Lebanon's Daily Star.
The neocon camp in Washington include many influential officials in the Bush administration; and they are interlinked.
Feith's office has close ties  with Vice-President Dick Cheney's office. Feith is known to be a diehard supporter of Israel. His former law partner Marc Zell has migrated to Israel and has served as a spokesman the Jewish settlers on the occupied West Bank.
Feith, who served the Reagan administration its initial two years, was removed from the job in 1982 after coming under investigation for providing classified information to Israel. He was, however, brought back into active service by Richard Perle, another known neocon who the served as assistant secretary of defence for international security policy (ISP)
According to Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service, the close collaboration between the neoconservatives and Israel date back some 30 years and some of the neocons have come under investigation in the past. They include Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz as well as Feith and Perle, who resigned as Defence Policy Board (DPB) chairman last year. Another noted neocon is William Luti, a retired vavy officer who was Franklin's immediate supervisor.
Wolfowitz came under investigation for promoting Israel's export of advanced air-to-air missiles to Beijing in violation of a written agreement with the US on arms re-sales. But that is only a scratch on the surface of Wolfowitz's involvement with Israel.
Feith and Perle were the main authors of a 1996 policy recommendation document presented to the then Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, suggesting that Israel's domination of the region depended on removing Saddam from power and installing a US-friendly regime in Baghdad.
Also under FBI investigation is the links between Franklin and disgraced Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a favourite of the neocons. Apart from providing false information on Iraq's weapons programmes and nudging the US into launching war against that country, Chalabi has also been accused of providing classified information to Iran.



Core issue — Iran

The Franklin back-channel meetings involving Iranian dissidents began in late 2001, more than 16 months before the war against Iraq was launched and have continued since then.
Given that the Bush White House might not have been privy to details of the back-channel, which was operated out of Feith's office, it is also clear that the neoconservatives are pursuing their agenda with or without the administration; or using the administration's powers whenever they need it but otherwise ignoring the chief executive of the US.
In this case, they definitely have an added spur from Israel, which is itching to "take out" Iran's nuclear facilities. Not that Iran really poses a nuclear yet to Israel, but the Israelis cannot stand the thought of anyone developing or even thinking of developing nuclear weapons in the Middle Eastern neighbourhood.
In early 2004, Stephen Green, a freelance journalist with proven credibility and objectivity and who has been following Israeli spying in the US for many years, raised a very pertinent question in an article titled "Serving Two Flags: Neocons, Israel and the Bush Administration":
"Have the neoconservatives — many of whom are senior officials in the Department of Defence (DoD), National Security Council (NSC) and Office of the Vice President — had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?"
He also suggested that the "underlying agenda (of the neoconservatives) is the alignment of US foreign and security policies with those of (Israeli Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration’s new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with US soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neocon campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counter-force to Israeli military hegemony in the region —Iran and Syria."
Green's question, which represented the thoughts and analyses of many other American commentators, seems to have been answered resoundingly and his observations confirmed by the latest "Israeli-mole-in-the-Pentagon" revelation that also exposed the extent of the effort for regime change in Iran.
According to the Washington Monthly, an investigative magazine, the FBI came upon the findings of a back-channel on Iran when it investigated Franklin, who is now working in the office of Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's number three civilian official.
"In particular, the FBI is looking with renewed interest at an unauthorised back-channel between Iranian dissidents and advisers in Feith's office, which more-senior administration officials first tried in vain to shut down and then later attempted to cover up," said the Washington Monthly.
The back-channel, according to the report, was created as a result of a power struggle pitting hawks in the Defence Department who want an aggressive bid for "regime change" in Iran and moderates in the State Department and the CIA who advocate a more cautious approach.
Franklin — who, by the way, is not a Jew but has worked in Israel —  and another expert on the Middle East, Harold Rhode, were involved in meetings and contacts with Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar and other Iranian exiles, dissidents and government officials, said the report.
Other officials involved in the first meeting in Rome in December 2001 included another American, the neoconservative writer and operative Michael Ledeen, who was then working for Feith as a consultant, and a former senior member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who claimed to have information about dissident ranks within the Iranian security services as well as Nicolo Pollari, the head of Italy's military intelligence agency, and Italian Minister of Defence Antonio Martino.
According to the Washington Monthly, the CIA and the US embassy in Rome were not told of the meeting (it says the US ambassador, who had just taken charge, heard about the meeting during a dinner with Martino, who apparently assumed that the diplomat had known about the meeting).
(Ghorbanifar was once classified as a non-desirable by the CIA since he played a key role in embroiling the Reagan administration in the Iran-Contra affair which involved two secret US government operations to provide assistance to the military activities of the Nicaraguan contra rebels despite an official ban from October 1984 to October 1986, and the sale of US arms to Iran in contravention of stated US policy and in possible violation of arms-export controls).
(In late November 1986, Reagan Administration officials admitted that some of the proceeds from the sale of US arms to Iran had been diverted to the Contra rebels. Investigations found that high-ranking administration officials violated laws and executive to the contra rebels. Several were prosecuted and some were pardoned by Reagan, who pleaded memory lapses as his defence).
The meetings involving the "undesirable" Ghorbanifar — in breach of standing administration guidelines — continued despite warnings issued by senior State Department officials alerted by Ambassador Sembler. Particularly involved in the meetings was Ledeen, who was working for Feith at that time. Ledeen, who is affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, ignored repeated cautions to stay away from Ghorbanifar and pursued contacts — the extent of which are as yet unknown — aimed at preparing the ground for regime change in Iran.
According to some reports, the meetings with Ghorbanifar was aimed at sabotaging an agreement between the US administration and Iran to exchange Iranian dissidents captured by the US in Iraq for Al Qaeda suspects in Iranian custody. Today, the Iranian dissidents are given "special status" and American "protection" in Iraq, with a pledge that they would not be turned over to the Iranian government.
The Bush administration has not disclosed the details of the back-channel on Iran, but, as some analysts believe, it might not have known the details either.
The Washington Monthly suggests: "The administration's reluctance to disclose these details seems clear: the DoD-Ghorbanifar meetings suggest the possibility that a rogue faction at the Pentagon was trying to work outside normal US foreign policy channels to advance a 'regime change' agenda not approved by the president's foreign policy principals or even the president himself.
In terms of determination, the scenario is not much different from that was played out ahead of the invasion and occupation of Iraq last year, with the only exception that overthrowing Saddam Hussein became one of the policy objectives of George Bush in days after he assumed office in 2000. Since then, however, Bush went on to include Iran in his list of targets for regime change and has promised that the goal would be realised if he is re-elected for a new term in November.

Israel itching to go

Pat Buchanan, a former presidential candidate, writes that Sharon, the Israeli premier, is rumoured to have told the White House that if the US does not "effect the nuclear castration of Iran, Israel will do the surgery herself...."
The neoconservative agenda, says Buchanan, is "to have America widen her wars with Afghanistan and Iraq with a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities."
"For the neoconservatives, Iraq was simply Phase II of 'World War IV' for imperial domination of the Middle East and serial destruction of the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as of Hizbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority."
"The neocons have not abandoned this imperial project. Nor has Bush removed a single one from power, though they may yet cost him his presidency. And the neoconservative commentariat is again beating the drums for war -- this time on Iran."
Israeli commentator Martin Van-Creveld has suggested that Sharon might very well order an attack on Iranian nuclear plants before the November presidential elections in November.
Israel is said to have already conducted "trial runs" for attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities using Turkish airspace.
However, most analysts question the reports and doubt whether the Islamist-led government would allow Israel to use its airspace to launch attacks on Iran, particularly that which Ankara has been seeking to improve relations with Iran.
Israel cites the Islamist nature of the Iranian regime, Tehran's refusal to recognise Israel and its alleged support of Palestinian resistance groups fighting Israeli occupation as the reason for its "fears" that the alleged Iranian nuclear programme is Israel-specific.
However, this argument is countered by Tehran's affirmation that it would accept any solution to the Palestinian problem as long as it is acceptable to the Palestinians themselves.
It is open to debate but subject to the thinking of Sharon and his hawkish camp to pick the time for an Israeli strike against Iran on whatever pretext.
However, what has emerged from the latest revelations from Washington is that the neoconservatives are preparing the ground and action against Iran could come when Israel thinks the time is right, notwithstanding the numerous considerations linked to logistics and what many see as the impossibility of completely wiping out Iran's nuclear capabilities at whatever level they are.
Any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could be not only be disastrous to American efforts to pacify the Iraqis, particularly the Shiites in the south, but also would also herald until dangers to its soldiers present in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
Iran has already warned of "pre-emptive" strikes against American soldiers in the region and owed to hit back at Israel if the Jewish state attacked Iranian nuclear installations. 
Tehran asserts that neither Israel nor the US would launch any attack on its nuclear facilities because it has the ability to hit back at anywhere in Israel with its Shihab-3 long-range missiles. Iran needs only medium-range missiles to target American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Interestingly, the Israeli expert opinion that the Arrow-2 missile system — said to the most effective missile defence network — needs more work to be effective against Iran's Shihab-3 missiles is seen by many as a ploy to drag Iran into a long-range missile war where Israel would feel free to use its own long-range missiles as well as fighter bombers against Iran.
One thing is clear: Any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would not be as easy as the 1981 Israeli bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, and Iranian retaliation for any such Israeli action would be far more damaging to the US than anyone else. But then, is that a serious source of concern for the pro-Israeli neocons?