Monthly Analysis: January 2006
By: Ryan Mauro
TDCAnalyst@aol.com
Overall, 2005 was a good year, in which was evidenced tremendous progress in Iraq, reasonably reliable elections in Iraq and Egypt, and significant advances, globally, against Al-Qaeda. The general public was made more aware of the dangers of Hugo Chavez, the democracy movement in Iran, and Syria received significant adverse attention. Additionally, the Europeans have been assisting, more than one would expect, in pressuring those two rogue regimes.
2006 is unlikely to be as positive, or as peaceful. 2006 will likely be a year of tremendous danger. Enemies of the US perceive its election years as occasions of distracted vulnerability. This is also the year wherein the nuclear ambitions of Iran will be settled.
Because the West has delayed so long in supporting internal regime replacement in Iran, the Israelis and the US must now decide if pre-emptive action against Iran’s nuclear sites is preferable to allowing Iran the capability of producing nuclear weapons.
At the same time, Hugo Chavez, with the full support of radical American leftists (Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte, to name but two), Fidel Castro, and like-minded individuals he has supported in South America, will become significantly bolder. Chavez is cultivating a closer relationship with Iran, and some suspect him of also seeking nuclear technology. 2006 is likely to be the bumpiest ride since 2003, when the US initiated Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The Old Debate
Two main tenets of my book, “Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq,” is that (1) Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, aggressively sought WMD technology, developed production facilities, produced weapons, and moved its WMD stockpiles to Syria months before the US-led operations, and (2) worked hand-in-hand with legions of terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden.
Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard has done a remarkable job of tracking this issue by releasing government and Iraqi documents, but he has recently been stymied as additional unclassified documents are not being released to him via the Freedom of Information Act. Hopefully, a breakthrough will occur soon. Readers can rest assured that I am also pursuing this issue by attempting to have specific documents, including those that Hayes is seeking, released to the public. Developing…
Stephen Hayes has interviewed nearly a dozen government officials regarding the contents of some of the documents. Previously, as discussed in my book, we know that an Iraqi defector stated that Iraq had trained and prepared a force of 4,000 foreign terrorists, separate from the Baathist militia forces assembled to fend off the 2003 US-led operation. Hayes has confirmed that this information is generally correct, and has even uncovered additional confirming details.
Terrorists were trained in at least three camps: one each in Samaraa, Ramadi and at Salman Pak, which as we’ve discussed in the past, has a Boeing aircraft on which to train hijackers. Many of the terrorists were attached to Algeria’s Salafist Group for Combat and Call (linked to Al-Qaeda) and the Sudanese Islamic Army.
Some 2,000 terrorists were trained in this camp system each year from 1999 to 2002, meaning that Iraq trained at least 8,000 terrorists. Other issues discussed in the January 16 issue of the Weekly Standard include:
· Only 50,000 of two million exploitable items have been examined – only 2.5%. It is probable that there is much more evidence to be examined.
· Ahmed Mohamed Barodi, a Syrian Muslim Brotherhood member, testified at his deportation hearings that he was trained for 21 days, in February 1982, at a camp in Iraq that provided instruction in guerilla warfare, firearms training, and document forgery.
· Spanish investigators report that Ghasoub Ghalyoun, another Syrian Muslim Brotherhood member, who is suspected of conducting surveillance for the 9-11 attacks, wrote a letter to the head of Syrian intelligence where he asks for re-entry into Syria. In the letter, he mentions that he was trained in Iraq, probably in the early 1980s.
---
Newsweek published a 2002 Pentagon briefing that chronicles dissention in the ranks of the intelligence communities regarding the subject of an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection. The problems cited included: (1) maintaining excessively high standards for proof of a connection that would be shadowy at best, with typically fragmentary evidence, (2) underestimation of the critical importance that Iraq and al-Qaeda would place upon thoroughly concealing such an alliance and, (3) the mistaken belief that secularists and Islamists would not work together.
The report then catalogs a lengthy accounting of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden requesting Iraqi assistance in bomb production in 1995-1996, and Iraq promising training after the 1998 embassy bombings. In 2000, the CIA reported regarding the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, that “fragmentary reporting points to possible Iraqi involvement.”
It also discusses the debated meetings between Iraqi intelligence officials and Mohammed Atta, the leading 9-11 hijacker. It states that the Iraqi Intelligence Service chief of the station in Prague met with Atta in April 2001, and that Atta visited the IIS office in Prague at least twice. Despite contrary media reporting, there has been no credible evidence contradicting those facts.
Atta also met with al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer, in June 2000, a fact corroborated by the CIA and, on April 8 - 9, 2001, Atta met with the Iraqi charge di’Affaires Hussein Kannan. During one of these visits, al-Ani directed the IIS finance officer to issue funding to Atta. Several workers at a Prague airport identified Mohammed Atta after 9-11 and stated that he traveled with his brother, Farhan Atta.[1]
The second major issue is the WMD debacle. As I’ve stated, many times, in previous analyses, there is adequate credible evidence to support a not unreasonable conclusion that Syria is concealing Iraq’s missing WMD. At the end of this month, General Georges Sada, who was the #2 man in Iraq’s Air Force, and a top advisor to Saddam Hussein, has publicly confirmed the validity of this conclusion.
Sada confidently states that, while Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program, they did have chemical and biological weapons. The WMD were transported in two converted Iraqi Airway planes, with their seats removed. According to Sada, IA pilots told him that there were 56 flights, and that WMDs and documentation were also moved via ground transport.
The flights weren’t detected because they took place after a dam broke in Syria, in June 2002, and Iraq pledged to send aid. “Chemical Ali” managed the transfers on the Iraqi side and a cousin of Bashar Assad coordinated it on the Syrian side. Assad’s cousin goes by the names General Abu Ali, Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe.[2]
Upon the release of this information, I immediately received emails from people stating that they’d trust the Duelfer Report over a man with a book to sell. Again, despite contrary media reporting, and subsequent popular disinformation, the Duelfer Report does not conclude that Saddam’s WMD was not sent to Syria. The Duelfer Report clearly states the case as follows:
“[ISG is] unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war.” Additionally, “We cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war. Reports of such actions exist, but we have not been able to investigate this possibility thoroughly.”
Middle East
Dr. Michael Ledeen reported this month that Imad Mughniyah, with a $5 million bounty on his head for killing many Americans, was spotted in Damascus recently at a meeting between Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Mughniyah, Hezbollah operations chief, and Iran’s terror master has, in the past, had links with Al-Qaeda. We can only conclude that Iran and Syria are preparing their next terror offensive, a development about which we should definitely be concerned, especially when one considers how volatile is the situation in the region right now.
The Europeans appear to be toughening their stance with regard to Iran, while Russia and China are hardening their stance with regard to the West. It is difficult to read the current European stance toward Iran. On the one hand, their stance appears demanding, yet media reports indicate a secret unwillingness to confront Iran. The Iranian leaders are openly talking about using the “oil weapon” should any sort of sanctions be enacted against them. A senior official even stated that Iran would close the Straits of Hormuz, through which 25% of the world’s supply of oil flows.[3]
In the opinion of at least one analyst, neither threat is likely since Iran desperately needs oil revenues to (1) mollify its disgruntled population, (2) fuel its fledgling nuclear program and (3) fund its expansionist ambitions in the region. However, there is much debate on the validity of this opinion.
Iran has begun enriching uranium, terminating its pact with the Europeans and effectively ending negotiations. A 55-page intelligence report from the British, French, German and Belgians was leaked soon afterwards, confirming that Iran was actively purchasing components for missiles that can reach all of Europe.
The report also detailed the significant role that Russia has in Iran’s nuclear programs, even as dozens of Chinese front companies are involved in North Korea’s nuclear programs. Iran is relying upon a huge network of front companies in Western Europe, and the former USSR, in order to buy WMD components. The report stated that Syria and Pakistan are also acquiring chemicals and technology for missile programs and uranium enrichment.[4]
---
In Egypt, authorities accused the runner-up in the presidential elections, Ayman Nour, of using forgeries to bolster registration of his political party however, Nour’s supporters are claiming the Egyptian authorities are fabricating false claims against him. One defendant stated that the Egyptian security officials coerced him into speaking out against Nour.[5] Nour has been viewed as the most credible, liberal candidate seeking to institute reforms in Egypt.
---
Elections for the Palestinian legislative council took place this month as well. Hamas enjoyed an “upset victory,” as the media termed it, over Fatah, even though observant analysts fully expected a solid Hamas victory. There was a 77% turnout and, at last count, Hamas secured at least 70 seats in the 132-member council. Some pessimistic analysts are practically wetting themselves at this development, but one can take an alternate view…
The remarkable nature of the democratic process is that, while rogue parties can acquire power through the democratic electoral process, ultimately, they are also held accountable at the ballot box. Rogue parties must maintain public approval and serve the electorate’s wishes to a degree sufficiently acceptable to hold onto power. If rogue parties acquire significant authority and summarily terminate the democratic process, they further jeopardize their standing with the electorate they claim to represent.
While, on a short-term level, the Hamas victory may seem a deplorable development, it may be beneficial in the long-term.
Terrorists are so full of hate and eager for totalitarian control that they cannot effectively govern and, if they cannot effectively govern, they’ll soon enough lose support of the electorate. Hopefully, the U.S. and European Union will also recognize that they are obliged to withhold support for the new Hamas-led Palestinian government.
Finally, it also ends the politically correct condemnations of Israel for attacking a “partner in peace.” The world community, removed from the glare of media, realizes full well that Hamas is not a “partner in peace” and, hopefully, will not restrain Israel in its right to defend its national sovereignty. Hamas’ time in power is troublesome, but if the world community does not appease them, their time in power will be relatively brief.
Latin America
The recent anti-capitalist praises of Harry Belafonte, who claimed that “millions” support Hugo Chavez’s socialist, anti-American revolution, significantly emboldened the Venezuelan President. It is truly agonizingly painful and bewildering to observe prominent far-left idols, including cause celebres-of-the-moment, Cindy Sheehan, proclaiming solidarity with a totalitarian movement that seeks to destroy the very system that assures them the right to speak so reprehensibly against it.
---
New evidence surfaced recently suggesting a possible Cuban/Soviet role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Award-winning director Wilfried Huismann’s new documentary, “Rendezvous with Death,” includes interviews with US officials, former Cuban and Russian intelligence agents and officers, as well as information from Mexican intelligence files.
According to the documentary, Lee Harvey Oswald traveled to Mexico City in September 1963, seven weeks prior to the assassination, and received $6,500 from the Cuban embassy. Oscar Marino, a former Cuban agent, claims that Oswald volunteered for the mission and Cuba simply exploited him.
Lyndon Johnson aborted the FBI’s investigation, in Mexico, after only three days because a conclusion that Cuba was involved in the assassination of JFK would mean war. The documentary further posits that the Cubans first initiated contact with Oswald in November 1962, after the Soviets notified them about Oswald. If the assertions presented in the documentary are true, and Castro sponsored, assisted, or otherwise condoned the assassination of a U.S. president, then the US must be very concerned about his current alignment with Chavez.
Recently, Bolivia joined the Socialist Bloc of Latin America with the election of Evo Morales. Like Brazil’s President Da Silva, Chavez and Castro, Morales has attended the Sao Paulo Forum since the mid-1990s, which brings together terrorists from several continents.
President-elect Morales is an avowed socialist, who plans to nationalize Bolivia’s oil and gas industry. In 1995, he spoke at a conference where he stated: “If we want to be free, in Latin America, there should not be one Cuba, but several Cubas… What do we need for that? Heroic figures. And for me, Fidel Castro is such a figure. I am ready to proclaim him commander of the liberation forces of America, or Latin America.” This month, Morales also referred to China as an “ideological ally.” Developing...