Get PJ Media on your Apple

Remembering the Iran-Al-Qaeda Link

The connection that Western intelligence agencies fear to make.

by
N.M. Guariglia

Bio

January 30, 2011 - 12:02 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

According to the Saudi documents, Qarawi has hundreds of men under his oversight and is operating freely in Iran and with the Iranian government’s approval. The recent WikiLeaks documents, as well, contained Saudi intelligence regarding Iran’s ties to al-Qaeda.  According to one cable, Saudi Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz, in a 2009 meeting with U.S. officials, “complained that over the past two years Iran [had] hosted Saudis (all Sunnis) — including Osama bin Laden’s son Ibrahim — who had contacts with terrorists and worked against the Kingdom.”

The previous WikiLeaks document dump pointed to Iranian support for al-Qaedists in Somalia, the al-Qaeda ally and Pashtun warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Afghan Taliban, and al-Qaeda insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan. To some, this information was striking. It shouldn’t have been. U.S. military officials in Iraq and Afghanistan have spoken of Iranian-sponsored terrorism for years. In 2008, a former Sunni Iraqi insurgent named Abu Azzam al-Tamimi told Al Arabiya television that Iran “interferes in every aspect in Iraq.”

When asked whom the Iranians support, Tamimi responded:

Everybody — [Iran] works with the [Iraqi] government, with the opponents of the government, with the opponents of the government’s opponents, with al-Qaeda, with the enemies of al-Qaeda, with the militias, with the enemies of the militias. … Iran spreads its investments everywhere — with the Shi’ites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.

This might be one of the most accurate quotations an intelligence analyst could read about Iran and the state of its affairs in the Middle East.

Then why is the Iran-al-Qaeda relationship so overlooked? There are several reasons. The first reason is political. Unbelievably, some intelligence analysts are actually intent on making Iran’s leadership seem more benign than it is. As Tony Blair stated, sometimes intelligence agencies are “at pains to separate … not to link [adversaries].”

The second reason is because of the sectarian violence in Iraq from 2006-08. In February 2006, Sunni al-Qaedists bombed and destroyed one of the holiest sites in Shi’a Islam, the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra, Iraq. The strategic purpose of this attack was to provoke Iraq’s Shi’ites into retaliatory murder and reprisal on their Sunni neighbors, spiraling Iraq toward implosion and civil war. For more than a year, that is precisely what happened. The Middle East hadn’t seen such large scale Sunni-Shi’a violence in generations, which convinced the intelligence community that the historical schism between the denominations had never calmed (when it had), or at least that in having flared back up was here to stay (when it wasn’t).

The third reason is bureaucratic. When sectarian fighting erupted in Iraq, the intelligence community was accused of not adequately anticipating the possibility of Sunni-Shi’a violence. This intelligence failure, along with the WMD intelligence failure, created something of a reactionary hyper-sensitivity to the issue within the intelligence community — perhaps even group-think.  Put simply, Sunnis and Shi’ites were suddenly enemies in Iraq, and therefore it was assumed they would be hostile to one another everywhere else. This was wrong.

The fourth reason is ethnic. Not only is Iran Shi’a and al-Qaeda Sunni, but the Iranians are mostly Persian whereas the al-Qaedists are mostly Arab. This analysis fails to take into account that Islamism usually eschews racial, ethnic, or even nationalistic considerations. It is true that the ruling mullahs of Iran view Arabs scornfully. But the mullahs view Persian history scornfully, as well (a fact that is not lost on the proud Iranian people). “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah,” the Ayatollah Khomeini once infamously said. “I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

The fifth and final reason is Afghanistan. During the 2001 takedown of the Taliban, the U.S.-led alliance sought Tehran’s assistance in formulating a new Afghan government.  Seizing the opportunity for greater influence in Afghanistan, the mullahs cooperated. But while the Iranians were “helping” the United States in Afghanistan, they were also sending assassination teams into the theater to kill Americans. The mullahs are quite cunning and capable of doing two things at once.

The lessons are clear. As former CIA Director James Woolsey once said, our Middle Eastern adversaries are like mafia families:

They do hate each other and they do kill each other from time to time, but they hate us a great deal more and they’re perfectly willing and perfectly capable to assist one another in one way or another.

Policymakers seem to listen to intelligence as if it were infallible. Oftentimes it is not. But when it is as concrete as it can be — such as Iran’s sponsorship of al-Qaeda — it is paramount that intelligence analysts make this evident, so that the proper national security decisions can be made in a timely manner.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
N. M. Guariglia writes on foreign policy. He can be contacted at nmguar@gmail.com.
Click here to view the 7 legacy comments

Comments are closed.