Monday December 18, 2006
What is Iran Up To?
As my colleague Jeffrey Imm points out on the Counterterrorism Blog, there are reports of Iran's attempt to gain influence in the traditional al Qaeda structure. This an interesting development, especially when coupled with another, equally ominous and interesting development: Iran's likely involvement with the Islamic Court Union in Somalia.
This is a stark departure across Sunni-Shi'ite differences, and one that, if true, could portend a serious realignment within the different Islamist camps. Such a cross-pollination is also significant given the recent and ongoing Sunni-Shi'ite massacres, based solely on religion, taking place in Iraq.
A soon-to-be published United Nations panel of experts outlined Iran's contacts in Somalia, including the taking of several hundred Somali fighters to Lebanon to fight with Hezbollah.
In my opinion, one of the few things the UN does consistently well is their Panel of Experts reports. They put people on the ground, gain access and consistently produce reports that are widely ignored by the General Secretariat. Here is what they found:
The report said about 720 Somali Islamist fighters with combat experience -- selected by Afghanistan-trained hardline Islamist commander Adan Hashi Farah "Ayro" -- went to Lebanon to fight Israel along Hezbollah in mid-July.
The fighters were paid $2,000 and as much as $30,000, to be given to their families, if they were killed, the report says.
At least 100 Somali fighters returned, along with five Hezbollah members, while an unknown number stayed in Lebanon for advanced military training, it states.
"In exchange for the contribution of the Somali military force, Hezbollah arranged for additional support to be given ... by the governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic, which was subsequently provided," it says.
This is significant in its scope. It is also extremely interesting, because in both the cases the alliances cross the traditional Shi'ite-Sunni divide in ways that are unusual, if not unique. While bin Laden has had documented contacts with Hezbollah (particularly Imad Mugniyah, the mastermind behind Hezbollah's truck bombing operations) there has been little indication of further alliances.
As Jeffrey Imm points out, al Qaeda has a history in Iran. Bin Laden's son is there, one of his wives at least transited through there during the exodus from Afghanistan, and several other senior leaders appear to be held in some form of moderate house arrest, unable to travel freely but certainly not in prison.
It will be interesting to see if this is a truely significant realignment or tactical moves that bring short term benefit to both sides but does not fundamentally change the current working relationship.
This is a stark departure across Sunni-Shi'ite differences, and one that, if true, could portend a serious realignment within the different Islamist camps. Such a cross-pollination is also significant given the recent and ongoing Sunni-Shi'ite massacres, based solely on religion, taking place in Iraq.
A soon-to-be published United Nations panel of experts outlined Iran's contacts in Somalia, including the taking of several hundred Somali fighters to Lebanon to fight with Hezbollah.
In my opinion, one of the few things the UN does consistently well is their Panel of Experts reports. They put people on the ground, gain access and consistently produce reports that are widely ignored by the General Secretariat. Here is what they found:
The report said about 720 Somali Islamist fighters with combat experience -- selected by Afghanistan-trained hardline Islamist commander Adan Hashi Farah "Ayro" -- went to Lebanon to fight Israel along Hezbollah in mid-July.
The fighters were paid $2,000 and as much as $30,000, to be given to their families, if they were killed, the report says.
At least 100 Somali fighters returned, along with five Hezbollah members, while an unknown number stayed in Lebanon for advanced military training, it states.
"In exchange for the contribution of the Somali military force, Hezbollah arranged for additional support to be given ... by the governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic, which was subsequently provided," it says.
This is significant in its scope. It is also extremely interesting, because in both the cases the alliances cross the traditional Shi'ite-Sunni divide in ways that are unusual, if not unique. While bin Laden has had documented contacts with Hezbollah (particularly Imad Mugniyah, the mastermind behind Hezbollah's truck bombing operations) there has been little indication of further alliances.
As Jeffrey Imm points out, al Qaeda has a history in Iran. Bin Laden's son is there, one of his wives at least transited through there during the exodus from Afghanistan, and several other senior leaders appear to be held in some form of moderate house arrest, unable to travel freely but certainly not in prison.
It will be interesting to see if this is a truely significant realignment or tactical moves that bring short term benefit to both sides but does not fundamentally change the current working relationship.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
Britain's Growing Islamist Problem
The stunning public statement by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller that Britain's domestic intelligence agency MI5 is tracking some 200 Islamist cells with some 1,600 members who "actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts here and overseas." shows just how deeply the Islamist groups have burrowed into their host society.
"Today we see the use of homemade improvised explosive devices, but I suggest tomorrow's threat will include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology," Manningham-Buller said.
The scope and size of the publicly-acknowledged investigations are a tacit admission that the Blair government's attempts at dialogue with the Muslim community, largely through Muslim Brotherhood-dominated groups that have sister organizations in the United States, has not stemmed the movement toward radicalism.
Indeed, one of the primary concerns is the concerted effort at radicalization of young people through mosques and networks that receive direction from al Qaeda-related groups in Pakistan. Other networks are the self-starting type of terrorist, loosely affiliated with others and inspired by al Qaeda but not members of the al Qaeda structure.
Britain has, for at least a generation, been the target of concerted political action by Islamist groups, including but not limited to the Muslim Brotherhood. There, these groups control mosques, monopolize the political represenation of Muslims and are an entrenched force advocating for separate rights and responsibilities for Muslims.
The network of mosques, charities and outreach workers to draw people, especially young people, has been not only tolerated but courted by politicians and largely left unexamined, until very recently, by law enforcement and intelligence forces.
The situation, while far less developed in the United States, where there are no post-colonial ties to Pakistan and other regions, is not so dissimilar. The organized efforts here by the _Ikwan_ and its multiple, massively-funded front organizations and allies, have taken root on college campuses, control of mosques and the political representation of Muslims in this country.
Like the Blair government the Bush administration continues to reach out to these groups as represenative and moderate. Both governments are sadly mistaken.
The concern is long-term. As Manningham-Buller said the threat from international terrorism "is serious, is growing, and will, I believe, be with us for a generation." Leaving unchallenged the agenda of Islamist groups that present a moderate face when it necessary but have a separate agenda, is part of that threat.
"Today we see the use of homemade improvised explosive devices, but I suggest tomorrow's threat will include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology," Manningham-Buller said.
The scope and size of the publicly-acknowledged investigations are a tacit admission that the Blair government's attempts at dialogue with the Muslim community, largely through Muslim Brotherhood-dominated groups that have sister organizations in the United States, has not stemmed the movement toward radicalism.
Indeed, one of the primary concerns is the concerted effort at radicalization of young people through mosques and networks that receive direction from al Qaeda-related groups in Pakistan. Other networks are the self-starting type of terrorist, loosely affiliated with others and inspired by al Qaeda but not members of the al Qaeda structure.
Britain has, for at least a generation, been the target of concerted political action by Islamist groups, including but not limited to the Muslim Brotherhood. There, these groups control mosques, monopolize the political represenation of Muslims and are an entrenched force advocating for separate rights and responsibilities for Muslims.
The network of mosques, charities and outreach workers to draw people, especially young people, has been not only tolerated but courted by politicians and largely left unexamined, until very recently, by law enforcement and intelligence forces.
The situation, while far less developed in the United States, where there are no post-colonial ties to Pakistan and other regions, is not so dissimilar. The organized efforts here by the _Ikwan_ and its multiple, massively-funded front organizations and allies, have taken root on college campuses, control of mosques and the political representation of Muslims in this country.
Like the Blair government the Bush administration continues to reach out to these groups as represenative and moderate. Both governments are sadly mistaken.
The concern is long-term. As Manningham-Buller said the threat from international terrorism "is serious, is growing, and will, I believe, be with us for a generation." Leaving unchallenged the agenda of Islamist groups that present a moderate face when it necessary but have a separate agenda, is part of that threat.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
Hamas' Call for Attacks on Americans is New Threat
In the wake of reports that an Israeli tnak strike killed 18 people in the Gaza Strip, Hamas' military wing issued a call for Muslims around the world to attack American targets.
This is dangerous for several reasons. One is that Hamas has a broad financial infrastructure inside the United States and enjoys some support among parts of the U.S. Islamic community, so there would be little need infiltrate operators. There could be people already here willing to carry out such attacks.
A second reason is that Hamas has traditionally not advocated attacks on the United States. But this call by the Hamas military wing is unambiguous: "America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas' military wing said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.
This would add another dimension for defending American targets here and abroad. Hamas has a broad presence in Europe as well, where it is often viewed as an organization with a political wing that can be separated from its military wing. While European governments have recently moved to designate Hamas as a terrorist entity, there is still widespread public support for Hamas' political operation.
It is interesting to note that the Hamas political wing immediately distanced itself from that military wing's statement. This is a familiar tactic (and sometimes honest conundrum) among armed groups that maintain a political wing-let the political side say whatever it needs to remain viable, while the military wing makes almost all the decisions.
Finally, this is worrisome because Hamas is a direct offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Brotherhood offers Hamas a worldwide network for moving money, maintaining secure communications links and moving weapons. This was demonstrated when Bank Al Taqwa in the Bahamas was designated a terrorist financing entity immediately after 9-11. It was found that, in addition to aiding al Qaeda, the bank, the primary financial institution of the Brotherhood, had been moving millions of dollars for Hamas as well.
The message is interesting in that it calls on Muslims all over the world to strike America, with no distinction between Sunni and Shi'ite. The language is striking similar to what the Brotherhood often uses.
This is dangerous for several reasons. One is that Hamas has a broad financial infrastructure inside the United States and enjoys some support among parts of the U.S. Islamic community, so there would be little need infiltrate operators. There could be people already here willing to carry out such attacks.
A second reason is that Hamas has traditionally not advocated attacks on the United States. But this call by the Hamas military wing is unambiguous: "America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas' military wing said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.
This would add another dimension for defending American targets here and abroad. Hamas has a broad presence in Europe as well, where it is often viewed as an organization with a political wing that can be separated from its military wing. While European governments have recently moved to designate Hamas as a terrorist entity, there is still widespread public support for Hamas' political operation.
It is interesting to note that the Hamas political wing immediately distanced itself from that military wing's statement. This is a familiar tactic (and sometimes honest conundrum) among armed groups that maintain a political wing-let the political side say whatever it needs to remain viable, while the military wing makes almost all the decisions.
Finally, this is worrisome because Hamas is a direct offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Brotherhood offers Hamas a worldwide network for moving money, maintaining secure communications links and moving weapons. This was demonstrated when Bank Al Taqwa in the Bahamas was designated a terrorist financing entity immediately after 9-11. It was found that, in addition to aiding al Qaeda, the bank, the primary financial institution of the Brotherhood, had been moving millions of dollars for Hamas as well.
The message is interesting in that it calls on Muslims all over the world to strike America, with no distinction between Sunni and Shi'ite. The language is striking similar to what the Brotherhood often uses.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
The Moderation of the Muslim Brotherhood
First: An editorial Note: This site has been under concerted spam attacks in recent days. In eliminating the spam I inadvertently erased some legitimate and thoughtful comments. My apologies and please feel free to re-post.
The United States and most of Europe has maintained what can be called, at best, an ambivalent policy toward the international Muslim Brotherhood, often arguing that leaders of the _Ikwan_ are, in fact moderates who want a dialogue with the West.
But the Muslim Brotherhood's official website, if anyone in the policy-making world wanted to read it, tells a different story, in fairly clear English. This again is not a hidden site, but the official site of the Brotherhood, putting out its official positions.
What baffles me is that, if we listened to what they said, we could decide rationally how to deal with them: no contact, limited contact, contact based on the reality of what the MB says it is etc. Instead, we have an inconsistent policy of occassional contact and high-level contact with MB front groups that pretend to be what they are not. Since neither side is based in reality, little serious analysis can be done.
Here is just a sample of what the MB writes to its own, in English. I am told the Arabic is far harsher.
"To confront the Western and US domination, the Muslim Brotherhood thinks that fighting domination requires adopting several factors, including:
1- Spreading Islamic concepts that reject submission to humiliation, and incite to fighting it, and to be on to rise to support the oppressed.
2- Reviving the will of liberation and independence in the peoples, and sowing the spirit of resistance.
3- Supporting Hamas government with all spiritual and material and with experience; to spare the Palestinian people's need for Western countries which are biased against its freedom and interests.
4- Forming an international relation and a public opinion that fights injustice and seeks establishing rights, justice and peace in the world.
5- Activating the economic boycott against imperialist states, and also boycotting their cultural production.
6- Achieving political, economic and social internal reform, and removing the food and technological gaps with imperialist states.
7- Working on correcting the image of Islam among Westerners, and clarify the truth of our fair causes, and removing the deformed image about Islam and Muslims.
8- Spreading popular movements in Europe and South America opposing US domination."
And the site contains interesting political analysis. What is striking is the statement that the average Muslim has little if any personal stake in the current stuggle. But here it all is, in context.
"Unlike Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood knows how to contest and win elections. While bin Laden and President Bush indulge in existential combat in which the average Muslim has little if any personal stake, the Brotherhood has been winning hearts and minds through assiduous and nonsectarian ward-heeling. While Bushism has wrought war, anarchy, occupation and the specter of the lethal Zionist-Crusader alliance that bin Laden warned of in the run up to 9/11, the Muslim Brotherhood salves some of the deprivations and inequities of ordinary life. It is what makes the group the hardest target yet in Bush's "war on terror," and the likely successor to the aging Mubarak."
This is the nut of what the MB is and its strategy: build a Muslim political structure to eventually dominate Europe and the United States, while not distancing itself from violence and more radical calls for action. One can build a policy around that, rather then the gibberish we are often told the _Ikwan_ says, based on no reading at all.
The United States and most of Europe has maintained what can be called, at best, an ambivalent policy toward the international Muslim Brotherhood, often arguing that leaders of the _Ikwan_ are, in fact moderates who want a dialogue with the West.
But the Muslim Brotherhood's official website, if anyone in the policy-making world wanted to read it, tells a different story, in fairly clear English. This again is not a hidden site, but the official site of the Brotherhood, putting out its official positions.
What baffles me is that, if we listened to what they said, we could decide rationally how to deal with them: no contact, limited contact, contact based on the reality of what the MB says it is etc. Instead, we have an inconsistent policy of occassional contact and high-level contact with MB front groups that pretend to be what they are not. Since neither side is based in reality, little serious analysis can be done.
Here is just a sample of what the MB writes to its own, in English. I am told the Arabic is far harsher.
"To confront the Western and US domination, the Muslim Brotherhood thinks that fighting domination requires adopting several factors, including:
1- Spreading Islamic concepts that reject submission to humiliation, and incite to fighting it, and to be on to rise to support the oppressed.
2- Reviving the will of liberation and independence in the peoples, and sowing the spirit of resistance.
3- Supporting Hamas government with all spiritual and material and with experience; to spare the Palestinian people's need for Western countries which are biased against its freedom and interests.
4- Forming an international relation and a public opinion that fights injustice and seeks establishing rights, justice and peace in the world.
5- Activating the economic boycott against imperialist states, and also boycotting their cultural production.
6- Achieving political, economic and social internal reform, and removing the food and technological gaps with imperialist states.
7- Working on correcting the image of Islam among Westerners, and clarify the truth of our fair causes, and removing the deformed image about Islam and Muslims.
8- Spreading popular movements in Europe and South America opposing US domination."
And the site contains interesting political analysis. What is striking is the statement that the average Muslim has little if any personal stake in the current stuggle. But here it all is, in context.
"Unlike Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood knows how to contest and win elections. While bin Laden and President Bush indulge in existential combat in which the average Muslim has little if any personal stake, the Brotherhood has been winning hearts and minds through assiduous and nonsectarian ward-heeling. While Bushism has wrought war, anarchy, occupation and the specter of the lethal Zionist-Crusader alliance that bin Laden warned of in the run up to 9/11, the Muslim Brotherhood salves some of the deprivations and inequities of ordinary life. It is what makes the group the hardest target yet in Bush's "war on terror," and the likely successor to the aging Mubarak."
This is the nut of what the MB is and its strategy: build a Muslim political structure to eventually dominate Europe and the United States, while not distancing itself from violence and more radical calls for action. One can build a policy around that, rather then the gibberish we are often told the _Ikwan_ says, based on no reading at all.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
Sudan, Darfur, China and the World's Shifting Alliances
Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, claims that a U.N. peacekeeping force to stop his well-financed and brutal Islamist campaign in Darfur would turn his country into "another Iraq." The statement is not as surprising or as menacing as the venue where al Bashir chose to make it-Bejing, where the Chinese are hosting an Africa summit attended by 48 African leaders.
The Chinese expect $50 billion in trade between Africa and China this year. Bejing is dispensing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and weapons systems to secure access to the oil, copper, timber and other comodities in Africa.
In return, the Chinese protect the muderous regime in Khartoum, the ravagers of Zimbabwe, the thugs in Equatorial Guinea, the xenophobes in Ivory Coast and other unsavory people who have made life hell for their people for decades.
They do this by wielding vetos in the UN Security Council, or threatening to, and undermining every effort at bringing transparency and the rule of law across Africa. They do it by giving the al Bashir's of the world a safe platform to launch their defenses of genocide, and by aiding and abetting some of the worst regimes in the world.
Al Bashir speaks from a friendly platform, knowing that as long as he has oil, he will have the Chinese to effectively neutralize any UN-led efforts to stop the carnage he dismisses as imagined and invented by the West. No one in China will challenge him on that while he is a useful commercial partner.
This is a significant but little-noticed shift in the world's alignment of power. Sub-Saharan Africa was traditionally aligned with the West-France, Great Britain and Belgium in particular. During the Cold War, there were Marxist movements and even governments, responding to the realities of these times, but the collapse of Soviet Communism essentially ended that.
Now, European influence in Africa is rapidly dwindling, and the U.S presence there is virtually non-existent. Instead, the purely mercantile policy of the Chinese, faced with few competing forces, are rapidly gaining ground.
This shift is coupled with another-the involvement of Russia, or at least Russian agents like Viktor Bout, in the arming of militant Islamist groups in Somalia and Eritrea, as well as funneling guns to almost anyone else who can buy them.
Both powers are working directly against U.S. interests in Africa, and, one could argue, against the long-term interests of most Africans, if one accepts that most people would prefer clean government and less weapons in the hands of children.
Policy options, while pursuing two wars that are not going well, are limited. But the long-term trends need to be taken seriously, understood and viewed strategically if U.S. interests are to be defined, much less defended.
The Chinese expect $50 billion in trade between Africa and China this year. Bejing is dispensing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and weapons systems to secure access to the oil, copper, timber and other comodities in Africa.
In return, the Chinese protect the muderous regime in Khartoum, the ravagers of Zimbabwe, the thugs in Equatorial Guinea, the xenophobes in Ivory Coast and other unsavory people who have made life hell for their people for decades.
They do this by wielding vetos in the UN Security Council, or threatening to, and undermining every effort at bringing transparency and the rule of law across Africa. They do it by giving the al Bashir's of the world a safe platform to launch their defenses of genocide, and by aiding and abetting some of the worst regimes in the world.
Al Bashir speaks from a friendly platform, knowing that as long as he has oil, he will have the Chinese to effectively neutralize any UN-led efforts to stop the carnage he dismisses as imagined and invented by the West. No one in China will challenge him on that while he is a useful commercial partner.
This is a significant but little-noticed shift in the world's alignment of power. Sub-Saharan Africa was traditionally aligned with the West-France, Great Britain and Belgium in particular. During the Cold War, there were Marxist movements and even governments, responding to the realities of these times, but the collapse of Soviet Communism essentially ended that.
Now, European influence in Africa is rapidly dwindling, and the U.S presence there is virtually non-existent. Instead, the purely mercantile policy of the Chinese, faced with few competing forces, are rapidly gaining ground.
This shift is coupled with another-the involvement of Russia, or at least Russian agents like Viktor Bout, in the arming of militant Islamist groups in Somalia and Eritrea, as well as funneling guns to almost anyone else who can buy them.
Both powers are working directly against U.S. interests in Africa, and, one could argue, against the long-term interests of most Africans, if one accepts that most people would prefer clean government and less weapons in the hands of children.
Policy options, while pursuing two wars that are not going well, are limited. But the long-term trends need to be taken seriously, understood and viewed strategically if U.S. interests are to be defined, much less defended.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH