click under the songs to listen:

Majida al Roomi
E3tazalt el Gharaam

1. Ou7ibbuka Jiddan
2. 7abeebi
3. E3tazalt el Gharaam
4. Bil Alb Khalleeni
5. Keef
6. Ghanni Lil 7ob
7. Al 7ob wal Wafaa'
8. Nasheed al Zafaaf
9. Fee Lailika al Saari
10. Ya M3azzib Albi
11. Sawfa Nabqa


Faris Karam
W3edni

1. W3edni
2. To'bor Albi
3. Shifta
4. 3alli Balaani
5. Laban el 3asfoor
6. El Tannoura
7. Em Wlaadi
8. Min Wayn

Criticism of Chomsky and AUB
Lee Smith is in high dudgeon over Noam Chomsky's recent trip to Lebanon. In his op-ed in the Daily Star Smith highlights problems he has with the American University of Beirut, the institution that paid for Chomsky's visit, expensive airfare, and weeklong stay at the Gefinor Rotana Hotel.Smith notes that AUB, a recipient of millions of dollars in American aid every year, should provide a more rounded view of the United States rather than present only the opinions of - what in the United States is deemed - the radical left. He believes the Center for American Studies and Research (CASAR) should make an effort to present the real America and offer a diversity of opinions. I'm in agreement.Even if you believe that people like Chomsky, Juan Cole, and Joshua Landis speak the truth while all others lie, you must admit that part of the duty of an academic institution is to present America as Americans see it. American professors and intellectuals are busy reading the Muqadima and watching Amr Khaled. American universities invite both Syrian dissidents and Syrian ambassadors to speak.Smith is right to note that AUB should diversify its selection, because there have not been any speakers touting the American agenda (except for a US embassy officer Juliette Wurr who debated with Landis). CASAR chairman McGreevey can claim that they have invited a diverse selection of American luminaries such as Martha Nussbaum, Lizbeth Cohen, Richard Rorty, Robert Putnam, and Richard Bulliet to highlight diversity in America opinion, however none of these other speakers has spoken about politics. None of these speakers have touted a specifically pro- or anti-American line. None of these speakers have attracted audiences that pack AUB's largest facilities and require accompanying viewing areas.And, one appearance by Chomsky undoes everything the other speakers point out. As Smith notes in his opinion column, what offended me the most about Chomsky's speech is that he claims that he and Edward Said are the only "intellectuals" in the United States speaking truth to power and not bending over backwards to appease their corporate or government masters. He throws away the massive debates that went on and continue to go on in America's intellectual communities. Thus, he undermines all of the good work that the above mentioned guests are doing.AUB audiences never get to see the REAL debate going on. We're not treated to Paul Berman or Michael Ignatieff (a Canadian who comments extensively on America and human rights who works in the US, recently at Harvard) or John Meirsheimer (who opposed the Iraq War and was recently targeted by Chomsky for his article on the Israeli Lobby in the US) or Peter Beinart or Michael Walzer or Marc Cooper or David Remnick or David Brooks or Farid Zakaria or Bernard-Henri Levy (a Frenchman who's written on both policy toward the Middle East and - in a Tocqueville-esque manner - on America as it is today) or Bill Kristol or Jonah Goldberg or Glenn Harlan Reynolds, etc., etc., on and on and on.Chomsky's gone ahead and thrown all of their opinions away, and his audience believes him as he is their intrepreter of America. Too many of my friends have gone to America and become disappointed at what they find. After watching shows like "Friends" and "Sex and the City," they expect to find a happy, fun place where everyone has a good time. I once heard the cousin of a friend tell her that she should watch "Friends" to prepare for her job in New York City. That's crazy!!! You've got to prepare yourself by watching films and reading books about loneliness and dysfunction like "Shopgirl," "American Beauty," or The Corrections.However, like American TV, Chomsky gives Arab students what they want to hear, which doesn't relate to reality. Sure, there's an element of truth to "Friends," Chomsky, and Michael Moore, but on the whole, it's finely crafted entertaining fiction that generates a lot of cash and speaking fees.Sadly, it seems the problem, as Smith suggests, is the CASAR directorate's bias that is out of line with the American public. Oddly, these Americans believe convincing Arabs that George Bush is bad will somehow benefit America. As noted in a previous post, McGreevey gave a very silly introduction to Chomsky comparing him to great Americans like Henry David Thoreau and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and citing undefendable statistics comparing left-leaning news radio listeners to right-leaning popular television viewers. Why not compare leftwing supporters of liberation theology who get their ideas about Jesus from the Bible to rightwing supporters of President Bush who get their ideas about Jesus from The DaVinci Code? Or, apples to oranges while you're at it?It was very strange indeed for me to see members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Syrian National Socialist Party bobbing their heads in time with Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi (an American citizen, born and raised in the US where he raised and educated his family) when he was at AUB. In fact, many of those students walked away disappointed because Khalidi didn't provide them with anything new. He was a sloppy version of what they already get. Ironically, many of Khalidi's best friends in New York and Chicago are Jewish, the very people the SSNP believe - as documented in recent exhibitions at AUB - should be wiped out.I'd be much happier if AUB invited the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to come speak. Those two are seen as extreme in the US, but they are much closer to the center than guys like Chomsky, Cole, and Landis. Jackson and Sharpton are eloquent and would give speeches far more entertaining than Chomsky's monotone mumblings.Unlike our fearless dissident Chomsky who sits in his office at MIT, Jackson and Sharpton have put their money where their mouths are. Sharpton was imprisoned for his beliefs that the US Navy should not bombard Vieques, and ran for the Presidency of the US. Jackson ran for President twice, supports American troops, and he freed US servicemen captured by the Serbians.At least, Sharpton and Jackson are proud to be American. At least, they actually represent a constiuency larger than one.

Comparing the two paths of Syria's Bashar and Pakistan's

Musharraf. Has Bashar erred?

By EHSANI212 May 2006,

In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf, a former commando, assumed power in Pakistan. Seven months later, Bashar Assad, an aspiring ophthalmologist, came to power one week after the death of his father. When Pakistan and the world awoke to the news of a new military coup in October 1999, the consensus opinion was: “Another coup, another general”. In contrast, when Syria and the world glimpsed their new leader, many hoped that his training in London and his facility with English and his British-born wife would make him a different kind of dictator than his iconic and Soviet era father. Syria could now look forward to a new breed of leadership free of ideological demagoguery and endemic corruption.
How did the two leaders and their countries do since then? Let us now recap:
Pakistan’s Musharraf:
When the general assumed power, Pakistan was being described as a failing state sinking in a debt quagmire and kept afloat by the IMF and World Bank as several times during the decades the country was near default and bankruptcy. On the political front, there were economic sanctions following the 1998 nuclear tests. The coup, of course, brought its new political sanctions. The country was in effect a political and economic pariah.
As soon as he took power, Musharraf’s first move was to ask his senior advisors to identify for him the most qualified incorruptible Pakistani national whom he could task with turning the economy around. Once that person was identified, the General personally called him the next morning. Shaukat Aziz was a hugely successful senior executive at Citibank in New York. General Musharraf pleaded with Mr. Aziz to leave his immensely powerful and lucrative job, move to Pakistan and help put the country’s economic house in order. Mr. Aziz was promised a free hand in designing his own policies with the full support of the new leader.
The economic plan that Mr. Aziz designed had to address the following problems:
Increase foreign reserves from the equivalent of only two weeks of imports at the end of 1999.
Reorganize the country’s debt by lowering the 11% rates paid on mostly short term loans.
Cut the budget deficit from 8% to 4% of GDP.
Lower inflation from double digits.
Undertake a massive structural reform
Sell public sector enterprises and embark on a fast-track approach to privatizing the state’s biggest companies.
As the economic plan went into its implementation stage, Mr. Bin Laden and his Jihadists struck on that infamous September 11th. Mr. Musharraf of course had his own Islamist elements in his midst. His military and secret service were taken over by Islamists during the dictatorship of Zia ul Haq. But Musharraf recognized the world-changing significance of 9/11, withdrew recognition from the Taliban, and began helping the CIA. As Pakistan found itself on the frontline and under the microscope of the world, the canny general made full use of the opportunity presented to him and his country. He knew that he could now get all the aid that his county needed from the U.S. and the west if he chose to fight alongside them. Sure enough, the enormous handouts poured in. The economy was already on an upswing and the reform process was already in full force but the new American sure helped. A huge portion of the country’s debt was forgiven. The results have been nothing short of spectacular. The country’s stock market is up 806% since 2002 alone, property markets in key cities are on a tear as interest rates were lowered and housing finance boomed. Last year alone, overseas Pakistanis sent close to $ 4 billion home. Foreign capital has also been attracted due to the massive privatization effort. Since 2003, the country raised $5 billion through the auction of its state enterprises. This year, it has plans to raise another $ 3 Billion by selling off its oil, gas and steel assets.
In sum, President Musharraf knew from day one that his success hinged on tackling his country’s economy. In order to do so, he relied on incorruptible technocrats and gave them free reign to plan and execute their strategies. In the wake of 09/11, he had the foresight to take full advantage of the opportunity presented to him and his country. Here was an opportunity to appear like he was helping America and a chance to reap huge financial benefits as a result. He masterfully and opportunistically made full use of it. Some may argue that his move towards the west was merely cosmetic. How could Musharraf not have known about his country’s nuclear smuggling ring headed by A.Q. Khan they ask? How did Musharraf pardon the man and allow him to live peacefully in the country after the devastating news became public? Nonetheless, this President convinced America that he had made the decision to fight the Islamic elements within his society and side with the U.S. The result was that financial aid started to pour in. The country’s foreign reserves went from the lowest to the highest in its history. In the meantime, the country has become one of the world’s most aggressive sellers of state companies. It has overhauled its tax system. The country’s strategy has been to maintain rapid growth, in part to encourage a prosperous middle class, which might pre-empt the appeal of the radical Islamist movement and put the country on a more politically moderate path.
But significant challenges remain. Per Capita GDP is still only close to $600. Nearly 30% of the population still lives below the poverty line. More state funds are needed for education and infrastructure. The country is still ruled by the same army general who has resisted calls for free elections. But, given the hand that he was dealt, this astute and opportunistic general has arguably done an outstanding job steering his troubled country.
Syria’s Bashar:
Though Bashar inherited a socialist-based economy riddled with corruption, the expectations surrounding his ascension to the Presidency run high. Here was a western-educated young President who was an ophthalmologist in training and a surfer of the Internet in his spare time. His marriage to his British-born wife with her Chanel look, fancy education and banking experience bolstered hopes and pride even further. Add promises of reform to the mix, and it was easy to see why 20 million Syrians had nothing but hope for a better future that would involve more freedoms and higher standards of living. Western capitals were at least as hopeful. Bashar and his elegant wife had now become on the “A “ list of invitees to meet the world’s Kings, Queens and Heads of State.
As the clock ticked, Bashar’s promises of reforms were slow in coming. The conventional thinking then, as it still is now, was that the young President “wants to reform but his father’s old guard cronies were blocking him”. This has helped the leadership shift the blame of any delays in the implementation of reforms to this phantom group of old guard. Note how Bashar did nothing to find Syria’s equivalent of Shaukat Aziz. Those technocrats that were identified were not empowered to exert any personal influence of their own. Key decisions were exclusively entrusted to the regional command of the Baath party and the Presidential Palace. To this day, the economic polices of his administration have been shameful. Without a clear vision to guide him, he has stumbled at every turn when it comes to turning his economy around. Economic growth continues to languish. Youth Unemployment continues to soar. The state continues to dominate the economy at the expense of the private sector. Insane economic subsidies continue to bleed the state treasury. The Price of heating oil (Mazot) is at Syp 7 when the neighboring countries sell it for 29 and 70 in Lebanon and Turkey respectively. As a result, corruption is rampant. Every time, talk surfaced that these subsidies were going to be lifted, there was uproar from an already struggling populace.
Just as Sep 11th presented President Musharraf with an opportunity to forge closer ties with the U.S., Bashar’s first instincts were similar. In the months that followed, the CIA was granted an office in one of Aleppo’ security headquarters. Information about Al-Qaeda operatives was constantly passed along in the ensuing months. As this healthy cooperation continued, Bashar was busy making overtures to Saddam’s regime in the months leading to his collapse from power. One has to assume that Bashar and his enterprising clique saw a huge opportunity to make outrageous sums of money from the dictator next door. With the U.N. oil for food corruption in high gear, the opportunities were too attractive to pass up. Saddam also needed to hide his cash. His new brotherly neighbors were more than happy to oblige.
As Saddam’s regime suffered its military collapse, Bashar was about to make his biggest geopolitical blunder yet. What I will argue below is going to be very controversial and is likely to elicit a lot of angry responses.
Bashar was understandably threatened by the American army’s massive military success next door. The conventional thinking at the time was Syria’s Baath was next on the menu. As soon as the American army was done in Iraq, they were surely heading west to Damascus to topple the Syrian regime. Bashar and his advisors went to work. Their model was presumably the American Marine’s experience in Lebanon in 1983. Were the American army to suffer enough casualties in Iraq, they may cut and run just like Reagan’s America did. Or so the thinking went.
This was a major strategic blunder by the young President.
If Bashar did not want to be a U.S. ally, he at least should have been a non-aggressor. By foolishly providing moral and material support to the insurgency in Iraq and by harboring high-ranking Iraqi officials, he has made himself a marked man at the White House. It was widely reported that Secretary of State Colin Powel repeatedly tried to change the young leaders’ tactics. All reported promises were not kept.
In this writer’s opinion, Bashar should have imitated Musharraf’s canny use of the opportunity presented to him. His country had already lost its Soviet patronage. His economy is saddled with inefficiencies and corruption. His natural resources are running out fast. His population is increasing at double the rate of the country’s economic growth rate. His people’s standards of living are stagnant if not falling. His Baath party is on the wrong side of history. Most importantly, his late father and regime have credible credentials in fighting Islamic Fundamentalists.
Here was a historic chance to edge Syria towards the west and reform. Here was the chance to break away from the past and the so-called Stalinist era old guard. Here was the chance to ask for massive amounts of financial aid and turn around his economy. Here was the chance to sign a peace treaty with Israel in return for the Golan Heights. Regrettably, Bashar chose not to grab the opportunity. Rather than do all or some of the above, he finds himself and his regime implicated in the murder of his neighbor’s Prime Minister. His army was humiliatingly ordered to leave Lebanon. His country faces a list of economic and political sanctions. His nation has become a regional and national pariah.
Gone are the days of visiting the western capitals with his elegant wife. Gone are the days when foreign leaders and Kings visited.
Thanks to Bashar’s strategic blunders, the Syria of today can only count “Bearded Men” as its friends.
Both Bashar and Musharraf were faced with the same fork on the road during their Presidency. Musharraf had the foresight and courage to at least seem to stand up to the Islamists within his society and make a break with the past. He was able to convince America that he was their new friend. His genuine efforts to fix his economy and reform it from day one has had an enormous benefit for his people. Bashar, of course, took the other road at the fork. Presumably, he did not feel that he had the credibility that his father may have had to make such a geopolitical decision and edge his country to the west. Regrettably, niether did he have a vision or a plan to turn his languishing economy around.
Even though both their countries are still ruled by dictators, it is the opinion of this writer that Bashar and the Syrian people lost this contest.

Hezbollah, Illegal Immigration, and the Next 9/11

By LTC Joseph Myers and Patrick PooleFront Page Magazine.com

Death to America was, is, and will stay our slogan! – Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah Secretary-General (Hezbollah Vows Anew To Target Americans, Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2003)
In the prosecution of the Global War against Terror (GWOT) initiated only after the horror of 9/11, an important threat to the United States fell from the public radar screen while al-Qaeda, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the regime of Saddam Hussein became the primary targets. That important threat was the Iranian-backed terrorist organization, Hezbollah.
Operating out of their stronghold in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has successfully waged a war against Israel for more than two decades and has provided ample financial, training and logistical support for the Palestinian terrorists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Hezbollah’s particular expertise has been in teaching the art of suicide bombing, which it introduced to the Palestinian groups in 1993; and in constructing elaborate mega-bombs to inflict massive casualties.
In addition to their terror networks, Hezbollah also operates several Arabic-language newspapers and a satellite TV station, Al Manar (The Lighthouse), to broadcast their jihadist propaganda to the Middle East, North Africa, South America, and Europe. These media outlets spread Hezbollah’s toxic ideology of pan-Islamism, Shi’ite martyrdom, jihad theology, Khomeini-style theocratic political theory, and virulent anti-Semitism.
Hezbollah’s hatred is not limited to Israel, but extends to America. Islamic radicals see America as the primary purveyor of decadence, moral depravity, and secularism in the world. Ideologically, for many Muslims, America also stands as great of a threat to Islam as we view Islamist terror ideology as a grave threat to us. For that reason, recent events related to Hezbollah should punctuate that reality and should give political and national security officials pause as they discuss issues of Homeland Security disaster response and readiness, border security and illegal immigration.
Most notably, last month FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress that his agency had dismantled a Hezbollah smuggling operation bringing terror personnel across the border from Mexico.[T]his was an occasion in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States, Mueller said. That was an organization that we dismantled and identified those persons who had been smuggled in. And they have been addressed as well.
While the FBI believes that the national security threat from this particular Hezbollah operation has been neutralized, there are many questions that should be asked:
What is the level of threat Hezbollah presents to American interests at home and abroad?
What are the indicators that Hezbollah is preparing terrorist or military operations inside the U.S. Homeland?
What is the size, location, and capabilities of Hezbollah cells in the U.S.?
Who are the leaders of U.S. cells and subordinate cell members?
What are the personal and professional connections/relationships with Hezbollah leaders abroad?
What are their means of communications and what languages (Persian, Arabic, French, Spanish, English) are spoken?
What targets would Hezbollah consider or select? -- synagogues, churches, transportation hubs, schools, power plants, malls, financial centers, government facilities, military facilities, aircraft....
Are their indicators of reconnaissance, surveillance, plans, or patterns of activities?
Have any members or sympathizers penetrated local or state police, FBI, Customs/Border Patrol, national intelligence organizations?
Where are the training locations in the U.S.; in Latin America and the Caribbean, in the Middle East?
What are the types of training received; duration of training; levels of competence achieved?
What types of equipment, technology and weapons are acquired in the U.S.; acquired abroad and brought into the U.S.? Are their active sources of supply?
Where are the logistics and support cells; in the US or Latin America and the Caribbean?
Are they receiving third country assistance from Syria, Venezuela or Cuba?
What are the likely methods of attack: suicide bombings, car bombs, conventional assaults, aircraft hijacking, CBRN, nuclear weapon?
We should hope that the FBI and the rest of our national intelligence agencies have some good answers to these questions.
The Worldwide Threat of Hezbollah
Prior to the 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda, Hezbollah was responsible for more terrorism-related American deaths than any other organization in the world. It should be remembered that Hezbollah was killing scores of Americans when Osama bin Laden was still a Westernized playboy living in France. Organized in the early 1980s by Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah quickly racked up an impressive resume of terror against the U.S.:
Hezbollah made its debut in April 1983 by slamming a truck laden with explosives into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63, including 19 Americans. After the attack, the embassy was moved to another location, which was also bombed in September 1984. The Reagan administration took no official action against the terrorism organization.
Still in its nascent stages of organizational development but emboldened by their successful attack on the U.S. Embassy, Hezbollah launched another suicide bombing against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, causing 241 deaths. Simultaneous with the attack on the Marine forces, Hezbollah bombed the barracks of French peacekeepers. An attack on Italian peacekeepers was foiled. Four months after the bombing, President Reagan ordered the withdrawal of American forces from Beirut, with France quickly following suit.
Throughout the 1980s, Hezbollah was behind the kidnapping of many Westerners in Lebanon throughout the 1980s, including the capture and brutal murder of CIA Beirut Station Chief, William Buckley. Journalist Terry Anderson was kidnapped and would eventually spend 2,454 days in captivity, along with several officials from the American University of Beirut. In order to secure the release of the hostages, the Reagan administration covertly organized an arms-for-hostages deal with Hezbollah’s primary state-sponsor, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which would only result in the release of three American hostages. Eventually, the related Iran-Contra scandal would paralyze the Reagan presidency.
In June 1985, Hezbollah terrorists seized TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome, and diverted the plane to Beirut. When the terrorists demands were not met, a US Navy Seabee diver on board, Robert Dean Stethem, was shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac. Other American military personnel were savagely beaten. The plane’s passengers and crew were held for 17 days. In the weeks that followed, Israel released a number of Shi’ite prisoners, though U.S. officials deny that there was a covert deal. Only one hijacker was ever captured and held for several years in Germany.
In 1990, Hezbollah captured, tortured, and eventually hanged Marine Corps Colonel Richard Higgins, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran who was on duty as an unarmed United Nations peacekeeper in Lebanon. His body was not recovered for another year. The story of Higgins’ life, captivity and murder is memorialized in a book written by his wife, Marine Lt. Col. Robin Higgins, Patriot Dreams: The Murder of Colonel Rich Higgins.
A Saudi Hezbollah cell was involved in providing al-Qaeda operatives with explosives training in their June 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 American Air Force servicemen and injured 372 others. According to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh, in his 2002 Congressional testimony to the Joint Intelligence Committee: The direct evidence obtained strongly indicated that the 1996 bombing was sanctioned, funded and directed by senior officials of the government of Iran.
Many terrorism analysts and experts rate Hezbollah as the best organized and most competent Islamist terrorist organizations in the world. With an annual budget of likely well over $100 million coming from Iran, Syria and its criminal operations in the West, it boasts more than 25,000 men under arms. Having pushed Israel out of its security zone in southern Lebanon and the American and French peacekeepers out of Beirut, they are arguably the most successful terrorist organization of the modern era.
In a speech in September 2002, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described the danger of the organization: Hezbollah may be the A team of terrorists and maybe al-Qaeda is actually the B team.
In a November/December 2003 Foreign Affairs article, Should Hezbollah Be Next?, national security expert Daniel Byman makes the same point about Hezbollah’s impressive track record compared to al-Qaeda:
In the U.S. Demonology of terrorism, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are relative newcomers. For most of the past two decades, Hezbollah has claimed pride of place as the top concern of U.S. counterterrorism officials. It was Hezbollah that pioneered the use of suicide bombing, and its record of attacks on the United States and its allies would make even bin Laden proud…In the course of its 20-year history, Hezbollah has amply demonstrated its hostility, its lethality, and its skill. (pp. 56-57)
Former CIA Director George Tenet has also added his voice to the chorus identifying Hezbollah as a terror threat equal to that of al-Qaeda: Hezbollah, as an organization with capability and worldwide presence, is [al-Qaeda’s] equal, if not a far more capable organization. I actually think they’re a notch above in many respects.
Despite these warnings, U.S. officials prioritized the threats focusing on al-Qaeda and Iraq. That notwithstanding, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, emphasized that the American response to the 9/11 attacks did not change the organization’s stance towards America:
Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute…Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America!
This was a theme Nasrallah restated in a February 2005 speech [video]: We consider the current administration an enemy of our [Islamic] nation…Our motto, which we are not afraid to repeat year after year is ‘Death to America.’
Based on religious elements of Shi'ite martyrdom theology, Khomeini’s Islamic triumphalism and modern nationalist ideology, Hezbollah has forged a rigid policy of utilizing suicide bombings, revolutionary political action and developing extensive terror networks around the world to accomplish its stated goals of extinguishing the state of Israel, pushing America entirely out of the Middle East and establishing Iranian-style Islamic republics around the globe.
With reliable financial resources from Iran, controlling a sizeable political bloc in the Lebanese parliament, broadcasting their Islamist hate-ideology on their own al-Manar television network aired all over the Middle East and Europe, and arming and training many of the other Islamist terror organizations, including al-Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah is considered the sophisticated elder brother in the world of Islamic terror.
As one high-ranking FBI official has said, Hezbollah makes al-Qaeda look like Sunday-schoolers, children, kindergartners.
Hezbollah Operations in the U.S. and Latin America
Hezbollah’s deadly network isn’t limited to the Middle East. In fact, in the past 20 years Hezbollah has created an extensive web of operations within the United States itself – a sophisticated terror network better established here than any other terrorist organization in the world. The network is organized and directed by Hezbollah’s Special Security Apparatus, the group’s international terror unit.
According to Tom Diaz and Barbara Newman, co-authors of the recently published book, Lightning Out of Lebanon: Hezbollah Terrorists on American Soil (Presidio Press, 2005), active Hezbollah cells have been identified in Boston, New York, Newark, Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, Charlotte, Louisville, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Portland. Diaz and Newman quote former FBI Hezbollah unit director, Bob Clifford, as saying, they are the best light infantry in the world and can strike the United States anytime, anywhere.
The recent revelation by FBI Director Robert Mueller about the Hezbollah smuggling ring out of Mexico just barely scratches the surface of the group’s activities inside the US. Hezbollah engages in a wide variety mid-level crime ranging from cigarette smuggling to credit card fraud to selling fake Viagra, intentionally keeping their operations from getting too large to prevent raising the attention of law enforcement authorities. Hezbollah operatives have also been observed working out of New York Indian reservations to avoid detection and arrest.
Among the Hezbollah operations in the U.S. that have been uncovered by state and federal authorities are:
According to Diaz and Newman, one of the most well publicized incidents of a Hezbollah terror cell operating in the US involved a hit team sent here to kill President Clinton’s former national security advisor, Anthony Lake. Lake was moved into the Blair House across from the White House until the threat was neutralized.
Bob Clifford, former head of the FBI Hezbollah unit, told Diaz and Newman about a Hezbollah operative that was working at Boston’s Logan Airport – where American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, two of the four hijacked 9/11 flights, originated. According to Clifford, the FBI agent that told Logan security authorities about the potential threat was himself investigated for wrongdoing after the Hezbollah operative lost his job, though the agent was eventually cleared. Clifford claims to have arrested more than one hundred Hezbollah operatives in the US during his tenure at the FBI.
DEA officials busted an elaborate methamphetamine drug ring in January 2002 operating in Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Phoenix and several cities in California that funneled money back to Hezbollah. At least 136 people – most from the Middle East – were arrested and 36 tons of pseudoephedrine, 179 pounds of methamphetamine, $4.5 million in cash, eight properties, and 160 cars used for transport were seized.
According to investigative journalist Steve Emerson in his book, American Jihad, a Hezbollah cell operating in Charlotte, North Carolina was busted in a FBI sting in a July 2000 operation that netted 18 arrests. The accused were indicted for providing training, communications equipment and explosives to Hezbollah, which the federal indictment said were intended to facilitate its violent attacks.
In 2001, federal officials discovered a Hezbollah fundraising cell in Charlotte, North Carolina that was purchasing untaxed cigarettes and selling them illegally in Michigan. In a year and a half, the network sold $7.9 million worth of cigarettes illegally, with most of the money being returned to Hezbollah headquarters in Lebanon.
In 2003, the FBI raided the Dearborn, Michigan home of Mahmoud Kourani. He was indicted for harboring an illegal alien and conspiracy to provide material support to Hezbollah. Kourani’s brother is the chief of military security for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Kourani admitted to being smuggled across the Mexican border into the U.S. in the trunk of a car after arriving in Mexico on a visa he obtained from the Mexican consulate in Beirut after paying a consulate official $3,000.
In March 2006, indictments involving another Hezbollah smuggling ring uncovered in Detroit were unsealed. The suspects are accused of bootlegging cigarettes, counterfeiting tax stamps, selling phony Viagra tablets, and hijacking shipments of toilet paper to fund Hezbollah activities.
The criminal activities serve the higher purpose of funding the thousands of personnel that Hezbollah maintains in the U.S., providing them financial means to insulate themselves further into American society. The proceeds from criminal activity also provide funding for high technology military equipment purchases here and in Canada to be sent back to Lebanon to improve Hezbollah capabilities against the Israeli military. In a recent case, Canadian authorities took down a Hezbollah cell that had received from Beirut a shopping list of equipment to obtain, such as night vision goggles, laptops, cell phones that could be used to remotely detonate explosions and intelligence drones.
Many mainstream US media outlets dismiss the internal threat Hezbollah poses to the US, and have contributed to the reshaping of the organization’s image from terrorist organization to Lebanese political party and charitable organization. In 2005, a New York Times editorial praised the softening attitude of the Bush administration towards Hezbollah: It’s so great that the Bush Administration is going along with our allies to treat Hezbollah as a political entity. Maybe they can demilitarize them or make them less extreme.
Regardless of how many hospitals and schools Hezbollah builds in Lebanon in their attempt to increase their absolute social control over that country, dismissing Hezbollah’s networks in the U.S. and their criminal activities here as petty crime is to greatly understate the terror threat that they pose to the American homeland. Hezbollah surely appreciates the image makeover provided by American mainstream media, but it clearly has no intentions in changing its policies regarding the use of terror against American interests.
Hezbollah’s ability to smuggle terrorist personnel and equipment into the U.S. seemingly at will, potentially to launch terrorist attacks against America, makes their activity south of the border all the more important. It should provide much-needed clarity to the present discussions in Washington D.C. about our border security and illegal immigration.
In testimony before the House International Relations Committee in 2002, Mark F. Wong, the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism warned Congress, Hezbollah has a global reach and a bloody track record in this hemisphere.
The list of Hezbollah activities in Latin America is extensive:
The greatest hub of terrorist activity in Latin America is in the border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, known as the Triple Frontier or Tri-Border Area, which has long been known as a haven for smuggling, counterfeiting, money laundering and drug trafficking. Officials estimate that at least 30,000 Middle Eastern immigrants reside in the Triple Frontier, with Hezbollah being the most active and dominant group in the area. In a detailed October 2002 New Yorker report, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg found that many immigrants in the area have established business with the help of loans provided by Hezbollah, businesses which are taxed by Hezbollah at 20 percent of gross revenues after the loans are paid off. Erick Stakelbeck of the Investigative Project cites Paraguayan Interior Minister Julio Cesar Fanego as saying that Hezbollah received anywhere from $50-$500 million from illegal activities in the Triple Frontier from 1999 to 2001 alone.
A research report issued by the Library of Congress Federal Research Division, Organized Crime and Terrorist Activity in Mexico, 1999-2002, quotes (p. 43) Mexican former national security advisor and ambassador the United Nations, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, as saying that Spanish and Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge. The report also cites an El Norte Spanish-language news report that there are approximately 400,000 Arabic speakers in Mexico mostly located among the large Lebanese and Palestinian communities of the northern city of Monterrey, nearby the U.S.-Mexican border.
According to a Dec. 2003 report by Terrence Jeffrey of Human Events, the Mexican consul in Beirut, Imelda Ortiz Abdala, was arrested by Mexican authorities in November 2003 for her role in helping to smuggle Arab migrants into the U.S. from Mexico by selling Mexican visas, including the one sold to Mahmoud Khourani. Jeffrey has also recently written more about the Hezbollah/Mexico connection.
Hezbollah was responsible for the greatest anti-Semitic attack since the Nazi Holocaust when a suicide truck-bomb drove into the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing more than a hundred people. As a result, Jewish synagogues and cultural centers around Latin America have been turned into virtual fortresses to protect them.
In May 2001, Mexican authorities announced that measures were being increased to dismantle terror training camps along the US border run by Hezbollah and the Spanish Basque Fatherland and Liberty Party (ETA).
In 2005, Mexican authorities arrested Amer Haykel, a British citizen of Lebanese birth, who was sought by US authorities for his connection to the 9/11 attacks. Haykel was arrested near the U.S. border in the northwest Mexican state of Baja California.
According to a June 2005 BBC report, Ecuadorian officials busted up an international Hezbollah drug ring run out of a Lebanese restaurant in Quito, in which authorities say cocaine was obtained in Colombia and trafficked to Europe, the Middle East and the rest of South America. Up to 70 percent of the profits from each $1 million shipment went to Hezbollah. In addition to the suspects arrested in Ecuador, 19 other people were arrested in connection with the Hezbollah drug ring in US and Brazil.
One major Hezbollah terrorist, still at large, has had his hands in all of the attacks against America — Imad Mugniyeh — chief of Hezbollah’s military operations. Reports indicate that Mugniyeh and Osama bin Ladin have met to establish a concordant and exchange technical expertise. National Security expert Patrick Devenny has called Mugniyeh, Tehran’s Terror Master, and has identified his critical role in Hezbollah’s operations in North and South America. Even in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, 20-year CIA veteran Robert Baer has said: He is the most dangerous terrorist we’ve ever faced. He’s a pathological murderer. Mugniyeh is probably the most intelligent, most capable operative we’ve ever run across, including the KGB or anybody else.
Estimates vary widely on the number of Muslim and Middle Eastern migrants that live in Latin America. Ironically, if one would refer to the CIA Factbook, the source document used by researchers, intelligence analysts and policy official for basic data on countries around the world one would almost conclude there are no Muslims at all in Latin America. Since 9/11 and the start of the GWOT one would think Islamic demographic data would be an important data point for the Factbook, no matter how large or small the demographics. One problem of course is the lack of good census data; in Brazil for example, their 2000 census reflect only 27,000 Muslims while other information estimates their population at upwards of 1.3 million. If countries have no clear idea of the number of immigrants resident in their country or the number of Muslims it is unlikely they will have a clear picture of the degree and scope of their domestic terrorist threat either.
To be clear, not all or even most Muslims are involved in terrorist activities, but where large populations reside allows Hezbollah and other Islamic terrorist operatives to move freely, inside or outside Latin America. Many legitimate business owners in Hezbollah-controlled areas are forced to pay taxes to help finance Hezbollah operations.
In terms of U.S. foreign policy considerations, officials should pay particular attention to four disturbing trends related to Hezbollah and Islamist activities in Latin America:
It is too quiet down South. U.S. Southern Command spokesmen readily admit that most terrorist activities in Latin America involve support cell activity: recruitment fundraising, proselytization. The official line is that there is no credible reporting of operational cells in Latin America. From an intelligence perspective, the credibility of reporting turns on one’s standard of credibility. That is not the same as saying there is no reporting of operational cells in Latin America, and support cell members can always become operational.
The growing cooperation between Hezbollah and drug-financed revolutionary terrorist groups in South America, such as the Colombian FARC and the Peruvian Shining Path, which has raised the concerns of the Organization of American States.
The developing connections between Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and violent Latin American gangs, such as El Salvadoran gang MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha), which is reported to have up to 50,000 members working in the U.S. A 2004 Washington Times article reports that at least one high-ranking al-Qaeda lieutenant, Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, has been spotted meeting in Honduras with MS-13 officials; other reports indicate his presence in Panama and possible surveillance of the Panama Canal. MS-13 operates an extensive alien smuggling ring out of Matamoros, Mexico, just across the border from Brownsville, Texas, and has been documented to have smuggled non-Mexicans into the U.S.
A fourth analytical consideration is the movement of Islamic proselytization and conversion in Latin America and known trends for radical Islamists to recruit and obtain converts in prisons. It is likely these two trends would extend to gangs and the Islamic radicalization of gang members would then justify their criminal activities under extant Islamist jihad doctrines, psychologically and morally legitimizing their criminal activities.
Final Considerations
We began this discussion by mentioning FBI Director Robert Mueller’s recent testimony to Congress about busting up a Hezbollah Mexican smuggling ring. But several years ago, Director Mueller admitted in a very candid moment while speaking to the Senate Intelligence Committee that a wave of suicide bombers being unleashed throughout America was inevitable. At the time, he wasn’t aware that an Associated Press reporter was in the room to record his comments.
When asked about the possibility of suicide bombings in America, Mueller said, I think we will see that in the future – I think it’s inevitable, adding that, There will be another terrorist attack. We will not be able to stop it. It’s something we all live with.
In the weeks ahead as Congress resumes the debate over border security, this admission from one of the government’s top law enforcement authorities should be noted. As one blogger put it sarcastically, Hezbollah is coming to America to blow up things American’s won’t. Mueller’s statements should make the point that illegal immigration is not just about poor Mexicans trying to find a decent living; it is also about America’s enemies entering our country with every intention of causing mayhem, destruction and death.
In the next few weeks and months, we may observe an escalating series of events that will lead to the next 9/11. As one U.S. intelligence official has stated:
If Iran becomes the focus of Phase Three [on the War on Terror], it could send a message to the U.S. that it is not like Iraq, that it has the means to strike us at home, with a network of cells that it placed here a long time ago. The Iranians wouldn’t take credit for blowing up a McDonald’s, but we would know, and they would know we know.
It is too early to predict how the current diplomatic crisis over Iran’s nuclear weapons program will play out, but Americans should assume that any potential military hostilities could result in Hezbollah striking American interests across the globe and here in the US Homeland. Possibly the Iranian ayatollahs may decide that preemptive Hezbollah suicide attacks against America might serve as a deterrent to U.S. military action against their nuclear facilities. A strategic wave of Hezbollah suicide bombings, and well coordinated military attacks in America could very well make the horror and tragedy of the last 9/11 look like a distant memory. Few realists doubt that we live in a dangerous world and most Americans understand that ‘freedom is not free,’ nonetheless, in the aftermath of another terrorist outrage on U.S. soil, new government commissions won’t impede Americans demanding accountability.
Hezbollah’s known domestic activities, to include the smuggling operation, not to mention unknown and yet unidentified ones, makes the question of America’s border security as an important national security consideration as any other. Yet ironically America’s border security is not even discussed in the newly published National Security Strategy. The security of other countries borders are more discussed in this and in the previous 2002 strategy than our own borders today.
America’s enemies have identified this vulnerability; according to a March 2005 Time Magazine report, al-Qaeda lieutenant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi instructed jihadists to bribe their way into Honduras and cross the U.S. southern border to attack soft American targets. From an intelligence perspective the indicators and warnings of the threat cannot be clearer.
The U.S. is faced with the rising nuclear threat from Iran. The announcement just a few days ago that the Islamic Republic has successfully produced enriched uranium quickly leading them to producing weapons-grade material makes the present discussion more exigent. As President Bush told the graduates of West Point in 2002, The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and [nuclear] technology.
If the U.S. is forced into preemptive military action against Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, it should be expected that the long-established Hezbollah network in the US will be activated and attempt retaliation by their primary state-sponsor. We will learn the extents and limits of Hezbollah’s military capabilities within the U.S., our own intelligence capabilities, and whether our immigration and border policies were adequate.

Western stars take part in Lebanon Festival

Liza Minnelli, Ricky Martin, Lebanese diva Magida el-Roumi will be among stars to sing at Beiteddine Festival.
BEIRUT - US superstar Liza Minnelli and Latino heartthrob Ricky Martin are among the stars taking part in Lebanon's Beiteddine Festival held despite the country's political uncertainty, organisers said Wednesday.
Martin, the Grammy award-winning singer who has sold more than 50 million copies of his sound recordings, is due to hold his first concert in the Arab world on May 27 at the Biel seafront hall in Beirut, said festival president Nora Jumblatt.
The festival at the 19th century Beiteddine palace in the picturesque Shouf mountains will continue with a July 16 ballet production led by the Royal Ballet of London star Sylvie Guillem.
The event will also feature the first concert in the Middle East of Minnelli, who won her the best actress Oscar for her role in 1972's "Cabaret" and made a successful comeback in February in Paris that received 30 curtain calls.
It will also feature performances by the percussion group Stomp, African sensations Angelique Kidjo and Cheikh Lo, jazz virtuosi Ravi Coltrane and Shimeka Copeland, famous Lebanese band Blues Quest as well as rising Algerian star Souad Massi, who won the BBC artists of the year in 2005 and France's prestigious Victoires de la Musique in 2006.
Lebanese diva Magida el-Roumi will hold a concert at the festival which is due to close with two days of performances by Cuban dance sensation Carlos Acosta.
"We are looking forward to a great festival. We are being contacted by people who want to come from many Arab countries, mainly Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan," said Jumblatt.
"We are used to uncertainties, as we started the festival in 1987 in the middle of the war," which ended in 1990, said Jumblatt, hoping that "Lebanon will remain a prime tourism and cultural destination."
Political rows continue to mar Lebanon which witnessed a traumatic year in 2005 due to a series of bomb attacks targeting anti-Syrian figures, including the bomb blast that killed former prime minister Rafiq Hariri.
Lebanese tourism minister Joe Sarkis said on Monday that Lebanon was expecting a tourism boom this summer in case of continued stability, and the number of tourists is due to reach a record 1.5 millions this year.

I like living. I have sometimes been wildly, despairingly, acutely miserable, racked with sorrow, but through it all I still know quite certainly that just to be alive is a grand thing.
- Agatha Christie

Israeli speech at UN

The Israeli Ambassador to the UN began: "Ladies and gentlemen before I commence with my speech, I want to relay an old Passover story to all of you... When Moses was leading the Jews out of Egypt toward the Promised Land, hehad to go through the nearly endless Sinai desert...The people became thirsty and needed water. So Moses struck the side of amountain with his cane and a pond appeared with crystal clean, cool water.The people rejoiced and drank to their hearts' content. Moses wished to cleanse his whole body, so he went over to the other side ofthe pond, took all of his clothes off and dove intothe cool waters. Only when Moses came out of the water he discovered thatall his clothes had been stolen ... And I have reasons to believe that thePalestinians stole his clothes." The Palestinian delegate, hearing this story by the Israeli ambassador,jumps out of his seat and screams, "This is a travesty. It is widely knownthat there were no Palestinians at that time!!!" "And with that in mind," said the Israeli Ambassador, "Let me begin myspeech.."

The Tragedy of Iran
Editor Haber Merkezinetpano.com

How did Iran arrive at the crossroads that it finds itself at today? Many Westerners believe Iran to be an angry anti-Western entity that, for some unknown reason, took Americans hostage in 1979 and has maintained a passionate hatred for America and the West ever since.
The truth is, that there is much more to Iran's story.
Iranian Oil and World War II Previous to America's emergence as a world super-power in the mid-20th century, it had been Russia and imperial Great Britain that had the most influence on Iran. Great Britain had large, controlling oil interests in Iran by way of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, but many Iranians rightfully saw the agreements as being overly generous towards Great Britain. The agreements were so overbearing that the 1933 Concession Agreement with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company included an extension covering the years from 1961 to 1993, but did not allow for inflation. For 32 years, Iran would get the same fixed price for its oil no matter what the state of the oil economy. Great Britain was able to achieve this type of control over Iran's oil by having British officials representing Iran's oil interests during negotiations. World War II saw Iran declaring neutrality but its strategic importance as a bridge with which to move munitions to the Soviet Union saw it invaded by both the Soviet Union and Great Britain. By guaranteeing Iran's independence after WW II, Britain and the Soviet Union secured Iran's dropping of its neutral status and Iran agreed to declare war on Germany. By 1947 both the Soviet Union and Great Britain had indeed withdrawn from Iran. Although the Shah of Iran had asked that America intervene in the British/Russian invasion of Iran, America's involvement at this point remained somewhat peripheral. Mohammed Mossadeq Mohammed Mossadeq was born on May 19, 1882, the son of a Qajar princess and an Iranian finance minister. His upbringing was one of privilege but belied his concern for justice and the common man. Educated in Paris and Switzerland, Mossadeq received a Ph.D. in law in 1913 and shortly after wrote the first of his many books, "How Iran Can Grow." When Dr. Mossadeq returned to Iran in 1914, he began a campaign against government waste and corruption. Various political involvements over the next few years saw him take the post of finance minister in 1922. He opposed the dictatorial rule of Shah Reza Khan and for that was arrested and released only to be placed under house arrest. Many years later, in 1941 in what can only be seen as a satisfying twist of fate, Mossadeq was able to return to public life with the abdication and exile of Reza Khan. He was then elected First Deputy from Tehran but failed at his bid for re-election to parliament because of voter fraud. It was this subsequent parliament which gave further oil concessions to Great Britain. Mossadeq was again elected to parliament after fraudulent ballots were disqualified. Throughout WW II, Mossadeq fought against foreign presence in Iran and was outspoken about matters of Iranian oil. After World War II, Dr. Mossadeq headed up the Majlis (Iranian parliament) Oil Committee, which studied the oil agreements imposed on Iran by Great Britain during the last 45 years. On Nov. 25, 1950, the specific Supplemental Agreement was put to a vote and Mossadeq's influence resulted in a "no" vote. Mossadeq was now providing the backbone with which Iran would attempt to reclaim its self-destiny. On March 15, 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and on May 6, parliament elected Mossadeq the Prime Minister of Iran. Mossadeq was now at the height of his popularity. In his book, "Iran and the Capitulation Agreements", Mossadeq wrote that "Iran could develop modern, European-style legal and political systems if it took one vital step. It must impose the law equally on everyone, including foreigners, and never grant special privileges to anyone." He was a world-renowned figure and champion of justice, democracy, and his nation's interests. His influence was so great that in 1951 Time Magazine chose him over Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill as its Man of the Year. Taken in the context of the American viewpoint of the time and with America's soon-to-follow overthrow of the man, the article was not totally flattering, but remains a high watermark of Mossadeq's influence on world politics. A Tragic Figure "Not only are most Americans not aware of how important this 1953 coup was, but they're not even aware that it happened." -- Stephen Kinzer, author of "The Roots of Middle East Terror" Now the legacy of Dr. Mossadeq turns from that of a champion fighting in the best interests of his country, to that of tragic figure. In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence toppled the government of Mossadeq in an organized coup d'etat (Operation TPAJAX) that installed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, into power. With Britain at risk of losing its vested oil interests in Iran, they convinced American president Dwight Eisenhower to come onboard for a coup using the "Soviet threat" angle. America was soon in charge. There is little evidence to suggest that the Soviet Union had designs on Iran as they had withdrawn from Iran only a few years earlier. Former president Harry Truman saw no similar threat and had previously turned down the British request to oust Mossadeq over the oil issue or any issue -- but this was the era of the Rosenbergs and Joe McCarthy, and Britain found a willing participant in Dwight Eisenhower for the ousting of Mossadeq. There is also little evidence to suggest that Mossadeq would in any way acquiesce to any Soviet interference. Indeed, that suggestion goes against everything known about Mossadeq to this day. After the coup d'etat, Dr. Mossadeq was imprisoned for 3 years and following that placed under house arrest by the Shah until the day he died in 1967. The CIA's overthrow of Dr. Mossadeq was the first time the CIA engaged in such an action and served as a blueprint for subsequent similar American operations in other countries over the following decades. The Shah of Iran and Revolution The dynasty of the new Shah was brutal. With the assistance of the CIA-backed secret police, (SAVAK, formed in 1957) the Shah went on to murder and torture Iranians for 26 years. In 1976 Amnesty International declared Iran as having the single worst human rights record on the planet. But the Shah was the darling of America in the Mideast and received billions in aid; his human rights abuses were not only overlooked by various American administrations, but aided, with CIA members training SAVAK in torture methods that were originally used by the Nazis. The seeds of hatred towards America were being planted. Soon those seedlings would break ground. During his rule, Pahlavi offended not only students and intellectuals seeking democratic reforms, but in contrast, also offended Islamic religious leaders who feared losing their traditional authority. After Pahlavi allowed government officials to swear their oaths of office on religious books other than the Koran, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became the Shah's sworn enemy. The Shah's continued repression of the people caused increasing discontent as his policies benefited some classes at the expense of others; the ruling elite lived in luxury but the main populace simply lived. If they chose to speak out, there was SAVAK to deal with. In September of 1978, amidst repression and government corruption, the seeds of revolution broke ground with multiple demonstrations and the Shah imposing martial law. From exile, Khomeini coordinated the demonstrations and opposition to the Shah and on January 16, 1979 the Shah fled Iran. The brutal dictator was deposed, and without a popular democratic figure like Mohammed Mossadeq to rally around, on February 1, 1979, a cheering crowd of more than one million people welcomed Khomeini home to Iran. America's hegemonic influence in Iran was over and a failure. In the face of repression and in the absence of the democratic system that America removed in 1953, Iranians, in effect, chose religion to be their governing authority. After being diagnosed with cancer while still in Iran, the Shah sought treatment in the United States. Enraged by what Iranians saw as America still caring for the man who murdered so many of their own, on November 4, 1979, Iranian militants took over the United States Embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans captive. President Jimmy Carter failed to bring about a resolution to the hostage crisis and was soundly defeated by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. In an ironic twist, Iran had now deposed an American leader. On the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed. This was not the only time Reagan would pay for the release of hostages. The Iran-Iraq War Any wounds that were beginning to heal between Iran and the United States were reopened on September 22, 1980. On that day Iraq attacked Iran and shortly afterwards America re-established diplomatic relations with Iraq, which had been broken in 1967 because of Iraq's involvement in the six-Day War with Israel. Over the next eight years, America provided Iraq with satellite intelligence about Iranian troop movements, missile technology, removed Iraq from its list of nations supporting international terrorism and at the same time failed to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons on Iranian troops. According to Col. Walter P. Lang, a senior American DIA officer at the time, "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern." America then took things a step further when they provided Iraq with Bell crop-spraying helicopters which Saddam Hussein used to spray chemical weapons not on Iranians, but on Kurds in 1988. Also by 1988, America had increased its presence in the Persian Gulf with Kuwaiti shipping carrying American flags and American naval ships making incursion-runs into Iranian territorial waters. On July 3, 1988, while in Iranian territorial waters, the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew, furthering 35 years of Iranian discontent with America. The Iran-Contra Affair Throughout the 1980s and during the Iran-Iraq war, 30 Westerners, including a number of Americans were kidnapped and held by militant Islamic extremists in Lebanon. American intelligence officials believed that Hezbollah (founded in Lebanon in 1982) was behind most of the kidnappings with an unknown degree of aid being given by the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. There is no adequate segue to link up with what takes place next. The Contras were opponents of Nicaragua's ruling Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction and had the backing of the Ronald Reagan administration. Despite legislation being in place that would prevent any American government aid of any kind going to the Contras, in 1986, the administration of President Ronald Reagan approved a plan where an intermediary would sell arms at a considerable profit to Iran with the proceeds of those arms sales going to the Contras of Nicaragua. The Reagan administration would achieve 2 goals; it could circumvent the law and current legislation and financially support the Contras, and it would appease the Iranians who would influence Hezbollah to release the American hostages being held in Lebanon. Things didn't go exactly as Reagan had planned. As a result of the bargaining, three hostages were released but on November 3, 1986, the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa exposed the illegal dealings of the Reagan administration. American Colonel Oliver North was soon maxing out his Pentagon credit card on IBM paper shredders and the scandal was on. President Reagan was forced to admit that he had indeed negotiated with terrorists and his approval ratings plummeted to 46 before finishing his presidency with a strong rebound. The effects on Iranian-American relations as a result of the Iran/Contra Affair were few, other than tarnishing the historical memory of a president in the eyes of some Americans. Towards an Axis of Evil Throughout the late 1980s and all of the 1990s, to a certain degree, Iran flew under the American radar, resurfacing on occasion mainly through its alleged ties to Hezbollah. In April of 1995, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order banning trade with Iran because of alleged terrorist activities. On June 25, 1996 in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers -- 19 America servicemen are killed and more than 500 others are injured, 240 of them Americans. In March of 2000, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledged U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew Mossadeq, but failed to apologize. Instead, the U.S. lifted sanctions on Iranian luxury goods. In June 2001, an American federal grand jury indicted 13 Saudis and a Lebanese for the bombing of the Khobar Towers. Prosecutors said they were given support by Iranians. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to name the Iranians but claimed that they "inspired, supported, and supervised" the named suspects who belonged to a group called Saudi Hezbollah. Iran denied all accusations that it was involved in the bombing. Interestingly, Ashcroft did not chastise the government of Saudi Arabia and saved his criticism for Iran. On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked with 3,000 lives lost. On January 29, 2002, American president George Walker Bush accuses Iran of being in an "Axis of Evil" with Iraq and North Korea. Interestingly again, and in contrast with previous accusations made towards Iranians, the men who murdered thousands of Americans on September 11 were almost exclusively Saudi, yet the involvement of Saudi citizens didn't merit Saudi Arabia's inclusion in the Axis of Evil. Also, in contrast with Iran, diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia were not severed and no sanctions were imposed. Few Lessons Learned: The Tragedy of Iran "Now it seems that the Americans are pushing towards the same direction again. That shows they have not learned anything from history." -- Ibrahim Yazdi, former Iranian foreign minister. The seeds of discontent in Iran were planted with the installation of Shah Pahlavi, they grew into an Islamic revolution in 1979 and blossomed into an oppressive regime with someone now in charge of Iran who was born and nourished on the crops grown out of American foreign policy. Today, George Bush speaks of "domino democracy" in the Middle East and some people wonder why Iranians are skeptical of American influence in the region and why Iran is possibly acquiring nuclear capabilities after being named a member of the "axis of evil" by the leader of a country that has treated it decidedly poorly in the past. Iranians may have a different definition of "evil" -- that being, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, SAVAK and the countries that enabled and installed them. Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq is surely one of the great tragic figures of history. Passionate in his goals of fair play for all, only to be removed by a foreign power that ironically longs for someone like him now to take the place of the ruling parties in Iran. But the tragedy goes far beyond one man; all Iranians have suffered, those who were oppressed and killed under the regime of the Shah and those who are now oppressed and killed under the current government. The dream of Iran under Mossadeq is just that; a dream and nothing more. What he would have done is pure speculation, but the man's character indicates that he was capable of great things. Unfortunately, Mossadeq never had the chance to move Iran forward with his noble vision of a modern democracy. The trickle-down effect of his overthrow, though, can be measured in hundreds of thousands of lives lost and a nation's continuing discontent with those responsible not only for the coup that signaled Mossadeq's demise, but for 53 years of hostile foreign policy.

A New Strategy on Iran
By Dennis RossWashington Post

The United States and Iran are playing programmed roles in a minuet on nuclear weapons. The United States pushes the U.N. Security Council to warn Iran about the consequences of going nuclear. And Iran continues its march toward development of nuclear power, even as its president declares that "we don't give a damn" about U.N. resolutions calling on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment.With the Russians and Chinese seemingly determined to block sanctions, our efforts at the United Nations promise to evolve slowly while Iran presses ahead with its plans. If we stay on the same path, we will be left with two choices: accept the reality of Iran's nuclear weapons capability or take military action to set back its ambitions.Either outcome could prove disastrous. If Iran succeeds, in all likelihood we will face a nuclear Middle East. The Saudis -- fearing an emboldened Iran determined to coerce others and to promote Shiite subversion in the Arabian Peninsula -- will seek their own nuclear capability, and probably already have a deal with Pakistan to provide it should Iran pose this kind of threat. And don't expect Egypt to be content with Saudi Arabia's being the only Arab country with a nuclear "deterrent."As for those who think that the nuclear deterrent rules that governed relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War will also apply in a nuclear Middle East: Don't be so confident. For one thing, the possible number of nuclear countries will drive up the potential for miscalculation. For another, with an Iranian president who sees himself as an instrument for accelerating the coming of the 12th Imam -- which is preceded in the mythology by the equivalent of Armageddon -- one should not take comfort in thinking that Iran will act responsibly.But the alternative of using force to prevent or forestall the Iranians' going nuclear does not look much better. To begin with, there are no simple or clean military options. Air operations alone might involve striking hundreds of targets, many in populated areas where there are significant air defense capabilities in the process of being upgraded by the Russians. The more casualties we inflict, the more we inflame the Islamic world.Perhaps we could manage the response if the military campaign inflicted relatively few casualties and succeeded in setting back the Iranian nuclear program. But such a rosy scenario assumes that Iran's ability to retaliate is relatively limited. Even if we have the means to prevent the Iranian navy and air force from shutting down shipping into and out of the Persian Gulf, Iran has other options for turning any effort to take out its nuclear capability into a wider war.The Iranians can foment far greater numbers of insurgent attacks against our forces in Iraq -- literally trying to set the earth on fire under our feet. To cut off the support for such attacks we could be driven to act militarily across the border into Iran on the ground. Perhaps Iran would realize that an escalating conflict with the United States is too dangerous, but after underestimating the risks we encountered in Iraq, can we be so confident about what the Iranians might do?If neither outcome that our current policy is likely to produce is acceptable, should we not look for another pathway? Of course, but the challenge remains one of changing the Iranian calculus. Iran must see that it either loses more than it gains by proceeding to move toward nuclear weapons or that it can gain more by giving up the effort. The problem with the current policy is that it threatens costs that either aren't believable or are likely to pale in comparison with what the Iranians see themselves gaining with nuclear power.But what if we could threaten collective sanctions that the Iranians would see as biting? What if those were combined with possible gains in terms of a deal on nuclear energy, economic benefits and security understandings if the Iranians would give up the nuclear program?While one can argue that the Europeans were trying to negotiate something like this with the Iranians, they were never able to put together a package of credible sanctions and inducements, because the United States was not really a part of the effort. True, this country has coordinated with the British, French and Germans in the Bush second term. But a serious effort at raising the costs to the Iranians and offering possible gains has never been put together.Why not now? Why not have the president go to his British, French and German counterparts and say: We will join you at the table with the Iranians, but first let us agree on an extensive set of meaningful -- not marginal -- economic and political sanctions that we will impose if the negotiations fail. Any such agreement would also need to entail an understanding of what would constitute failure in the talks and the trigger for the sanctions.The Europeans have always wanted the Americans at the table. Agreeing on the sanctions in advance would be the price for getting us there. To be sure, the United States would focus as well on what could be provided to the Iranians, but the benefits have always been easier to agree on, particularly since meaningful sanctions will also impose a price on us. Real economic sanctions would not just bite Iran and its ability to generate revenue but also would undoubtedly drive up the price of oil. Our readiness to accept that risk at a time when high gasoline prices are becoming a domestic political issue would convey a very different signal about our seriousness to the Iranians -- who presently don't fear sanctions because they think they have the world over a barrel.There is no guarantee such an approach will work with Iran. This Iranian government may simply be determined to have nuclear weapons. If that is the case, and if President Bush is determined to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons -- as he has said -- we would still be better off having tried a direct negotiating option before resorting to what inevitably will be a difficult, messy use of force once again.
The writer was director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H.W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. He is counselor of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

War clouds
Rosa BrooksLA Times

Russia's dangerous double game with Israel and Iran could easily spark a Middle East conflict, with dire consequences for the U.S.LET ME TELL YOU about the next war.It will start sooner than you think — sometime between now and September. And it will be precipitated by the $700-million Russian deal this week to sell Tor air defense missile systems to Iran.When the war begins, it will be between Iran and Israel. Before it ends, though, it may set the whole of the Middle East on fire, pulling in the United States, leaving a legacy of instability that will last for generations and permanently ending a century of American supremacy.Despite the high stakes, the Bush administration seems barely to have noticed the danger posed by the Russian missile sale. But the signs are there, for those inclined to read them.As international pressure over their nuclear program mounts, the Iranians have become increasingly bellicose toward the U.S. and Israel. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel was a "fake regime" that "cannot logically continue to live." On Wednesday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned that "if the U.S. ventured into any aggression on Iran, Iran will retaliate by damaging the U.S. interests worldwide."Israel has upped the rhetorical heat as well. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reiterated Israel's determination to "make sure no one has the capability or the power to commit destruction against us."This alone should make any observer jittery. In June 1981, Israel unilaterally launched an airstrike against a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and well-concealed, making a preemptive Israeli strike far more difficult this time around. But there's no reason to doubt Israel's willingness to try.Of course, there's no firm evidence that Iran has offensive nuclear capabilities. And even a successful military strike against Iran would be a risky move for Israel, potentially igniting regionwide instability. Absent external meddling, Israel has a substantial incentive to wait to see if a diplomatic solution can be found.But Russian brinksmanship is about to remove Israel's incentive to pursue a peaceful diplomatic path.Russian leaders continue to mouth the usual diplomatic platitudes about democracy and global cooperation, but Russia is actually playing a complex double game. On Tuesday, Russia launched a spy satellite for Israel, which the Israelis can use to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities. On the same day, Russian leaders confirmed their opposition to any U.N. Security Council effort to impose sanctions against Iran, and their intention to go through with the lucrative sale of 29 Tor M1 air defense missile systems to Iran."There are no circumstances which would get in the way of us carrying out our commitments in the field of military cooperation with Iran," declared Nikolai Spassky, deputy head of Russia's National Security Council. The upcoming deployment of Tor missiles around Iranian nuclear sites dramatically changes the calculus in the Middle East, and it significantly increases the risk of a regional war. Once the missile systems are deployed, Iran's air defenses will become far more sophisticated, and Israel will likely lose whatever ability it now has to unilaterally destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.The clock is ticking for Israel. To have a hope of succeeding, any unilateral Israeli strike against Iran must take place before September, when the Tor missile deployment is set to be completed.At best, a conflict between Israel and Iran (with resulting civilian casualties) would further inflame anti-Israel sentiment in the Islamic world, with a consequent increase in terrorism, both against Israel and against the U.S., Israel's main foreign backer. At worst — if the U.S. gets drawn into the conflict directly — the entire Middle East could implode, terrorist attacks worldwide would increase, the already overstretched U.S. military would be badly damaged and U.S. global influence would wane — perhaps forever.So what is Russia up to? Andrei Piontkovsky, a Russian political analyst, suggests that Russia's oil and gas oligarchs wouldn't shed any tears over a war in the Middle East, especially if it's a war that ensnares the U.S. and keeps oil prices high.Even so, it may not be too late to avert a new war in the Middle East. A quiet but firm U.S. threat to boycott the G-8 summit in July in St. Petersburg might inspire Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to freeze the missile transfer. And a promise to facilitate Russian entry into the World Trade Organization might even get Russia's oil and gas oligarchs on board. Freezing the missile sale would buy crucial time to find a diplomatic solution to the stalemate over Iran's nuclear program.Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to be asleep at the wheel, too distracted by Iraq, skyrocketing gas prices and plummeting approval ratings to devote any attention to Russia's potentially catastrophic mischief.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

CIA Sabotage
By Kenneth R. TimmermanFrontPageMagazine.com

First, the caveats. The top CIA employee fired last week for allegedly sharing classified information with the Washington Post and other news organizations, has not officially been charged with any crime. Nor has she been referred to the Justice Department for prosecution. But the public firing of former Inspector General executive Mary O. McCarthy on April 20 - just ten days before she was scheduled to retire after two decades in government - was virtually unprecedented in the history of the Agency, and shows the tremendous fissures that have opened up within our intelligence community.We're only at the beginning of learning about the extraordinary internal probe that singled out McCarthy for having "unauthorized contacts" with reporters. But even the little we know so far is stunning.Furious at the leaks that exposed sensitive intelligence programs - including the existence of? "secret prisons" the Agency has used periodically to hold high priority suspected terrorists - CIA Director Porter Goss kicked off the internal investigation by personally submitting to a polygraph. He then called on other top Agency officials to do the same. Those who went "on the box" included McCarthy's boss, CIA Inspector Geeral John. L. Helgerson. All the while, Porter Goss led the probe himself.Internal probes led personally by a CIA director are virtually unheard of. As far as I've been able to ascertain from Agency veterans, there hasn't been a single one in the past fifteen years. But late last year, top intelligence executives began to seriously review a 2001 Robert Redford/Brad Pitt thriller, Spy Game, in which a wily covert operator (Redford) is grilled by the CIA Director and top Agency lawyers about an operation gone sour, on the very day he is scheduled to retire.The interrogation goes on and off the record, as lawyers dig up new information, and Robert Redford conducts his own covert operation right under their noses. In the Hollywood version, the CIA director?is the villain (naturally) and the rogue agent is the hero.To the enemies of the Bush administration in Congress and elsewhere, the same holds true today.Senator John Kerry told George Stephanopoulos on ABC this Week last Sunday that he was "glad she told the truth." He then went on to compare the courageous truth-telling of Mary McCarthy to the "lies" of former deputy National Security Advisor Scooter Libby, charged with perjury in the Valerie Plame case."Here's my fundamental view of this," Kerry said. "You have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth, and you have no one fired from the White House for revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie. That underscores what's really wrong in Washington, D.C."Kerry was repeating almost word for word an earlier comment by former Agency analyst Larry Johnson, who found the firing of McCarthy "smells a little fishy." Noting that "she may have been fired for ensuring that the truth about an abuse was told to the American people," Johnson went on to comment: "there is something potentially honorable in that action, particularly when you ?consider that George Bush authorized Scooter Libby to leak misleading information for the purpose of deceiving the American people about the grounds for going to war in Iraq."Johnson has made a career in recent years in becoming a source for the media in slamming Bush. But the media convenently forgets that key among his credentials is a famous op-ed he wrote just days before the September 11, 2001 attacks, claiming that the threat from terrorism had become virtually non-existent, thanks to Clinton administration policies.McCarthy's lawyer, Ty Cobb, claims his client did not leak classified information, although the CIA concluded from a polygraph that she had undisclosed contacts with journalists, including Washington Post reporter Dana Priest who just received a Pulitzer for her role in exposing the CIA "secret prisons."Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who co-founded the anti-Bush Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, blames House Permanent Select Intelligence committee chairman Pete Hoekstra for compelling Mary McCarthy to "chose between a silence she would regret and being punished for speaking out." She went to the Post, McGovern said, because she had "no where else to turn."Former clandestine officers say that the leaks surrounding the extraordinary renditions have caused "tremendous damage" to the Agency and have "physically endangered" officers currently serving overseas.A great ideological divide separates these officers, who believe that a "secret service" ought to remain secret, and others in the Agency who believe they have a "duty" to expose what they believe are unlawful or unethical actions by the Agency.One thing is certain: the firing of Mary McCarthy is far from the end of this drama, which began with the forced departures in the weeks after Goss arrived at CIA of top managers and covert operators who had profound political disagreements with the new Director and with the Bush administration.For the ideological divide currently paralyzing our intelligence community runs deep and is not limited to CIA or State Department analysts. It involves top officials, who believe they have a moral "duty" to prevent the President of the United States from executing policies with which they disagree.I call this sabotage.Some in Congress are attempting to encourage the leakers and to intimidate those who keep secrets, by threatening legal action against intelligence officers who fail to inform Congress of clandestine operations.Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen pursued this approach in a Feb. 15, 2006, House national security committee hearing on NSA whistleblowers.In his questioning of Russell Tice, who was dismissed from the NSA last year, Van Hollen noted sternly that people "will be very alarmed at the kind of abuses that went on in those agencies."Tice had sought whistleblower protection in order to testify on highly classified Special Access Programs, or SAPs, he claimed were improperly carried out by both the NSA and the DIA. Some of these programs, which involved NSA eavesdropping on international communications, have been called "warrantless wiretapping" by the press.But Van Hollen was not interested in information. He wanted to send a chill down the spine of those in the intelligence community he considered to be his "enemies."He warned Tice that "a court of law may determine that an individual NSA employee could be held criminally liable for violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," which establishes guidelines for obtaining a court order to carry out surveillance against potential terrorist targets in the United States.This is how far we have come in Year?Five of the War on Terror.Members of the United States Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives do not seem to agree with the president of the United States that our nation is at war, and that war requires a vigorous intelligence establishment, willing to take risks to protect the nation. Instead, they are seeking to bend the law and enhance their own powers, to intimidate intelligence officers out of doing their jobs.
This, too, is sabotage.