May: The marriage of Iran and al-Qaida

The George W. Bush administration waged what it called a Global War on Terrorism. Yet, against Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, no serious actions were ever taken. President Barack Obama is waging what he calls a "war against al-Qaida and its affiliates." Yet, he and his advisers are reluctant to articulate what has become indisputable: Iran and al-Qaida are affiliated.

Senior Obama officials have come close: Last week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described the relationship between Iran and al-Qaida as a "long-standing ... marriage." But you had to listen carefully to hear him say that.

"Iran has harbored al-Qaida leaders, facilitators," Clapper told a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They have been "under house arrest conditions. (Iran's rulers) have had this sort of standoff arrangement with al-Qaida, allowing (al-Qaida) to exist (inside Iran), but not to foment any operations directly from Iran, because they're very sensitive about, 'Hey, we might come after them there as well.' ... So there has been this long-standing, as I say, kind of, shotgun marriage, or marriage of convenience."

Also last week: The U.S. Treasury Department designated the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) for its sponsorship of terrorism. Among the terrorist groups Treasury said MOIS supports: al-Qaida.

Thomas Joscelyn, my colleague at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has extensively researched the Iran-al-Qaida relationship. Back in 2007, he wrote: "No fallacy today is more misguided or more dangerous than the widespread belief that Iran, the world's premier state sponsor of terrorism, and al-Qaida are not allies in the terrorists' war against the West."

The terrorist attack that killed 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in 1996 was almost certainly an Iranian/al-Qaida joint venture. But the Clinton administration chose to shut down FBI investigators in the belief — misguided but widespread at the time — that more moderate Iranians were coming to power in Tehran and that publicly revealing the Iranian role would impede diplomatic efforts.

Iran also was implicated in al-Qaida's 1998 bombing of America's embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. When federal prosecutors indicted al-Qaida members, they specifically noted that al-Qaida had forged alliances with "representatives of the government of Iran, and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah, for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States."

And in November of last year, a Washington, D.C., court found that Iran had provided training for the al-Qaida terrorists at Hezbollah camps in southern Lebanon.

What about the attacks on the U.S. homeland three years later? The 9/11 commissioners "found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack."

However, intelligence obtained by 9/11 commission staffers just before the release of their report — too late for serious examination — prompted the commissioners to add: "We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government." Such investigations have not been conducted — or, if they were, their conclusions have never been made public.

In the years since 2001, Iran has continued to cooperate with al-Qaida. In January 2009, Treasury designated four senior al-Qaida members who had received Iran's assistance. Last July, Treasury designated six al-Qaida operatives noting that they used Iran as "a critical transit point for funding to support al-Qaida's activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan." And in September 2011, the State Department designated a Hamas operative, linking him to both Iran and al-Qaida.

In recent days, Britain's Sky News has reported on a "secret intelligence memo" describing "intensive cooperation over recent months between Iran and al-Qaida." Sky News adds: "We do know that an operation is under way. We assess that the most likely target is to be European."

In light of all this, why has there been so little public discussion of the Iranian-al-Qaida relationship? Two reasons suggest themselves: (1) Scholars, journalists and intelligence analysts who denied this association in the past are reluctant to admit they were wrong. (2) Knowledge conveys responsibility: If Iran is — and long has been — married to al-Qaida, and if Iran is now just a few spins of a centrifuge away from acquiring nuclear weapons, it follows that strong measures must be taken against this growing threat.

That's a message many Americans do not want to hear. It's certainly a message many American leaders do not want to tell them.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. Email him at cliff@defenddemocracy.org.

© 2012 Ventura County Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 8

Chilibreath writes:

Maybe this time we (the US) will do more than just try to reason with Iran, the word reason doesn't seem to be in their vocabulary. Gee, I wonder what we could do to finally get their attention?

kneejerk_response writes:

Beat the drums and let's see the chickenhawks fall in line.

VenturaMusician writes:

Here we go again, this is exactly how Iraq started. So now let's have the liberals who gave Bush a hard time on Iran, let's see how they do this time around.

ENVIROSCIGUY writes:

Are you REALLY gullible enough to be lied into another war? This lie about Iran and Al Qaeda makes NO sense and is being dismissed by EU and US officials http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/22/us...

All you have to do is read the complete sentences that Clapper says. "Harboring" really means keeping them under "house arrest". Are we harboring terrorists at GITMO? "Potential nuclear weapons" means "Iran has not yet decided" to produce weapons. Does that mean we have to bomb every country that is considering nukes?

If Bush's war was against Al Qaeda, let's just call it a victory and bring our troops home. Since there was only at most 3000 AQ soldiers in the first place, and we've killed that many "terrorists", we won, right?

The real war seems to be between facts and propaganda, and you neocons are well armed with your weapons of myth and deception (WMDs). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fawaz-g...

ENVIROSCIGUY writes:

PS: Did you hear the latest news? The Black Panthers are getting together with the KKK.

eng42 writes:

May is misleading when he says Clinton was "misguided" in his 1996 belief that more moderate Iranians more moderate Iranians were coming to power in Tehran
In 1997 Mohammad Khatami, the most moderate leader since the revolution was elected.
In 2003 Iran offered to open a dialogue with the US, with everything on the table, including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Bush turned them down and called them part of the axis of evil.
The more radical elements in Iran said that proved that the US could not be negotiated with and the much more radical president Ahmadinjad was elected in 2005.
Yet more blowback from Bush's disastrous leadership.

RussellBurgos (Inactive) writes:

Look, I don't care that Cliff is a neocon. That's beauty of America, a person can choose to be liberal or conservative or green or libertarian or socialist or whatever.

But I DESPISE the way he systematically misrepresents things. It's so disrespectful to his fellow Americans. Everything is so much more complex than May would have people believe, especially in the netherworld of espionage.

"The terrorist attack that killed 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in 1996 was almost certainly an Iranian/al-Qaida joint venture."

It was almost certainly not. The consensus view is that while al-Qaeda was involved, the putative "Iran connection" was a carefully contrived Saudi deception scheme led by Prince Bandar bin Sultan to put the U.S. off the AQ trail because the Saudi royal family was desperately trying to minimize any publicity concerning Bin Laden in order to save face.

"But the Clinton administration chose to shut down FBI investigators"

FBI Director Louis Freeh put the investigation in "inactive" status because he had reports from the Saudi Mabahith that "Saudi Hezbollah" operators -- minority Shi'a Saudis -- had confessed to the bombing, and so there was "nothing" left to investigate.

That claim, that this previously unheard-of group of Saudi dissidents was "proved" to be responsible, was a key part of Bandar's disinformation campaign.

The CIA's Bin Laden task force didn't buy into it, but they were blocked from the investigation -- by FBI Director Louis Freeh who was, incidentally, very good friends with Prince Bandar.

There's almost certainly some kind of tactical coordination, if not outright cooperation, between the Iranian secret service and AQ-related elements, and that's a legitimate concern.

But May isn't interested in the legitimate parts of the story.

He's just checking off boxes in the Neocon Rush To War textbook. I seem to remember how close Iraq and al-Qaeda were, once upon a time....

TheTeleprompter writes:

I'm with Cliff on this one. Russ, start drafting your Terry tirade. It's almost Monday.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Featured Promotions

Videos


Social Networking

Wire

Features