Thursday, April 26, 2007
Al-Qaida Wants U.S. War With Iran
This article was written by Randy Hall, editor and staff writer at CNSNews.com
Al Qaeda terrorists are attempting to provoke a war between the United States and Iran in the hopes that they will "take each other out," a Middle East analyst said Thursday.
"The al Qaeda organization sees Iran as one of its great enemies," Bruce Reidel, a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said during a conference call briefing.
This was because al Qaeda - "a very strict Sunni Islamist organization" - views Iran's Shia faith as apostasy, he said.
"What al Qaeda in Iraq now most fears is not the continuing deployment of American forces," he argued. "They've come to the conclusion we're going to leave, whether it's in 2008 or 2009."
Reidel said the terrorists' key concern is "what comes afterwards" and specifically the worry that Iraq will be "very Shia-dominated" and "very closely aligned with Iran."
"So they've openly talked about the advisability of getting their two great enemies to go to war with each other" in the hopes that they will "take each other out," he added.
"Al Qaeda would especially like a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran, which would presumably oust the Shi'ite regime in Tehran, further antagonize Muslims worldwide and expand al Qaeda's battlefield against the United States," Reidel argued.
"The biggest danger," he added, "is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a 'false-flag' operation - say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing.
"The United States should be extremely wary of such deception," Reidel said. "In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work.
"In the ultimate world of al Qaeda, they envision freeing the Muslim world of Western influence and forcing Western powers out - and by that, they also mean Israel, which they see as the ultimate example of Western intrusion into the Muslim world," he asserted.
"During 2002, we had al Qaeda on the ropes in Afghanistan and Pakistan," Reidel said. "We should have relentlessly gone after the al Qaeda leadership. We should have put unremitting pressure on the Pakistanis to do everything they could, and we should have sourced, funded and manned the effort in Afghanistan to finish the job.
"Instead, we made a mistake, a decision to go after a war in Iraq that we didn't need to fight, which diverted resources and created a cause celebre that al Qaeda has exploited quite effectively," Reidel said.
The analyst suggested that to regain momentum in the war on terror, the West needs to "decapitate the leadership. We need to go after Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and their lieutenants in the badlands of Pakistan.
"Secondly, we need to do more in the battle of ideas," he said. "Al Qaeda has been able to exploit the American and British invasion of Iraq as a recipe of western colonialism again."
Reidl also argued for "a phased, orderly withdrawal from Iraq ... in a way in which we enhance the legitimacy of the Iraqi government that we're going to leave behind."
He conceded that al Qaeda terrorists would claim credit "for any American defeat" but argued that "I think it's time we recognize that Iraq is more a trap than an opportunity."
Reidl praised the State Department for its handling of Iran.
"We now have two United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran cease development of its nuclear weapons program and starting to apply targeted, specific sanctions," he noted.
Such an approach will require patience and building international consensus, but "engaging in more gunboat diplomacy with the Iranians is a recipe for falling into an al Qaeda trap once more," Reidl said.
Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, described Reidel's contention as a "complex bank shot."
"The idea we should be wary of al Qaeda deception, luring us into various kinds of deeper involvement in the Islamic world, is an argument that's been used in regard to both Afghanistan and Iraq," he told Cybercast News Service.
"I don't think we should put much credence [in Reidel's theory]," Donnelly added. "At the very least, we can't really know if al Qaeda's strategy is following such a line."
At the same time, "we have a number of pressing concerns about Iran, from its nuclear program to its support for terrorist organizations like Hizballah and Hamas," he said.
"These kinds of concerns would far override how Osama bin Laden would react to U.S. military action against Iran - not that I'm anxious to get into such a conflict," Donnelly said.
"The danger for al Qaeda, of course, is that an extended American presence is actually a huge defeat for them, as has been the case in Afghanistan and is actually in Iraq," he added. "I'm also quite sure that the one thing al Qaeda would most celebrate as a victory is an American withdrawal from Iraq."
This article was written by Randy Hall, editor and staff writer at CNSNews.com
Al Qaeda terrorists are attempting to provoke a war between the United States and Iran in the hopes that they will "take each other out," a Middle East analyst said Thursday.
"The al Qaeda organization sees Iran as one of its great enemies," Bruce Reidel, a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said during a conference call briefing.
This was because al Qaeda - "a very strict Sunni Islamist organization" - views Iran's Shia faith as apostasy, he said.
"What al Qaeda in Iraq now most fears is not the continuing deployment of American forces," he argued. "They've come to the conclusion we're going to leave, whether it's in 2008 or 2009."
Reidel said the terrorists' key concern is "what comes afterwards" and specifically the worry that Iraq will be "very Shia-dominated" and "very closely aligned with Iran."
"So they've openly talked about the advisability of getting their two great enemies to go to war with each other" in the hopes that they will "take each other out," he added.
"Al Qaeda would especially like a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran, which would presumably oust the Shi'ite regime in Tehran, further antagonize Muslims worldwide and expand al Qaeda's battlefield against the United States," Reidel argued.
"The biggest danger," he added, "is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a 'false-flag' operation - say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing.
"The United States should be extremely wary of such deception," Reidel said. "In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work.
"In the ultimate world of al Qaeda, they envision freeing the Muslim world of Western influence and forcing Western powers out - and by that, they also mean Israel, which they see as the ultimate example of Western intrusion into the Muslim world," he asserted.
"During 2002, we had al Qaeda on the ropes in Afghanistan and Pakistan," Reidel said. "We should have relentlessly gone after the al Qaeda leadership. We should have put unremitting pressure on the Pakistanis to do everything they could, and we should have sourced, funded and manned the effort in Afghanistan to finish the job.
"Instead, we made a mistake, a decision to go after a war in Iraq that we didn't need to fight, which diverted resources and created a cause celebre that al Qaeda has exploited quite effectively," Reidel said.
The analyst suggested that to regain momentum in the war on terror, the West needs to "decapitate the leadership. We need to go after Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and their lieutenants in the badlands of Pakistan.
"Secondly, we need to do more in the battle of ideas," he said. "Al Qaeda has been able to exploit the American and British invasion of Iraq as a recipe of western colonialism again."
Reidl also argued for "a phased, orderly withdrawal from Iraq ... in a way in which we enhance the legitimacy of the Iraqi government that we're going to leave behind."
He conceded that al Qaeda terrorists would claim credit "for any American defeat" but argued that "I think it's time we recognize that Iraq is more a trap than an opportunity."
Reidl praised the State Department for its handling of Iran.
"We now have two United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran cease development of its nuclear weapons program and starting to apply targeted, specific sanctions," he noted.
Such an approach will require patience and building international consensus, but "engaging in more gunboat diplomacy with the Iranians is a recipe for falling into an al Qaeda trap once more," Reidl said.
Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, described Reidel's contention as a "complex bank shot."
"The idea we should be wary of al Qaeda deception, luring us into various kinds of deeper involvement in the Islamic world, is an argument that's been used in regard to both Afghanistan and Iraq," he told Cybercast News Service.
"I don't think we should put much credence [in Reidel's theory]," Donnelly added. "At the very least, we can't really know if al Qaeda's strategy is following such a line."
At the same time, "we have a number of pressing concerns about Iran, from its nuclear program to its support for terrorist organizations like Hizballah and Hamas," he said.
"These kinds of concerns would far override how Osama bin Laden would react to U.S. military action against Iran - not that I'm anxious to get into such a conflict," Donnelly said.
"The danger for al Qaeda, of course, is that an extended American presence is actually a huge defeat for them, as has been the case in Afghanistan and is actually in Iraq," he added. "I'm also quite sure that the one thing al Qaeda would most celebrate as a victory is an American withdrawal from Iraq."
