The King of The "North" Is Coming!

[Mary]

INTERVIEW-AL QAEDA BIOTERROR THREAT REMAINS REAL -INTERPOL


29 Mar 2006 04:55:22 GMT
Source of Article
Source: Reuters
By Jan Dahinten


SINGAPORE, March 29 (Reuters) - Al Qaeda has the ability to carry out attacks using biochemicals and the threat of a strike remains real, a top Interpol official warned on Wednesday.

John Abbott, chairman of Interpol's bioterrorism sub-committee, said national police forces and health services lacked preparation for an attack using dangerous toxins and had insufficient knowledge and powers to handle such an event.

"There is a threat. Al Qaeda have made it clear ... that they consider the use of chemical and biological agents as acceptable. There have been a few cases around the world in recent times which suggest that there is a capability," Abbott said.

"I think that any person who carefully considers the issues will recognise that it's complacent to assume that we're prepared for anything. Criminals and terrorists are innovative," he told Reuters on the sidelines of a bioterrorism conference attended by Asian law enforcement officials and health experts.

Security officials have long warned of the risk of an al Qaeda attack using biological weapons such as anthrax, ricin, botulinum toxin, smallpox, plague or Ebola.

Al Qaeda manuals on preparation of biowarfare agents were discovered at the group's training camps in Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion of the country in late 2001.

Interpol, the global police body, has stepped up training of police forces on how to handle possible attacks with biological agents, which often take some time to emerge as victims with symptoms of contamination or infection report to hospitals and doctors.

Abbott said many countries still lacked legislation that would enable their authorities to look into potential threats such as the movement of agents and pathogens within countries and across borders.

"It is necessary to criminalise certain activities. We don't want to get in the way of bio-science development. What we want to do is stop people who have a desire to misuse the developments in bio-science from being able to do so."

France-based Interpol last year moved to establish a resource centre at its Lyon headquarters for sharing information between police, health officials and scientists and informing member countries about threats and best practice.

***

[Mary]

DIRE PREDICTION FROM OSAMA'S BODYGUARD

March 30, 2006
(CBS)
Source of Article


(CBS) A former personal bodyguard of Osama bin Laden says he is certain the al Qaeda leader is planning an attack on the U.S.

In the first television interview with an al Qaeda member close to bin Laden since 9/11, Abu Jandal tells 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon first-hand details about the world's most wanted man this Sunday, April 2, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Abu Jandal, who was with bin Laden in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2000, says bin Laden's last tape, on which he threatened consequences to the U.S., is not a threat, but a promise.

"When Sheik Osama promises something, he does it…. So I believe Osama bin Laden is planning a new attack inside the United States, this is certain," he tells Simon in the interview conducted in Yemen earlier this month.

It's been long speculated that bin Laden is hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but Abu Jandal says Afghanistan is the place. "Not Pakistan. I know the Pakistani tribe along the border very well. Yes, they can be very trustworthy and faithful to their religion and ideology, but they are also capable of selling information for nothing," he says.

Even if found, bin Laden will not be captured, says Abu Jandal, who says the al Qaeda leader gave him the authority to kill him if he was surrounded. "If he was going to be captured, Sheik Osama prefers to be killed than captured," he tells Simon. "There was a special gun to be used if Sheik Osama bin Laden was attacked and we were unable to save him, in which case I would have to kill him," says Abu Jandal.

The closest the Americans came to getting bin Laden before 9/11, recounts Abu Jandal, was the U.S. missile attack on al-Qaeda training camps near Khost, Afghanistan, a retaliatory strike for the al-Qaeda bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. It was luck that saved him the night before the strike. "There was a fork in the road," remembers Abu Jandal, "one road leading to Khost and the training camps and another one leading to Kabul. I was with Sheik Osama in the same vehicle with three guards…he turned to us and said, 'Khost or Kabul?' We told him, 'Let’s just visit Kabul.' Sheik Osama said, 'OK, Kabul.'

So the missile strike the next day failed to get bin Laden, but the man they think provided information that led to it was discovered. "It was the Afghan cook," said Abu Jandal. He says he would have killed the man who betrayed bin Laden himself, but bin Laden forgave him and sent him home. "Sheik Osama even gave him money and told him, 'Go provide for your children.'"

Among the other things he remembers about bin Laden was the way the al Qaeda leader forbade cursing. "I remember once I used the wrong word, so he suspended me from guard duty for three days," says Abu Jandal.

Abu Jandal says the rumor that bin Laden suffered from a kidney problem and needed dialysis was nonsense. "Never. The only problem Sheik Osama suffered from is with his vocal chords. He was affected by missiles that contained some chemicals during the jihad against the Soviets. Only his vocal chords were affected," he tells Simon.

He reveres bin Laden to this day and wishes he were still with him. Abu Jandal must stay in Yemen, however, under an agreement with the government, which detained him for almost two years after the al Qaeda bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. But he has a son. "I have great hopes for him and pray to God that he will finish what his father was unable to finish," Abu Jandal says. "Frankly, I hope that my son gets killed and becomes a martyr for the sake of God almighty."

Produced By Draggan Mihailovich ©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

***

[Mary]

REPORTS: U.S. CONSIDERS IRAN INVASION

Attack Would Target Nuclear Facilities

Source of Article
Apr 9, 2006 11:25 am US/Eastern

(CBS) WASHINGTON Plans for a U.S. attack on Iran over its nuclear ambitions are being explored, according to reports by the Washington Post and The New Yorker magazine.

As reporter Seymour Hersh explains in the April 17 issue of The New Yorker, members of the U.S. military, more and more, believe President Bush is leaning toward a "regime change" in Iran as the best way to quell the country's quest for nuclear capabilities.

Hersh quotes one former senior intelligence official as saying that Mr. Bush views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolph Hitler."

For more than 30 years Hersh's reporting on the military has been controversial, but accurate, including exposing the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war and the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, reports CBS News correspondent Dave Browde.

The Washington Post reports possible targets for a U.S. attack on Iran include facilities where uranium enrichment plant and a uranium conversion take place, according to current and former officials with the Pentagon and CIA. The Post adds that officials are looking at airstrikes and bombing campaigns, but not a land invasion.

"Surely, the report will spur debate about U.S. military action against Iran, particularly since U.S.-Iran talks regarding Iraq are tentatively scheduled for mid-April and because U.S. military action would be opposed by most world leaders," CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says.

"The U.N. in late March gave Iran one month and asked the international watchdog agency to report back on Iran's compliance on freezing its nuclear program, but according to the Hersh report, the White House has increased its military planning for possible attacks against Iran and has not ruled out using tactical bunker-busting nuclear weapons, in the event negotiations fail," Falk says.

"The unity of the world powers at the United Nations ends with a stern warning, mainly because Russia and China have made no bones about opposing sanctions or harsher action," Falk says, "leaving the Bush administration planning for a coalition of countries to impose sanctions and, according to the Hersh report, military action."

(© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

***

[Donald C. Burney]

U.S. WEIGHS HOW BEST TO DETECT NUKE THREATS

Feds debate costs, merits of proven technology vs. new advances

By Spencer S. Hsu
The Washington Post

Source of Article

Updated: 12:44 a.m. ET April 15, 2006

Beset by delays, cost overruns and technical problems, the U.S. government's quest to defend the nation against a smuggled nuclear weapon or radiological "dirty" bomb is approaching a crossroads.

In coming weeks, the Bush administration will award or initiate contracts worth $3 billion to develop a new generation of rugged and precise radiation monitors and imaging scanners designed to sniff out radioactive material at the nation's borders.

Authorities must choose in part between older, reliable technology of limited effectiveness and new, more costly, less proven devices that promise greater accuracy.

The stakes could hardly be higher: securing U.S. cities from a catastrophic attack with a weapon of mass destruction -- "the biggest threat we face today," as Vice President Cheney said often during the 2004 campaign.

Let down by technology

The government has stumbled repeatedly with similar choices, costing taxpayers billions. In the nearly five years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration and Congress have poured more than $5 billion into homeland security detection systems, radiological and otherwise, only to find that the best available equipment at the time was often of limited use. It has spent $300 million on an early class of radiation monitors that couldn't tell uranium from cat litter and invested $1.2 billion in airport baggage screening systems that initially were no more effective than the equipment screeners used before.

"A lot of the money we threw out there was wasted because the technology was not so good," said James Jay Carafano, senior fellow for national and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation.

Last month congressional investigators reported that the United States is "unlikely" to meet its goal of installing 3,000 next-generation detectors by September 2009 and projected it will be about $342 million above its anticipated $1.2 billion cost. At the same time, initial testing of new technology produced "mixed" results, while costing more.

The struggle to complete what Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff calls a "mini-Manhattan Project" provides a case study of America's challenges in dealing with the 21st-century perils of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Misplaced priorities?

To skeptics, even some close to the administration, the focus on stopping a nuclear bomb hidden in a container at the border is a costly fixation on a scenario that -- while nightmarish -- is not supported by intelligence and is overshadowed by other threats.

"This is the equivalent of a comet hitting the planet. Of all the things that are in the world, why are we fixated on this one thing?" Carafano asked. "Scanning containers full of sneakers for a 'nuke in a box' is not a really thoughtful thing."

Former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III, who led a congressional commission on weapons of mass destruction, said the Dubai port controversy showed how the Bush administration has profited politically from fears of terrorism at ports yet given Americans a false sense of security about conventional attacks, which are more likely.

"They have hyped the threat, and that has been a political advantage," said Gilmore, a former Republican National Committee chairman. "You can't rule out the possibility of something like this happening, but there isn't any evidence that I'm aware of that al-Qaeda or other terrorists have their hands on these weapons."

Acting on the unknown

But many other analysts looking at the data, such as Harvard University proliferation expert Graham T. Allison, conclude otherwise.

Vayl Oxford, director of the Homeland Security office Bush created a year ago today to put nuclear detection efforts back on track, said critics' concerns reflect a Cold War assumption that solid intelligence can be obtained against a terror group. The country must also consider its vulnerabilities and the consequences of the worst catastrophes, he said, which in this case tip the scale toward action.

"If you don't see a direct intelligence report that says there is something there, someone will leap to the conclusion the threat is not there," Oxford said. "But I don't think it's political hype. It's prudent planning to take action on this count. Sitting in hindsight saying 'Why didn't we see it in the intelligence?' is not the kind of hearing I want to go to."

Prompted by influential advocates including Cheney, former NATO ambassador David M. Abshire and former Lockheed Martin Corp. chief Norman R. Augustine, President Bush signed the 14th Homeland Security Presidential Directive last April 15. It consolidated development of countermeasures to a smuggled radioactive weapon that had been split among the Pentagon, the Energy Department and other federal agencies into the new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, headed by Oxford. The office is designing a national detection system and a global strategy.

The emerging effort calls for thousands of scanners of all types throughout the country. These include backpack or handheld "cellphone" devices, units mounted on vehicles, and stationary portals to scan railcars and shipping containers, Oxford said.

The United States is also working with Canada and Mexico on strategies to deploy detectors and with the United Kingdom to exchange technology, he said.

[Mary]

IRAN SUICIDE SQUADS 'READY TO RETALIATE'


by Aljazeera.net
Sunday 16 April 2006 4:24 AM GMT
Source of Article


Iran has trained battalions of suicide bombers to hit western targets if its nuclear plants are attacked, according to a British newspaper.

The Sunday Times quoted Iranian officials as saying that 40,000 trained suicide bombers were ready to strike Western targets.

Doctor Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said that 29 Western targets had been identified.

"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," he said in a speech, according to The Sunday Times.

He said that some of them were "quite close" to the Iranian border with Iraq.

The Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards was first spotted in March when members marched in a military parade.

The force wore explosive packs around their waists and held detonators, the newspaper said.

Stand-off

"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities"

Hassan Abbasi,
Head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards

Iran is in a stand-off with the West over its nuclear programme, which the Islamic republic insists is for entirely peaceful purposes.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, announced last Tuesday that the Islamic republic had successfully enriched uranium itself for use as nuclear fuel, sparking a wave of international condemnations.

The International Atomic Energy Agency - the United Nations' nuclear watchdog - is due to present a report on Iran's nuclear programme on April 28.

The United States insists it is seeking a diplomatic solution but has not ruled out the use of force despite opposition from even its closest allies.



***

[Mary]

BIN LADEN PAMPHLET CALLS FOR MUSHARRAF'S KILLING


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JERUSALEM POST
By Associated Press
Source of Article
May. 7, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A pamphlet purportedly from Osama bin Laden circulated among border tribesmen Sunday, with the al-Qaida chief praying for the assassination of Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, and calling him a "slave" of US President George W. Bush.

While the statement's authenticity was unclear, its initial release Saturday follows a spurt of high-profile militant messages and highlights simmering tensions between Pakistani forces and the insurgents they are battling along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

The pamphlet was distributed by militants in Mir Ali, a town in the North Waziristan tribal region, and reached out to tribesmen living in the area whose homes were destroyed during recent Pakistani military operations for "American pleasure."

It begins with a paragraph in Arabic mentioning bin Laden's name. It then says in Urdu, Pakistan's primary language: "(A) new message by Sheikh Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden to Muslims about the atrocities by the Pakistani army on the tribes of Waziristan, the bloodshed and destruction of their homes."

"I pray to God ... that Bush, Pervez and his army meet the fate that they deserve, and give someone among the lions of God the opportunity to kill this slave of Bush in Pakistan," said the pamphlet, the authenticity of which could not be immediately verified.

Pakistan's army spokesman, Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, declined to comment on the statement's authenticity, but urged the media not to "spread" it.

***

[Mary]

SYMPOSIUM: AL QAEDA'S NUKES


Source of Article
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 27, 2006


[Securing the United States from terrorist attack will be the focus of the upcoming America’s Truth Forum symposium, ‘Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism,’ taking place in Las Vegas this November 10th and 11th. Dr. Harvey Kushner, Dr. Paul Williams and Hamid Mir will be participating at this event. Go to http://www.americastruthforum.com/ for more details or contact Jeffrey Epstein at (866) 709-3474.]

Just recently, an al-Qaeda field commander in Afghanistan called for Muslims to leave the U.S., particularly the cities of Washington and New York. Some reports suspect that this call is a warning about a potential nuclear attack on the U.S.

Does Al Qaeda have nuclear capability? If not, is it on the verge of acquiring it? What dangers do we face in this context? Is a jihadist WMD attack on U.S. territory an inevitability? What can we do to prevent this horror?

To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel of experts. Our guests are:

David Dastych, international journalist for over 40 years, now operating his own media agency in Poland. A former Polish covert intelligence agent, he joined the CIA in South Vietnam (1973-1987). Jailed in Poland for his work against the USSR, the Warsaw Pact and communist interests (1987-1990), he was given an eight 8 years' sentence, but communism collapsed in 1989 and he was released. He monitored illegal nuclear trades for an Israeli organization from 1992-1994.

Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who has more than 18 years experience in covering conflicts and wars in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Lebanon. He has interviewed Osama bin Laden three times. He is an expert on Al Qaeda's nuclear ambitions and has travelled to Russia, Uzbekistan, Iran and Syria in his research work. He is currently working with Geo TV in Islamabad and writing for Jang Group of Newspapers.

Paul Williams, a journalist and the author of The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse; The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia; and Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11—What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You. He has served as a consultant for the FBI, as editor and publisher of the Metro in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and as an adjunct professor of humanities at the University of Scranton.

and

Harvey W. Kushner, Ph.D., the chair at a major university department of criminal justice. He advises and trains a number of federal agencies and appears regularly in the media. Kushner is a contributing editor for FamilySecurityMatter.org. He is the author of many books on terrorism, including the award-winning Encyclopaedia of Terrorism and the widely quoted Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States.

FP: David Dastych, Harvey W. Kushner, Paul Williams, and Hamid Mir, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Paul Williams, let’s begin with you.

What are the dangers we face right now in terms of a WMD attack by Al Qaeda or another Islamist entity?

Williams: The danger is very real. Accounts of the al Qaeda nukes first appeared in such reputable newspapers as The Jerusalem Report and The London Times, and Arabic magazines, including al-Watan al-Arabi and al-Majallah. These sources verified from British, Israeli, and Russian intelligence sources that bin Laden had purchased tactical nuclear weapons from the Chechen Mafia in 1996.

In subsequent years, the foreign press and intelligence sources, including the CIA, have been able to verify additional sales of off-the-shelf nukes and nuclear materials (highly enriched uranium and plutonium) from the former Soviet Union to al-Qaeda. The sellers included not only by the Chechens but also the Russian Mafia and black-marker arms-dealers, such as Semion Mogilevic from the Ukraine. Such information can be obtained by any journalist with a telephone, a computer, and a library card.

These sales to al-Qaeda have been verified by a host of weapons inspectors, including Hans Blix, former director general of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. They were even verified by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in their pronouncements that they have obtained a small arsenal of nuclear weapons from black-market sources.

But these sales are not the scary part. That comes from the ties between bin Laden and Dr. A. Q. Khan and the fact that over 20 nuclear scientists and technicians from Khan's research laboratories in Pakistan worked with al-Qaeda on a regular basis to maintain and modify the weapons that had been purchased and to develop other weapons, including highly portable "bespoke nukes."

Dr. Mahmood and Dr. Majeed, two of the leading officials at the Khan facility, confessed to CIA and ISI interrogators that they participated in al-Qaeda's nuclear projects. The fact that the Chechens possessed the nukes should be no surprise to any reporter or investigator. In 1995, the Chechens under Com. Shamail Basayev planted a radiological bomb in Izmailovsky Park near Moscow. The bomb was made of cesium-137, and, if detonated, would have killed thousands of Russians. This incident represented the first case of a nuke to be deployed as a weapon of terror. Later that same year, Dzokhar Dudayev, the leader of the Chechen Mafia, offered to sell his collection of nuclear weapons to the United States in exchange for U. S. recognition of Chechnya's independence. The Clinton Administration declined and so the weapons were sold to al-Qaeda.

More importantly, there is empirical proof that al-Qaeda possesses nukes. In 2000, British agents posed as recruits from a London mosque to infiltrate al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. In Herat, they saw nuclear weapons being manufactured. Similarly, an al-Qaeda operative was arrested while crossing the Allenby Bridge toward the checkpoint at Ramallah in Israel in a rusty old Volkswagen van. Within the van, Mossad discovered a bomb which turned out to be a highly sophisticated plutonium-implosion device with an explosive yield of 10 kilotons (equivalent to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima). There are more examples of tangible proof, including the canister of uranium 238 that U.S. military officials discovered in a lead canister in Kandahar at the outset of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Few military and intelligence officials question bin Laden's ability to launch his plan for the American Hiroshima. Gen. Eugene Habiger, former Executive Chief of Strategic Weapons at the Pentagon, said that an event of nuclear mega-terrorism on U. S. soil is "not a matter of if, but when." During the 2004 presidential debates, President Bush and Sen. Kerry said that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists represent the greatest danger facing the American people, while Vice President Cheney, on the campaign trail, warned that a nuclear attack by al-Qaeda appears imminent. Before leaving office, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge both voiced that belief that al-Qaeda's plan to nuke cities throughout the country soon might come to fruition.

From the private sector, Warren Buffet, who establishes odds against cataclysmic events for major insurance companies, concluded that an imminent nuclear nightmare within the United States is "virtually a certainty." From the academic community, Dr. Graham Allison, director of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said: "Is nuclear mega-terrorism inevitable? Harvard professors are known for being subtle or ambiguous, but I'll try to the clear. 'Is the worst yet to come?' My answer: Bet on it. Yes." Finally, from the mainstream media, Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, concluded that the only reason for thinking a nuclear attack won't happen is because "it hasn't happened yet," adding that such reasoning represents "terrible logic." And so, the message has been delivered but few are listening, and the threat is real but precious little is being done to avert it.

Kushner: Dr. Williams is on point. He carefully describes why we should take measures to deal with a potential American Hiroshima. Thinking about the unthinkable is necessary given the mindset of our enemy—radical Islam.

Dr. Williams is also on point when he concludes that “precious little is being done to avert” an American Hiroshima. We are more than five years past the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and millions of steel-frame ocean-going containers enter our port without inspection. These 20- and 40-foot containers are crammed with everything from furniture to parts for General Motors, and they can weigh as much as 30 tons each. Each one has a potential to contain a weapon of mass destruction that could be detonated when the ship reaches an American port or offloaded and transported to be detonated in one of our major cities.

Customs and Border protection has stepped up inspections of incoming containers—from 2 percent to approximately 4 percent of the total. Four percent of 8 million means 320,000 get inspected—and 7,680,000 do not. Government officials argue that they look at 100 percent of those that are high risk.

That is not a comforting thought when you consider that terrorists have already used such containers for transport. In 1998, an al Qaeda vessel transported explosives into Mombassa that were used in the East African embassy bombings. And in October 2001, a container headed for Toronto was opened during a stop in Italy. Authorities found inside a suspected al Qaeda member who fitted the liveable container forged documents, electronics equipment, and blueprints and floor plans or a number of facilities throughout North America.

In 2003, Undersecretary for DHS Asa Hutchinson told Congress, “If terrorists used a sea container to conceal a weapon of mass destruction and detonated it on arrival at a port, the impact on global trade and the global economy could be immediate and devastating—all nations would be affected.”

Yes, Dr. Williams is on point—we are doing precious little to counter the threat of an American Hiroshima.

Dastych: Thank you for inviting me to this panel. I happen to know and to work closely with Mr. Mir and Dr. Williams, and I know about Dr. Kushner's achievements. To me a nuclear threat to the United States, posed by al Qaeda, is real. The “American Hiroshima” plan, conceived by Osama bin Laden, is at least 10 years old. The information, summarized here by Dr. Williams, is well documented in several of his books.

I have only one remark: Dzokhar Dudaev, before he was killed by a Russian missile, was President of Islamist Chechnya, and before he was a commander of a squadron of Soviet nuclear-bomber planes and a GRU agent. His offer to sell tactical nukes to the U.S. had a political purpose, but President Clinton had no intention to recognize free Chechnya. There were other means to purchase Dudaev’s nukes, and not to provoke Russia.

In the 1990’s, I had a chance to follow some illegal nuclear deals between Russia (and other post-Soviet states) and other countries, seeking nuclear materials or weapons. I must say that most of these deals were controlled by the Russian special services, the GRU (Military Intelligence) in particular.

Osama bin Laden is not a day-dreamer. He made all possible efforts to obtain nuclear materials and tactical weapons, and to hire Russian and other scientists and technicians to maintain and develop his “small nuclear arsenal”.

The most dangerous connection is not between al Qaeda and the Chechen, or other mafias, but between al Qaeda and the former (or current) members of the Russian Intelligence. And this connection is an established fact, right on American soil. If the Russian Government wanted to convince the U.S. Government of their clean and non-hostile intentions, let them expose the locations of the KGB and GRU nuclear demolition charges, hidden on the territory of the United States. This act could be a great help to the American anti-terrorist activity, and to the protection of the American people.

FP: The Russians have nuclear demolition charges hidden on U.S. territory? What does this mean exactly? Some critics would say that this is just a pie-in-the-sky scare tactic and there is no evidence of this of any kind.

Hamid Mir what are your thoughts about this allegation and possibility?

Mir: Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. I came to know about the nuclear ambitions of Al Qaeda in 1998 when I interviewed Osama bin Ladin the second time in Afghanistan. One ex-Soviet scientist travelled with me from the Pakistani border to Kandhar. Al Qaeda operatives told me that he was looking after their nuclear program. I laughed at their claims. Then I asked Osama about his nuclear ambitions, but he ignored my question at that time. I asked my question again in November 2001 and at that time Osama confirmed that he had nukes.

In the next few years, I came to know that Al Qaeda had a big brigade of nuclear and chemical experts who conducted a dirty bomb test in the mountains of Kunar in 2000. Another Al Qaeda operative, Abu Hamza Al Jazeeri confirmed to me in Afghanistan in 2005 that Al Qaeda had links with Soviet nuclear experts. He visited Ukraine many times between 1995 and 1998 to negotiate with a nuclear scientist. Abu Hamza said that Osama sent special envoys to Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to contact ex-Soviet agents for their WMD's hidden in Western countries. I think these links are not sponsored by the Russian government; they are private links.

Nobody should underestimate the nuclear threat of Al Qaeda. This threat is not serious only for USA but to all the members of international coalition against terrorism. Osama determined to organize another attack bigger than 9/11.He will try his best to break his own record made on 9/11.

FP: If Osama has nukes, what is he waiting for? And can the panelists expand on the evidence that the Soviets hid WMDs in Western countries?

Williams: A defining characteristic of bin Laden is patience. His favorite Islamic verse is as follows: "I will be patient until Patience is outworn by patience."

He started plotting the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania when he was in the Sudan in 1993; the attack of the USS Cole was more than two years in the making and eight years passed between the first attack on the World Trade Center and the second.

The planned American Hiroshima is enormous in scope. It requires not only development and (in some cases) rebuilding of the weapons along with codification for detonation but also forward deployment, site preparation and precise strategic coordination with scattered cells.

Why the wait? Bin Laden will not allow the attack to take place unless there is certainty of success. His entire resources (including the gains from the poppy fields) have been spent on this operation. After scrutinizing the situation and analyzing the data, Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, said that the "best reason" for thinking that the nuclear attack by al-Qaeda will NOT happen is because "it hasn't happened yet," adding this conclusion represents "terrible logic."

I agree with him.

Bin Laden can't sit on these weapons for years. They require constant maintenance. At any given time, a tactical nuke exudes a temperature in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This means that they are prone to oxidation and rust. Moreover, the triggers that emit large quantities of neutrons at high speeds decay rapidly and have short half-lives – most would become useless without maintenance in less than four months. The nuclear cores also are subject to decay and over the course of several years would fall below the critical mass threshold. Though the shells that encase the cores are the most durable parts of the weapons, they, too, are subject to contamination. The tritium used to compensate for the required amount of conventional explosives to compress the fissile core within the compact devices is less of an issue since it has a half-life of 12.3 years. Taking all things into consideration, the attack should occur within the near future.

Regarding the question of buried nukes, Curt Weldon (R-PA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee, announced in 1999 that the Soviets had planted a number of such weapons at strategic locations throughout the U. S. These weapons, Weldon argued, were to be recovered when the Cold War became hot and were to be used for the blowing up of dams, power stations, telecommunications centers, and landing strips for Air Force One. “There is no doubt that the Soviets stored material in this country,” Weldon said. “The question is what and where.”

Two years later, Congressman Weldon’s statement about the buried nukes was verified by Col. Stanislav Lunev, the highest-ranking military spy to defect from the Soviet Union and the leading confidential source on Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Lunev told a Congressional committee that nuclear suitcase bombs, indeed, had been buried in the U. S., although he could not pinpoint the exact locations. Such information, Lunev said, remains secret since Russian officials remain convinced that a nuclear conflict between Russia and the U. S. remains “inevitable” despite the collapse of communism and the spirit of perestroika. The colonel concluded his remarks by saying: “And just now what we are talking about, location of technical nuclear devices, these places we have selected extremely carefully for a long, long period of time, and to believe it is possible to find these places just like that without using extremely, extremely large resources of the country, I don’t think that it would be realistic until the Russian government, which still has the keys to these locations, will disclose their locations."

Col. Lunev’s comments could be dismissed as less than credible, save for the fact that his testimony was upheld by Vasili Mitrakhin, who served as a chief archivist for the KGB. Mitrakhin confirmed to the same committee that secret stockpiles of suitcase nuclear devices had been buried in upstate New York, California, Texas, and Minnesota. FBI Director Louis Freech, in the wake of these reports, ordered a team of nuclear technicians to excavate several sites around Brainerd. The findings of the excavations remain confidential.

Belgian officials, however, testified that they had found three secret depots with radio sets and tactical nukes that had been buried in Belgium by the Soviets during the Cold War.

The number of nukes that remain buried in the United States is anyone's guess. The Soviets produced more than seven hundred portable tactical nukes for the KGB in the thirty year period from 1960 to 1990. These weapons were placed under the care of SPETZNAZ technicians for deployment and detonation. Many of these technicians, during the 1990s, were sought out and employed by al Qaeda.

The threat of the buried nukes is contingent on maintenance. Did these nukes receive proper care? If not, they pose no significant threat to national security. For example, the triggers that emit large quantities of neutrons at high speeds would decay rapidly causing the bomb to produce a pop rather than a boom.

Of infinitely greater concern are the "bespoke nukes" that were developed for al Qaeda by Russian and Chinese scientists and officials from the A. Q. Khan Research Facility. These weapons were developed for the American Hiroshima and received loving care from bin Laden and company.

FP: This is all extremely frightening and depressing.

One hope is that the Soviet nukes on our territory, if they are there, have turned into duds due to lack of maintenance.

But in general, is there any room for optimism here? Any hope that the ultimate nightmare can be stopped somehow?

Kushner: Dr .Williams, Mr. Dastych, and Mr. Mir do indeed paint a very ominous picture. Can we stop this nightmare? Do we hope that missing cold-war nukes are no longer capable of inflicting catastrophic damage?

Yes, we can ponder these questions. We do.

In my latest book, “Holy War on the Home Front,” I write about the Buddhist parable of three blind men asked to describe an object by touch. In describing an elephant, the blind man holding the tail says it’s a snake, the man holding the trunk says it’s a giraffe, and the one holding the leg says it’s a tree stump. None could assembler the “whole” from its separate “pieces.” In the same way, it’s time we stopped allowing the whole of Islam’s Holy War on America to be described by politicians, journalists, and others familiar with only part of it.

The only explanation as to why we continue to ignore radical Islam in America is that demands of political correctness has made us so afraid of being branded racists that we force ourselves to be color blind, identity blind, and gender blind till we end up, quite simply, totally blind.

The rules changed on 9/11. It was radical Islam’s signal that from that day on, all weapons of terror, including nuclear weapons, could and would be used, and that the fight is to the death.

We have to stop fighting the Holy War with a Cold War mentality; stop radical Islam from using our constitutional rights to shield itself; make sure that none of the millions of ocean cargo containers coming to the United States contains a nuclear weapon; and hold our elected officials to one simple unambiguous standard—results.

Had 9/11 not alerted America to the terrorists within it, had the terrorists waited just a few more years, radical Islam inside this country would have reached its goal: America riddled with a fully operational terrorist infrastructure, an environment where Islamic network agents’ homes held nuclear weapons instead of guns, and enough radical Muslim operatives and traitors to undermine this country form within—and they may be closer to it than we think.

Dastych: I agree with Dr. Kushner that we have to stop fighting a terrorist war (Holy War? Jihad?) with an obsolete Cold War mentality. And what is that Cold War mentality? It is a strong belief, formed over the last 61 years, since the first American nuclear test on the 16th of July 1945, that the nuclear proliferation can be controlled by the major state powers.

Even during the Cold War, the U.S.A. and the USSR couldn't help to prevent communist China, India, Pakistan and Israel from obtaining their own nuclear weapons. On the opposite end, the great powers were sometimes instrumental in the promotion of the nuclear proliferation to regional state powers, like France - to Israel, USSR - to India, China - to Pakistan; and recently a regional power: Pakistan to North Korea (through Dr. A.Q. Khan's network).

Efforts were made to persuade other countries to abandon their nuclear ambitions. There were two principal ways of doing so: either by force (by an Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor in Iraq) or by peaceful means, like a conciliatory mission of an Israeli nuclear expert, the late Shalheveth Freier, in Argentina and Brasil, or a voluntary resignation of the nuclear weapons, declared by Nelson Mandela in South Africa, or - recently - by a combination of pressure and persuasion applied to Gaddafi's Libya by the United States. But none of these methods worked in case of North Korea, and probably they also won't work in Iran.

The very fresh, October 9, nuclear test performed by North Korea could begin a "new era" of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, probably leading to war. And then, the non-state factor: international terrorism. My own experience of the 1990's in monitoring a part of the illegal nuclear market, Mr. Mir's eyewitness encounters with Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and a number of other Jihadists, and Dr. Williams' years of careful research into the problem of nuclear terrorism, menacing the United States - lead me to a rather sinister conclusion: it can't be stopped by methods that could work in the Cold War era.

Since 1945, there were carried out over 2,000 nuclear tests - all by sovereign states. From 1946 until 1983, there happened 16 nuclear crises, including such serious cases as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, or the Middle East crisis of 1973. In that time, the World survived 107 months of crises, involving threats by nuclear weapons, and lasting from one day (Iran 1946) to 24 months (USA-USSR confrontation in 1983). The great majority of these crises were overcome by the nuclear showmanship of the United States, and only two times (Suez 1956, and Cuba 1962) by an agreement of the U.S. and USSR, following strong demonstrations of nuclear capability of the two super-powers.

Thank God, all these crises never produced a nuclear war, even we had been very close to it. But the present situation is much worse: it's a chaotic world, with the United States as a lone-star super-power, and with Russia and China as the nuclear proliferators and rivals of the U.S.A. Yet, I hope that much can be done to improve our security and to prevent an uncontrolled outburst of a local or regional nuclear war. First of all, we have to fight on the media front: to remove the cowardly and completely unnecessary "political correctness" that prevents the main stream media from reporting the truth about the present nuclear danger.

People in America, and in the West as such, should be informed, timely and precisely, about real and inevitable threats, posed by terrorists and by terror-sponsoring states. But this information has to be verified and supported by specialists. It's a big error, for example, that so few nuclear physicists and other experts display courage and speak up in the media, in stead of taking cover behind the Government's secrecy. In fact, as the nuclear terrorism is concerned, I know only one competent and famous nuclear physicist, who dared to present his views openly: Dr. Sam Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb.

To conclude: I am not in favor of "scare-mongering" and of linking the present nuclear terrorist threat to Bible prophecies of "Doomsday" or "Armageddon". This is silly and primitive. The information must be rational, well targeted and timely, if possible, it should be backed by specialists - nuclear scientists and engineers. It should also go through a number of trustworthy media channels, even if it were transferred through the Internet. Ordinary people may be of great help in the process of prevention of terrorist nuclear attacks. But they must be told what to do. A personal remark: after a series of my own articles, and the joint ones, written with Dr. Williams, I am still receiving dozens of e-mails from ordinary people in the United States, Canada and Europe, and even from Muslim countries and Japan. These people usually ask: what should we do? How could we save ourselves? It's our primary task to reply to them, and to tell them that the nuclear threat is not the end of the World.

Mir: I am always very careful in speaking and writing about "American Hiroshima". I am against making sweeping statements. I don't have any evidence that Al Qaeda has access to Russian WMDs hidden in the U.S., but I have met more than two Al Qaeda operators who were involved in the purchase of suitcase nukes from Russia between 1998 and 2001. I am sure that Al Qaeda is prepared to organize new attacks inside USA not only with some suitcase nukes but also with some dirty bombs. I don't want to repeat my mistake of 1998.

What was that mistake? OBL told me in May 1998 that he will attack the U.A. I just ignored his threat. Within three months of my second interview with him, he attacked U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998. I thought that this was the end but then he attacked the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. Finally he organized 9/11. Now he is saying that he will attack USA again. I will not underestimate him this time. He is definitely making claims of new attacks after some preparations.

Right now he is succeeding without attacking inside the U.S. September 11 killed around 3000 people. Most of them were innocent civilians, but after 9/11 the U.S. has lost around 3000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan without gaining anything. I think the U.S. has lost its war against terror.UK Generals want to come back from Iraq, French Generals are looking for some excuses to come back from Afghanistan. OBL is waiting for more hatred to spread, he will be the ultimate beneficiary of the hatred because this time he wants to become a hero after an attack bigger than 9/11. He would not like to be condemned at least by Muslim masses and that is why he wants Muslims to leave the U.S. After another attack he can say that he is not responsible for the killing of Muslims in the U.S. because he warned them but they never listened.

We have to take his threats seriously and we must try to prevent another attack bigger than 9/11 because another attack inside the U.S. may destabilize the international peace. It may be the beginning of a clash between two civilizations and that is what OBL is dreaming from many years. Would you like to play in his hands?

FP: If you are speaking to me, no I don’t think we should play into Osama’s hands, and I don’t think anyone in the Bush administration wants to do that. I hear a lot of criticism here of U.S. policy in the subtext yet no real alternatives to what needs to be done. With all due respect, I am not sure what you mean when you say that “most” of the victims of 9/11 were “innocent civilians.” Who amongst the victims was not innocent if you don’t mind me asking?

I think it is a bit premature to say that the U.S. has lost its war against terror. The war is on. Two ruthless tyrannies have been overthrown. My question is: do you wish for a U.S. victory in the war on terror? Moreover, what solutions do you propose for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely you see the disaster and tragedy -- and bloodbath -- that will follow if the U.S. extricates itself overnight?

Mir: I think that all the civilians killed on 9/11 were innocent but there were some military people who lost their lives after an attack on Pentagon the same day. Their status was different from the civilians. Al Qaeda and US military have been fighting against each other from 1993. US military and Pakistani military was together in Somalia in 1993 where Al Qaeda killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers. All the civilians who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by US bombing after 9/11 were also innocent but the status of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters killed by US bombings have a different status.

The problem between Osama bin Laden and the U.S. started after the first Gulf war of 1990. Osama wanted to fight against Saddam Hussein but the Saudi government invited US troops into their lands. The presence of US troops on Saudi soil provided Osama an opportunity to exploit the situation and he announced a Jihad against the U.S.

Now Saddam is arrested, so what is the use of US troops on Saudi soil? Are they promoting democracy in Saudi Arabia? No sir, they are protecting a tyrannical regime of a country where women are banned to drive even vehicles. Don't give me this lesson that US troops have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan in the last five years. They have not contained terror. They have promoted and produced more terror, more hatred and more insecurity.

US policies have provided Al Qaeda a new breeding ground in Iraq. The war against terror was started against those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the run in 2002, but after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003,the Taliban and Al Qaeda started regrouping in Afghanistan.

Most of the Al Qaeda fighters migrated to Iraq, like Abu Masab al Zarqawi and established new training camps there. Today Al Qaeda is training hundreds of young people in Iraq and the Taliban are also back in Afghanistan. Come and visit Afghanistan with me, you will see that who is winning this war. There were no suicide attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan before 9/11, but now we see suicide attacks every day.

If the suicide attacks are increasing, if the British and Pakistani troops are trying to make peace deals with Taliban, I am not ready to believe that anybody is winning the war against terror. The world is becoming more unsafe day by day. Several days ago, two rockets with detonators were found just few hundred meters away from my office, which is very close to the President’s house in Islamabad. I was working in my office that day, when rockets were found. I felt that I am living in the most unsafe place. The boys who were arrested in the suspicion of placing rockets close to Musharraf’s office are young medical students. Who radicalised their minds? They were not graduated from religious schools; they just developed hatred out of bad U.S. policies.

The war against terror was not started against two regimes; it was started against Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda. Have you arrested or killed Osama? Have you wiped out Al Qaeda? Have you got any WMD's in Iraq? You have only increased the support of Al Qaeda in the Muslim world via the Abu Gharib jail in Iraq.

It’s not only the US which is fighting the war against terror. More than 37 countries have sent their troops in Afghanistan. All of them are fighting this war. I wish a victory for all of them but they cannot win this war by taking dictation from the US. They have to make policy against terrorism according to their own interests and according to the changing ground realities.

Today, Osama bin Ladin is the most popular person in Saudi Arabia. He is popular not because of his ideology but by default, because most of the Saudis don't like the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. If US troops come back from Saudi Arabia there is no harm. Osama bin Ladin will lose a big excuse to abuse the U.S. Stop supporting tyrannical regimes and dictators in our part of the world. This is the only way of containing the growing hatred against the U.S. Promote real democracy, don't fear that Hamas-like movements will come to power through democracy; engage them in talks. Strengthen the U.N. Use U.N. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of using US and NATO forces. If the U.N. forces can take over South Lebanon from Hizbollah, then the same UN forces can be used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Use forces of Asian and African countries in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of using western forces.

We see disaster and tragedy every day around us. It is increasing. The West and its allies have lost the so-called war on terrorism. Now they are pushing us to a clash of civilizations.

FP: The innocent civilians who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. bombing have died as regrettable and unintended tragedies of war. The U.S. did not and does not seek to kill innocent civilians, and it always tries its best, as do the Israelis, to keep civilian casualties and deaths as low as possible. Jihadists kill innocents intentionally. Killing innocent life is their main purpose. There is a big difference here and no moral analogy.

Yes, the U.S. liberated Iraq and Afghanistan from two vicious and sadistic fascist regimes. Unfortunately, there are totalitarian forces who do not wish democracy to be planted in those two nations. So they perpetrate terror. If the U.S. withdraws from this conflict, a bloodbath will follow and the forces of radical Islam and jihad will be emboldened everywhere. I don’t understand what is so complicated about this and why it is difficult to understand how crucial it is that the U.S. prevails in its missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The point that many Muslim terrorists’ minds are radicalized by “bad” U.S. policies, in my view, is illegitimate. I’ll tell you what “radicalizes” many of those who end up perpetrating terror: freedom and liberty. Those who seek comfort in totalitarian structures hate those forces that threaten to bring individual freedom and liberty into their spheres and so they seek to destroy them. The terrorists who wage their violence are not inspired by anger toward U.S. policies; they do what they do because they are terrified of the prospect that democracy, and the freedom of conscience of every individual, and the rights of women, minorities and homosexuals, might penetrate their own cultures.

Yes, there is a great complexity in our involvement with the Saudis and with some of the regimes we are allied with the Middle East. There also exists a great danger of the devil we know being better than the devil we don’t know. Some changes might be required in the near future, especially with the Saudis, but it is unwise just to alter numerous policies overnight without the realization that more dangerous threats can emerge in the vacuum we leave behind.

Mr. Mir, your argument that U.N. forces, and Asian and African countries, should be left to do the job in Iraq and Afghanistan is, I hope, your sense of humor. The terror war has not been lost. But if we leave it to the U.N. to defeat Islamism, it will be lost for sure.

Paul Williams, any observations on Mr. Mir’s diagnosis and prescriptions for the conflict we are in?

Williams: We have regressed from a discussion of nuclear terrorism to an evaluation of the purpose and mission of the United Nations (an organization which former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aptly labelled 'United Nothing'). This switch in discussion is tantamount to transforming a moose into a mouse. All clear thinking, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught us, comes from making distinctions between subjects. For this reason, I'll opt to say nothing with the hope that heads become cleared and intelligent discussion can proceed within the set parameters.

FP: Well thank you sir. Unfortunately we are nearing the end of our discussion.

Yes, our topic in this symposium was nuclear terrorism and I am grateful to all of you for having provided your wisdom on it.

Even if the topic of a symposium was the cause of global warming and someone started to engage in Holocaust or Gulag Denial, unfortunately I would have to stray from the topic and counter such denial.

So the same with our symposium. If someone is going to start applying moral equivalency between our side and the terrorists, I simply can’t let it go. Just like I can't overlook the diagnosis that Islamist rage at us has more to do with our policies than with a hatred of freedom. Moreover, I can’t let go unchecked a prescription (i.e. cut-and-run from Iraq) that will result in a nightmarish setback for us in this terror war and in a horrible bloodbath that will follow.

More importantly, these issues are not disconnected from our main topic today. Why we are in this war and the importance of us maintaining the course in Iraq and Afghanistan is directly connected to the danger of nuclear terror. If we cut and run, and if we confuse why and how our enemies hate us, we will facilitate the possibility of a nuclear horror being perpetrated against us.

In any case, David Dastych, your final comment please.

Dastych: Thank you, Jamie, for allowing me to add my final comments. Even, if we went a bit astray from the main topic - the nuclear terrorist threat - we have to consider the opinions and the feelings of our Muslim allies and friends, such as Mr. Hamid Mir, whom I trust and understand. He shows us that, in fact, the Muslim world developed a strong hatred of the United States and of the West in general. I think that some erroneous policies or practices of the United States (like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo abuses, or unjustified bombing) are not the main cause of this hatred. Its principal cause is the radicalization of Islam in some countries, strongly supported by the Saudi Wahhabi religious centers and by Saudi financial contributions.

In the U.S. and in Europe, and also in Africa, most of the new mosques are built by Saudi money and run by radical clerics. This is the "landscape" for the radicalization of Muslim youths in the Western countries and beyond them. But the radical slogans, demonstrations, staged hatred rallies (like the recent anti-Benedict campaign) have not much in common with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and with providing terrorists with these weapons. At this moment we have to make a clear distinction between some states, pursuing nuclear weaponization programs for their own sake (defense, protection, power ambitions) and these states, their governments or other organizations like some intelligence agencies, who deal with terrorists and do not hesitate to sell nuclear materials or weapons to them.

From my own experience and from what I can get from other sources, I conclude that some post-Soviet states, mainly Russia, were the main providers of small, tactical nuclear weapons and of nuclear materials to terrorist organizations, often through organized crime contacts. I cannot exclude from this group other states or organizations (like the already broken Dr. Khan's network in Pakistan, like Libya or Syria, like North Korea and Iran). Therefore, I would like to repeat my previous statement that state-terrorist links are the most dangerous element of the present nuclear threat to the United States, its military forces and institutions abroad, and to Europe and other regions of the world.

And now: what should be done to push back and stop this threat? Apart from what is already done and being done by the U.S. Government agencies and similar institutions of our allies (Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, Poland and many other), there is a need for a multi-national, based in several countries, highly mobile and effective Special Force to intervene at any place of the globe, where a WMD (not only nuclear) threat has been identified and uncovered.

Efficient intelligence, based on technical and human means, should be used to discover and locate the WMD plots, and a mobile force should be immediately used to kill or capture the perpetrators and to seize the weapons. In addition to that, true and timely information and education should be provided to all citizens by the media, including the mainstream media. Ordinary people, living in the U.S., in Europe and other countries, can be of great help to the authorities in detecting dangerous activities. But they have to be told what to look for.

As to the wars and other operations against terrorists: the U.S., NATO and other allied military forces should stay in Iraq and in Afghanistan as long as it will be necessary to fight the terrorists and radicals. To withdraw now, without a break-through, could be a sign of weakness and an encouragement to the terrorists and radicals to continue their fight. The U.S. government should examine a possibility to withdraw its military forces from Saudi Arabia, leaving the Land of Two Holy Places to the Muslims. It could be a sign of good will.

FP: David Dastych, Harvey W. Kushner, Paul Williams, and Hamid Mir, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

[Securing the United States from terrorist attack will be the focus of the upcoming America’s Truth Forum symposium, ‘Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism,’ taking place in Las Vegas this November 10th and 11th. Dr. Harvey Kushner, Dr. Paul Williams and Hamid Mir will be participating at this event. Go to http://www.americastruthforum.com/ for more details or contact Jeffrey Epstein at (866) 709-3474.]


***

[Mary]

BLAIR ACCUSES IRAN OF WHIPPING UP TROUBLE


Tuesday February 6, 03:16 PM
Source of Article


LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair accused Iran on Tuesday of trying to whip up the "maximum trouble" possible but said no one was contemplating military action against Tehran.

Blair accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons capability in defiance of the United Nations and of "deliberately fomenting sectarianism and conflict" in the region.

But he also held out an olive branch by saying "a whole series of doors" would open for Iran if it changed strategy."Their strategy is to create the maximum trouble for us and for the region and I think it's a miscalculation because in the end they're going to find that they assemble a very large coalition against them," Blair said, citing Iranian influence on Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and elements of the Shi'ite militias in Iraq.

"Nobody is talking about military intervention in respect of Iran, but people are increasingly alarmed and concerned at the strategy they appear to be pursuing," he told a parliamentary committee.

Blair, however, quoted Bush's phrase that "you can't take any option off the table".

Iran on Tuesday blamed the U.S. military for the kidnapping of a senior Iranian diplomat in Baghdad by gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms.

The Bush administration has stepped up its rhetoric against Iran in recent weeks, prompting speculation it could be laying the groundwork for a military attack.

Washington is at loggerheads with Iran over its nuclear programme and accuses Tehran of funding and training militants fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said last week that Washington was not planning for war with Iran.

NOT PLANNING FOR WAR

Iran says its nuclear enrichment programme is aimed solely at electricity generation -- not at making nuclear weapons, as the West alleges -- and denies involvement in violence in Iraq.

Blair urged Iran to back a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a resolution in Lebanon and peace in Iraq.

"If they started offering some sign that they were prepared to deal differently with things, I think they would find that a whole series of doors would open up to them but at the moment they are not prepared to do that," he said, giving no details.

Blair slammed as "ridiculous" the belief Britain had fuelled Muslim extremism by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Muslim groups and politicians have urged Blair to change his foreign policy while left-leaning think-tank Demos said in December that his government's actions bred resentment among British Muslims, causing some to sympathise with extremists.

Four Britons killed 52 people on London's transport network in July 2005 in Western Europe's first Islamist suicide bombings.

Blair said he did not think his government was losing the battle for hearts and minds over Iraq, but he did not believe it would win the battle "until we stop pandering ... to a view of our foreign policy that I regard ... as ridiculous."

"The people that are killing innocent Muslims in Iraq and in Afghanistan are these Muslim extremists," he said.


***

[Mary]

TEHRAN WARNS US AGAINST ATTACKS


BBC News
Thursday, 8 February 2007, 17:44 GMT
Source of Article


Iran will strike against US interests worldwide if it is attacked, the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned.
"The enemies know well that any aggression will lead to a reaction from all sides," he said.

Washington accuses Tehran of secretly trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and has not ruled out using military force.

The Iranians insist their nuclear programme is purely civilian and aimed at meeting their energy needs.

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says Ayatollah Khamenei was defiant about the prospect of a possible American military strike.

The supreme leader said he hoped nobody would risk attacking Iran because the nation would stand up for itself and only become stronger militarily and economically.

Iran also denounced remarks by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair that Tehran was determined to stir up maximum trouble in the Middle East.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said Mr Blair's comments were "insolent" and "undiplomatic".

Mr Hosseini said Britain had played a key role in sabotaging talks on the nuclear issue in the past and had followed the US and Israel in imposing destructive wars on the Middle East.

War games

Another key Iranian figure, ex-President Hashemi Rafsanjani, has also warned against a strike, saying it would carry a heavy cost for those who tried it.

The warnings came as Iran's navy and air force conducted war games.

Iran said it had successfully test-fired a land-to-sea missile with a range of 350km (220 miles).

Tehran said it had also tested a new Russian-made air defence system.

Officials have refused to confirm whether the system has been deployed around nuclear sites.

At the weekend ambassadors from non-aligned countries were allowed to visit an Iranian nuclear facility, on what was billed as a transparency visit.

The UN's chief nuclear inspector is to report on Tehran's compliance with the UN Security Council's demands later this month.

In December the UN imposed limited sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.



***

[Mary]

TERRORISM: AL-QAEDA WEB MONTHLY BACK AFTER YEAR'S BREAK

Source of Article

Riyadh, 8 Feb. (AKI) - After more than a year's absence, the jihadi propaganda monthly "Voice of Jihad" (Sawt-al-Jihad), edited by the Saudi cell of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, has reappeared on the Internet. The new issue - the 30th - opens with an editorial threatening the Saudi regime and welcoming the birth of "an Islamic emirate" in Iraq by local al-Qaeda cells. "Voice of Jihad" was launched in 2003 covering mainly ideological and doctrinal issues concerning the mujahadeen in the Arabian Peninsula.

"As for us, we have begun a new year and we ask Allah that it be a year of victory," reads the editorial. “For some time now we have been preparing important operations which will make the crusader (i.e. American) bases on the Arab peninsula tremble and the aim of the mujahadeen will be to cleanse the peninsula of the pagans and the crusader bases" - a reference to US military posts in the region.

The editorial concludes with a message to the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden. “We say to our emir, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, that we will continue on his path. Your soldiers are working, planning and preparing something which will make him and all true believers very happy. We pray to Allah that all will go well until the arrival of zero hour," it added.

The magazine also carries a claim of responsibility for an attack by Islamist terrorists against a Saudi oil refinery at Baqiq, on 24 February 2006.

It concludes with an interview with a doctor of Moroccan origin living in France, who in the 1990s decided to fight alongside the Bosnian mujahadeen, and a corner dedicated to readers, who are invited to write to the jihadi publication on the site http://contactus.arabform.com.


(Ham/Aki)
Feb-08-07 17:21

***

[Mary]

U.S. MILITARY: IRAN ARMING IRAQ MILITIAS


By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press Writer
Source of Article
Sun Feb 11, 5:08 PM ET


BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. military officials on Sunday accused the highest levels of the Iranian leadership of arming Shiite militants in Iraq with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more than 170 American forces.

The military command in Baghdad denied, however, that any newly smuggled Iranian weapons were behind the five U.S. military helicopter crashes since Jan. 20 — four that were shot out of the sky by insurgent gunfire.

A fifth crash has tentatively been blamed on mechanical failure. In the same period, two private security company helicopters also have crashed but the cause was unclear.

The deadly and highly sophisticated weapons the U.S. military said it traced to Iran are known as "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs.

The presentation was the result of weeks of preparation and revisions as U.S. officials put together a package of material to support the Bush administration's claims of Iranian intercession on behalf of militant Iraqis fighting American forces.

Senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the display was prompted by the military's concern for "force protection," which, they said, was guaranteed under the United Nations resolution that authorizes American soldiers to be in Iraq.

Three senior military officials who explained the display said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

The experts, who spoke to a large gathering of reporters on condition that they not be further identified, said the supply trail began with Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which also is accused of arming the Hezbollah guerrilla army in Lebanon. The officials said the EFP weapon was first tested there.

The officials said the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds force report directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The briefing on Iran was revised heavily after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month.

Senior U.S. officials in Washington — cautious after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion — had held back because they were unhappy with the original presentation.

The display appeared to be part of the White House drive that has empowered U.S. forces in Iraq to use all means to curb Iranian influence in the country, including killing Iranian agents.

It included a power-point slide program and a handful of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades which the military officials said were made in Iran.

The centerpiece of the display, however, was a gray metal pipe about 10 inches long and 6 inches in diameter, the exterior casing of what the military said was an EFP, the roadside bomb that shoots out fist-sized wads of nearly molten copper that can penetrate the armor on an Abrams tank.

"A normal roadside bomb is like a shortgun blast. But these are like a rifle. They're focused and they're aimed. ... It's going to take anything out in its way, go in one side and out the other," said 1st Lt. Zane Galvach, 25, of Dayton, Ohio, a soldier with the Army's 2nd Division, based in Baghdad.

Skeptical congressional Democrats said the Bush administration should move cautiously before accusing Iran of fomenting a campaign of violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Senate Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., said "the administration is engaged in a drumbeat with Iran that is much like the drumbeat that they did with Iraq. We're going to insist on accountability."

On the Republican side, Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) of Mississippi said he did not think the United States was trying to make a case for attacking Iran. Lott said the U.S. should try to stop the flow of munitions through Iran to Iraq but that "you do that by interdiction ... you don't do it by invasion."

The EFPs, as well as Iranian-made mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades, have been supplied to what the military officials termed "rogue elements" of the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He is a key backer of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The U.S. officials glossed over armaments having reached the other major Shiite militia organization, the Badr Brigade. It is the military wing of Iraq's most powerful Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose leaders also have close ties to the U.S.

Many key government figures and members of the Shiite political establishment have deep ties to Iran, having spent decades there in exile during Saddam Hussein's rule. The Badr Brigade was formed and trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

An intelligence analyst in the group said Iran was working through "multiple surrogates" — mainly in the Mahdi Army — to smuggle the EFPs into Iraq. He said most of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah, the Iranian border city of Meran and the Basra area of southern Iraq.

The analyst said Iraq's Shiite-led government had been briefed on Iran's involvement and Iraqi officials had asked the Iranians to stop. Al-Maliki has said he told both the U.S. and Iran that he does not want his country turned into a proxy battlefield.

"We know more than we can show," said one of the senior officials, when pressed for tangible evidence that the EFPs were made in Iran.

U.S. officials have alleged for years that weapons were entering the country from Iran but had until Sunday stopped short of alleging involvement by top Iranian leaders.

During the briefing, a senior defense official said that one of the six Iranians detained in January in the northern city of Irbil was the operational commander of the Quds Force.

He was identified as Mohsin Chizari, who was apprehended after slipping back into Iraq after a 10-month absence, the officer said.

The Iranians were caught trying to flush documents down the toilet, he said. They had also tried to change their appearance by shaving their heads. Bags of their hair were found during the raid, he said.

The dates of manufacture on weapons found so far indicate they were made after fall of Saddam Hussein — mostly in 2006, the officials said.

In a separate briefing, Maj. Gen. Jim Simmons, deputy commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq, said that since December 2004, U.S. helicopter pilots have been shot at on average about 100 times a month and been hit on an average of 17 times in the same period.

He disclosed a previously unknown shootdown, a Blackhawk helicopter hit by small arms fire near the western city of Hit. The craft crash-landed but there were no casualties. Simmons was on board.

The major general said Iraqi militants are known to have SA-7, SA-14 and SA-16 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles but none of the most recent five military crashes were caused by those weapons. He said some previous crashes had been a result of such missiles but would not elaborate.

North of Baghdad, a suicide truck bomber crashed into a police station, killing at least 30 policemen. A total of 76 people were killed or found dead across Iraq. The U.S. military said Sunday a soldier was shot and killed the day before in volatile Diyala province northeast of the capital. A second soldier was reported killed Sunday in western Baghdad.

***

[Mary]

AL-QAEDA'S RESURGENCE, Part 1

READY TO TAKE ON THE WORLD


Middle East
Mar 2, 2007
Source of Article
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - Al-Qaeda will this year significantly step up its global operations after centralizing its leadership and reviving its financial lifelines. Crucially, al-Qaeda has developed missile and rocket technology with the capability of carrying chemical, biological and nuclear warheads, according to an al-Qaeda insider who spoke to Asia Times Online.

While al-Qaeda will continue to operate in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will broaden its global perspective to include Europe and hostile Muslim states, Asia Times Online has learned. For the first time since its attacks on the US on September 11, 2001, this could be al-Qaeda's year on the offensive.

According to the contact, "The time has come for a message to be communicated to Europe." Asked what kind of message this would be, the contact simply smiled.

Nevertheless, he stated that with Western forces trapped in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was time to open up new fronts in Somalia, Algeria, Egypt, Palestine and other places.

"In each place, al-Qaeda has its own command and control apparatus, including Palestine, and all those fronts will be opened up very soon," the contact said.

At the same time al-Qaeda is planning this offensive, it has received something of a setback in Afghanistan, where its alliance with the Taliban is under strain. The Taliban have struck a deal with Pakistan over mutual cooperation, which is anathema to al-Qaeda (see Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban, Asia Times Online, March 1).

Osama in the shadows
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has not appeared in a video since October 2004 or on an audio tape since January 2006. He is by no means out of the al-Qaeda picture, although his deputy, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, claims the media spotlight.

Reportedly recovered from ill health, bin Laden - possibly even sporting a trimmed beard - is active in al-Qaeda's planning, according to the contact Asia Times Online spoke to. "He could be in Chechnya, Somalia or Iraq," the man said coyly, obviously not about to divulge bin Laden's whereabouts. Or even in Iran, some insiders hint.

Over the course of many hours of conversation and information exchanges in several locations, the contact - who has a sound track record of being informed of developments within al-Qaeda - explained how bin Laden and Zawahiri had rebuilt al-Qaeda over the past year or so.

Since 2005, the al-Qaeda leadership had been talking to many groups, including Egyptians, Libyans and the takfiri camp (which calls all non-practicing Muslims infidels). Al-Qaeda paid for differences in tactics and ideology among these groups as its structure unraveled and the organization developed into an "ideology" rather than a cohesive group.

As a result, al-Qaeda's global agenda was largely shelved and the international community's financial squeeze definitely hurt. This problem has been overcome, according to the contact, although he would not give any details. Even US intelligence agencies concede that the group's finances have improved, but they have no idea how. All the same, they have pressured Pakistan to clamp down on some charitable organizations in that country.

The Jamiatul Muqatila (Libyan) led by Sheikh Abu Lais al-Libby, the Jabhatul Birra of Ibn-i-Malik, also Libyan, the Jaishul Mehdi, founded by slain Abdul Rahman Canady, an Egyptian, and now led by Abu Eza, the Jamaatul Jihad, an unnamed Libyan group once led by Sheikh Abu Nasir Qahtani from Kuwaiti, who has now been arrested, and the takfiris under Sheikh Essa, an Egyptian, have once again joined forces with "Jamaat al-Qaeda" under the leadership of bin Laden.

The contact insisted that since two major tasks - regrouping and finances - had been completed, major operations could now be planned. But in addition to this, to ensure that 2007 would be "the year of al-Qaeda", a "great compromise" had to be made.

Deal with the devil
Before the "Mother of all Battles", the Gulf War of 1991, bin Laden offered to help the Saudi monarchy fight Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwait. The Saudi royalty ignored the offer and opted instead for US military assistance. The presence of these troops in the land of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina inflamed bin Laden, and he split with the Saudi royalty.

Nevertheless, the growing influence of Shi'ite Iran in the Middle East, especially in Iraq after the US invasion of 2003 and Lebanon, concerned al-Qaeda and the anti-Shi'ite Salafi Saudi [continued below]

Part 2
Page 2 of 2

Pakistan Makes A Deal With The Taliban

South Asia
Mar 1, 2007
Source of Article (Part 2)
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

[continued from above] ...by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would be forced into a position to talk peace - and who better than Pakistan to step in as peacemaker and bail out its Western allies?

The next logical step would be the establishment of a pro-Islamabad government in Kabul - delivering a kick in the strategic teeth of India at the same time. After all, Pakistan invested a lot in Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation in the 1980s yet itreceived little in return. Whether it was former Afghan premier Gulbuddin Hekmatyar or Taliban leader Mullah Omar, they refused to be totally Pakistan's men.

A man for all seasons
Mullah Dadullah, 41, comes from southwestern Afghanistan, so he is "original Taliban", and has a record of being a natural leader in times of crisis.

Mullah Dadullah made a name for himself during the Soviet occupation, during which he lost a leg. And with victories against the Northern Alliance after the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996, he pushed the alliance into the tail end of Afghanistan. This made him Pakistan's darling from Day 1.

He was Mullah Omar's emissary in the two Waziristan tribal areas before the spring offensive of last year. Here he brokered a major deal between the Pakistani armed forces and the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistan had lost more than 800 soldiers in operations against the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda and it needed a face-saving way to extricate itself from the mess.

Mullah Dadullah's peace deal provided this, and the army made an "honorable" withdrawal from the volatile semi-independent region. Whenever the ceasefire was violated, Mullah Dadullah would settle things down.

The 2006 spring offensive was veteran mujahideen fighter Jalaluddin Haqqani's show. Nevertheless, the main areas of success were not Haqqani's traditional areas of influence, such as southeastern Afghanistan's Khost, Paktia and Paktika. The Taliban secured major victories in their heartland of the southwest, Helmand, Zabul, Urzgan and Kandahar. And their leader was Mullah Dadullah, whose men seized control of more than 12 districts - and held on to them.

Pakistani strategic circles are convinced that as a proven military commander, Mullah Dadullah will be able to work wonders this spring and finally give the Taliban the edge over the Kabul administration and its NATO allies.

This, ultimately, is Pakistan's objective - to revive its role in Kabul - and Islamabad is optimistic that Dadullah's considerable diplomatic skills will enable him to negotiate a power-sharing formula for pro-Pakistan Afghan warlords.

Even if Mullah Omar disagrees about any major compromise, Islamabad believes that Dadullah would by then have made such a name for himself in the battle against NATO that Omar would have little option but to accept whatever terms were agreed on.

A new string in the Taliban bow
A notable addition to what can only be described as a limited Taliban arsenal this year is surface-to-air missiles, notably the SAM-7, which was the first generation of Soviet man-portable SAMs.

The Taliban acquired these missiles in 2005, but they had little idea about how to use them effectively. Arab al-Qaeda members conducted extensive training programs and brought the Taliban up to speed. Nevertheless, the SAM-7s, while useful against helicopters, were no use against the fighter and bomber aircraft that were doing so much damage.

What the Taliban desperately needed were sensors for their missiles. These detect aircraft emissions designed to misdirect the missiles.

And it so happened that Pakistan had such devices, having acquired them from the Americans, though indirectly. The Pakistanis retrieved them from unexploded cruise missiles fired into Afghanistan in 1998, targeting bin Laden. They copied and adapted them to fit other missiles, including the SAMs.

Now that the Taliban and Pakistan have a deal, these missiles will be made available to the Taliban. Much like the Stingers that changed the dynamics of the Afghan resistance against the Soviets, the SAMs could help turn things Mullah Dadullah's, the Taliban's and Pakistan's way.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com.

***

[Mary]

US SENATORS CALL FOR DIRECT STRIKES ON AL-QAEDA INSIDE PAKISTAN


Malaysia Sun
Saturday 3rd March, 2007
Source of Article
(ANI)


Members of the US Senate have reportedly urged the Bush administration to launch direct military strikes at alleged al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.

This has, in turn, prompted the Pakistani envoy in Washington to warn that such an attitude could bring down the present set-up in Islamabad.

Senior Pentagon officials added fuel to the fire by claiming that their troops have already targeted Taliban and al-Qaeda sites inside Pakistan and that they have an agreement that allows them to do so.

Senator Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that the panel would press the Defense and State departments to consider taking military action against alleged al-Qaeda camps inside Pakistan "if they learn that attacks inside Afghanistan have been planned at these sites."

"It's a critically important point, and I think we've got to insist, on this issue, that we be given a clear answer," the Dawn quoted Levin as saying.

Lt-Gen Douglas Lute, chief operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, told the committee that US soldiers could target terrorist sites inside Pakistan if there's an imminent threat. "We have all the authorities we need to pursue, either with (artillery) fire or on the ground, across the border. If just across the border, inside Pakistan, we have surveillance systems that detect a Taliban party setting up a rocket system which is obviously pointed west, into Afghanistan, we do not have to wait for the rockets to be fired. They have demonstrated hostile intent and we can engage them."

Retired US Marine Gen. James Jones, former top NATO operational commander in Afghanistan, also told the panel that forces under the US command called Operation Enduring Freedom have a legal right to strike across the border.

"That mission, everybody agrees, could be done," he added.

Lt-Gen Lute, however, clarified that they would have to seek the Pakistan government's permission to go after a munitions factory further inside the Pakistani border.

Pakistan remained the target throughout the debate, with both Democrat and Republican senators claiming that the country is either unwilling or unable to prevent the Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents from establishing camps inside the tribal zone.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said that if international laws allowed the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the same laws could be applied to take actions against al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries inside Pakistan.

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said that the Pakistani leaders "need to contemplate which is harder for them, acting to do something about this, or us acting to do something about this."

The only person who spoke for Pakistan was the committee's former chairman, now senior Republican Party member John Warner. "I think under the leadership of Musharraf, they're doing the best they can, but the realities are there's fragility in the political system in Pakistan," he explained.

Senator Warner said that the situation would be much worse for the United States and its allies if Islamists came to power in Pakistan.


***

[Mary]

UK SAILORS CAPTURED AT GUNPOINT

Story from BBC NEWS:
Source of Article
Published: 2007/03/23 17:22:17 GMT

Commodore reacts
Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.
The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said the men who were on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, were understood to be unharmed.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has demanded the immediate and safe return of the HMS Cornwall servicemen.

She added that she had called for a "full explanation" from Iran and had left them in no doubt that she wanted the group and their equipment back immediately.

The frigate's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he was hoping there had been a "simple mistake" over territorial waters.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they [British personnel] were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may claim they were in Iranian territorial waters.


"We may well find that this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level."

Helicopters had reported seeing two British boats being moved along the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iranian bases and there had been no evidence of fighting, he added.

He said that despite scant communication, the 15 people were understood to be safe and had reacted in an "extremely professional way, in line with the rules of engagement".

HMS CORNWALL FACTS
Multi-national force flagship in the northern Gulf
Type 22 frigate
Crew: 250 (Max 301)
Length: 148.1m / 485.9ft
Speed: 30 knots
Source: Royal Navy

Mrs Beckett said: "We understand that they were in two boats that were operating in Iraqi waters in accordance with the Security Council Resolution 1723 in support of the government of Iraq to stop smuggling."

On Friday afternoon, the Iranian ambassador in London, Rasoul Movahedian, met permanent secretary, Sir Peter Ricketts, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The foreign secretary said the meeting had been "brisk but polite" and said the British ambassador in Iran had also been speaking to officials in Tehran.

There has been no immediate response so far from Iran, where many ministries and official buildings were closed for a public holiday.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague and Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, have both backed the call for the group's immediate and safe return.

Commodore Kevin Aandahl, of the US Navy Fifth Fleet based in the same region, backed the Royal Navy's claims that their boats had been in Iraqi waters.

He added that the Royal Navy personnel should be given credit for a "very cool" response and not escalating the situation.

The incident comes at a time of renewed tensions with Iran over its nuclear programme and follows claims that most of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements.

British Army Colonel Justin Maciejewski, who is based in Iraq, said Iran was providing "sophisticated weaponry" to insurgents and "Iranian agents" were paying local men to attack British troops.

FAMILY INFORMATION LINE
0845 7800 900

Iranian officials have in the past denied such claims.

In 2004, Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.

The UK claimed the men were "forcibly escorted" into Iranian territorial waters.

The men were paraded blindfolded and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said the difference this time is that the present Iranian government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was much more hardline.

"The political climate is worse with Britain among those confronting Iran over its controversial nuclear programme," he added.



***

[Mary]

RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SEES U.S. MILITARY BUILDUP ON IRAN BORDER

27/03/2007 17:31
MOSCOW
Source of Article

(RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.


***