Tag Archives: Saudi Arabia

New poll signals popular support for principled War on Terror in Mideast, as well as elsewhere

Potential problems for Bush with core Christian conservative constituency

At a press conference held at the National Press Club today, the Center for Security Policy released a new national poll surveying public opinion about a number of issues relevant to President Bush’s original and current approaches to promoting Middle East peace. On question after question, majorities signaled support for the principles embraced by Mr. Bush in his “vision for peace” unveiled on 24 June 2002 — and little enthusiasm for the quite different strategy that underpins the present initiative known as the “road map.”

Remarks about the new poll were made by the Center’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., by Frank Luntz, President of Luntz Research Companies, which conducted it, and by former presidential candidate and influential Christian evangelist, Gary Bauer, who now serves as President of American Values. The top line of the poll and Mr. Luntz’s briefing materials concerning it can be viewed at www.CenterforSecurityPolicy.org.

Among the highlights of the poll were the following findings:

  • Roughly half of Americans (49.2%) believe that the Palestinian leadership still wants to destroy Israel, compared to only 28.1% that believe it wishes to make peace.
  • 61% do not think Mahmoud Abbas represents new Palestinian leadership “untainted by terror,” given his long and faithful association with Yasser Arafat. Only 21.2 think he qualifies as a “new leader.”
  • 72.7% agree (46.1% “strongly” and 26.7% “somewhat”) with the precondition President Bush established last June before the U.S. would “support the establishment of a Palestinian state” — namely “its leaders [must] engage in a sustained fight against terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.” Only 18% disagree.
  • In a split sample, 66.9% believe that the Palestinians could stop the terrorism against Israel and Israelis if they really wanted to; only 25.3% disagree. 67.4% believe that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab countries could do so if they really wanted to versus 23% who disagree.
  • 62.5% believe Israel should not give up land if the terrorism against it continues. 20.4% disagree.
  • 73% believe it is “fair” for Israel to insist that Palestinian incitement against it must stop before there can be any hope for a true peace. Only 16% think such insistence to be “unfair.”
  • 79.8% of Americans agree (57.8% strongly, 22.1% somewhat) that force “can and should be used against terrorists and their safe havens involved in operations intended to kill Americans. 14.75 disagree.
  • 69.2% of Americans believe Israel has a similar right to use preemptive force against terrorists and their safe havens. 18.1% disagree.

These findings suggest broad support for principles enunciated by President Bush on 24 June 2002 but that are absent from the “roadmap.” The American people want genuinely new Palestinian leadership (not a flim-flam), a real end to terror and its infrastructure (not, at best, a cease-fire) and a true cessation of incitement (not its unbroken continuation). Among self-identified Christian conservatives — a core part of President Bush’s political base, the above majorities were even more dramatic.

Top line of the poll

Briefing materials

Undesirable influence

Those familiar with the work of the Center for Security Policy were not surprised by the news article that led the front page of Wall Street Journal last Wednesday. They are already aware that a number of Arab- and Muslim-American organizations and representatives that support Hamas and other militant Islamic (or "Islamist") terrorist groups have gained unwarranted access to the White House and top Bush Administration officials.

The Journal quoted the Center’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., as warning that "‘Allowing these sorts of organizations to meet with the president and his senior subordinates is a very bad idea,’ says Mr. Gaffney. While the administration now is cracking down on terrorism abroad and at home, Mr. Gaffney says [such contacts] could still lend legitimacy and ‘undesirable influence over policy’ to individuals and groups hostile to American interests."

The ‘There’ That’s There

Even those who have followed this story, however, might have been surprised at the response Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political advisor, gave the authors of the Journal article: "‘What’s the evidence’ of undesirable influence? he says. ‘There’s no there there.’"

Actually, the evidence of undesirable influence is unmistakable to anyone willing to look for it:

  • Past and present leaders of the American Muslim Council (AMC), the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the American Muslim Alliance, for example, have publicly expressed support those engaged in "armed struggle" against Israel and the United States.

    Even as President Bush stresses his opposition to such terrorist organizations as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, their advocates and/or apologists in this country with ties to Saudi Arabia’s radical Wahhabi sect (dubbed the "Wahhabi Lobby") are routinely turned to when the Administration seeks to reach out to Muslims. Worse yet, such "outreach" usually excludes those representing the majority of Muslims who are not Islamist sympathizers. That is undesirable influence.

  • In addition, the American Muslim Council-created National Islamic Prison Foundation have been allowed to proselytize in U.S. prisons. Another Wahhabi-associated organization, the Graduate School for Islamic Social Sciences (raided by Operation Green Quest for suspected ties to terrorism) has been allowed to select, train and certify imams for the U.S. military chaplain corps. That is undesirable influence.
  • FBI Director Robert Mueller has similarly cultivated Islamist organizations with a view to mitigating complaints about racial profiling and other forms of alleged official harassment of Muslims. As a result, these same radical groups are conducting "sensitivity training" for new FBI agents. Tom Reynolds, chief of the Bureau’s civil rights division, has responded to the Wahhabi Lobby’s demands by signaling a willingness to establish a "national Muslim and Arab working group" including Islamist groups that routinely defend terrorists arrested by the FBI. This is undesirable influence.
  • What is more, Islamist sympathizers are using their access to the Bush Administration as a shield to establish ominous bona fides. For example, an individual once courted by the Bush team as part of its efforts to woo Muslims — Sami Al-Arian — is now in federal custody awaiting trial on fifty charges of running the North American operations of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. At a recent bail hearing, a number of individuals from organizations also dubiously cultivated for Bush "Muslim outreach" appeared as character witnesses for Al-Arian (including a Defense Department imam). Without exception, they cited their involvement with the Administration to demonstrate their standing in pleading for the accused to be sprung. This is undesirable influence.

And Now the ‘Road map’?

The question occurs: Could the President’s recent decision to pursue a "road map" for Mideast peace that is, in important respects (notably with respect to the need for a new Palestinian leadership "untainted by terror," the dismantling of Palestinian terrorist infrastructure and an end to Palestinian incitement as preconditions to U.S. recognition of a state of Palestine) — at odds with the "vision" he enunciated last June also be a product of the undesirable influence of the Wahhabi Lobby? The far-reaching changes were reportedly the subject of major internal fights between top Administration officials.

According to the Middle East News Line, unnamed officials and congressional sources said, that "most of the issues were submitted to Bush’s chief political strategist Karl Rove. They said Rove, who engineered the Republican victory in Congress in November 2002, has been granted major input in U.S. foreign policy as part of an effort to prepare Bush’s reelection campaign in 2004. Rove accompanied the president during the Sharm e-Sheik and Aqaba summits."

The Bottom Line

If cultivating votes is the motivation for affording Islamists unwarranted access and undesirable influence, it seems likely to backfire on the President. A new national poll conducted by Luntz Research to be unveiled today by the Center for Security Policy indicates that a strong majority of Americans (72.7% to 18.0%) support the precondition on dismantling terror Mr. Bush laid out last June. Among one of President Bush’s core constituencies, Christian conservatives, the result is even more dramatic (78.6% to 13.6%).

Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, the effort to curry favor with Islamists may not only be bad for the national security. It may jeopardize his political base without producing offsetting gains among Muslim voters and/or donors. The Singapore-based newspaper Straits Times, cites no less an authority than the American Muslim Council’s communications director, Faiz Rehman: "There’s no chance Muslims are going to vote for Mr Bush [in 2004]." Which makes the influence his organization and its ilk enjoys with the Bush team not only undesirable, but unfathomable.

Who’s next?

(Washington, D.C.): The Bush Administration is obliquely serving notice on Syria that it could be the next country liberated in the war on terror. Mr. Bush’s critics at home and abroad are horrified at the possibility that this conflict might take such a turn. If they wish to avoid such a step, however, they should learn a signal lesson from the now-nearly- accomplished liberation of Iraq: War is more likely to be made unnecessary if would-be critics support the President, than by their opposing him.

Lessons from Iraq

After all, it now seems clear that Saddam Hussein made the latest — and probably last — of his famous miscalculations by believing that the United States would be talked out of, or otherwise forestalled from, launching military operations against Iraq. In the end, he bet his regime on the ability of peace activists and sympathetic veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council to prevent Gulf War II. If all else failed and President Bush actually initiated hostilities, Saddam evidently felt confident of his forces’ ability to shed enough American blood to inflame anti-war movement and assure his survival yet again.

With the swift and decisive destruction of the Iraqi regime, things should look very different to the remaining members of the “Axis of Evil” (North Korea and Iran) and other rogue states like Syria. If not encouraged to believe otherwise, these countries’ governments –which are no less odious than the one ruled until recently by Saddam Hussein — have every reason to believe that they are at risk of meeting a fate similar to his, unless they undertake significant and far-reaching changes.

Why Syria?

Syria most especially has cause to take seriously President Bush’s demands for behavior modification. Like Iraq, it is a long-time sponsor of international terrorism. Most of the world’s terror organizations have long been given headquarters, branch offices and/or training facilities on Syria’s territory or in Syrian-controlled Lebanon.

Like Iraq, Syria has also been involved for decades in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In addition to its own chemical and biological stocks, and considerable quantities of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles for their delivery, Damascus may have acquired some of Saddam’s WMD spirited out of Iraq.

Lately, the Syrian regime has foolishly offered Mr. Bush several further justifications for the use of force against it. It appears to be granting refuge to members of Saddam’s ruling clique; on Sunday, U.S. forces captured his half-brother, Watban Ibrahim Hassan, near Mosul on one of the principal roads leading to Syria. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said other Iraqi officials have been allowed to elude capture by transiting Syria for third countries.

The U.S. government has alleged that Syrians have also provided night-vision equipment and presumably other war materiel to enable Saddam loyalists to attack American servicemen and women. Worse yet, they have permitted another deadly export: “busloads” of non-Iraqi death squads, some of whom have been apprehended with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and leaflets offering bounties for those who kill U.S. personnel. These are indisputably unfriendly acts.

An Object Lesson

President Bush has said that, in the war on terror, countries are either with us or against us. While some in the CIA and State Department insist that the Ba’athist regime in Syria qualifies as being among the former insofar as it has provided us with some helpful intelligence, a net assessment suggests that such assistance is more than offset by Syria’s ill-concealed efforts on behalf of our enemies.

Should the Syrians fail to end such hostile activity forthwith, the United States and a coalition of the willing should bring to bear whatever techniques are necessary — including military force — to effect behavior modification and/or regime change in Damascus, as well. By so doing, freedom stands to get a two-fer: liberating both Syria and Lebanon, the country Hafez Assad rapaciously colonized in the mid- 1970s and that Damascus has brutally dominated ever since, despite a formal, international commitment to relinquish it some twenty years ago.

Few steps would do more to create an opportunity for a real, just and durable Arab-Israeli peace than to accompany the liquidation of Saddam’s support for suicide bombers and other forms of terror with the elimination of the Syrian/Lebanese base of operations of and much of the support for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which Attorney General John Ashcroft has described as “one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world.” The region’s transformation — and its hopes for a more peaceable future — could be decisively advanced if behavior modification and/or regime change were to follow in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Bottom Line

It should come as no surprise that there will be other fronts in the war on terror. As George W. Bush made known shortly after September 11, 2001, this is a global conflict that will take years to wage. With luck, by making an object lesson of Iraq to other enemies in that war and by garnering the broadest possible support for doing so, we can accomplish the conditions required for the Free World’s victory without further resort to large-scale military operations.

A coup won’t do

(Washington, D.C.): The current buzz is that the Saudis, Egyptians, Turks and others are plotting to have Saddam Hussein removed from power — either voluntarily with a “golden parachute” exile package for him and his family, or involuntarily via possibly violent action. Either way, the promoters of this initiative reportedly contemplate offering amnesty for Iraqi generals who help effect “regime change” in Baghdad so as to preclude having the U.S. military accomplish it.

Over the weekend, top Bush Administration officials expressed enthusiasm for this idea. As Secretary of State Colin Powell put it on CBS News’ Sunday morning program “Face the Nation”: “[If it worked,] we would have an entirely new situation presented to the international community and we might be able to avoid war.”

Presumably, the Bush team is encouraging what might be called a coup in Baghdad in keeping with the President’s oft-stated position that war is the last option. A coup also happens to be the outcome that the CIA and State Department have been haplessly trying to engineer in Iraq for over a decade.

The Cynicism of Despots

Before addressing the demerits of this proposal, the cynicism of several of the foreign governments now said to be working to topple Saddam cannot go unremarked. In particular, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been among the most adamant members of the United Nations in declaring their respect for the sovereignty of Iraq and their conviction that interference in its internal affairs by any outside power is impermissible. At least the Bush Administration has made no bones about its belief that regime change is required.

Still, the question occurs: Will a coup do? Would either Saddam Hussein’s voluntary or unwilling displacement from the seat of power in Baghdad accomplish the needed regime change and its necessary consequences — namely, the liberation of the Iraqi people and an end to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction programs?

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Unfortunately, the answer is almost certainly no. For starters, there is a grave danger that the only change that will occur would be to replace Saddam Hussein with some other ruthless thug. Even if the latter did not come from the Butcher of Baghdad’s immediate family (given what is known about Saddam’s sons, this is a singularly horrifying prospect), an amnesty for his subordinates would probably ensure that the next Iraqi leader is one of his henchmen, Takriti clansmen or senior officers. Such an outcome is particularly likely in view of the Saudi and Egyptian governments’ ill-concealed preference for despots.

An amnesty would also amount to a free-pass for people who must, like Saddam Hussein, be held accountable for war crimes and unimaginable human rights abuses. Without such accountability and a more general program of “lustration” aimed at purging the political system of the ancien regime’s adherents, a post-Saddam Iraq will be denied the chance for real freedom. This chance was fully realized by Germany and Japan, at U.S. insistence, where lustration occurred. It remains, at best, a fragile opportunity for countries of the former Soviet empire where lustration has largely not transpired.

If anything, a “regime change” that amounts to a change of face, but not of character, may give rise to an even greater danger down the road. Those who were willing to do business with Saddam will surely demand that UN-imposed sanctions on his successor’s regime be removed at once. With unchecked use of Iraq’s immense petro-wealth, the next Saddam could rapidly finish whatever build-up of weapons of mass destructions his predecessor failed to complete. And it strains credulity that such a regime will afford international inspectors, let alone U.S. military personnel, with the sort of unencumbered access to Iraq’s secret files needed if we are to learn, at last, the true status of these activities.

Worst of all, if the United States is seen by the people of Iraq as once again favoring their continued enslavement, albeit by someone whose record of brutality may be less well-known than Saddam’s, we risk their permanent alienation. In the process, we would lose not only the opportunity to free one of the most industrious and capable populations in the Middle East, perhaps transforming Iraq into a prosperous and peace-loving nation. We would also squander the chance to create a model for bringing real democracy and economic opportunity to a region desperately in need of both.

The Bottom Line

While such an arrangement may suit the Saudi royal family, the dictators of Syria and Egypt, the murderous mullahs in Iran, etc., it should not be seen by Americans as an acceptable substitute for the true liberation of Iraq — the only hope for genuinely disarming that country.

There are worse things than an American-led war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in the next few weeks. Chief among them would be a war that will have to be waged later, against either Saddam or a no-less-dangerous successor whom the world has foolishly allowed to pursue his tyrannical domestic policies, weapons programs and ambitions for regional domination.

Roadmap to perdition

Over the past week, the leaders of Europe have been tuning their instruments ahead of today’s meeting of the Quartet in Washington. The sound has been lousy.

Last Friday, EU leaders met in Copenhagen for a summit on the Middle East in order to blast Israel. Israel, the European ministers alleged, is responsible for Palestinian terrorism because it dares to allow Jews to live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. By daring to allow Jews to live in these areas, the EU said, Israel "violates international law, inflames an already volatile situation, and reinforces the fear of Palestinians that Israel is not genuinely committed to end the occupation."

The Europeans also excoriated the Bush administration for telling French President Jacques Chirac last Thursday that the Quartet would not issue a final version of its so called "road map" for the establishment of a Palestinian state in its meeting today.

After breaking for the weekend, on Monday, the Europeans were back on the warpath. This time the battle cry emanated from London. There, Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected a request from Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for a meeting to discuss cooperation on fighting terrorism and conceptualizing the said road map. Such a meeting, with a mere foreign minister was beneath Blair’s dignity. Blair only meets with heads of state and ultra-leftist opposition party leaders, the Foreign Ministry was told.

At any rate, Blair was otherwise engaged this week. America’s closest ally in its war against terrorism was busy debauching himself by hosting the terrorist supplier, cheerleader and enabler; the occupier of Lebanon; the weapons of mass destruction proliferator and human-rights abuser Syrian President Bashar Assad at 10 Downing Street. There, before the television cameras, Blair smiled and said, "it is important to engage with Syria because Syria is going to be an important part of building a peaceful and stable future in the Middle East."

For his part, Assad drew strength from Blair’s hospitality. Assad, who last year sat next to the pope and condemned the Jews for murdering Jesus and Muhammad, has never been one to mince words.

Standing next to Blair, the Syrian dictator described the terrorist headquarters he happily houses in Damascus as "press centers." He extolled suicide bombers. He defended his friend Saddam Hussein. He condemned the United States. And of course, he condemned Israel – over and over.

Moreover, Assad used his trip to London to divert any attention the international press corps might have paid to his roundup of Kurdish political activists.

These Kurds, members of the outlawed Yakiti party, had held non-violent demonstrations outside the Syrian parliament building demanding political freedoms early last week. Three days later, Assad’s security services started rounding them up in house-to-house arrests.

As if Blair’s embrace of this enemy of everything he and his EU colleagues claim to stand for was not enough, Blair took leave of his honored guest to make a speech in Parliament about the Palestinians. There he announced his plan to organize a conference on Palestinian "reforms." To this summit next month he will invite the members of the Quartet, representatives of the Palestinian Authority as well as representatives of the burgeoning democracies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Together, without Netanyahu, all will discuss how to enact cosmetic reforms that will enable the assembled parties to demand the swift establishment of the State of Palestine.

Where does one begin analyzing this European behavior? Even as the Europeans launched their weekly assault against Israel and their embrace of terrorists, reports that Islamic terrorists have Europe itself in their sites were flowing freely.

On December 8th The New York Times reported on the increasing alarm of European security services over the gathering force and virility of these threats. This week the French announced the arrest of what appears to be an al-Qaida cell whose members were planning a chemical weapons attack on the Paris subway.

But no matter. The Europeans know who the villain in all of this is. The villain of course is Israel.

Assad, who launched the reenactment of the Arab League’s economic boycott of Israel last year must have felt right at home in Europe where his call for economic strangulation of Israel has been enthusiastically taken up continent-wide. The British have distinguished themselves not only for their department stores’ recent moves to ban Israeli products from their shelves, or for their quiet governmental ban on weapons sales, but also for their decision to launch an academic boycott of Israel. The day before Assad chatted with Queen Elizabeth while drinking tea and munching on crumpets at Buckingham Palace, the British papers were reporting that this boycott has been extended from the social sciences and humanities to the include a boycott of Israeli scientific research.

In refusing Netanyahu’s request for a meeting, Blair may have lost his chance to meet with any top ranking Israeli leader. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after all is under threat of indictment for war crimes in Belgium which has an extradition treaty with Britain, and therefore has to be careful about his European travel plans. For its part, the British Ministry of Justice has refused Israeli requests to set aside the Arab demand to indict Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz for war crimes. Given this state of affairs, there is a likelihood that neither leader be calling on Blair anytime soon.

The irony of the fact that the Europeans, who are prime targets for Islamic terrorism staunchly refuse not only to fight it, but also refuse to accept that Israel is being victimized is breathtaking. Before leaving London, Assad on Thursday threatened his generous host. Condemning Blair’s meek call for Palestinian reforms, Assad proclaimed, "The result of reforms will be destruction."

This mind-boggling impertinence shows exactly where European Middle East policy is leading. By mindlessly asserting that Jewish towns in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the greatest obstacles to peace in the region, the Europeans simply whet the terrorists’ appetite for destruction. The disingenuousness of the European claim that these towns, whose establishment and expansion is not even discussed, let alone proscribed, in the Oslo agreements are illegal or equivalent to the murder of Israelis by Palestinian terrorists is as appalling as it is destructive to the fight against terrorism.

And we must not forget that when at Camp David Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a deal that would include the evacuation of almost all of these "obstacles to peace" and the deportation of their Jewish residents into the shrunken State of Israel, Arafat responded by going to war.

Finally, it flies in the face of all the liberal values and international humanitarian laws that the Europeans so loudly espouse, that these enlightened leaders could demand the ethnic cleansing of Judea, Samaria and Gaza of Jews as a precondition not only for Palestinian statehood but also for the end of Palestinian terrorism.

Our prime minister tells us that we needn’t worry about the European antagonism because at the end of the day, Washington, not Brussels, calls the shots. This would be comforting if it were not the case that the forces in Washington that call the shots are those who are most aligned with Europe.

Far from condemning Europe for its anti-Israel policies, the State Department under Colin Powell has embraced much of the European Middle East platform as its own. In his address at the Herzliya Conference earlier this month, US ambassador Dan Kurtzer warmly embraced the so-called Saudi peace plan which calls for the right of return of Palestinian refugees as "an encouraging sign." While Kurtzer was stronger in condemning terrorism than his European cohorts, he minced no words in describing his view of the Israeli towns in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. "Terrorism, like settlements, must stop," Kurtzer said.

Kurtzer extolled the so-called road map that will be discussed in Washington today. In his own address before the same conference, Sharon tried desperately to force the State Department to lay off the road map which, the Prime Minister intimated is nothing but a sick mutation of President Bush’s call for actual democratization of the Palestinian Authority as a precondition for statehood.

Many in Jerusalem have taken heart from the appointment of Elliott Abrams as the director of the Middle East desk at the National Security Council. Washington insiders however point to the fact that Flynt Leverett, the NSC’s point man for the "peace process" is a State Department appointment. Leverett, a former CIA officer came to Israel with Undersecretary of State William Burns last month to discuss the road map. At the time, his participation in the delegation was seen as a sign to the Prime Minister that contrary to what he would like to believe, the White House is very much on board with the road map.

To placate European rancor over the Bush administration’s decision to postpone publishing the road map until after next month’s general elections, Colin Powell arranged for the Quartet members to meet with President Bush today. For its part, the World Bank kicked into State’s European appeasement drive by announcing this week that it will be giving the PA $40 million in short order to pay the salaries of its employees. All of this was apparently deemed necessary in order for the State Department to win a one month delay in the publishing of road map that represents nothing more than the total repudiation of President Bush’s Middle East policy.

Rather than demanding actual Palestinian reform and cessation of terror, the Orwellian road map calls for the Palestinians to regurgitate past statements to the effect that terrorism is a bad thing and declare that they plan to reform. In exchange, Israel will have to ban all Jewish construction activities in Jewish towns in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and withdraw IDF forces from Palestinian areas so that the Palestinians can think about making additional statements to the effect that they intend to reform themselves and stop murdering Israelis.

What we learn from this situation is that we are in very big trouble. The Europeans have cast their lots with the enemies of all they proclaim themselves to represent. As President Bush prepares for war in Iraq, he has allowed the State Department, whose head opposes Bush’s vision, to take full control of the Israeli-Palestinian agenda. All that Prime Minister Sharon has managed to win for us is a one-month respite before we begin our descent down the European road. Fasten your seatbelts, we are in for a very bumpy ride.

Against Us

(Washington, D.C.): For months now, President Bush has been declaring that nations around the world had a choice to make. Either they would be with us or with the terrorists. Some believed, or at least hoped, that this was empty rhetoric. If that perception is not to be proven correct — with potentially debilitating repercussions for Mr. Bush’s credibility and American security interests in the years ahead — those who are now showing themselves to be against, rather than with, us must be held to account.

A Who’s Who

Topping the list, of course, are the three veto-wielding nations that have long supported Saddam Hussein in the UN Security Council, and who are doing so now. France, Russia and China appear determined to block the adoption of a new resolution that would enable the United States to move without delay to compel Iraq’s disarmament when (not if) Saddam once again thwarts UN inspectors. Unless actually forced to choose, each would prefer to maintain cordial diplomatic and lucrative trade relations with the United States, while preserving a valued client in Baghdad.

It could be that these fair-weather (if not actually false) friends have been encouraged in their intransigence by State Department interlocutors — many of whom appear to share Franco- Russian-Chinese hostility to the Bush goal of regime change in Iraq — to believe that the President will accede to efforts to dumb-down the U.S.-drafted resolution. They clearly fancy a diplomatic endgame that will have the UN’s chief sleuth, Hans Blix, going through the motions of inspection over at least the next six-months.

Officials in Paris, Moscow and Beijing well know that if such delay would not completely foreclose American military action, it would certainly defer it until late next year. They may even succeed at last in their efforts to terminate sanctions on Iraq once it is certified (however unjustifiably) to be free of weapons of mass destruction. It is a safe bet that, as soon as sanctions are gone, they will be among the foreign suppliers willing to provide Saddam whatever additional lethal technology and weaponry he desires.

There is a similar risk that Russia and China — and even more reliable “friends,” like South Korea and Japan — may perceive Mr. Bush’s temperate stance towards North Korea’s nuclear weapons program as an invitation to try to have it both ways: Suffering no costs in their relationship with us even as they continue to prop up and reward the malfeasance of one of the planet’s most dangerous regimes.

Then there is the emerging danger emanating from our own hemisphere. The election this weekend of a radical socialist as president of Brazil may further catalyze trends with the potential to transform a region we have generally taken for granted as comprised almost entirely of democratic friends of the United States into one hostile towards us and hospitable to our international terrorist foes.

A warning about this dangerous prospect was communicated last week to President Bush by one of the most distinguished and respected members of the U.S. House of Representatives and chairman of its International Relations Committee, Rep. Henry Hyde. In particular, Mr. Hyde called attention to what he called a possible “axis of evil in the Americas” forged by Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Brazil’s Lula da Silva.

Of particular concern is the possibility that the enthusiasm “Lula” has declared for resuscitating Brazil’s long-dormant nuclear program could put atomic weapons and ballistic missiles into the hands of this axis and its unsavory friends (for example, Chavez has established close ties with virtually every terrorist-sponsoring regime and several terrorist organizations, notably Colombia’s FARC and the IRA). Rep. Hyde correctly points out that the United States can begin to counter this metastasizing danger by working with those who are against Chavez, and with us, in the Venezuelan opposition.

Among the other nations who are making known where they stand are Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The true colors of the former are on display as Egyptian state-controlled television broadcasts nightly during Ramadan 41-segments of a series loosely based on the Russian blood- libel known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Such incitement to hatred of and violence against our ally, Israel, is incompatible with being a true friend of the United States — to say nothing of enjoying the status of peacemaker and “moderate Arab state” that garners for Egypt billions each year in U.S. tax dollars and advanced weapons.

Saudi Arabia’s alignment with America’s enemies extends far beyond the anti-U.S. and anti- Western propaganda that is also ceaselessly disseminated by the kingdom’s government-run media. In fact, for some fifty years, Saudi official, royal family and what passes for private sector institutions have been expending untold sums to promote the state religion — a virulently intolerant strain of Islam known as Wahhabism. Washington has long ignored the individual and cumulative effects of such spending on Wahhabi proselytizing, recruiting, indoctrination, training and equipping of adherents who embrace the sect’s injunction to convert or kill infidels.

In the wake of terrorism made possible — or at least abetted — at home and abroad by such Saudi-connected activities, the United States can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to this profoundly unfriendly behavior. That is particularly true insofar as there is reason to believe that Wahhabi enterprises are giving rise to perhaps the most insidious enemy of all: an Islamist Fifth Column operating within this country.

The Bottom Line

Fortunately, the United States does have friends, nations that are genuinely “with us” in the war on terror. They include Great Britain, Israel, Australia, India and Turkey. Each shares, at a fundamental level, our values. Like us, all are, to varying degrees, under assault from terrorist enemies. Like the United States, all face domestic pressure to accommodate — rather than confront — it.

Still, such nations constitute the core of a coalition of the willing that President Bush has resolved to mobilize to address the threats posed by terrorists like Saddam Hussein and his friends. The time has come to do so and, in the process, to make clear who is truly with us and who is prepared, instead, to be with our enemies.

The tempting of George Bush

(Washington, D.C.): President George W. Bush has indisputably proven himself a world-class leader. For proof, one need look no further than the extraordinary progress he has made since Labor Day in moving the Nation and the world on the question of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

Today, Mr. Bush is poised to receive overwhelming, bipartisan congressional approval for whatever actions he deems necessary to deal with Saddam. Such an accomplishment seemed unimaginable back in August when the Bush Administration seemed adrift as it was buffeted daily by Republican and Democratic critics. At this writing, the President is preparing further to consolidate his base of support by taking his case to the American people via a highly publicized speech in Cincinnati.

Temptation #1: Fuggedabout Regime Change

At this critical juncture, however, Mr. Bush is clearly being subjected to a potentially irresistible temptation: Abandon his commitment to regime change in order to translate his mandate from Congress into support from the “international community.” This would, he is being told, be expressed in a more-or-less satisfactory new UN Security Council resolution authorizing intrusive inspections finally to “disarm” Iraq.

Like most seductive propositions, this one would be so easy to agree to, yet so problematic once that has been done. For one thing, Mr. Bush may or may not get the Russians, Chinese and French (who, together with Great Britain and the United States wield vetoes in the Security Council) to go along with a new resolution to his liking. Certainly, they are more likely to do so if the toppling of their client, Saddam Hussein, is off the table. But even then, the past track record of such nations suggests that they will be working to help Saddam undermine the latest inspection regime, and get away with it, before the new resolution’s ink is dry.

While “W.” is clearly aware of this danger, he is probably being told by Secretary of State Colin Powell that a UN agreement can be achieved if only the President will permit him to finesse the regime change bit. In fact, Mr. Powell floated this as a trial balloon last week, suggesting that Saddam could stay in power if only this time he actually went along with being disarmed.

You can just hear the pitch to Mr. Bush: Security Council backing would give political cover to Saudi Arabia and other fair-weather friends, making possible the sort of grand coalition Mr. Bush’s father enjoyed at the time of Operation Desert Storm. It will be the world against Saddam, redux. And nattering left-wing congressional Democrats — and maybe even Al Gore — who say they are for ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction but are leery of trying to topple the man who has amassed them — would be silenced, if not actually brought on board.

It may even be that Mr. Powell is telling Bush #43 what he, among others, told Bush #41 eleven years ago: We do not have to worry about actually toppling Saddam; his hold on power will be mortally affected by the embarrassment he will suffer at UN hands. This time it will come in the form of intrusive inspectors, perhaps backed by armed multinational units with a mandate to go “anywhere, anytime.”

George W. Bush must not fall into the same trap that wrested defeat from the jaws of his father’s victory over Saddam in 1991. Unless the UN approves the one outcome that has any hope of actually disarming Iraq — regime change in Baghdad — a new inspections mandate will actually impede termination of Saddam’s WMD programs. Inspectors will, at best, buy the Iraqi despot more time to pursue his megalomaniacal agenda; at worst, they will become hostages and “human shields” against future U.S.-led military action. The latter danger may be alleviated by, as some are proposing, accompanying the inspectors with up to 50,000 heavily armed troops. If such units wind up having to fight, however, they and their charges may be badly bloodied before they can be reinforced or extracted, a la “Blackhawk Down.”

Even in that event, some may argue — as they did in 1991 — that the United States must refrain from removing Saddam Hussein from power since it has no UN mandate to do so. Absent such a mandate, we would be warned once again that the grand coalition would fall apart and the Arab “street” would rise up against so-called “moderate” governments in the region. We would be blamed for “aggression,” a crime the new International Criminal Court may try to prosecute.

Temptation #2: Saddam Lite’

There is another temptation to which Mr. Bush is clearly being subjected: We need not worry about the time-consuming, potentially costly and politically challenging business of liberating Iraq if Saddam is assassinated or exiled by one of his cronies. Unfortunately, replacing the devil we know with what is likely to be “Saddam Lite” will not ensure that the weapons program pursued by the ruling clique actually is terminated.

The Bottom Line

More importantly, succumbing to either of these temptations will forfeit the one thing that holds promise of ending the threat Iraq poses to its neighbors and the world: The prospect of freeing an Arab nation from tyranny. By sticking to real regime change as his central war aim, President Bush may have to reject the seductive promises of help, support and solidarity from unreliable quarters at home and abroad. But if he can bring about the genuine liberation of the Iraqi people, he will not only have given peace the best chance it may ever have in that region. He might also succeed in bringing the “blessings of liberty” to an Arab world that has never known them — and that will be transformed by them, as have others who have been so blessed.

The Case Against Saddam (I): The Terror Connection

(Washington, D.C.): In the emerging debate over the need to effect regime change in Iraq, one of the opponents’ most frequently heard arguments rests on the claim that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the war on terror. In making this assertion, some critics aver that they would, of course, support action against Saddam if such a connection could be established. Those who may still remain opposed presumably appreciate that the American people would be even more supportive than they presently are if evidence tying the Iraqi despot to terrorist attacks on this country were established.

The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has done a singular service by dedicating most of its contents on Thursday to a tour de force by Micah Morrison in which he catalogues just the sort of evidence the critics contend is needed. Entitled “The Iraq Connection,” the Morrison essay describes important forensic research done by two intrepid private citizens: Dr. Laurie Mylroie, a long-time member of the Center’s National Security Advisory Council, and Jayna Davis, a former television reporter in Oklahoma City.

These two women have compiled impressive, if circumstantial, cases that Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services may have been involved in — if not principally responsible for — the first attack of the World Trade Center and the truck-bombing of the Murrow building in Oklahoma. In Dr. Mylroie’s case, the evidence fills an entire book on the subject released last year by AEI Press, entitled Study in Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War against America.

Like Saddam’s apparent connections to the September 11th attacks, the evidence linking the Butcher of Baghdad to these murderous acts of terror may be insufficient to convict him in an American court of law under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. It is, however, precisely the kind of evidence — fragmentary, inconclusive, probably unpersuasive to those who steadfastly oppose action against Iraq — that one should expect to find in operations for which the chief sponsor is determined to conceal his responsibility.

As part of the case for liberating Iraq, the evidence compiled by Dr. Mylroie and Ms. Davis, and so helpfully chronicled by the Journal, represents an important part of the casus belli.

The Iraq Connection


By Micah Morrison

The Wall Street Journal, 5 September 2002

OKLAHOMA CITY — With the Sept. 11 anniversary upon us and President Bush talking about a “regime change” in Iraq, it’s an apt time to look at two investigators who connect Baghdad to two notorious incidents of domestic terrorism. Jayna Davis, a former television reporter in Oklahoma City, believes an Iraqi cell was involved in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building here. Middle East expert Laurie Mylroie links Iraq to the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and has published a book on the subject.

Both cases are closed, of course — in the public mind if not quite officially. Timothy McVeigh was convicted of murder in the Oklahoma City bombing and executed in June 2001; Terry Nichols was sentenced to life in prison for conspiracy and manslaughter, and faces a further trial on murder charges. In the World Trade Center bombing, prosecutors convicted six men of Middle Eastern origin on the theory that they operated in a “loose network.” One suspect remains at large, but the apparent ringleader, known as Ramzi Yousef, was captured in Pakistan and is now in federal prison in the U.S.

The prosecutors in both episodes believe they got their men, and of course conspiracy theories have shadowed many prominent cases. Still, the long investigative work by Ms. Davis and Ms. Mylroie, coming to parallel conclusions though working largely independently of each other, has gained some prominent supporters. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, for example, recently told the Journal that “when the full stories of these two incidents are finally told, those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big explanations to these two brave women. And the nation will owe them a debt of gratitude.”

The Vanishing John Doe No. 2

Ms. Davis, for example, has a copy of a bulletin put out by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol immediately after the Murrah bombing. It specifies a blue car occupied by “Middle Eastern male subject or subjects.” According to police radio traffic at the time, also obtained by Ms. Davis, a search was on as well for a brown Chevrolet pickup “occupied by Middle Eastern subjects.” When an officer radioed in asking if “this is good information or do we really not know,” a dispatcher responded “authorization FBI.” Law-enforcement sources tell Ms. Davis that the FBI bulletin was quickly and mysteriously withdrawn.

The next day, the federal government issued arrest warrants and sketches of two men seen together, John Doe No. 1 and No. 2. John Doe 1 turned out to be McVeigh, who was quickly picked up on an unrelated charge. Following the arrest of McVeigh and Nichols, the Justice Department changed course, saying the witnesses were confused and there was no John Doe 2 with McVeigh.

But Ms. Davis, who was covering the case at the time for KFOR-TV in Oklahoma City, says in fact there was a John Doe No. 2, and that she has identified him. The original warrant for John Doe No. 2 described a man about 5 feet 10 inches, average weight, with brown hair and a tattoo on his left arm. She says the man matching this description is an Iraqi political refugee named Hussain al-Hussaini, an itinerant restaurant worker who entered the country in 1994 from a Saudi Arabian refugee camp and soon found his way to Oklahoma City. She says she has more than 20 witnesses who can place him near the Murrah Building on the day of the bombing or finger him in parts of the conspiracy.

Seven weeks after the bombing, Ms. Davis’s KFOR television station began broadcasting a series of reports on a possible Middle East connection. It did not name Mr. al-Hussaini, but did include photographs of him that digitally obscured his face. Mr. al-Hussaini sued for libel and defamation, denying any association with the bombing. In November 1999, U.S. District Court Judge Tim Leonard dismissed the lawsuit.

Citing defense contentions Mr. al-Hussaini’s counsel failed to dispute, the judge ruled that Ms. Davis had proved that Mr. al-Hussaini “bears a strong resemblance to the composite sketch of John Doe #2,” including a tattoo on his left arm, that he was born and raised in Iraq, that he had served in the Iraqi army, and that his Oklahoma City employer had once been suspected by the federal government of having “connections with the Palestine Liberation Organization.”

Mr. al-Hussaini appealed Judge Leonard’s decision to the 10th Circuit Court, where a ruling is pending. He is represented by Gary Richardson, a well-known Oklahoma lawyer who currently is an independent candidate for governor. In an interview, Mr. Richardson denounced the treatment of Mr. al-Hussaini as anathema to American values, saying he had been singled out because he was an Arab. “There is no evidence that Hussain al-Hussaini is John Doe No. 2,” Mr. Richardson said. “He was grossly mistreated by the media in Oklahoma.”

In 1996, Mr. al-Hussaini returned to Boston, where he had first entered the U.S. He found work as a cook at Logan Airport. According to his medical records, he was haunted by the Oklahoma City episode and the publicity surrounding his libel suit. He began drinking heavily and in 1997 was admitted to a psychiatric clinic for a depressive disorder and suicidal thoughts. Mr. al-Hussaini’s lawyer says his client has since moved to another part of the country and is “trying to put his life back together.”

According to notes taken by a nurse at the psychiatric clinic, Mr. al-Hussaini quit his job at Logan Airport in November 1997, nearly four years before planes from there were hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Her notes say he stated, “If anything happens there, I’ll be a suspect.”

Evidence supporting Ms. Davis’s suspicions surfaced during discovery for the McVeigh trial. An FBI report, for example, records a call a few hours after the bombing from Vincent Cannistraro, a retired CIA official who had once been chief of operations for the agency’s counter-terrorism center. He told Kevin Foust, a FBI counter-terror investigator, that he’d been called by a top counter-terror adviser to the Saudi royal family. Mr. Foust reported that the Saudi told Mr. Cannistraro about “information that there was a ‘squad’ of people currently in the United States, very possibly Iraqis, who have been tasked with carrying out terrorist attacks against the United States. The Saudi claimed that he had seen a list of ‘targets,’ and that the first on the list was the federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.”

Stephen Jones, McVeigh’s lead lawyer, discusses the FBI report in his book, “Others Unknown: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing Conspiracy.” Mr. Cannistraro later told Mr. Jones that he didn’t know if the caller “was credible or not.” But Mr. Foust’s memo says Mr. Cannistraro described the Saudi official as “responsible for developing intelligence to help prevent the royal family from becoming victims of terrorist attacks,” and someone he’d known “for the past 10 or 15 years.”

Ms. Davis’s evidence was examined by Patrick Lang, a Middle East expert and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s human intelligence collection section. In a memo to Ms. Davis, Mr. Lang concluded that Mr. al-Hussaini likely is a member of Unit 999 of the Iraqi Military Intelligence Service, or Estikhabarat. He wrote that this unit is headquartered at Salman Pak southeast of Baghdad, and “deals with clandestine operations at home and abroad.”

Larry Johnson, a former deputy director of the State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, also has examined Ms. Davis’s voluminous research. “Looking at the Jayna Davis material,” Mr. Johnson says, “what’s clear is that more than Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved. Without a doubt, there’s a Middle Eastern tie to the Oklahoma City bombing.”

Mr. al-Hussaini and other former Iraqi soldiers colluded with McVeigh and Nichols in the attack, Ms. Davis charges. “There is a Middle Eastern terrorist cell operating in Oklahoma City. They were operating prior to the Oklahoma City bombing and they are still operating today.”

The popular stereotype of McVeigh is of a twisted “patriot” out to avenge government actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge. But in March 1998 he penned a prison-cell “Essay on Hypocrisy” obsessed with Iraq. “We’ve all seen pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But have you ever seen these pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?” With calls for war crimes trials of Saddam Hussein, “why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of ‘mass destruction?'”

In dismissing the al-Hussaini libel suit, Judge Leonard pointedly noted the indictment of McVeigh and Nichols included a charge of conspiracy “with others unknown.” In sentencing Nichols, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch remarked, “It would be disappointing to me if the law enforcement agencies of the United States government have quit looking for answers.”

World Trade Center

The Sept. 11 airline crashes were not the first attempt to topple the World Trade Center towers. In February 1993, a bomb blast in a public parking garage below the North Tower of the World Trade Center killed six people and left a crater six stories deep. It could have been much worse. In her book, “The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks,” Laurie Mylroie says that the bomb was designed to topple the North Tower into the South Tower and envelop the scene in a cloud of cyanide gas. Hearing the case, Judge Kevin Duffy agreed, saying that if the plan had worked, “we would have been dealing with tens of thousands of deaths.” After the bombing, the FBI rounded up four Muslims who moved in extremist circles in the New York area. Three others escaped overseas: a Palestinian, an Iraqi named Abdul Yasin, and Ramzi Yousef.

Ms. Mylroie’s book argues that Iraq was complicit in this attack. At the very least, she notes, Saddam Hussein is harboring a wanted terrorist: Abdul Yasin. He came to the U.S. six months before the Trade Center attack and is charged with helping mix chemicals for the bomb. Picked up in an early sweep after the bombing, he talked his way out of an FBI interrogation and turned up back in Baghdad.

Beyond this, Ms. Mylroie contends that the bombing was “an Iraqi intelligence operation with the Moslem extremists as dupes.” She says that the original lead FBI official on the case, Jim Fox, concluded that “Iraq was behind the World Trade Center bombing.” In late 1993, shortly before his retirement, Mr. Fox was suspended by FBI Director Louis Freeh for speaking to the media about the case; he died in 1997. Ms. Mylroie says that Mr. Fox indicated to her that he did not continue to pursue the Iraq connection because Justice Department officials “did not want state sponsorship addressed.”

According to phone records analyzed by Ms. Mylroie, Abdul Yasin appeared in the orbit of one of U.S. conspirators, Muhammed Salameh, some weeks after Mr. Salameh made a series of phone calls to relatives in Iraq, including to his uncle, Kadri Abu Bakr. Mr. Bakr is a senior figure in the PLO’s “Western Sector” terrorist unit; at the very least, his phone calls would be monitored by Iraqi intelligence.

Ramzi Yousef also showed up after the calls to Mr. Bakr, according to Ms. Mylroie’s analysis. His arrival “transformed the conspiracy from a pipe bombing plot to an audacious attack on the World Trade Center.” Yousef was “the individual most responsible for building the World Trade Center bomb” — 1,200 pounds of urea nitrate with a nitroglycerine trigger, booster chemicals, sulfuric acid and sodium cyanide.

After the bombing, Yousef vanished; he had entered with an Iraqi passport, and exited with a Pakistani passport. Yousef’s Pakistani passport was in the name of Abdul Basit. He obtained it from the Pakistani consulate in New York shortly before the bombing, saying he had lost his passport and presenting photocopied pages from Abdul Basit’s 1984 and 1988 passports.

Ms. Mylroie says her evidence suggests that Abdul Basit and his family were among two dozen Pakistani nationals working in Kuwait who vanished at the time of the Iraqi invasion. Law enforcement authorities believe she overplays this possibility, that Yousef is indeed Basit, and that the original Iraqi passport is the only firm link to Iraq.

After fleeing in the wake of the 1993 bombing, Yousef/Basit made his way to the Philippines, where he planted a bomb that killed the passenger taking his seat after he disembarked from a plane on the island of Cebu. Police investigating a fire in a Manila apartment he occupied found a laptop computer with plans to bomb 12 U.S. jets simultaneously. Yousef escaped but was later apprehended in Pakistan and turned over to U.S. authorities. He was convicted in both the Trade Center attack and the plane-bombing plot.

One of Yousef’s confederates, Abdul Hakin Murad, was arrested at the Manila apartment and later convicted in the U.S. in the plane plot. While in custody in the Philippines, he told investigators that he and Yousef had discussed hijacking a jet and crashing it into CIA headquarters. According to a January 1995 Manila police report, Murad said “he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters. There will be no bomb or any explosive that he will use in its execution. It is simply a suicidal mission that he is very much willing to execute.”

The Philippine Connection

Astonishingly, the Murrah bombing and the first WTC attack share a connection. Yousef and Terry Nichols were in the Philippines simultaneously. Nichols’s trips there are undisputed; his wife’s relatives lived in Cebu City. Cebu is also the territory of the Islamic terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. McVeigh lawyers sought to substantiate an “others unknown” defense theory, and made extensive filings concerning Nichols’s activities there.

These filings show that he was often in Cebu without his wife, and that he was in frequent contact with Ernesto Malaluan, a relative of his wife who had once lived in Saudi Arabia and owned a boarding house in Cebu City. The filing asserted that his boarding house “shelters students from a university well known for its Islamic militancy.”

A defense examination of phone records found that Nichols had repeatedly called the Cebu boarding house in the weeks preceding the bombing. Some of the calls were billed to a prepaid phone card to which McVeigh also had access. The calls were often made from pay phones at truck stops and the like, and sometimes followed mysterious patterns. In one instance, for example, the same number was dialed nine times in nine minutes before someone answered and spoke for 14 minutes.

The McVeigh defense also produced two witnesses, Nichols’s father-in-law and a resort worker, who said that while in the Philippines, Nichols had asked them if they knew anyone who knew “how to make bombs.”

The defense team also obtained a statement from Philippines law-enforcement officials about a meeting of Nichols and Yousef. The statement was given by a putative Abu Sayyaf leader, Edward Angeles. Angeles is a murky figure. Born Ibrahim Yakub and said to be one of the founders of Abu Sayyaf, he surrendered to the Philippine Army in 1995, claiming he had been all the time a deep penetration agent for the government. Angeles was assassinated in 1999 by unknown gunmen.

The McVeigh defense filings portray the Nichols link to the Cebu City boarding house, Ramzi Yousef and Abu Sayyaf as grounds for believing that bomb-making expertise may have been passed to Nichols through “Iraqi intelligence based in the Philippines.” McVeigh attorney Stephen Jones told Insight magazine recently that six months before the Oklahoma City bombing, “Tim couldn’t blow up a rock. Then Terry goes to the Philippines,” and their bomb-making skills take a great leap forward. The court did not grant Mr. Jones’s request to comb through U.S. intelligence files in search of an Iraq connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Sept. 11 Footnotes

The principal reason for suspecting an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks is of course the much-discussed report of a meeting in Prague on April 8, 2001, between apparent hijacking leader Mohamed Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an Iraqi diplomat expelled as a spy shortly thereafter. Press reports have repeatedly cast doubt on these reports, apparently because the FBI located Atta in Virginia and Florida shortly before and after the meeting and found no record of his leaving the U.S. But the latest report, in the Aug. 2 edition of the Los Angeles Times, quotes a high Bush administration official as saying evidence of the meeting “holds up.” In the face of doubts and denials, Czech officials have repeatedly maintained that they’re sure the meeting took place. Atta also passed through Prague on his way to the U.S. in June of 2000, returning a second time after being refused entry for lack of a visa.

There are also reports of various contacts between Iraqis and the al Qaeda terrorist network, notably a 1998 visit to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan by Saddam Hussein’s deputy head of military intelligence at the time, Faruq al-Hijazi. In congressional testimony in March, CIA Director George Tenet noted that Iraq has “had contacts with al Qaeda,” adding that “the two sides mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggest that tactical cooperation between them is possible.”

Espionage writer Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out that of the eight pilots and co-pilots of hijacked planes on Sept. 11, none got off a distress call. What we know of the incidents came from stewardesses and flyers with cell phones. Commercial satellite photos show the body of an airliner at Salman Pak, where the Iraqis are thought to maintain terrorist training camps. One Iraqi defector, Sabah Khalifa Alami, has stated that Iraqi intelligence trained groups at Salman Pak on how to hijack planes without weapons. Mr. Epstein details these connections at his Web site, www.edwardjayepstein.com.

None of this is “hard evidence,” let alone “conclusive evidence,” that Saddam Hussein was complicit in Sept. 11 or any of the other domestic terrorist attacks. But there is quite a bit of smoke curling up from various routes to Baghdad, and it’s not clear that anyone except Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie has looked very hard for fire. We do know that Saddam Hussein plotted to assassinate former President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait in April 1993. Could he have been waging a terror offensive against the U.S. ever since the end of the Gulf War? This remains a speculative possibility, but a possibility that needs to be put on the table in a serious way.

Mr. Morrison is a senior editorial page writer at the Journal.

Evidence grows that ‘Laurent of Arabia’ has it right: Saudi Arabia is an unreliable ally at best, at worst a real foe

(Washington, D.C.): It is becoming harder and harder to be an apologist for Saudi Arabia. People — including many who should know better — are still trying, to be sure. But the evidence continues to accumulate that confirming the assessment a French RAND analyst by the name of Laurent Murawioc recently gave the Defense Policy Board to the effect that the Saudis are not “with us” in the war on terror.

In the following Wall Street Journal op.ed. article, Simon Henderson chronicled some of the most recent indicators of where Saudi Arabia comes down on the binary, friend-or-enemy choice President Bush on 20 September announced would have to be made by every nation. Surely, as Mr. Henderson notes, “There is perhaps no point in having more enemies than you already have.” Still we ignore the facts about who the enemies we have actually are at our peril.

One can for the moment reserve judgment about the need to exercise the relatively draconian steps Mr. Murawioc deems in order — including seizing the Saudi oil fields — and yet embrace the reality that Saudi Arabia cannot be allowed to continue promoting Wahhabist Islamism around the globe, not least in the United States itself, without incurring American retaliation in an appropriate form.

THE SAUDI WAY

by Simon Henderson

The Wall Street Journal, 12 August 2002

The recent statement by Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister that the U.S. will not be allowed to use Saudi soil to launch an attack on Iraq is further proof that the House of Saud is not our “ally” in the war on terror. Last month’s Defense Policy Board briefing (as reported in the Washington Post) made a good point when it described Saudi Arabia as “active at every level of the terror chain.” The Bush administration’s attempts to distance itself from such statements will prove increasingly difficult as the truth about the Saudi kingdom becomes better known.

Despite the handshakes and diplomatic niceties, it is clear that the “American way” is very different from the “Saudi way.” Under the House of Saud, the people of Saudi Arabia — including foreign workers and visitors — are subjected to juryless trials, lashings and public beheadings. These actions bear no resemblance to American concepts of “inalienable” and constitutional rights. Instead, they reflect what the House of Saud calls “Islamic values.”

A Bargain

Before Sept. 11, the U.S.-Saudi relationship hid behind a veil of obscurity with public attention focused on the simple trade-off of reliable supplies of reasonably priced oil in return for protection against external threats. Most people accepted this bargain.

Since Sept. 11, and the preponderance of Saudis among the hijackers and those detained at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S.-Saudi relationship has assumed a new, more sinister aspect. Even in the past, it was not a liaison that stood up well to public scrutiny. Now it certainly does not.

The Saudi way of public diplomacy is to deny everything; for months Interior Minister Prince Nayef simply said the Sept. 11 hijackers had stolen Saudi identities. For the less gullible, the Saudi style is to spin, and if that doesn’t work, spin some more. The Saudi line on why so many Saudis were involved in the attacks is that Osama bin Laden wanted to strain the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Nice spin. Anyone questioning Saudi involvement in Sept. 11 can be accused of doing bin Laden’s bidding.

But there is much more to the links between the hijackers and the House of Saud than many are willing to admit. A Jan. 9 story in U.S. News & World Report, entitled “Princely Payments,” provided a lead which few have followed up. Two unidentified Clinton administration officials told the magazine that two senior Saudi princes had been paying off Osama bin Laden since a 1995 bombing in Riyadh, which killed five American military advisers. A Saudi official was quoted as saying, “Where’s the evidence? Nobody offers proof. There’s no paper trail.”

I followed the lead and quickly found U.S. and British officials to tell me the names of the two senior princes. They were using Saudi official money — not their own — to pay off bin Laden to cause trouble elsewhere but not in the kingdom. That is “the Saudi way.” The amounts involved were “hundreds of millions of dollars,” and it continued after Sept. 11. I asked a British official recently whether the payments had stopped. He said he hoped they had, but was not sure.

There is a logic to this “Saudi way,” at least from a Saudi point of view. It will offer little comfort to those who lost loved ones on Sept. 11. Paying off bin Laden might be the simplest and least bloody way of dealing with the threat of Islamic extremism, at least in Saudi Arabia.

Does this make Saudi Arabia an enemy or an ally? Again, our logic says an enemy. But the fuss over Foreign Minister Prince Saud’s statement and the Defense Policy Board briefing actually works in the Saudis’ favor. By inching closer towards conservative Islam, the House of Saud hopes it will find support from the majority of the kingdom’s population, which, according to reports as recently as a few months ago, overwhelmingly supports bin Laden.

Why doesn’t the Bush administration admit the difficulties with the Saudis and complain about the complicity between senior princes and bin Laden? Diplomacy, like politics, is the art of the possible. There is perhaps no point in having more enemies than you already have. But the split is not something that can be hidden forever. A major problem is that Washington is no longer sure who within the House of Saud to deal with.

Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto ruler, who met President Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April, was not one of the princes who was paying off bin Laden. The ailing King Fahd is in Geneva, dying according to some, having last-gasp medical attention according to others. But while he is there, Abdullah lacks complete authority. Two weeks ago, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak went to visit Fahd in what was interpreted by some observers as a slight to Abdullah.

Rumors of schisms within the royal family abound. King Fahd, along with his fellow full brothers in the “Sudairi Seven,” including Defense Minister Prince Sultan and Interior Minister Prince Nayef, are now said to be more wary of the U.S. relationship than Abdullah is. Sultan is in line to be king after Abdullah; Nayef would follow afterwards. Often it seems that the Sudairis are keeping Fahd alive in order to deny the 79-year-old Abdullah the throne. The Saudi system is such that if Abdullah becomes feeble or ill, he will be passed over.

Some reports suggest that the royal family infighting has become vicious. A junior prince died in a car accident in the desert, another had a heart attack, a third lost a long struggle against drug and alcohol abuse. It is hard to tell whether this is just normal attrition among the cadre of 5,000-plus princes or something else.

Will “the Saudi way” cope with the strains in the U.S. relationship and the apparent gridlock in decision-making in the kingdom? We are in new territory. Already the kingdom has allowed itself to lose its position as principal supplier of imported oil to the U.S. (That position was lost in the last quarter of 2001, despite Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar spinning the line that the kingdom was sending extra oil as a gesture of support following Sept. 11.)

In the last two weeks, it has become apparent that talks on the opening of Saudi gas fields to energy majors like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch/Shell and BP were deadlocked. The kingdom apparently did not want to give the impression that it needed foreigners to build the desalination plants and power generation units that the Saudi people so desperately need. Brownouts often occur in major cities and a stink of sewage pervades many residential areas of the capital.

While putting up barriers for U.S. action against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Riyadh is taking a calculated risk that it no longer needs U.S. security guarantees. The other traditional part of the oil relationship has changed also. In the preliminary talks before the Crawford summit, the Saudis threatened to cut off oil exports for two months unless U.S. policy supporting Israel was changed. (This did not, of course, stop Saudi officials from claiming they would never use oil as a political weapon. More spin.)

Like Iran?

Saudi Arabia appears to be heading in the direction of fundamentalist Iran, deliberately distancing itself from foreigners and being a hindrance rather than a help to the U.S. The royal family no doubt hopes this will enable them to continue to rule — they have no interest in Arabia becoming a republic.

For Washington, the assumption must be that Saudi Arabia will continue to fund radical Islam. It is what the Saudis believe in, and what the royal family must allow or risk having its credentials to rule questioned. So money will continue to flow to Hamas and other groups across the Muslim world. The key test will be what is good for Saudi Arabia rather than what might upset the U.S. It is “the Saudi way.”

Mr. Henderson, an adjunct scholar of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, runs saudistrategies.com, a consulting firm.

Washington won’t let Israel win

Wednesday’s New York Times led with the banner headline, "New Strategy Set by US and Saudis for Mideast Crisis." The article cited administration sources, explaining that the outcome of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s visit to US President George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, was a "division of labor" between the two. The Saudis are to deliver Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to the negotiating table, and Bush is to deliver Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, starting at their meeting on Monday. The endgame, according to the article, is the establishment of a PLO state along the lines set out by president Bill Clinton in December 2000.

The Clinton proposal, which was declared null and void by the Bush administration early last year, envisioned the establishment of a Palestinian state in about 95 percent of Judea and Samaria, all of the Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, and the Halutza dunes inside pre- 1967 Israel.

The Clinton proposal also gave legitimacy to the Palestinian demand for a "right of return," allowing for the immigration of several thousand in the framework of family reunification. If the Times’ report is true, (and the Times seems to have a knack for forcing events to follow its stories), it can be said that the Bush administration is quite simply following in the footsteps of all US administrations since Dwight Eisenhower’s – allowing Israel to beat Arab aggression militarily, but forcing it to lose the war politically.

So it was in 1956, when Eisenhower forced David Ben- Gurion to beat a speedy retreat from the Sinai and Gaza at the end of the Suez campaign. The president justified the uncompromising demand by promising Israel that if the Egyptians were again to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, the US would send its navy to reopen the waterway by force. In 1967, when Gamal Abdel Nasser closed the straits, president Lyndon Johnson begged off, forcing Israel to stand alone.

After the Six Day War, which should have led to a complete political reshuffling of the region, the US again protected Israel’s neighbors. Adopting UN Security Council Resolution 242, the US again dragged Israel along by extolling the resolution’s balance – conquered land would be returned to the aggressors, but not all of it, for Israel would be allowed to retain all territory necessary to ensure it had "defensible" borders. Promises aside, since the Carter administration, the US has accepted the Arab misinterpretation of 242 – that Israel is required to return all the lands it conquered.

In 1973, the US administration was again on hand, wresting the Egyptians from the jowls of defeat. Henry Kissinger prevented Israel from destroying Egypt’s Third Army, allowed the Egyptians to escape with honor and thus enabled the creation of the current Egyptian myth – that Israel lost that war. The Ford and Carter administrations strongly pressured Israel to sign away the Sinai in exchange for peaceful ties with Egypt, which after 23 years have yet to materialize, although Egypt, rearmed with American assistance, now poses a military threat unimaginable in the past.

In Lebanon in 1982, the Reagan administration stepped in to save a routed Arafat. The Americans paved the way for his escape with his troops from Beirut to Tunis, free to fight another day. In the meantime, the US forced Israel to withdraw from much of Lebanon and allowed the Syrian army to remain.

And in the Gulf war, the first Bush administration not only prevented Israel from achieving political advantage, it prohibited Israel even from defending itself against unprovoked Iraqi ballistic missile attacks. After isolating Israel from the coalition, the administration proceeded to force its democratic ally to the negotiating table to discuss the transfer territory to the Arabs. When the negotiations failed to bear fruit, the administration meddled in the 1992 elections to assist in the victory of the more forthcoming Labor Party.

Although the Clinton administration served in a decade unscathed by large-scale war, but marked by an increase in rogue states’ audacity and terrorist attacks on US targets, Clinton consistently urged Israel to accept Palestinian terrorism and insisted on turning a blind eye to blatant PA breaches of its commitments to Israel. The Clinton administration’s addiction to pressuring Israel to accept Arab aggression under the guise of peacemaking led to unprecedented meddling in Israel’s internal politics. The end result could be seen in the twin pictures of Clinton impertinently announcing his peace plan after his successor had already been elected, and Madeleine Albright chasing after Arafat outside the US Embassy in Paris in a vain attempt to get him to return to the negotiating table he had just overturned.

The refusal of successive administrations to locate the US Embassy in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, is not simply an indignity, but another example of how the US has consistently prevented Israel from gaining any political advantage from its military victories against Arab aggression.

Why has the US treated Israel so shabbily? Mainly because it can get away with it. After all, Israel has no other diplomatic outlet, given that the American people is not as cynical as the State Department. Throughout this history, the US has justified denying its democratic ally the fruits of its military victories against despotic aggressors "in the interests of peace." This policy has never brought peace, nor has it engendered stability. Rather, just as feeding the beast acts not to placate it but to strengthen it, so US placation of the Arab world at Israel’s expense has legitimized Arab rejection of Israel.

Never having to worry about losing irrevocably in their wars against Israel, rogue states like Syria, Iraq, and Iran ostentatiously build up non- conventional capabilities to destroy Israel. For their part, supposedly moderate regimes, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are free to inspire as much anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment as they wish, knowing there will never be a serious price to pay, even if this hatred foments a war they will lose. Today Bush, perhaps to a degree even greater than his predecessors, has sole power to determine which side will emerge victorious from the current Palestinian terrorist war against Israel.

And what would a much maligned and dreaded Israeli political victory over the current terrorist war look like? First and foremost, it would see Arafat’s physical disappearance from the scene and the dismantling of his Palestinian Authority as a political and military organization. Just as in Afghanistan today and hopefully in Iraq in the near future, the US has and will set up friendly, quasi-democratic governments, so Israel, or the US, would set up a new Palestinian government, committed to coexistence with Israel and the provision of political and economic freedom to the Palestinian people. Although sovereignty would not be promised, the chances of sovereignty being achieved, naturally and peacefully, would be greatly enhanced if the Palestinian people is allowed to develop democratic institutions and economic prosperity.

There is nothing wrong, immoral, imperialistic, or even anti-Palestinian about this plan. In fact, it would allow the Palestinians the opportunity to reconstitute their civil society after eight years of living under a corrupt dictatorship, which impoverished and subjugated them and told them to value murder more than life.

The only thing wrong with this plan is that it allows Israel to win this war politically.

In seemingly siding with the Saudis over Israel, the Bush administration has opted for the status quo, even though the status quo has failed repeatedly. On September 11, the US was attacked by the consequences of the status quo. Decades of hatred of the US, fuelled by despotic, US- backed regimes, which have seen the value of US guarantees as successive administrations have sold Israel out to Arab pressure, empowered al- Qaida to strike. The belief that today, the US is again preventing Israel from defeating the PA, has made Arafat stronger than he ever was before. It should have been clear by now that the Palestinian terrorist war against Israel, supported by Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, together with al- Qaida’s war against the US – backed by the same governments – have rendered the status quo not only destined to failure, but also dangerous to US interests.

Given the almost schizophrenic nature of the US administration’s Middle East policies, it is still anybody’s guess what Bush will decide to do. One thing is certain though: For the US to be able to win its war on Islamic terrorism, Israel must be allowed to win its war on Palestinian terrorism, both militarily and politically.