Iran Alleges U.S. Link to Deadly Militant Attack

2.19.2006, Monday

Los Angeles Times

February 19, 2007 Monday

Home Edition

Iran alleges U.S. link to deadly militant attack

BYLINE: Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer

SECTION: MAIN NEWS; Foreign Desk; Part A; Pg. 7

LENGTH: 743 words

DATELINE: TEHRAN

TEHRAN — Bullet cartridges bearing a U.S. insignia and English lettering were among the weaponry seized last week from Sunni militants suspected of killing 11 members of Shiite-dominated Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard, Iranian officials said Sunday.

A photo of the cartridge box, along with an array of other ammunition, was published by Iranian newspapers and news agencies.

Iran did not provide access to the weapons and explosives, drawing skepticism from analysts, and there was no way of evaluating the claims independently. But Tehran is clearly worried that the U.S. is quietly helping Iranian opposition groups foment instability, even while the Bush administration is confronting Iran over its nuclear program and accusing it of arming Shiite militants in Iraq.

The Iranian allegations came a week after U.S. officials laid out what they said was evidence of Iranian-made weapons in Iraq. That evidence also was inconclusive, and Iran denied supplying arms to Iraqi combatants.

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Marine Maj. Rebecca Goodrich-Hinton, said Sunday that officials had no comment about the allegations from Tehran.

Iranian officials in the southeastern region of Sistan-Baluchistan, where a bus carrying the Revolutionary Guard troops was struck Wednesday by explosives from a booby-trapped car, announced the accusations of U.S. and British involvement in the attack.

"Washington and London are facing serious challenges as their interests in the Middle East region have been endangered," an unnamed local official, identified as the province's political director, told the semiofficial Fars news agency. "Since the Islamic Republic is the main center of anti-U.S. struggles, they are seeking to trouble Iran through a series of challenges, including terrorist attacks and unrests."

He said weapons used in the attack, which wounded 31 people, were made by the U.S. and Britain. "Moreover, the arrested terrorist agents have confessed that they have been trained by English-speaking people," the official said.

In the last year, Iran has seen a wave of protests and bombings from non-Shiite minorities, especially Sunni Muslims living along the nation's western border with Iraq and its eastern border with Pakistan and Afghanistan, where two bombings occurred last week.

Sunnis make up about 8% of Iran's population and have long complained of repression and discrimination by the Shiite-dominated government. Though there are an estimated 1 million Sunnis in Tehran, the government has not allowed construction of a single Sunni mosque in the capital.

Three people were reportedly hanged in the oil-rich southwestern province of Khuzestan this month in connection with a series of deadly bombings last year. Seven others in the case were previously executed, reports say.

Ethnic Azeris and Kurds also have been increasingly militant in favor of greater autonomy, and the violence last week in Sistan-Baluchistan is the latest in a wave of unrest among ethnic Baluch on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border.

Responsibility for the bus bombing and an explosion the next day was claimed by the Sunni militant group Jundallah, or God's Brigade, which has been blamed for previous attacks on Iranian troops in the region.

Stratfor, a Texas-based security and intelligence firm, said in a report Saturday that the attacks "fall in line with U.S. efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilize the Iranian regime." It said a "covert intelligence war" between Iran and the U.S. is "well underway."

But other analysts said a large amount of U.S. military equipment supplied to Iran in the years before the 1979 Islamic Revolution was still in use, and the existence of U.S.-manufactured ammunition did not prove American involvement.

The analysts said unrest in Iran was more likely a reflection of the ethnic nationalism that is creating conflict in multiethnic nations across the globe, including the former Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia and Spain.

"We're living in a period in history when multinational states break up. And why should Iran be the exception?" said Edward N. Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"I'd be very surprised if the level of violence by the Kurds and the Baluch doesn't increase, or indeed if the Sunni Arabs in [Khuzestan] stop agitating. It's a natural thing," he said.

LA Times reprint:

Iran & Saudi deal to stabilize Lebanon is Syria’s worst nightmare

Monday, 19 February, 2007 @ 11:48 PM

BeirutDamascus- In the Middle East, there was a series of events on Sunday that points toward growing pressure for Syria.

First, Syrian President Bashar al Assad paid a visit to Tehran, where Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him Damascus needs to support the government in Iraq, and al Assad spoke out against rumors of a rift between Syria and Iran. The state-owned al-Baath daily in Damascus seemed to support his statements, writing -- in the context of Iranian-Syrian relations -- that, "Though their visions are not identical on everything, they however agree on two basic issues: Iraqi unity and the departure of the occupation forces, and the support of the political process in Iraq."

Meanwhile, Stratfor received word of a deal that Saudi Arabia has offered to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, who (along with some other Hamas officials) is based in Damascus. Riyadh apparently has offered to provide protection and diplomatic status to Meshaal and other members of the movement's politburo, without preconditions, should they experience any pressure from Iran or Syria to renege on the agreement signed in Mecca with the rival Fatah party.

The implications of such an offer to Hamas are, for Syria, significant. The Syrians have been harboring Hamas and other rejectionist Palestinian groups in hopes of using them as a bargaining chip with Israel, from which Damascus would hope one day to regain the Golan Heights. The Saudis, however, recently were able to bring Hamas and Fatah leaders together to forge a power-sharing deal -- one which appears to be making progress. This raises concerns that Damascus might be losing its influence over Hamas. The concerns are underscored by the offer Riyadh reportedly made to Meshaal, since it means the Islamist Palestinian movement could find an alternative sanctuary.

An even more terrifying prospect for the Syrians, however, would be for Iran to pursue its own national interests in partnership with others, leaving Damascus completely out in the cold, regionally speaking. This is not necessarily an irrational fear -- and it would explain al Assad's decision to visit Tehran at this particular time, as well as a comment he made, in calling for closer cooperation between Iran and Syrian, that the United States and Israel are trying to sow discord among Muslim states.

It is clear that securing its influence in Iraq is one of Tehran's primary goals, and Syria recognizes that Iran might be willing to cooperate with the United States and the Arabs to achieve this end. Moreover, the Alawite-Baathist regime has not been blind to recent negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, or the fact that Iran has called for cooperation between Hamas and Fatah. The perception is that Iran is willing to help ease the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in exchange for U.S. concessions in Iraq.

The Syrians' worst nightmare, of course, would involve Iran and Saudi Arabia working out a deal to stabilize Lebanon. Saudi-Iranian dealings in recent weeks prompted Hezbollah to back away from demonstrations that had been designed to bring down the Lebanese government. And it would not be beyond the pale for Iran to acquiesce to a broader agreement between Hezbollah (its proxy) and Saudi Arabia's Sunni allies, if Tehran was able to secure its goals in Iraq in exchange.

Such a deal would be immensely detrimental for Syria, given its significant interests in Lebanon. The only way to ensure that something like this does not come to pass is for Damascus to work closely with Tehran. Iran, of course, wants Syria to cooperate on Iraq, as Khamenei clearly stated on Sunday.

At this point, it remains to be seen whether Iran and Syria can work out a mutually acceptable arrangement. But from all appearances, the rumors of a rift between Iran and Syria may indeed have some merit.

Picture: Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani (R) shakes hands with his Saudi Arabian counterpart Prince Bandar bin Sultan in Tehran

Source: Stratfor, Ya Libnan

2.20.2006, Tuesday

2.21.2006, Wednesday

FBI Investigates Possible Letter Bomber Case

Listen to this story... by David Schaper

All Things Considered, February 21, 2007 · The FBI is investigating a case with echoes of the Unabomber, who sent bombs through the mail for more than 15 years. Two package bombs have been sent to financial services companies in the Midwest in recent weeks. The bombs weren't wired to explode. But investigators worry the next one may be.

Someone calling himself "the Bishop" has been mailing threatening letters to financial services companies; they upped the ante in recent weeks by mailing two pipe bombs, one to an investment firm in Kansas City, and the other to a firm in Chicago.

The letters include demands that Wanda Shipp, a postal inspector based in Chicago, says are very specific.

"The letters that were sent with the bombs were designed to threaten, and to also scare, frighten and to demand that a particular stock price increase to a certain dollar amount," Shipp says. Asked what the amount was, she answered, "Six dollars and 66 cents, I believe."

Shipp says investigators found both packages had been mailed on Jan. 26 from a post office in the Chicago suburb of Rolling Meadows — and that both had a bogus Chicago-area return address.

Although the letters with the pipe bombs were not signed, Shipp says they matched the other recent threatening letters.

Postal inspectors and the FBI have put investment firms across the country on alert. They're also offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to an arrest.

Fred Burton is a former federal counter-terrorism agent who now works with the Texas-based firm Stratfor, which advises corporate and government clients about security threats.

He says that in the earlier letters, "the bishop" says he's been watching the companies. He also refers to the Washington, D.C., sniper case, mentions possible kidnapping of children — and quotes John Milton's Paradise Lost.

"And in looking at these letters, as I have assessed, you can see a clear digression in his thought patterns," Burton says. "There's several run-on sentences, it appears that 'the bishop' is very agitated."

The investigation, which also includes the ATF and SEC, is utilizing high-tech forensic labs in Washington to identify where the components used to make the bombs came from.

But Burton points out that despite sophisticated forensic technology, it still took 18 years to catch the Unabomber — and that only happened because Ted Kaczynski's brother recognized his published writings and turned him in to the FBI.

Iran Sends Mixed Messages on Nuclear Issue

By Gary Thomas

Washington

21 February 2007

Thomas report (Real Audio) - Download 488K audio clip

Listen to Thomas report (Real Audio) audio clip

As another U.N. deadline on Iran's nuclear program passed, Tehran continued to send signals of both defiance and compromise. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies on the nuclear issue remain steadfast in their demand that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports from Washington, Iran is still gauging what it might get in return for concessions on the nuclear issue.

The Bush administration prides itself in staying "on message" - that is, all officials adhere to the same positions and talking points. But in Iran, staying on message seems to be a difficult proposition, especially when it comes to the nuclear issue.

Iranian officials have repeatedly made statements on the nuclear program that sometimes contradict each other, often in subtle ways, and that range from the conciliatory to the harshly defiant. It is the kind of thing that drives Western intelligence analysts crazy - which, some experts say, is exactly what Tehran is counting on.

Bruce Jentleson, a political science professor at DukeUniversity, says the sometimes varying pronouncements coming from Iranian officials can be attributed to both negotiating strategy and domestic political factors.

"One can interpret this in a couple of different ways," he said. "One is a very sophisticated negotiating strategy - that is, 'good cop and bad cop'. Second is that power is distributed within the government in different ways and you are hearing what we might call 'bureaucratic politics' coming through different constituencies that have different views."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has seen a slip in his political fortunes, as shown by elections in December, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is believed to be in poor health. Analysts believe there is intense internal debate in Iranian ruling circles about how to handle the nuclear issue.

The U.S. has been leading the charge to punish Iran for what Washington believes is Tehran's covert pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. Iran vehemently denies this, saying it only seeks peaceful nuclear energy.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey says the U.S. government sees nothing new in the varying statements coming from Iranian officials.

"And so while I'm sure we would all like to see Iran accept the positive pathway given, suspend their enrichment, and return to the negotiating table, I'm afraid that what we're seeing so far, including these recent statements, is just more of the same defiance," he said.

What is interesting, some analysts say, is how Iran has approached dealing with the world on the nuclear issue.

Most countries keep any nuclear work highly secret. But Iran has been publicly vocal about its intention to get peaceful nuclear technology - much more so under the hardline President Ahmadinejad than under his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami.

George Friedman, chief executive officer of the private intelligence firm Stratfor, says Iran knows the United States and Israel would never let Iran get to the point of nuclear weapons. He believes Iran is using the whole nuclear issue as bargaining leverage to expand its regional influence.

"The Iranians are behaving very differently," he said. "They're drawing all the attention they can to the nuclear program, which indicates to me that they're using it as a psychological tool and a bargaining chip, and they're not serious. If they were serious, they wouldn't be sort of telecasting to the world what they're doing."

Friedman says Iran studied very carefully how North Korea dealt with the United States and its allies over its own nuclear program.

"I think the U.S. is now transitioning from where nuclear weapons were the fundamental issue to a kind of new phase where nuclear weapons are now seen as a kind of bearable mix in general," he said.

"We've seen that in North Korea, and I think that we're going to see that to some extent in Iran. But certainly the Iranians know something that the North Koreans taught them: if you want to jerk the American chain, have a nuclear program," he added.

But the difference in the two cases, analysts point out, is that North Korea already has nuclear weapons. Iran is believed to still be about four years or more away from that capability.

VOA reprint:

US-Russia tensions rise over antimissile bases

Russia has threatened to withdraw from INF missile treaty, and target proposed US bases in Poland, Czech Republic.

By Arthur Bright | csmonitor.com

Global intelligence provider Stratfor writes that while abandoning the INF treaty would not make Russia a direct threat to the US, it would effectively neutralize the threat to Russia of American missile interceptors, while also dramatically shifting Russian military influence in Europe.

Though a direct arms race with the United States remains out of the question, a lopsided race in which the Russians focus on IRBMs [intermediate-range ballistic missiles] could change the game entirely. A barrage of several dozen IRBMs easily could overwhelm a small squadron of BMD [ballistic missile defense] interceptors based in Europe -- as well as any system that the United States conceivably might field in the next 20 years.

To be clear, this is not an option that would buy Russia parity with the United States. But it would be a stout reminder to Europe -- and to the United States by extension -- that even a weakened Moscow is not to be trifled with. Unable to reclaim the global power it wielded during the Soviet era, Russia nevertheless could use a new IRBM force to threaten Europe and, in so doing, resurrect a host of diplomatic options that served Kremlin interests very well in the past.