WarSclerotic

ANALYSIS-Arab upheaval sharpens Israeli debate on Iran strike | News by Country | Reuters.

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM, May 8 (Reuters) – Behind Israel’s tepid welcome of the popular uprisings convulsing Arab neighbours like Egypt and Syria, a long-running debate is gathering pace: Might the turmoil be enough to spur it to attack Iran?

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been quiet about a war option that would stretch the Israeli military to the limit, confidants say the drum of pro-democracy protests is only honing his ear to the clock ticking on Iran’s nuclear programme.

The prospect of pro-Western regimes from Cairo to the Gulf falling in with Iran resonates with Netanyahu, who has cast the Islamic republic as a global menace.

Such is the sense of decisions looming, that a former Mossad spymaster’s public ridiculing of air strikes on Iran as a “stupid idea” that would imperil Israel was widely interpreted as a warning to Netanyahu to back down.

“The ‘Arab Spring’ is definitely bolstering those who argue that we’re in this alone against Iran, with all that entails in terms of planning,” an Israeli government adviser said.

Spikes in the price of oil, of which Iran is a major exporter, have blunted U.S.-led sanctions against Tehran that Israel had cautiously endorsed. The U.S. administration’s mounting Middle East engagements have further shaken Israelis’ faith in the ability of their biggest ally to tackle their foe.

“There’s an opposing view (in the Netanyahu government), a hope that political revolution may reach Iran as well, defusing the nuclear threat,” the Israeli adviser said. “But that has not been carrying too much weight.”

Even were it to inflict lasting damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel would have to contend with the aftermath, from direct reprisals to border conflicts to foreign censure.

“Attacking the reactors from the air is a stupid idea that would have no advantage,” Meir Dagan, a retired army general who stepped down as Mossad director in January after an 8-year tenure, told a forum of Israeli civil servants on Friday.

“A regional war would be liable to unfold, during which missiles would come in from Iran and from Hezbollah in Lebanon,” he said, according to a transcript circulated to the media.

CHANGING OF THE GUARD

Asked about the remarks, an Israeli security official and one-time Dagan colleague said they were likely intended for Netanyahu, and to discredit the war option in public opinion.

As Mossad director, Dagan had counselled a mix of diplomatic pressure and sabotage against Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear bomb. According to the Israeli security official, Dagan’s view was shared by former chief of Israel’s armed forces Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi, who retired in February.

“With the old guard gone, and the successors still finding their place, it seems Dagan felt that there wasn’t enough of a counterweight” to Iran hawks in the cabinet, the official said.

Since Ashkenazi’s departure, the military has developed the Iron Dome rocket interceptor, billed as a bulwark to the main weapon of Hezbollah and of Palestinian Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

While Hamas is, like Hezbollah, an Iranian ally, it has an added incentive to avoid a fight with Israel in the unity pact it has been forging with the Western-backed Fatah faction as part of Palestinians’ drive to declare an independent state.

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon denied Dagan’s views would affect government decision-making. But he took the former spymaster to task for undermining the Israeli and U.S. strategy of threatening attacks in order to deter Iran and keep other world powers serious about crisis diplomacy.

“For the Iranian regime to be persuaded to give up its nuclear capability, it has to be presented by the choice between getting a bomb and surviving, and such statements do not help present Iran with such a dilemma,” Yaalon told Israel Radio.

Whatever the reality of the closed-door cabinet discussions, Netanyahu’s government has issued mixed messages on Iran.

Asked last month about the Palestinian rapprochement, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said in a broadcast interview Israel should concentrate on upgrading its “capability for operating in Iran and the ability to defend ourselves from rockets”.

He shifted tone by telling an Israeli newspaper a few days later that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unlikely to attack Israel, believed to have the region’s only atomic arsenal.

Yaalon left dangling the possibility of subterfuge.

“I hope that the Iranians see an Israeli conspiracy in this. That could help,” he said. (Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Inside The United States’ Secret Sabotage Of Iran : NPR.

Enlarge Ebrahim Norouzi/APA photo taken on Aug. 22, 2010, and released by the International Iran Photo Agency shows a worker standing at the entrance of the reactor of Bushehr nuclear power plant, outside the southern city of Bushehr, Iran. Work was stopped on the reactor to ascertain whether it had been affected by the Stuxnet computer virus — apparently developed in Israel with the help of the CIA.

First in a three-part series

For years, the United States has been trying to stop Iran’s nuclear program and change what it says is Iran’s bad behavior in the Middle East and beyond.

The United States has used economic sanctions, censure by the United Nations, diplomatic engagement and the threat of military action to accomplish these goals — all with little or no success.

At the same time, other, unacknowledged activities have been under way. They have included cyberattacks, assassinations and defections. As it turns out, these efforts have had some success.

‘A Covert War’

Covert action is meant to stay just that — covert, clandestine, in the shadows.

And in Iran, it did, for quite some time. But in the last year, much has become known about intelligence operations in Iran, says Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who is now an analyst with the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.

“There’s little doubt that there’s a covert war under way against Iran,” he says. “There are at least two players in it, the United States and Israel.”

And often, it appears, those players work together.

That was especially true with the Stuxnet worm. The computer virus, apparently developed in Israel with the help of the CIA, was launched in 2009. Sometime the following year, the worm found its way into the computers that control Iran’s most important nuclear facility, the uranium enrichment operation at Natanz.

It told the gas centrifuges that enrich uranium to spin too fast. Many broke and destroyed other centrifuges — nearly a thousand of them.

The impact of the worm spread even wider, says Muhammad Sahimi, a professor at the University of Southern California who writes for the website Tehran Bureau.

“In fact, not only it destroyed a thousand centrifuges at Natanz — it also forced the government to actually shut down the enrichment facility for a few days,” Sahimi says.

That was last year. Computer security companies got wind of it, in part because it may also have affected companies and equipment outside of Iran. And the story became public.

Other Viruses On The Way?

Computer security experts believe the original worm was programmed to mount multiple attacks. That may have occurred, but only up to a point, says David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

“This idea of multiple destruction was built into the planning of the program, and Iran thwarted it just by the simplest of steps — which is panic and shut down everything until you get a sense of what’s going on,” he says.

One of the benefits of these kind of programs is that over time it builds paranoia and fear inside the Iranian nuclear program — that they have to be extremely careful that anything they buy may turn out to be a self-destructive pill once it’s ingested inside the Iranian program.

– Bruce Riedel, an analyst with the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution

Given the success of the Stuxnet worm, it’s likely its creators may be constructing Stuxnet 2.0 right now. Or other viruses targeting Iran.

Iran may have had to buy new computers to replace those that were affected, and it can’t be sure that new computers won’t be sabotaged.

In fact, nothing that Iran buys on the international market that could be used in its nuclear program is safe from sabotage, says Sahimi.

“To say the least, probably the uncertainty whether there is a virus somewhere that they haven’t detected, that causes a lot of problems for them,” he says.

Sabotaging Equipment

Among those problems, the Russians who are finishing the Bushehr nuclear reactor — Iran’s first — stopped their work to ascertain whether it had been infected with the worm.

And this worm isn’t the first instance of sabotage, Albright says.

“It’s one of many efforts that I think are under way to try to constrain Iran from being able to basically, in a sense, either outfit its centrifuge program or to try to actively disrupt it and break things,” he says.

Among the parts of the centrifuges that have been sabotaged, according to Albright, are motors and vacuum pumps. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency discovered equipment at Iran’s nuclear facilities that had passed through one of the U.S. national laboratories, Albright says.

“So you had a case where the U.S. government, at least, what it was doing was buying equipment on the open market and apparently modifying it in some way,” he says.

Then the equipment was apparently delivered to front companies that in turn sold it to Iran.

It could have been used for sabotage, or if it was bugged equipment, it could provide information on the location of secret nuclear facilities in Iran.

Building Paranoia

In any case, Iran’s leaders are certainly worried about what they might face next, says Riedel of the Brookings Institution.

“One of the benefits of these kind of programs is that over time it builds paranoia and fear inside the Iranian nuclear program — that they have to be extremely careful that anything they buy may turn out to be a self-destructive pill once it’s ingested inside the Iranian program,” Riedel says.

In fact, just last week, one of Iran’s key nuclear officials disclosed that another computer virus had hit Iran.

The Iranians are calling it the “Stars” virus. They say they have taken care of it.

So far its existence has not been confirmed by computer security specialists outside of Iran. Nevertheless, the effort to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program, through cyberattacks or other methods, is certain to continue.

Iran’s Place In A Brave New Middle East – International Business Times.

The Islamic Republic of Iran finds itself grappling with new realities in a Middle East that has been turned upside-down by an unprecedented wave of revolt and rebellion. While Tehran has almost always had somewhat troubled relations with its Middle East neighbors, it now faces an entirely new paradigm – one that seems to be changing by the day, by the hou

Israel to invest one billion dollars in Iron Dome missile defense system – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News..ense Ministry director general tells Haaretz: Five countries interested in Israel’s anti-missile system.

By Amos Harel

Defense Ministry director general Maj. Gen. (res. ) Udi Shani says that Israel plans to invest nearly $1 billion in the coming years for the development and production of Iron Dome rocket interception batteries. Shani reveals that five countries have already expressed an interest in the system, especially following its successful operational interception of rockets fired from the Gaza Strip last month.

In his first press interview since his appointment in January 2010, Shani was keen to put the success of Iron Dome into perspective. “We need to adjust expectations in relation to Iron Dome, both in regard to the citizens but also vis a vis the political leadership,” Shani said.

	Defense Ministry director general Udi Shani
	Photo by: Moti Milrod

“We have [accomplished] a significant achievement in reaching operational capability sooner than expected, but this is not a system that can ensure the interception of every rocket in every situation,” he added. “These batteries, when they are deployed, will limit the number of casualties from rockets and will provide, in case of fighting, decision-making space. But in the end, it is also a matter of physics and technology. The technology cannot stand alone.”

Shani is referring to the amount of time it will take Rafael, the maker of the Iron Dome system, to produce a large number of batteries and interception missiles, and for the Israeli Air Force to train personnel in usage of the systems.

The director general said that Iron Dome is considered one of the central systems as the new IDF multi-year plan takes shape.

“We are no longer approaching this in terms of initial operational capabilities but are defining the final target for absorbing the systems, in terms of schedule and funds. We are talking about [having] 10-15 Iron Dome batteries. We will invest nearly $1 billion on this. This is the goal, in addition to the $205 million that the U.S. government has authorized,” Shani said.

The U.S. grant is expected to cover four extra batteries, in addition to the two that have already been delivered to the IDF. The final number of batteries will depend on the chosen “mix” between batteries and interception missiles, which are costly.

In addition to Iron Dome there are plans to invest, over the coming five years, another $1 billion in the continued development of Magic Wand, a medium-level missile interception system (also developed by Rafael ).

“I hope that by 2012 we will have the first operational capabilities,” Shani says, “but our intention is to close procurement contracts within a few months. Traditionally you first wait for the completion of development, but we now need to accelerate this process.

“Along with the third system, Arrow Mark III, whose development is done with the Americans,” Shani added, “it will be the largest technological development project in the field of missile interception in the world. The success of Iron Dome has increased interest. Five countries have issued requests for information about the system.”

Shani, 54, was appointed to his position by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, after spending most of his career in the armored corps. He is responsible for a vast number of projects: It ranges from the infrastructure budget, to the building of the separation fence, to the new fence along the border with Egypt, to the procurement of weapons systems, and to the supervision of defense exports, which in the past two years peaked at a record $7 billion per year.

The five-year plan and the budget now top his agenda. Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Benny Gantz will hold a workshop this month to discuss IDF expectations for the coming years; the program will need to be approved by the Defense Minister and then the government later in the year.

“We are three and a half years into the current five-year plan. We have nearly accomplished 100 percent of it, with the exception of the procurement of new naval vessels that will not be carried out,” Shani said.

Meanwhile there are delays in the production of the new Air Force fighter the F-35, and these will affect its effective entry into the IAF. The delay may be as long as three years, with the first aircraft arriving only in 2018.

“During the last visit by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Israel a month ago, we were told that the delay may be shorter than they originally thought. In any case, I am not nervous about it,” Shani said.

“This [delay] may actually serve our interests. I favor an aircraft with as many Israeli-made systems as possible,” he added. “We will see how they try to meet our requests over this time. In the original timetable, it was argued that there was no time [to incorporate Israeli systems into the Israeli F-35s]. We will hear their conclusions and I expect a dialogue with the Americans over the new timetable and the changes.”

The idea that the Air Force will, in the meantime, acquire another squadron of F-15s in order to meet the gap that will be created “is not relevant.” The delay may mean that in the future there will be more aircraft coming to Israel in a shorter period of time, and the numbers procured may rise from 20 to 30.

Has Ahmadinejad taken on more than he can handle with Kahameini? – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Supreme leader reportedly gives Iran president an ultimatum: Bring back the intelligence minister you fired against my will or resign.

By Zvi Bar’el

How far will Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad take things with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei? Is he misreading the Iranian political map, or does he really believe that some miracle or magic trick will shift the balance in his favor in this unprecedented clash?

On Saturday, Iranian websites reported that Khamenei gave the president an ultimatum: Bring back the intelligence minister you fired against my will or resign. Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, insists that appointing and dismissing ministers is his prerogative as head of the government.

	Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seen here in 2009.
	Photo by: Reuters

The conflict began around two weeks ago, when Ahmadinejad, in a laconic statement, fired his intelligence minister – an associate of Khamenei. In response, the supreme leader instructed the minister to stay at his post. Ahmadinejad reacted by skipping two cabinet meetings and barring the intelligence minister from taking part in a third.

The rift between the two men has produced some unprecedented alliances. The commander of the Revolutionary Guard, an armed force seen as the president’s staunchest supporter, and conservative clerics have made clear they support Khamenei.

Disagreements between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are nothing new, but this time the president appears to have taken on more than he can handle. He appears to be motivated by a desire to retain influence even after the end of his term, having his son-in-law elected president and returning after a one-term break. Some observers say he may even have aspirations to reduce the clerics’ involvement in government.

A disloyal intelligence minister would be an obstacle to that. But the damage he’s causing is enormous. He is forcing Khamenei to act like a politician and is confronting him with an extraordinary dilemma. If he intervenes, Khamenei will work against the election results he himself created. If he doesn’t, the position of supreme leader will lose its clout.

Meanwhile, Khamenei and his allies are using the old and tested method. Some of the president’s associates have been arrested, and websites are slowly filling up with reports on the intelligence minister’s corruption carried out with the president’s knowledge.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis May 7, 2011, 1:14 PM (GMT+02:00)

Abbottabad residents rename town in honor of dead terrorist

The Obama administration is presenting the successful Osama bin Laden hit as an epic American solo operation, unparalleled in military and intelligence annals, while leaning hard on Islamabad to sack certain officers of the powerful military intelligence army ISI including its head Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, accusing them of keeping the dead al Qaeda leader hidden for eight years.
The ISI chief is a close confidant of Pakistan’s chief of staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani with whom Washington works closely and so the demand for Pasha’s head is seen as casting aspersions on him too.

American sources reported Saturday, May 7 that five days earlier, just hours after bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a high-ranking US official landed in Islamabad with a demand to bring the ISI officers involved in sheltering the al Qaeda leader to book.
It now appears that the iconic jihadi leader first arrived in Pakistani in 2003 and stayed in the small village of Chak Shah Mohammad near Haripur 40 kilometers north of the Pakistani capital. According Pakistani sources, this information came from questioning the Bin Laden wife found and detained in the Abbottabad villa where he was killed. She said the family stayed in the village two and-a-half years before moving to Abbottabad in 2005.

debkafile‘s intelligence sources report that details are slipping out over bin Laden’s secret Pakistani addresses over the years. The ISI used some of those compounds as safe houses for terrorists from other organizations. The Abbottabad villa compound is now revealed as having served as a byway station for terrorists from Pakistan-backed organizations heading for Kashmir, long a violent bone of contention with India.

In summer, however, it had a very different use:  High-ranking diplomats and officials of the Pakistani foreign office used it as a holiday villa, attracted by the pleasant climate in this North West Frontier town.

Far from being off the beaten track, the property was therefore in regular use by the authorities in Islamabad.

In the mounting duel between the Obama administration and Pakistan, two conflicting versions of the bin Laden episode are unfolding, with potentially detrimental effect on the Afghan War and global war on terror.

The Americans have embarked on a two-pronged strategy:
1. Friday, May 6, President Barack Obama was cheered by members of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, when he said: “Now in recent days, the whole world has learned just how ready they were. These Americans deserve credit for one of the greatest intelligence military operations in our nation’s history.” Pakistan was not mentioned.
Obama had just shaken the hands of the Seals members who returned from Abbottabad.

2.  Washington is not only cutting Pakistan out of any role in the feat but bent on weakening Pakistani  military intelligence and, in particular, the officials tied to Osama bin Laden, on the assumption that they are also in touch with other high-profile al Qaeda leaders and may even be harboring them too. The US also presumes them to be in connection with the very Taliban leaders American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration is vitally interested in weakening the Pakistani factions maintaining those ties and showing Taliban they can no longer be relied on as protection against America’s long arm. The US will ultimately corner Taliban’s leaders, whether by diplomatic engagement or the methods which ended Osama bin Laden’s life.

Pakistan’s take is not just different but increasingly resentful:  Its military intelligence insists the bin Laden operation would not have succeeded without close cooperation between the CIA and ISI and the two armies – or some factions thereof – which was maintained at least up until President Obama’s decision to authorize the Abbottabad raid. This view is supported by some Western counterterrorism agencies engaged in the war on al Qaeda.

Pakistani officials suspect the US administration heads is deliberately denying them a measure of credit for the successful mission because, with bin Laden gone, Obama feels confident enough to go straight to the Taliban to negotiate an end to the Afghanistan war and dispense with Pakistan’s good services as intermediaries.  With the al Qaeda leader out of the way, he wants to see the back of a Pakistan role in Afghanistan.
debkafile‘s counter-terror sources warn that the rising acrimony between Washington and Islamabad may well deter Pakistani intelligence from fingering more wanted al Qaeda figures and their hideouts – or even encourage the ISI to stand aside when Taliban goes for American targets in revenge for bin Laden’s termination.

‘Civilian killings in Syrian demonstrations rise to 800’.

  AMMAN – Syrian security forces have shot dead at least 800 civilians since pro-democracy protests erupted seven weeks ago, Syrian rights groups Sawasiah said on Saturday.

The organization, which was founded by jailed human rights lawyer Mohannad al-Hassani, said in a statement sent to Reuters it had the names of the 800 civilians killed. Among them were 220 killed in a tank-backed army attack on the city of Deraa.

RELATED:
‘Forces fire on protesters as unrest spreads in Syria’
Arab spring economies likely to shrink this year

Following renewed protests on Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government must address the demands of the people.

“The Syrian government must respond to the Syrian people’s call for change,” Clinton said in a statement. “It must realize that violence and intimidation will not answer their call.”

Clinton’s comments come as Syrian army units stormed into the city of Banias with tanks overnight, attacking Sunni districts that had defied Assad’s autocratic rule, a human rights campaigner said on Saturday.

The units entered the coastal city, a majority of whose residents are Sunni Muslims, from three directions, advancing into Sunni districts but not Alawite neighborhoods, said the campaigner. Most communications with Banias have been cut but the campaigner was able to contact some residents, he said.

Reacting to the killing of 30 protesters by Syrian security forces earlier Friday, the United States threatened to take new steps against the Assad’s regime unless it stopped killing and harassing its people.

Rights campaigners said the dead were among thousands of protesters who demonstrated after Friday prayers in cities across the country, from Banias on the Mediterranean coast to Qamishly in the Kurdish east.

The European Union agreed to impose sanctions in response to Assad’s violent crackdown on protesters, which rights campaigners say has killed more than 580 people.

“The United States believes that Syria’s deplorable actions toward its people warrant a strong international response,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.

“Absent significant change in the Syrian government’s current approach, including an end to the government’s killing of protesters … the United States and its international partners will take additional steps to make clear our strong opposition to the Syrian government’s treatment of its people.”

The United States imposed sanctions of its own last week against some figures in the Syrian government.

Friday’s bloodiest confrontation was in the city of Homs where 15 protesters were killed, activist Ammar Qurabi said.

State television said an army officer and four police were killed in Homs by a “criminal gang”, though another activist, Wissam Tarif, said witnesses told him nine soldiers defected in Homs to the protesters and may have clashed with other troops.

Four protesters were killed in Deir al-Zor, said a local tribal leader from the region which produces most of Syria’s 380,000 barrels per day of oil. They were the first deaths reported there in seven weeks of nationwide unrest.

International criticism has mounted against Assad, who has gone on the offensive to maintain his family’s four-decade grip on power in the country of 20 million and crush demonstrators demanding freedom.

European Union governments agreed on Friday to impose asset freezes and travel restrictions on up to 14 Syrian officials responsible for the violent repression.

Officials blame “armed terrorist groups” for the violence, give a lower death toll and say half the fatalities have been soldiers and police. They say demonstrators are few in number and do not represent the majority of Syrians.

Assad himself was not targeted by the sanctions, which follow last week’s EU agreement in principle to impose an arms embargo on Syria. The measures will be approved on Monday if no member state objects.

Assad’s security forces and troops, which stormed the city of Deraa last week, have prevented demonstrators establishing a platform such as Egypt’s Tahrir Square by blocking access to the capital Damascus. But every week protesters have used Friday prayers to launch fresh marches.

Former Mossad chief: Israeli airstrike of Iran a silly idea.

  Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan over the weekend stated that an Israeli airstrike on Iran’s nuclear reactors would be “a silly idea that would not grant any advantage.” Dagan, making his first public appearance since recently stepping down as Mossad chief, made the comments at a leadership and security conference at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

“Whoever attacks Iran must understand that he may start a regional war in which  missiles from Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon will be fired. The Iranian problem must be made an international problem and we must continue to act to delay the development of Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” Dagan said.

Dagan downplayed the significance of protests throughout the Arab world, particularly Egypt, saying Cairo had merely seen a “change of leaders and not a revolution.”
Dagan said that the same elite would continue to rule over Egypt and that the chances that the Muslim Brotherhood would take power were minimal. He added that, although the usual anti-Semitic rhetoric would probably continue,  there would be no major change in relations with Israel because the Egyptian leadership understands that a change would go against Cairo’s economic and other interests.

The former Mossad chief said that the so-called “tsunami” in the Middle East, was actually giving expression to historic rifts in Arab society. He added, however, that a certain barrier of fear had been broken and that it was no longer possible to hide events taking place in the region.

Dagan saw the possible ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad as a positive step for Israel, given the Alawite leader’s cooperation with Hezbolllah and Iran.  He did not estimate that Assad would step down under pressure of anti-regime demonstrations, saying the Syrian leader and his minority Alawite supporters understood that they had no alternative but to fight until the death.

Bin Laden Is Dead But the Real Terror Threat From Iran Grows Stronger Every Day – FoxNews.com.

Who else is condemning the US for killing bin Laden?.

  A close ideological link exists between the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida. The two organizations aspire to the similar goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate and imposing Islam on the entire world via jihad. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in Jordan and the Palestinian territories openly condemn Osama bin Laden’s “assassination.” This condemnation once again proves that the claim by Western elements that the Muslim Brotherhood is a pragmatic movement is false.

The global Muslim Brotherhood movement published an official statement on May 2 regarding the United States’ killing of the al-Qaida leader. The statement was carefully drafted to blur the movement’s identification with bin Laden and the strategy (as opposed to the tactic) of confrontation that he espoused against Christianity, the West, the democratic world and the infidels.

The Arabic version states that “a special force of American Marines managed to assassinate Sheikh (honorary title) Osama bin Laden” and goes on to criticize the action. “The Muslim Brotherhood announced that they are opposed to the use of force in general, and against assassination methods, and they support bringing a person accused of committing any crime whatsoever to a just trial… The Muslim Brotherhood demands that the United States desist from intelligence actions against those who oppose it, and cease intervening in the internal affairs of all Arab or Islamic countries.”

The text includes no condemnation of bin Laden’s and al-Qaida’s past terror practices. From the Muslim Brotherhood’s perspective, bin Laden was not an active terrorist, but only a “suspect” who should be brought to trial. The US military operation that killed bin Laden is seen by the Muslim Brotherhood as fundamentally illegitimate, similar to all US intelligence activities aimed at Islamic terror targets. In other words, the group believes that the United States has no legal authority to operate against terror in the Arab and Islamic world, which implies that these areas should serve as a territorial sanctuary for jihadis like bin Laden.

Furthermore, in its statement, the Muslim Brotherhood justifies terror activities perpetrated against American forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and everywhere within the Arab or Muslim countries where they are stationed.

“The Muslim Brotherhood emphasizes that resistance against foreign occupation is a legitimate right awarded by divine law and international covenants, and the confusion created between legitimate resistance and violence against innocents has been deliberately sown by the Zionist enemy,” the statement continues.

“As long as the occupation remains, resistance will remain legitimate. The United States, the NATO alliance, and the European Union must speedily announce the termination of the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

The Muslim Brotherhood continues to adhere to a line that openly supports terror. In its opinion, as emerges from this statement, terror attacks by Palestinian terror organizations patterned after those perpetrated by al-Qaida constitute “legitimate resistance” and are not in the realm of terror. These same patterns of armed struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq, that include suicide attacks, enjoy continued legitimacy as long as American soldiers are stationed in those countries. The Brotherhood rejects any justification that a Western presence in these countries is intended primarily to assist in the war on terror and help lay the foundations for democratic regimes.

After it has justified Islamic and Arab terror, the movement insists that there is no connection whatsoever between Islam and terror. It “demands of the world in general and the peoples and governments of the Western world in particular to stop making a connection between Islam and terror and correct the maliciously mistaken image that was disseminated a few years ago.”

The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan condemned the American action as well. Jamil Abu-Bakr, the movement’s spokesman, noted on May 3 that “despite the dispute between us regarding bin Laden’s modus operandi, he persisted to the very last moment on this path of confrontation with America and the enemies of the Muslim nation in an attempt to liberate the Muslim world from foreign influence, and he remained faithful to his ideas and his nation and stood steadfast in battle.”

The words of Abu-Bakr faithfully reflect the movement’s position of disputing the tactics of al-Qaida but remaining confident of its ideological platform and vastly esteeming the work of bin Laden and the struggle to remove any Western influence or presence from Islamic countries.

The Hamas movement, which constitutes the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, expressed sorrow over the killing of bin Laden.

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh declared, “We condemn the assassination and killing of an Arab jihad fighter…

We see this as a continuation of American policy based on repression and the shedding of Arab and Muslim blood.”

The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas published bereavement messages in Gaza over the death of the “shahid [martyr] Sheikh Osama bin Laden… who ascended to heaven as a martyr after waging a heroic battle against the Crusader forces on Pakistani territory.”

In another bereavement notice by the Muslim Brotherhood, bin Laden was awarded the title “the Sheikh, the Imam.”

The Islamic Movement in Israel, which is headed by Ra’ed Salah and is also identified ideologically with the Muslim Brotherhood, published a statement on May 2 condemning the action in which bin Laden was killed “We in the Islamic movement condemn the assassination of the sheikh and martyr Osama bin Laden,” it read.

“The act of assassination… demonstrates the collusion of the mercenaries who have sold their soul to the devil… The act of killing Sheikh Osama bin Laden… will not terminate Muslim hatred for the iniquity and disasters caused by the United States.”

The sympathetic attitude of the Muslim Brotherhood should come as no surprise. Former Muslim Brotherhood supreme guide Mehdi Akef told the Elaph website on May 22, 2008, that bin Laden was an estimable jihad fighter. Asked whether he viewed bin Laden as a “terrorist or an Islamic jihad fighter,” Akef responded, “definitely a jihad fighter, and I have no doubt about his sincerity in the struggle against the occupation and an attempt to draw closer to Allah.”

Asked if he “supported al-Qaida activity, and to what extent,” Akef responded, “Yes, I support his activity against the occupier, but not against nations.”

Muhammad Badia, the current supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, explained in his weekly missive on January 13 of this year that wars were caused worldwide by the absence of Islamic justice, and only its imposition could guarantee global peace.

According to Badia, “currently, humanity desperately requires the justice that Islam has imposed upon the land, in order to make the world happy and rectify the path of mankind. There is no path to stability in the world except for the restoration of the lost [Islamic] justice and its imposition throughout the entire world in every arena – global, international, regional, national, individual and collective – via equality, liberty, justice, and recognition of the rights of those who are entitled to them.”

Al-Qaida sprang from the foundations of the Muslim Brotherhood. Bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al- Zawahiri, started out as activists in the movement. The group’s ideology is essentially no different from that of al- Qaida in its aspiration to reestablish the Muslim caliphate and wage war against the West, on the path to conquer Europe and liberate Rome, the Italian capital and the seat of the Vatican, as an implementation of the divine edict mentioned in the vision of the Prophet Muhammad. Both the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida view Western civilization, with its democratic values and Christianity, as the paramount enemy of Islam, and both groups espouse and support jihad as the proper way to fulfill Islamic objectives.

The killing of bin Laden closed a circle with regard to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, but it has not liquidated al-Qaida or its roots in the global Muslim Brotherhood movement, whose branches in the Arab and Western world continue to create new generations that cling to an extremist Muslim ideology that constitutes fertile ground for their recruitment to terror.

Lt.-Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi is a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.