|
jun
27, 2006 |
|
| |
news summery |
|
Khobar
Towers
Louis J. Freeh,
The Wall Street Journal:
Ten years ago this
Sunday,
acting under direct orders from
senior Iranian government leaders,
the Saudi
Hezbollah detonated a 25,000-pound
TNT bomb that killed 19 U.S. airmen
in their dormitory at Khobar Towers
in Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia. The blast wave
destroyed Building 131 and
grievously wounded hundreds of
additional Air Force personnel. It
also killed an unknown number of
Saudi civilians in a nearby park.
The 19
Americans murdered were members of
the 4404th Wing, who were risking
their lives to enforce the no-fly
zone over southern Iraq.
This was a U.N.-mandated mission
after the 1991 Gulf War to stop
Saddam Hussein from killing his
Shiite people.
The Khobar victims, along
with the courageous families and
friends
who
will mourn them this weekend in
Washington, deserve our respect
and honor. More importantly, they
must be remembered, because American
justice has still been denied.
Although a federal grand jury handed
down indictments in June 2001
-- days before I left as FBI
director and a week before some of
the charges against 14 of the
terrorists would have lapsed because
of the statute of limitations --
two
of the primary leaders of the
attack, Ahmed Ibrahim al-Mughassil
and Abdel Hussein Mohamed al-Nasser,
are living comfortably in Iran
with about as much to
fear from America as Osama bin Laden
had prior to Sept. 11 (to wit, U.S.
marshals showing up to serve
warrants for their arrests).
Solemn and
Personal
The
aftermath of the Khobar bombing is
just one example of how successive
U.S. governments have mishandled
Iran. On June 25, 1996,
President Clinton declared that "no
stone would be left unturned" to
find the bombers and bring them to
"justice."
Within hours, teams of FBI agents,
and forensic and technical
personnel, were en route to Khobar.
The president told the Saudis and
the 19 victims' families that I was
responsible for the case. This
assignment became very personal and
solemn for me, as it meant that
I
was the one who dealt directly with
the victims' survivors.
These disciplined military families
asked only one thing of me and their
country: "Please find out who did
this to our sons, husbands, brothers
and fathers and bring them to
justice."
It
soon became clear that Mr. Clinton
and his national security adviser,
Sandy Berger,
had
no interest in confronting the fact
that Iran had blown up the Towers.
This is astounding, considering that
the Saudi Security Service had
arrested six of the bombers after
the attack. As FBI agents sifted
through the remains of Building 131
in 115-degree heat,
the
bombers admitted they had been
trained by the Iranian external
security service (IRGC)
in the Beka Valley, and
received their passports at the
Iranian Embassy in Damascus,
along
with
$250,000 cash for the operation from
IRGC Gen. Ahmad Sharifi.
We later
learned that
senior members of the Iranian
government, including Ministry of
Defense, Ministry of Intelligence
and Security (MOIS), and
the Spiritual Leader's office had
selected Khobar as their target
and commissioned the
Saudi Hezbollah to carry out the
operation. The Saudi police told us
that FBI agents had to interview the
bombers in custody in order to make
our case. To make this happen,
however, the U.S. president would
need to personally make a request to
Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
So for 30
months,
I wrote and rewrote the same set of
simple talking points for the
president, Mr. Berger,
and others
to press the FBI's request to go
inside a Saudi prison and interview
the Khobar bombers. And
for 30 months nothing happened. The
Saudis reported back to us that the
president and Mr. Berger would
either fail to raise the matter with
the crown prince or raise it without
making any request. On one such
occasion,
our
commander in chief instead hit up
Prince Abdullah for a contribution
to his library. Mr.
Berger never once, in the course of
the five-year investigation which
coincided with his tenure, even
asked how the investigation was
going.
In
their only bungled attempt to
support the FBI, a letter from the
president intended for Iranian
President Mohammad Khatami, asking
for "help"
on the Khobar case, was sent
to the Omanis, who had direct
access to Mr. Khatami. This was
done without advising either the FBI
or the Saudis who were
exposed in the letter as providing
help to the Americans. We only found
out about the letter because it was
misdelivered to the Spiritual
Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who then
publicly denounced the U.S.
This
was an embarrassment for
the Saudis who had been fully
cooperating with the FBI by
providing direct evidence of Iranian
involvement. Both Saudi Prince
Bandar and Interior Minister Prince
Nayef, who had put themselves and
their government at great risk to
help the FBI, were now undermined by
America's president.
The
Clinton administration was set on "improving"
relations with what it mistakenly
perceived to be a moderate Iranian
president. But it also
wanted to accrue the political
mileage of proclaiming to the world,
and to the 19 survivor families,
that America was aggressively
pursuing the bombers. When I would
tell Mr. Berger that we could close
the investigation if it compromised
the president's foreign policy, the
answer was always: "Leave no stone
unturned."
* * *
Meanwhile,
then
Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright and Mr. Clinton ordered the
FBI to stop photographing and
fingerprinting Iranian wrestlers and
cultural delegations
entering the U.S. because the
Iranians were complaining about the
identification procedure.
Of course they were complaining.
It
made it more difficult for their
MOIS agents and terrorist
coordinators to infiltrate into
America. I was overruled
by an "angry" president and Mr.
Berger who said the FBI was
interfering with their rapprochement
with Iran.
Finally,
frustrated in my attempts
to execute Mr. Clinton's "leave
no stone unturned" order,
I called former President George H.W.
Bush. I had learned that
he was about to meet Prince Abdullah
on another matter. After fully
briefing Mr. Bush on the impasse and
faxing him the talking points that I
had now been working on for over two
years, he personally asked the crown
prince to allow FBI agents to
interview the detained bombers.
After his
Saturday meeting with now-King
Abdullah,
Mr.
Bush called me to say that he made
the request, and that the Saudis
would be calling me. A
few hours later,
Prince Bandar asked me to come out
to McLean, Va. on Monday
to see Prince Abdullah.
When I met him with Wyche Fowler,
our Saudi ambassador, and FBI
counterterrorism chief Dale Watson,
the crown prince was holding my
talking points.
He
told me Mr. Bush had made the
request for the FBI, which he
granted, and told Prince
Bandar to instruct Nayef to arrange
for FBI agents to interview the
prisoners.
Several weeks later,
agents interviewed the
co-conspirators. For the first time
since the 1996 attack,
we
obtained direct evidence of Iran's
complicity. What Mr.
Clinton failed to do for three years
was accomplished in minutes by his
predecessor.
This
was the breakthrough we had been
waiting for, and the
attorney general and I immediately
went to Mr. Berger with news of the
Saudi prison interviews.
Upon being advised that
our investigation now had proof that
Iran blew up Khobar Towers,
Mr. Berger's astounding response
was: "Who
knows about this?"
His next, and wrong, comment was:
"That's
just hearsay."
When
I explained that under the Rules of
Federal Evidence the detainees'
comments were indeed more than "hearsay,"
for the first time ever he became
interested -- and alarmed -- about
the case.
But
this interest translated into
nothing more than Washington "damage
control"
meetings held out of the fear that
Congress, and ordinary Americans,
would find out that Iran murdered
our soldiers.
After those meetings, neither the
president, nor anyone else in the
administration, was heard from again
about Khobar.
READ
MORE
Wrong Message
Sadly,
this fits into a larger pattern of
U.S. governments sending the wrong
message to Tehran. Almost
13 years before Iran committed its
terrorist act of war against America
at Khobar, it used its surrogates,
the Lebanese Hezbollah, to murder
241 Marines in their Beirut barracks.
The U.S. response to that 1983
outrage was to pull our military
forces out of the region. Such
timidity was not lost upon Tehran.
As with Beirut,
Tehran once again received loud and
clear from the U.S. its consistent
message that there would be no price
to pay for its acts of war against
America. As for the 19
dead warriors and their families,
their commander in chief had
deserted them, leaving only the FBI
to carry on the fight.
The
Khobar bombing case was eventually
indicted in 2001, thanks to the
personal leadership of President
George W. Bush and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice. But justice
has been a long time coming.
Only so much can be done, after all,
with arrest warrants and judicial
process. Bin Laden and his two
separate pre-9/11 arrest warrants
are a case in point.
Still, many
stones remain unturned.
It
remains to be seen whether the
Khobar case and its fugitives will
make it onto the list of America's
demands in "talks"
with the Iranians. Or
will we ultimately ignore justice
and buy a separate peace with our
enemy?
Mr.
Freeh was FBI director from
1993-2001.
Statement by the President Marking Ten Years
After Attack on Khobar Towers
June 27, 2006
The White House
George W. Bush
link to original article
Ten years ago yesterday, in an attack on the
Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia, 19 members of our Armed Forces
were killed, and hundreds of other Americans
were injured, by terrorists who we believe
were working with Iranian officials. We
honor the courage of those who paid the
ultimate price in defending our country.
America will carry on the legacy of these
fallen heroes by continuing the mission for
which they gave their lives: defeating
tyranny, defending freedom, and protecting
their fellow citizens.
Laura and I offer our prayers and the
gratitude of this great Nation to the
families who lost loved ones in that brutal
attack. These families can know that their
loved ones will always be remembered and
that we will remain determined in our
efforts to bring to justice those
responsible for this attack.
In remembrance of those who lost their lives
ten years ago, I ask Americans to keep their
families in your hearts and your prayers.
The Precision-made Mine that has 'Killed 17
British Troops'
June 25, 2006
Telegraph
Sean Rayment
link to original article
The first picture of an Iraqi insurgent
mine, believed to have been responsible for
the deaths of 17 British soldiers, has been
obtained by The Sunday Telegraph. The
device, which has been used by insurgents
throughout Iraq since May last year, fires
an armour-piercing "explosively formed
projectile" or EFP, also known as a shaped
charge, directly into an armoured vehicle,
inflicting death or terrible injuries on
troops inside.
The weapon can penetrate the armour of
British and American tanks and armoured
personnel carriers and completely destroy
armoured Land Rovers, which are used by the
majority of British troops on operations in
Iraq.
The device, described as an "off-route
mine", was seized by British troops in Iraq
earlier this year and brought back to
Britain where it underwent detailed
examination by scientists at Fort Halstead,
the Government's forensic explosive
laboratory in Kent.
The Ministry of Defence has attempted to
play down the effectiveness of the weapons,
suggesting that they are "crude" or
"improvised" explosive devices which have
killed British troops more out of luck than
judgement.
However, this newspaper understands that
Government scientists have established that
the mines are precision-made weapons which
have been turned on a lathe by craftsmen
trained in the manufacture of munitions.
A source from the American military, who has
been working closely with British
scientists, said that the insurgents have
perfected the design of the weapon and know
exactly where to place it to ensure maximum
damage to coalition vehicles.
The source said: "If you are travelling in
an armoured Land Rover which is attacked by
one of these things, you are in trouble. You
have a better chance of surviving if you are
in a tank or an armoured vehicle but it will
'kill' the tank."
British military sources believe the devices
have been developed in Iran and smuggled
across the border into Iraq where they are
supplied to Iranian-backed anti-coalition
insurgents.
The weapon first emerged on the Iraqi
battlefield in May last year and since then
it has been used more than 20 times to kill
17 British servicemen. The last two soldiers
to be killed by the device were Lieut Tom
Mildinhall, 27, and L/Cpl Paul Farrelly, 28,
both members of the 1st Queen's Dragoon
Guards, who were killed on May 28 in a
district north-west of Basra.
The devices, which are impossible to detect,
can be easily camouflaged and triggered
using infra-red technology, remote control
or by a command wire.
Earlier this year, The Sunday Telegraph
revealed how a multi-charged roadside bomb,
developed by Hizbollah in Lebanon, was also
being used against British and American
soldiers by Iraqi insurgents.
The first images of the deadly mines come
amid growing unease among soldiers over what
they believe is inadequate protection
against insurgent booby traps.
Soldiers who have recently served in Iraq
believe that their comrades' lives are being
put at risk by senior officers insisting
that troops must conduct patrols in armoured
Land Rovers even though they provide little
or no protection from certain types of
insurgent devices, such as the off route
mine.
Soldiers have claimed that the Army's policy
of patrolling in Land Rovers and on foot in
preference to the better-protected Warrior
armoured vehicles is costing lives.
Many soldiers have said that the policy of
using Land Rovers has, in part, been foisted
on the Army by a lack of more heavily
armoured vehicles in Iraq - a claim the
Ministry of Defence denies.
Whenever possible, the Army prefers to adopt
the lowest patrolling profile which the
prevailing security conditions allow because
of the belief that heavily armoured vehicles
tend to alienate the local population.
But, with eight servicemen and one women
killed by insurgent attacks in May, many
troops believe that the battle to win the
hearts and minds of the Iraqis is "all but
lost".
General Reports Spike in Iranian Activity in
Iraq
June 23, 2006
The Washington Post
Thomas E. Ricks
link to original article
Iranian support for extremists inside Iraq
has shown a "noticeable increase" this year,
with Tehran's special forces providing
weapons and bomb training to anti-U.S.
groups, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said
yesterday.
Other U.S. officials have complained about
Iranian meddling in Iraq, but the criticism
of Tehran by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr.
was the most direct and explicit so far.
Speaking at a Pentagon news conference
before an array of reporters and television
cameras, the general listed Iranian
influence as one of the four major problems
he faces in Iraq.
"We are quite confident that the Iranians,
through their covert special operations
forces, are providing weapons, IED
technology and training to Shia extremist
groups in Iraq, the training being conducted
in Iran and in some cases probably in
Lebanon through their surrogates," Casey
said, using the military abbreviation for
"improvised explosive devices," or roadside
bombs. The Iranians are "using surrogates to
conduct terrorist operations in Iraq, both
against us and against the Iraqi people."
Iran's actions are a major concern not only
because of attacks on U.S. forces, but also
because the durability of the new Iraqi
government depends in part on the
willingness of Iraqi's Sunni minority to
accept the government. The Sunnis will be
unlikely to do so if the Iranian government
is perceived as playing a major role in
supporting and even arming violent Shiite
factions.
"Since January, we have seen an upsurge in
their support, particularly to the Shia
extremist groups," Casey said. "They are
providing weapons, training and equipment to
Shia insurgents, and that equipment is being
used against us and Iraqis."
In the wide-ranging news conference, Casey
also touched on several other aspects of the
three-year-old U.S. war in Iraq. He said
that insurgent attacks are up but insisted
that "the insurgency hasn't expanded." About
90 percent of its attacks are launched
within 30 miles of Baghdad, he said.
Discussing the state of al-Qaeda in Iraq
since the killing earlier this month of its
leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Casey said,
"They're hurt, but they're not finished. . .
. They're feeling the pain right now."
Casey expressed confidence in the growing
strength of the Iraqi army but voiced
concern about the state of the Iraqi police,
especially in the Baghdad area, where, he
said, their operations are influenced by
militias. Sunnis often accuse the police,
who are controlled by the Ministry of the
Interior, of working closely with Shiite
death squads.
"There are challenges with the police that I
think you know, and the performance of the
police varies widely around the country," he
said. "Probably the greatest challenge for
the new minister of interior is to restore
the confidence of the Iraqi people in
general and the Sunni population in
particular in the Ministry of Interior
forces."
Casey also appeared to stand by, but soften,
his previous assertion that the number of
U.S. troops would be reduced this year. "I'm
confident that we'll be able to continue to
take reductions over the course of this
year," he said.
There are about 127,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
That is down from a peak of about 160,000 in
winter 2005-06, but close to the typical
level over the past three years of about
135,000. The widespread expectation inside
the U.S. Army is that by the end of this
year, the U.S. presence will be cut to about
100,000.
Since the fall of 2003, top commanders have
wanted to reduce the U.S. troop commitment
but have been unable to turn that hope into
reality.
Casey appeared to stop a bit short of his
statement 11 months ago that held out the
prospect of "fairly substantial" cuts in
troop levels. In July 2005, he said: "If the
political process continues to go
positively, and if the development of the
security forces continues to go as it is
going, I do believe we'll still be able to
take some fairly substantial reductions"
after the Iraqi elections in 2006.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who
uncharacteristically played a supporting
role during the news conference, added that
the size of U.S. forces "very likely will go
down and up and down and up depending on the
circumstances and depending on the need."
Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed
to this report.
|
|
|
Send this article to a friend!
|
|
Back to Top |
Back to News |
Back to Main Page |
|