۲۰۰۵

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!

Friend's email:  

 

 

Back to Top

Back to News

Back to Main Page