Jane's Intelligence Digest, 1st Nov. 2006:

Pakistan's dangerous Afghanistan policy

Afghans are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the performance of Hamed Karzai's government and as the country slides into ever more instability, Pakistan's ultimate game plan in Afghanistan has begun to unfold.

Shifting its policy of half-heartedly cracking down on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, implemented in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, Islamabad appears to have made a sombre decision to create the necessary conditions for regaining its strategic depth in Afghanistan by resuming its political and military support for the Taliban.

The Taliban card

Ever since the Taliban regime was overthrown in 2001, Afghan officials and coalition commanders have criticised Islamabad for not doing enough to crack down on the Taliban operating from Pakistani territory and have often accused the Pakistani intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), for actively supporting them.

The evidence from NATO's two-week long Operation Medusa in Kandahar province in mid-September, in which hundreds of Taliban were killed, further confirm Pakistan's involvement in the Taliban resurgence. Several independent intelligence estimates from the region also indicate that in recent months the ISI-sponsored training camps and jihadist madrassahs have swelled along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

I suppose it all depends on who you need an excuse for attacking.

I wish Dan had given links to source articles. The U.S. 9/11 Commission based much of its findings about Iran/A-Q connections on the say-so of intelligence officers who said so on the say so of exactly two people. Those same two are responsible for the pronouncements of various other "experts". None of those experts care to admit that since their pronouncements both sources have been seriously called into question.

The first is Hamid Reza Zakeri, a "former Iranian intelligence officer". According to Zakeri, the Iranian intelligence service was really behind the 9/11 attacks and had employed al-Qaeda to carry them out. Zakeri's claims are widely publicized. However, these claims are quickly discounted, and German intelligence notes that, “he presents himself as a witness on any theme which can bring him benefit.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/22/04; Associated Press, 1/30/04; Reuters, 1/22/04; Deutsche Presse-Agenteur, 1/22/04]

The second is Alireza Jafarzadeh, "NCRI official". He is a commited and longterm member of the MeK (NCRI is its political wing), an Islamist/Marxist terror organistaion which carried out atrocities on behalf of Saddam Hussain and which believes it's leader to be the actual Moslem messiah fortold by prophecy. (There is also little doubt that he has signalled his willingness to be a suicide bomber for the MeK in the past.) The bulk of the organisation is currently held under armed guard at Camp Ashraf, Iraq because of its past crimes and it is a U.S. State Dept. proscribed terrorist organisation. It's fairly simple to find other information on Jafarzadeh, though. He has consulted for FOX, written for Front Page magazine. He is behind claims of nuclear cruise missiles, 5,000 centifuges and underground tunnels built by the Russians, among others. He also runs the Washington-based neocon Strategic Policy Consulting group.

Theres an old law of computing I'm sure everyone is aware of: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Regards, Cernig

As for Dave's analysis that:

- Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and will have them soon,

- the U.S. should tell them that they shouldn't do that, but not engage in any military action to prevent them from doing it, and that we couldn't stop them even if we (unwisely) attempted to do so,

- the U.S. should be "negotiating" to "deter" Iran from doing this, and

- Dave is sad to hear that he is correct in point number 1.

Great, Dave. You a Democrat, or just an independent, impotent, suicidal hand wringer?

Hopefully, there may not be a need for this to get much uglier...
-And this news at outsidethebeltway: Good news from Iran -C.P: theglitteringeye; Article excerpt: "I believe that the U. S. and Iran need to treat each other’s interests in the region...

Spencer- take your meds.

Not that I'm hot for it, but it becomes increasingly clear that what Iran's leadership really seems to crave is a good ass whupping. If the Israelis don't move first, I'm convinced Dubya will get the Dems on board before he does anything militarily.

Has any US president every weaken the country as much as Bush?

I'm sure bush has done more damage to the US Army then any American since Robert E. Lee.

While the Bush admin was the gift that kept on giving, Al Qaeda's plan to return the middle east to a time before the time before people started thinking, they will be gone when those who have been using them decide they are no longer useful.

I think that there’s an AWFULLY big leap betwen the third postulate and the conclusion.

Precisely the reason I end my post with “Hopefully, the plan is more aspirational than operational.”

I think that any “cordial ties” between Iran and al-Qaeda have much more to do with restoring order in Iraq than a secret desire on the part of Iran to hand out nuclear weapons to terrorists.

I think that's a bit of a leap itself made more even more so by the ties between Iran and al-Qaeda (as noted in Dan Darling's post linked above) that preceded our invasion of Iraq.

al-Qaeda also has plans to unite all-Muslim speaking nations under a Caliphate headed by Osama bin Laden. However, what they plan to do and what they can actually do are grossly different.

The syllogism that's trying to be cultivated here is this:

P1. Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons
P2. Iran is trying to cultivate ties with al-Qaeda
P3. Al-Qaeda wants to nuke London
THEREFORE Iran is going to give al-Qaeda a nuke in order to destroy London

I think that there's an AWFULLY big leap betwen the third postulate and the conclusion. Given that al-Qaeda currently supports the Sunni militias against the Iranian-backed Shi'ite milities within Iraq, I think that any "cordial ties" between Iran and al-Qaeda have much more to do with restoring order in Iraq than a secret desire on the part of Iran to hand out nuclear weapons to terrorists.