Author: Barry Rubin
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: May 5, 2009
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/174044/US-survey-of-global-terror.html
But has Obama read his Government's report?
The US State Department has produced excellent
research and analysis in its annual Country Reports on Terrorism 2008 released
last week. Now the only problem is to ensure the Obama Administration reads
and absorbs the contents.
What can this report teach American policymakers?
Regarding Iran, its Government has massive
evidence of its continuing role as "the most significant state sponsor
of terrorism." Why is Iran doing this? According to the State Department,
"To advance its key national security and foreign policy interests, which
include regime survival, regional dominance, opposition to Arab-Israeli peace,
and countering Western influence, particularly in the Middle East." That's
right, and it's not going to change, especially once Iran has nuclear weapons.
Not only does Tehran use the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (the institution most supportive of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)
"to clandestinely cultivate and support" Hamas, Islamic Jihad and
Hizbullah, but also radical Islamist groups in Afghanistan, the Balkans and
in Iraq against US forces.
As for Syria, events highlighted its "ties
to the world's most notorious terrorists," including the death of Hizbullah
Operations chief Imad Mugniyah, killed while under Syrian Government protection.
"Among other atrocities, Mugniyah was wanted for the 1983 bombings of
the Marine barracks and US Embassy in Beirut, which killed over 350."
Moreover, as the report shows, Syria has been tightening its alliance with
Iran and continued financing terrorism.
While US efforts reduced their numbers, terrorists
destabilising Iraq continued coming in "predominantly through Syria,"
and "receiving weapons and training from Iran".
Here's the bottom line: Not only do Syria
and Iran believe that destabilising West Asia, bullying or controlling their
neighbours, and expelling US influence is in their interest, they're also
directly involved in trying to kill Americans.
What about Hizbullah, the Lebanese Shia terrorist
group? The report has no illusions: Hizbullah "receives training, weapons,
and explosives, as well as political, diplomatic, and organisational aid from
Iran, and diplomatic, political, and logistical support from Syria.... The
group generally follows the religious guidance of...Iranian Supreme Leader
Ali Khamenei. Hizbullah is closely allied with Iran and often acts at its
behest, though it also acts independently....The group has helped Syria advance
its political objectives in the region".
It has been involved "in numerous anti-US
and anti-Israeli terrorist attacks", including "the suicide truck
bombings of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and the
US Embassy annexe in Beirut in 1984, and the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight
847, during which a US Navy diver was murdered".
Now, "Hizbullah has provided training
to select Iraqi Shia militants, including the construction and use of shaped
charge IEDs that can penetrate heavily-armoured vehicles...".
So Hizbullah is an ally of Iran and Syria,
involved in killing and kidnapping Americans. Should US policy, then, not
actively oppose Hizbullah taking over Lebanon? And if Hizbullah is part of
the Lebanese Government after the June elections shouldn't the United States
reject dealings and stop all aid to that regime?
Regarding Israel, the report says that in
response to "regular and indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel from
Gaza". Citing Israeli figures, the report notes that "Palestinian
terrorist groups fired approximately 1,750 rockets and 1,528 mortars into
Israel in 2008", double the previous year's total. "On December
18, Hamas leadership announced the end of the ceasefire," during which
it had been firing without cease. Thereafter rockets of longer range and in
larger quantities were shot at Israel, disrupting life in the country's south.
And this was the reason why Israel had no choice but to launch a major military
operation in the Gaza Strip.
In looking at other terrorist threats, the
report lists positive and negative developments. On the plus side, Al Qaeda
has "lost ground" in general and especially in Iraq ("significant
defections, lost key mobilisation areas, suffered disruption of support infrastructure
and funding...").
But, on the minus side, Al Qaeda is trying
to launch operations in north Africa, its local affiliate is waging war in
Somalia, and the group operates freely in Pakistan areas across the border
from Afghanistan. The Taliban's threat is also increasing. Europe, too, is
becoming an area of serious concern as radicalisation continues there among
"immigrant populations, youth and alienated minorities...". I think
that means Muslims. "Terrorists and extremists (are) manipulating the
grievances of alienated youth or immigrant populations, and then cynically
exploiting those grievances to subvert legitimate authority and create unrest."
How, according to the report, should terrorism
be fought in the West? "Treat immigrant and youth populations not as
a threat to be defended against, but as a target of enemy subversion to be
protected and supported." It apologetically calls for dialogue.
Let President Barack Obama read this report. I can't think of any more effective
way for challenging the idea that apologies or dialogues with the sponsors
and perpetrators of terrorism is going to change their behaviour.
The writer is director of the GLORIA Center,
Jerusalem, and editor of the MERIA Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab
Reader and The Truth About Syria.)
