Bin Laden and Iran

By Callimachus | Related entries in In The News, The War On Terrorism

Calm down, I’m not going to say there’s “long established ties” between them. But they’re both in headlines this weekend.

Bin Laden wants a jihad in Darfur, “according to an audiotape attributed to him which aired on Sunday.”

The speaker, who sounded like the Saudi-born militant, also said on the tape broadcast on Al Jazeera television that the West’s shunning of the Hamas Palestinian government showed it was waging a “Crusader-Zionist war” on Muslims.

“I call on the mujahideen and their supporters in Sudan … and the Arabian peninsula to prepare all that is necessary to wage a long-term war against the Crusaders in western Sudan,” bin Laden said, accusing the West of seeking to divide Sudan.

Sudan hosted bin Laden in the 1990s, but on the tape he criticized Khartoum for not enforcing Islamic sharia law throughout the country and made clear his call to arms in Darfur was in spite of his differences with the Sudanese government.

Some aspects of Bin Laden’s twisted worldview shine through in this missive. They’re nothing new, if you have paid attention to him. But it’s worth repeating for the sake of understanding what we’re up against — “what,” not “who” because the ideology is more than just this one man. And in war, a valuable asset is knowing the mind of your enemy — knowing the world he thinks he inhabits, not just the world you think you live in.

  • All conflicts in the Islamic world boil down to Muslims vs. Crusader/Zionists = the West = America. The role of a third actor like China — which is deeply involved in Darfur’s oil (China is Sudan’s largest trading partner and has invested a reported $15 billion in Sudanese oil projects) — never seems to register.
  • Nor is there any difference, in Bin Laden’s mind, between a unilateral U.S. cowboy rescue raid and a proper U.N. peacekeeping force, all done up according to protocol. It’s all “Crusader troops” to him.
  • Nor is there any difference for him between a legitimate Muslim grievance and murder pure and simple. Before 9/11, he mentioned the sanctions against Iraq, which many people in the West agreed were cruel and ineffective collective punishment against a helpless civilian population. In Darfur, the issue is Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, waging a campaign of murder, rape and plunder against fellow Muslims who happen to be African. Bin Laden isn’t the champion of Muslims against Western imperialism; he’s an Arab nationalist, plain and simple.
  • There is no democracy in Islam, except as a temporary expedient to advance Islamist causes. Western governments supported the Palestijnian Authority when it was run by Fatah. They have pulled their support since the electoral takeover by Hamas. To Bin Laden, this is proof of “a Crusader-Zionist war against Muslims.” He only criticized Hamas for “breaking what he said was a taboo against ‘joining infidel assemblies.’ ”

As for Iran, according to the “Times” of London, Ahmadinejad is calling in his chits with terrorists to make them part of his defense if the U.S. should try to take out Iran’s nascent nuclear program.

US officials and Israel intelligence sources believe Imad Mugniyeh, the Lebanese commander of Hezbollah’s overseas operations, has taken charge of plotting Iran’s retaliation against western targets should President George W Bush order a strike on Iranian nuclear sites.

Mugniyeh is on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists� list for his role in a series of high-profile attacks against the West, including the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jet and murder of one of its passengers, a US navy diver.

Now in his mid-forties, Mugniyeh is reported to have travelled with Ahmadinejad in January this year from Tehran to Damascus, where the Iranian president met leaders of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

The meeting has been dubbed a “terror summit� because of the presence of so many groups behind attacks on Israel, which Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe from the map.


This entry was posted on Sunday, April 23rd, 2006 and is filed under In The News, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Bin Laden and Iran”

  1. JP Says:

    Granted that the Islam / Bin Laden issue is quite tangled and complicated. My concern is the relationship of Bin Laden to the UAE, not to Iran. It was because of the presence of UAE royals at a campsite with Bin Laden that kept us from getting OBL in the late 90s, and of course we’re all familiar with the recent ports deal. What’s up with THAT?

  2. JP Says:

    Oops? Link for prior comment: http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/new-reason-clinton-didnt-get-bin-laden.html

  3. BrianOfAtlanta Says:

    Is it just me, or have Bin Laden’s missives become more lame with time? He’s beginning to sound like some “regular caller” on a radio talk show. Bin Laden losing his rhetorical touch, along with the fact that recent terrorist attacks in the West (London, Madrid) have turned out not to be Al Qaeda related, seems to indicate serious problems for the old man and his organization. Either that, or the Iraqi fly paper theory is actually working.

  4. Matt Says:

    Brian,
    I agree it’s like OBL is phoning it in. I have my suspicions that he’s been sidelined due to the fact that any jihadi worth his/her salt is going to Iraq to actually fight, not to hide in caves in afghanistan. So I have suspicions that the flypaper theory may be working, but I do fear that the offshoot of that is that once those flies shake free from the flypaper(US leaves, better iraqi gov’t, etc.) they’re going to disperse throughout the mideast. Saudi seems due for another round of militant attacks soon and let’s hope it’s not this summer during travel season.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: