yak, can you add two plus two ?

  1. 1,951 Posts.
    nope, i didn't think so

    Baghdad: The hand of Mossad?
    Big explosions have changed a lot in the situation in Iraq and that in Palestine. Attacking the UN is a significant message to the international community, while carrying out a suicide bombing has become a fact of daily life in Israel and the occupied territories. But the consequence of both events is similar: a step backwards in the efforts for peace. The big question is, who is benefiting from such operations? Is it true that the Israelis are losing a lot through these suicide operations and the disruption of the truce? And how much will an attack on the UN in Baghdad dishearten the Americans and move US public opinion against the occupation of Iraq?

    Sometimes it is difficult to understand why some events should occur and change a positive path into a negative situation leading to bloodshed. It is no longer a matter of resistance; the situation is turning into an open intelligence game regardless of the interests of the parties concerned in this situation. First in Baghdad: who carried out this suicide operation against the UN mission? Is it true that Saddam Hussein’s old guard is able to carry out such an operation?
    To answer this question, we should note that it is clear that an operation against an American outpost or convoy can be planned and carried out by a small number of soldiers or militants. It doesn’t need long and complicated planning or specialized expertise. When the target is seen, they fire on it and the operation is done. But filling a truck with a thousand kilograms of explosives and finding someone willing to give up his life for the sake of the deed is rather different. Providing the truck with complex explosives, observing the UN headquarters to analyze the security system of the building and determine its weak points -- all these require a number of specialists and assistants. If Saddam Hussein is still able to conduct such operations amid the Americans’ minute-by-minute pursuit of him, the situation becomes dangerous. This person is not a superman. He cannot even make a phone call or use wireless communication with his presumed units because American technology would be able to track him in a few seconds. A tracking satellite system is covering not only Iraq but many other regions of the world and many leaders and politicians. An Arab diplomat told this magazine that Gulf countries received information in January that when Saddam Hussein felt sure that the Americans were determined to attack him, he organized some loyal units and provided them with weapons and explosives hidden in secret places. They also agreed to transmit instructions and orders through messengers, not wireless networks, in order to avoid interceptions. Experts in the field say that Saddam is having great difficulty keeping ahead of his pursuers, sometimes escaping from a raid with only a few minutes to spare. Their information indicates that he doesn’t stay in the same place more than three hours. So he is not in a position to chair meetings and give instructions for such a large-scale operation.
    Thus one is led to the conclusion that the attack on the UN headquarters was a well-planned operation in which Saddam could not have been implicated but which certainly involved operatives from abroad. Some analysts think that Osbat al-Ansar or some other Islamist group may be behind the attack, but none of these factions has declared its responsibility, so there is no lead on which to carry out a search.
    Members of such groups may penetrate Iraq with the help of neighboring countries. American officials have on many occasions accused Iran and Syria of allowing Islamist elements to slip into Iraqi territory. But observers have many doubts regarding these accusations for the following reasons:
    • Syria is not in a position to help militant organizations because it has cooperated fully in the fight against terrorism and provided Washington with data about these very organizations. The American accusations against it are part of the campaign against Damascus in connection with the bilateral relationship between Washington and Syria, and between Washington and Tel Aviv, and do not reflect reality based on facts and evidence.
    • Iran has concerns in Iraq, but from a Shiite angle only. The southern regions of Iraq, dominated by the Shiite community, has witnessed very few anti-American operations. The demonstrations against the US presence, in the South as elsewhere, arise from the problems caused by the Pentagon’s failure to plan for the post-war period -- electricity and water shortages, etc. -- and from American misunderstanding of local particularities, especially among Shiites. The Iraqi Shiites opposed the Saddamite regime and suffered from it, but they have not ceased to be loyal Iraqis with deep concerns about the country’s independence and integrity. In the final analysis they are and will remain Iraqi Arabs.
    Iran, for its part, is seeking an important role in the Gulf and the Iranian government knows very well that such an ambition can only be achieved through an understanding with Washington. It is thus obvious that Teheran has no interest in sponsoring or encouraging terrorist attacks against US forces or UN installations in Iraq, or in allowing key Islamists to slip into Iraq from its territory.
    A situation out of control
    This explosion is a turning point in the postwar history of Iraq. The Americans are feeling that matters there are beginning to escape from their control. They now have to regard the Iraqi situation as an ongoing war without time limits. It is also obvious that big players are already established inside Baghdad who are able to cause major disruptions. Some observers speculate that Israeli intelligence may have had a hand in important events taking place in Iraq. More problems for the Americans in Baghdad means closer co-operation with Israeli intelligence to fight against terrorism, whether it is in Iraq or in Israel. Freedom in planning and acting in Iraq is strategic for the Israelis, who are preparing themselves to use Iraq as a channel of trade between themselves and the Gulf states. There are Arab diplomats who shy away from any idea of Israeli complicity, recalling the days when this idea was the fruit of the old conspiracy theory. Moreover, they say, Tel Aviv would not dare to attack a UN facility in Iraq because of the serious problems they might have if the Americans discovered their involvement. But the fact remains that there is no other player on the regional or international level which would have any interest in perpetrating such an explosion, or possess the expertise to carry it out. Certainly the Israelis have never had any love for the UN, and carrying out a terrorist attack against it in Baghdad would have the effect of drawing the Americans even closer to Israel in the context of the ‘war against terror’ and thus more supportive of their actions in Palestine.
    An improbable hypothesis? History is full of surprises

arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.