Skip to comments.Nearly 400 Al-Qaeda Members And Other Terror Suspects In Iran: Newspaper
Posted on 07/15/2004 12:23:23 PM PDT by Dog
DUBAI, July 15 (AFP) - Hundreds of alleged members of Al-Qaeda, including 18 of its top leaders, and other terror groups are living in Iran, some under tight security, Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported Thursday.
"More than 384 members of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations are present in Iran, including 18 senior leaders of Osama bin Laden`s network," the London-based daily said, citing a senior source in the Iranian presidency.
The Saudi-owned newspaper said the terrorist leaders were living under tight protection, some of them in villas in the Namak Abrud region, near the town of Chalous on the Caspian coast, 100 kilometres (60 miles) north of Tehran.
Others are living in Lavizan, in the north-west of the capital, and which also houses a large military complex, it added.
The report could not be verified in Tehran.
According to the source, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad convinced Tehran, during his visit to Iran early this month, of the "seriousness" of using Al-Qaeda elements in Iran as a card in its policy with the United States.
As a consequence, Tehran handed over wanted Saudi militant Khaled bin Odeh bin Mohammed al-Harbi to the Saudi authorities, the source added.
Riyadh has said the disabled militant, suspected of being an Al-Qaeda figure close to bin Laden, surrendered on Tuesday under an amnesty after contacting the Saudi embassy in Iran.
In 2003, Iran confirmed it was holding senior Al-Qaeda members but refused to identify them. Tehran has said the detainees may stand trial in Iran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said last month his country had given Saudi Arabia some useful information concerning members of Osama bin Laden`s network that it was detaining.
So how long before the Left decides that there is no connection between AQ and Iran, and calls conservatives "liars" for suggesting there may in fact be such a connection?
Boot and jeffers.....can you locate a map of this region.
But ... but... I thought they're on some mountain top in remote Pakistan! And Iranians are Shi'ites, they must hate AQ!
Naturally the Saudis had a deal to warehouse their irregular forces in Iran...but that deal might be folding with Iran directing AQ attacks in Saudi itself, part of their ongoing "jihad", aka, oil pricing war.
A couple of questions...
Is Iran holding them prisoner or not?
If not, then why are they playing this kind of game... Al qaeda hates the Shia's and it could get ugly for Iran.
What is your take?
Look for Bush to give Iran an ultimatum sometime after the election.
Why, those agents of Al Qaeda are bound to crack any minute now!
I'm just glad that the mullahs and their jackbooted thugs aren't cutting them any slack, like those dissenting professors that they've been so lenient with these past couple of years.
If Bush wins and is consistent, I believe we should attack Iran.
BTW, this guy who was turned over is probably no big deal. Some old Soviet war vet, not an operational terrorist, IMO.
Iraq is coming under control faster than expected.
Iran has to be worried about the October surprise.
February 17, 2002
So they're staying at IRGC villas along the Caspian Sea and military bases near Tehran, eh? Jeez, why can't the Iranians hold me prisoner?
Actually, this is pretty much confirmation of what my boss Michael Ledeen has been writing about for some time now.
I love the game Syria and Iran are playing. Looks like they want to ping pong the US while while throwing these terrorists into Iraq as a obstacle.
On November 3, either the balance of those terrorists are let loose in Iraq and Kerry blames Bush for the breakdown in Iraq, or the terrorists are turned over to the US at the border and mysterious amounts of WMD turn up along with OBL and Zarqaiwi.
My bet is the latter as was shown when Reagan was elected and the hostages were released. People keep forgetting that.
I am presently reading Breakdown by Bill Gertz, which was published in September, 2002. In the book, Gertz states unequivocably that AQ is tightly linked with Iran.
This tension between Shi'a and Sunni is probably overblown. Historically, look at Spain during the Reconquista, the Byzantine Empire during its long decline between Manzikert (1071) and the capture of Constantinople (1453) by Fatih Mehmet II (Ottoman), or the Crusader states in the Levant (1099 to 12xx). In all of these examples, some Muslims would work closely with Christians. Sure, the Sunni may view the Shi'a as heretical and vice-versa. However, the gap between Shi'a and Sunni is much less than the gap between Muslim and Christian.
What is important is how does one advance one's interests. The enemy of my enemy may become my friend.
I think that these arguments that AQ would not work with Shi'a Iran or AQ would not work with secular Iraq are being put forward by people without a whole lot of knowledge on the subject but, having heard a one-line argument, think that they've acquired a deep understanding of 1300+ years of history.
I also note that Iran under the Ayatollahs has long been hostile to Saudi Arabia. AQ and Iran share an interest here, as well.
May 21, 2003
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Senior al-Qaeda leaders are "busy" in Iran, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said amid reports that terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia were directed by a small cell of terrorist leaders in Iran.
"Just from a factual standpoint there is no question but that there have been and are today senior al-Qaeda leaders in Iran and they are busy," he said. ...
That makes sense, but I thought AQ wanted to get rid of the Shia's too.
Are they waiting to fight that battle too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.