Zahal Affiliate Program

First Press Release Published

The Sponsoring of Terrorism

Terrorist groups often receive help from outside players in the form of money, arms, and training. These kind of small proxy wars where a good alternative from total war, for the USA and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Each side not wanting to confront each other directly found smaller states and organizations to oppose the differing governing system. The result was small conflicts all over the world that fought either in the name of capitalism or communism. This is how the CIA came to help Ban Laden, in order to push for a Russian humiliation and defeat in Afghanistan. The Soviets did the same when they helped the Fidel Castro and Che Guevara fight off American interests in South America.
The same proxy wars and founding of terrorists can be seen with clarity in the Middle East today, where Israel's adversaries have come to realize that confronting Israel in conventional war is much less effective then sponsoring terrorism. This is what the Syrian regime bargains with when negotiating for the return of the Golan Heights. They promise to stop aiding Hezbollah for the return of land concurred during the Yom Kippur War. Iran on the other hand funds Hezbollah in order to spread its Ideology and set the Middle East in turmoil by pushing Hezbollah to attack Israel. This acts as a deterrent especially when the US is threatening to bomb Iran’s nuclear program.

The Roots of Terrorism

Terrorism started to emerge in order to challenge the leaders and masters that were neglecting the needs of the people. Whether it was the starving people of France that strived for a better life without the monarchy or the African indigenous people that wanted to be more then just a colony of Europe, the time of the kings, dictators, and imperialism was coming to an end. As the old system collapsed, the stability tranquility that was to follow was not easily achieved. Only more reign of terror emerged as all sides tried to gain political power, and would reach for the sword rather then negotiate. A good modern day example would be the War in Iraq where Sunni’s and Shiat’s battle each other with all the tools of terror at hand, in order to gain as much territory and power as possible.

“In the war for Baghdad mosques serve as garrisons. Sunnis use religious sanctuaries as strongholds to fight for mixed neighborhoods. Shia extremists convert their mosques and prayer rooms, into execution chambers” (Ned Parker, The Times, 28/11/06)

Rapid decolonization saw the rise of national movements in diverse territories such as Algeria, South Africa, and Viet Nam. The rebels/terrorists in these countries often faced overwhelming odds and a far superior opponent. The solution that is best for such an entity is the implementation of gorilla and terrorist tactics. The Viet Cong were especially skilled in these ways while facing the for more superior US army. They never confronted their enemy in a frontal attack, only harassing and then retreating. The laying of booby traps in order to severely injure American soldiers rather then to kill was done in order to heighten aggravation and anger. This sometimes resulted in attacks against the local population by US troops, frustrated by an invisible enemy. An overreaction by the opponent is also something that is calculated by terrorists in order to gain the populations support, and fuel hate against the enemy. Another feature of terrorist tactics is the use of the media, which has a great impact on the home population of the adversary and can help shift the situation in favor of the terrorist entity as seen done in the Tet- offensive of 1968. The Tet-offensive was a total military disaster for the North Vietnamese forces, but the fact that images of hostile forces were able to reach the American embassy compound was enough proof for the American people that the war was lost. Very similar tactics are being used today by Iraqi insurgents that never miss an opportunity to film the killing of American troops and posting them on the internet. Another good example would be the insurgent attack that was broadcast live as the President of Iraq and the new UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon were speaking recently.
The US defeat by the left wing, communists in Viet Nam excited the imagination of revolutionaries across the globe. Proving that by will power and determination, strong regimes can be beaten or even toppled.

Terrorism

Terrorism has always been a hard word to define ever since the French revolution where it first emerged. What was true back then is still very true today when it comes to characterizing the word. Most of the debate around the word would come down to the simple idea that “once freedom fighter is another’s terrorist”. Never the less Western regimes have established some guidelines and characteristics that can be associated with terrorist activities in order to distinguish who are terrorists and who are not, again these definitions can be viewed as being subjective. One perception can be agreed upon by most and that is that it is always a struggle of the weak against the strong, the Have against the have-nots. If one follows the West’s agenda then terrorist targets are usually civilian, and that the main objective of this kind of attack is to generate change in Government policy, spread fear, intimidate, and set off an overreaction by the attacked entity. Terrorists and their supporters would claim that a bomb that goes astray killing innocent people, even if by accident is also terror. Still in this essay I will use the West’s more rational point of view. For the purpose of this discussion, therefore, terrorism is defined as:

“The threat or use of seemingly random violence against innocents for political ends by none –state actors” (R.G Fery & Christopher W. Morris, Vilonce, Terrorism an Justice pg.3)

Terrorism itself is as old as human history itself, and probably started together with basic human interaction. A good example of an ancient organization that spread fear, and changed policy through acts of total violence would be the Muslim sect of the Assassins, a militant religious sect that operated in the Middle East during the 8th to the 14th century. Its followers spread terror through assassination and murder, these acts intimidated local leaders into changing policy in favor of the Assassins. The same thing happened during the Madrid bombings of 2004, which totally changed the election results in favor of the Islamists agenda. Followers of the Sect where promised entry into Heaven after completing their mission. One can not ignore the similarities with modern day Islamic terror that promises similar rewards and tries to effect policy through the same tactics. Terror has come along way since the Assassins sect first understood its potential; still the motivations for acts of terror are very similar only the tools have become technologically more advanced. In this essay I will examine the different kinds of terrorist groups, there motivation and what drives them to kill and maim innocent civilians till this day.

“At its root terrorism is about justice, or at least someone’s perception of justice’ (Audrey Kurth Cornin, Grave New World pg.280)

Uncertain future

Since the Iranian revolution the country has chosen a very different path then the democratic, and so called civilized Western ways. This is because in Iran there is strict censorship of the Media, execution for homosexuality, execution for adultery, open sponsorship of terrorism, persecution of minorities, and denial of the Holocaust. All that should be enough reason to fear an Iranian regime with a nuclear bomb.

“Women sentenced to death by stoning are buried in the ground up to their necks. Iranian law regulates the size of the stones used by the executioner crowd; stones cannot be big enough to kill the sentenced woman too quickly, as the purpose of this barbaric ritual is to inflict as much pain as possible before death. On the other hand, stones cannot be too small, as each blow must be dramatically painful” (Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, 27/01/05)

The recent sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, is another punch to the Iranian economy, which could prove to be delaying the development the Iranian nuclear program. The result of the first limited sanctions imposed on Iran saw the lack of payment made to the Russians that are building the Busher nuclear complex. As a consequence of this non-payment the Russians withdrew some of their personal and indefinitely suspended work at the site, proving that sanctions can help delay the Iranian race to the bomb. Saddam Hussein regime survived years of sanctions, so can the Iranians, leaving the possibility that Iran which is already speculated of being close to the bomb actually achieving its final goal. The recent kidnapping of British troops by the Revolutionary Guard shows the Iranian willingness to be the aggressor in the region even without the bomb; this is only a small taste of what it would be with weapons of mass destruction. Sooner or later the West will have to choose between tolerating an Iranian bomb and face some of the worst scenarios in the future or embark on equally uncertain situation of war with Iran.

The War Scenario

That region of the Middle East has always seen tension and war that goes back to the days of the Prophet Muhammad. This is mainly due to the everlasting dispute between Muslims on who should have been the next Caliph after Muhammad, Ali or Abu Bakar. This difference in perception can be seen at its worst case scenario in Present day Iraq, where Shia and Sunni Muslims are playing out their differences with suicide bombers and violent executions. The same pattern emerged during the Iran Iraq war, were Saddam Hussein with his Sunni Bath Party felt threatened by the rising fundamentalist Shia regime in Iran. The result was one of the bloodiest wars of the 20th century that even saw the use of chemical and biological weapons. This is not the only example of Muslims raising the sword on other Muslims in the region. The invasion of Kuwait is another good example of this feature. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, owed money to the Kuwaiti Government so the best thing to do, was not only not to pay them but also to invade the oil rich country. The wars for oil and dominance in this region go far back and can also be very much present in the future. If Iran does acquire the bomb this will threaten not only Israel in the Middle East but every Arab leader that is a dictator, a monarch, or Sunni because sooner or later they will all be considered enemies of the revolution. In addition to the ideological differences in the region, the dominance for oil is of highest importance. If Iran were to become desperate financially in the future, it could look into invading one of its neighbors like Saddam in 1991. After the Americans pull out of Iraq, Iran can always claim it is sending troops to protect the Shia population of Iraq like the Syrians did during the Lebanese civil war, where in reality it is expanding its oil reserve.

“In any case, the potential for significant regional instability exists. A collapsed Iraqi state creates opportunities for covert Iranian intervention in the north and south- the regions that control most of Iraq’s oil” (Timothy D. Hoyt, Grave New World)

An Iran with a bomb will hardly be beaten back like the Iraqis in the Gulf War, thus it will be able to do as it pleases even if confronted by the mighty US army.
This kind of scenario is very real in the eyes of the Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, which have already started stating that they would also be interested in WMD.

“Iraq and Libya were stopped on the road, a failure to contain North Korea and Iran could have dangerous domino effects in East Asia and the Middle East”(Dr. Hans Blix)

Clip explaning the split in Islam. A must see for better understanding the difference between Sunnis and Shias