September 23, 2014
Over the last 24 hours, much has been mentioned about the Khorasan “group”, following the United States’ decision to put a reward of seven million USD on the head of Mushin al Fadhli. At this point and time, it remains to be determined whether Khorasan is a new Syrian based group or whether it has just been given or taken a new name. In fact, the name Khorasan is very appropriate, as the Greater Khorasan area is vast and runs from Iran through Syria to Turkey and further. However, it’s unlikely that the name represents the group’s territorial ambitions, as they currently are (and have been since 2005) far more interested in the facilitation and organization of Al Qaeda‘s supply lines and logistics in the region. As is widely known, AQ and Iran have had long links since Osama Bin Laden met with Hasan Al Turabi in Sudan in the early 1990s, and Iran still honors the agreements they reached then. Thus, the question is why the US are choosing this moment, to flag up individuals who are part of a network that has been on the US radar for at least two years.
In 2005, Yasin Al Surri was the leader of AQ in Iran. He was fundamentally a financier and logistics manager, extremely well connected throughout the region, and soon created a highly effective supply pipeline for people, money and more from Pakistan and Afghanistan through Iran to Turkey and onward. The US finally realized his involvement in 2011 and approached (or rather pressured) Iran to have him arrested. The Iranians did detain him the same year, but soon after, he was released and it is suspected that he remained in Iran. At the same time, Mushin al Fadhli was also detained and later released. However, on his release he was promoted to take over from Al Surri, and there is some debate as to whether Al Surri or Fadhli is now in control. Not only was Fadhli very capable of running the supply pipeline and recruiting others to assist in the logistical management in the region, but he also had combat experience in Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden trusted him enough to be one of the few commanders he shared the details of the planned 9/11 attack with.
Al Fadhli is a longtime AQ operative. He has been an AQ leader in the Gulf and was a facilitator for Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Iraq. Prior to the Iraq insurgency, he was involved in several terrorist attacks, including the attack on the French Ship MV Limburg in 2002, and the attack on US Marines on Faylaka Island in Kuwait. With AQ in Iran, he also provided support and guidance to two AQ terrorists, who were arrested by Canadian Mounties in April 2013 trying to derail a US to Canada train. Eventually he started to control the supply route – taking over where Surri left off – supervising the funding for activities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Syria through Turkey and the fighter movement across the region, all of which also moves through Iran. In addition, he has acted as a cell commander for several operational attacks, and he is very successfully leveraging his extensive network of Kuwaiti Jihadist donors to send money to Syria via Turkey. Mushin Al Fadhli has a deputy named Adel Radi al Wahabi al Harabi, who is a Saudi national, residing in Iran with Fadhli. Although al Wahabi has less operational experience, he fully assists in the management of the supply route through Iran.
Now for the question of threat to the US/EU: Yes there is a very obvious threat from Fadhli and his network and supply chain, but this is nothing new. They have been organizing the movement of money, weapons and fighters for years. There are some suggestions, that he/his group is/are after foreign fighters’ passports in Syria. However, their network has a long history and international connections, so it would be surprising, if they only had the ability to secure passports in this manner. Should Fadhli reside in Syria (possibly based on his desire to “have a little scrap” once in a while), it is unlikely that he has a military wing to his network (as ISIS now has), but is rather recruiting for his cells. So back to the original point: Why are the US flagging this up now? Could it be another attempt to show how Iran supports terrorism? Are they highlighting the need for military operations in Syria, because there really is a threat of terrorists to the US? Has Fadhli fallen out with Al Surri and created another group, the “Khorasan” and is now running in tandem? This new focus on Khorasan raises many questions of geopolitical strategies and may be an enabler for US strikes in Syria.
1 response
The ways of US policy are often difficult to parse, flying in the face of facts, rationality, and experience. The role of the US direct policy and indirectly through agencies in creating situations is ignored wholesale. For instance, Bremer’s abrogating the Pentagon’s plan to include the Baathists in the new Iraq army, has led directly to Baathists making up the professional infrastructure of ISIL is not referenced. Similarly, the role of the World Bank, IMF and promotion of free trade in the splitting of Syria into city people who benefited and peasants (nearly all Sunnis) who fell from hard living into desperation, is ignored. And yet, the similarity of the situation and structure of the ISIL revolution with the Russian 1917, Chinese 1940’s is exact. Those nations had elites and city people benefiting while peasants crashed. Those coalesced around communism. Syria coalesced around Islamism.
Analysts also ignore these matters. They are not politic to point out. Far safer to discuss relative hair-splitting in depth. (e.g. Who are the actors? What have they done? Are they intent on attacking the USA? Etc.) And yet, without addressing such core matters, no denouement is possible.
It is just not done for members of the military industrial complex to discuss the military industrial complex, and that includes analysts. That brands one a radical, a communist, or some other such opprobrium. However, since the USA has privatized so much of military logistics and mercenary operations, the motivation has only increased. That such general and persistent blinkered analytics goes unchallenged by serious people is convenient for the currently starving US military contractor’s lobbyists.
Without putting that whole picture together, including the huge, corrupting influence of K Street, coming to a reasonable understanding of how US policy emerges is not possible. That influence on the middle east is obvious and everywhere visible. Thus, the USA cozy’s up to wealth and influence from certain Gulf States, and does nothing but murmur against the fact that those states are the funding source for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Khorasan, etc. Only Iran, which established itself long ago as a bad nation through an extensive PR campaign by Iran to make itself so, is subject to objections and sanctions. And yet, it is arguable that Iran’s participation pales compared to Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Qatari money and influence. Witness what Egypt is doing in self-defense against the Qatari backed muslim brotherhood press.
On top of that foundation, people in power, such as the current Secretary of State, are virtually always relics of the previous bygone era. Only when a situation persists for a generation do people at the top have ideas consonant with reality. Thus the cold war era found itself wielding reasonably sane policy. That is why, to Kerry, Syria’s Assad is a bad man and a hard to winnow out faction of revolutionaries there are good. (Notably, both ISIL and the “good revolutionaries” are supported by the usual Gulf States.) To Kerry, Russia is bad, and a revolutionary government in Kiev is good. Similarly, Saudi Arabia, et al are good, and their endorsement/participation with the USA against ISIL shows that. Nevermind that those “willing allies” are still funding ISIL.
It is a curious fact that the world places its most important decisions in the hands of men crossing into or already in, their senile years. There are exceptions, but generally, for the elderly experience and old memory is foremost and taking in new information is slow. Thus has the world operated for millenia. And yet, we retire drivers, doctors, and many others.
From that stew emerges bubbles of US policy that go pop. Still frightfully strong, strong enough to tolerate massive amounts of venal idiocy, as well as droll foolery in its actions, the USA is able to stumble around and remain on its feet. But one can chart how corruption and venality has grown, and strengthened its influence on foreign policy to a degree not seen in the past century. To ignore this in security analytics is to be remiss indeed. If those outside the USA cannot bring themselves to do it, who will?