Video: Blair calls for “partnership” with Iran, if…; Report: Iran grooming Bin Laden’s successor

posted at 8:17 pm on November 13, 2006 by Allahpundit

It’s another “major foreign policy speech,” to be followed tomorrow by a teleconference with the Baker Commission. He tries to play down the significance of this one by linking it to the address he gave in L.A. in August, in which he foolishly asserted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the key to the region’s problems. The political scenery has changed a lot since then, though, as the Times of London notes, which makes this speech rather more important:

The first cracks in the united front over Iraq between Tony Blair and President Bush appeared last night as the Prime Minister offered Iran and Syria the prospect of dialogue over the future of Iraq and the Middle East.

More:

The offer of dialogue would have seemed unthinkable a few months ago, but was seen as an attempt to exploit the greater readiness in Washington to talk to Iraq’s neighbours — states once named as part of the “axis of evil” by President Bush.

Thanks to kasper kasper, as always, for the vid. He caught the meat of it, having to do with Iran. Make sure you read this first so that you’re in the proper frame of mind for when he talks about the prospect of Iranian cooperation.

Update: Bush isn’t really feeling it.

Update: So utterly devastating is this article to Blair’s proposal for dialogue that I’m tempted to believe it’s disinformation. Problem is, it’s not the first report that’s placed Saif al-Adel inside Iran.

You want a “whole Middle East strategy”? You got it:

Iran is trying to form an unholy alliance with al-Qa’eda by grooming a new generation of leaders to take over from Osama bin Laden, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

Western intelligence officials say the Iranians are determined to take advantage of bin Laden’s declining health to promote senior officials who are known to be friendly to Teheran…

[I]ntelligence officials have been most alarmed by reports from Iran that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to persuade al-Qa’eda to promote a pro-Iranian activist to a senior position within its leadership.

The Iranians want Saif al-Adel, a 46-year-old former colonel in Egypt’s special forces, to be the organisation’s number three.

Al-Adel was formerly bin Laden’s head of security, and was named on the FBI’s 22 most wanted list after September 11 for his alleged involvement in terror attacks against US targets in Somalia and Africa in the 1990s. He has been living in a Revolutionary Guard guest house in Teheran since fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.

Here he is. Most wanted.

Update: More from the Telegraph. Remember, Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists hate each other and would never join forces against the west:

Iran has always maintained close relations with al-Qa’eda, even though the Shia Muslim state is known to have many ideological and strategic differences with the terror group’s Sunni leadership…

Iran’s attempts to forge closer links with al-Qa’eda are understood to have been ordered by President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who believes Iran and al-Qa’eda share similar aims — destroying the influence of America and its allies in the wider Middle East. Mr Ahmedinejad is also keen to strengthen the alliance in case Iran is subjected to United Nations sanctions over its refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment programme, which many Western governments believe is being undertaken as part of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.

If al-Qa’eda is agreeable to appointing al-Adel and other al-Qa’eda figures currently based in Iran to senior positions, the Iranians have agreed to provide training facilities and equipment.

Links between Iran and al-Qa’eda date back to the early 1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan. According to the US 9/11 Commission report, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards helped to train al-Qa’eda fighters, and the Iranians were suspected of helping al-Qa’eda to carry out the truck bomb attacks against an American military base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in June 1996 that killed 19 US servicemen…

“We are looking at a Doomsday scenario here where al-Qa’eda finally fulfils its ultimate goal of acquiring weapons of mass destruction,” said a senior Western intelligence official. “And unlike other terror groups, al-Qa’eda is perfectly willing to use them.”

This report of AQ seeking a nuclear kit seemed kind of vague and old news-ish to me when I saw it earlier today. Did the Telegraph just fill in the blanks?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What “break with Bush”? I thought GWB was talking about getting Iran and Syria involved.

rmgraha on November 13, 2006 at 8:24 PM

Letting the fox into the hen house will surely “calm” the chickens. I’m gonna puke.

Scotsman on November 13, 2006 at 8:25 PM

This is gonna get ugly.

p0s3r on November 13, 2006 at 8:26 PM

I thought GWB was talking about getting Iran and Syria involved.

Well, Gates might propose that; he’s advocated dialogue with Iran for several years now. The question is whether Bush is open to it.

Allahpundit on November 13, 2006 at 8:26 PM

So let me get this straight…….If we take the wimp out of school the bully will have no lunch money?

Limerick on November 13, 2006 at 8:28 PM

Limerick, blackly funny…
Ever wish you hadn’t gotten out of bed? Hello, that’s me.
The news just gets worse and worse, doesn’t it?
Blair’s gonna go wobbly and there’s not much we can do about it.
We don’t need the Islamic Republic of Britain’s support to win this war, but it wouldn’t been nice to have them by our side in this war, too.
Cherie’s putting Blair up to this and it will send the same signal that Chamberlain sent Hitler: “We’re afraid.”
Duck and cover, Brits!

Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 8:37 PM

My God,they have no intention of ever cooperating,ever,well only for so long as it takes them to arm themselves enough to do even more damage.This is total insanity, Limerick has it right,this is a losing proposition for the West any way you slice it.It is victory for the mullahs.

bbz123 on November 13, 2006 at 8:38 PM

correction: would have been nice, not wouldn’t been. Sorry!

Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 8:46 PM

Michelle just got bleeped on O’Reilly.

JammieWearingFool on November 13, 2006 at 8:47 PM

Let’s get them involved… then bomb the sh*t out of them!

**We don’t need Iran’s help to fix Iraq. What we need is the use of extreme overwhelming force. We need, immediately, hundreds of thousands of more troops to stem the sectarian violence, to secure oil fields and the border, as well as expedite Iraq military training. A withdrawal is a failure; a ‘stay the course’ is a failure; the only prospect of success is to get rid of the failed ‘hearts and minds’ BS and get serious about winning. WE WILL LOSE without more troops and we will lose with a premature withdrawal!

Opinionnation on November 13, 2006 at 8:49 PM

Michelle just got bleeped on O’Reilly.

JammieWearingFool on November 13, 2006 at 8:47 PM

I just saw/heard that too. Did she really use the “b” word? Too funny, but she was right about the Dems not having any.

thedecider on November 13, 2006 at 8:51 PM

What is happening right now is globally equivalent to the Allies merely holding the line at France’s border while Hitler moved in reinforcements. Iran will be up-arming, potentially with nukes. Syria won’t exactly be sitting idly by, and our “friends” the Saudis will be footing the bill where it’s needed by our enemies. It is insanity to believe that gaining a non-violent “status quo” in the region will mean the bad guys are doing nothing.

How often must the mullahs, muftis, imams, etc. say they will only rest when the White House is burned down, before we accept them for who they are, ENEMIES? They are not people with whom a political dialog is possible, by their own words. A real world superpower would issue an ultimatum, and then ready the “big stick” when it isn’t observed.

Freelancer on November 13, 2006 at 8:51 PM

Blair is doing the CYA thing. He surely knows what’s in the Baker report and see’s the writing on the wall. As a good politician he knows it’s time to change the dialogue on Iraq. Probably too, he knows the Dems in Washington aren’t going to support this anymore.

thedecider on November 13, 2006 at 8:53 PM

They are not people with whom a political dialog is possible

I certainly can’t think of an instance where they have been willing to negotiate on anything but hostage releases.

thedecider on November 13, 2006 at 8:56 PM

Here is what dinner jacket had to say this very day:

“According to the Iranian media Monday, Iranian President Mahoud Ahmadinejad declared that Israel was destined to ‘disappearance and destruction’ at a council meeting with Iranian ministers.

“The western powers created the Zionist regime in order to expand their control of the area. This regime massacres Palestinians everyday, but since this regime is against nature, we will soon witness its disappearance and destruction,” Ahmadinejad said. (AFP)

Sounds ready to be part of the Global Cooperative to me.

bbz123 on November 13, 2006 at 8:56 PM

Michelle just got bleeped on O’Reilly.

JammieWearingFool on November 13, 2006 at 8:47 PM

I just saw/heard that too. Did she really use the “b” word? Too funny, but she was right about the Dems not having any.

thedecider on November 13, 2006 at 8:51 PM

She said b-lls.

Heh.

We need video.

JammieWearingFool on November 13, 2006 at 8:57 PM

Blair just took the U.S. military option towards Iran off the table. I find it hard to believe he would have done that without consulting Bush. Does anyone know if Bush himself has done that?

Scot on November 13, 2006 at 9:20 PM

Great, that’s like asking Japan and Italy what to do about Nazi Germany.

Tony737 on November 13, 2006 at 9:20 PM

Blair just took the U.S. military option towards Iran off the table. I find it hard to believe he would have done that without consulting Bush. Does anyone know if Bush himself has done that?

Scot on November 13, 2006 at 9:20 PM

I think it’s safe to say the option is off the table for Bush too with the Dems “safely” in control of the war on terror. However, there’s always the Israeli’s.

thedecider on November 13, 2006 at 9:30 PM

Dude
NUKE THE FREAKIN PERSIANS NOW!

Defector01 on November 13, 2006 at 10:05 PM

Michelle just got bleeped on O’Reilly.

JammieWearingFool on November 13, 2006 at 8:47 PM

*bleep*, I missed it!

I’ll try to catch a re-run tonight.

Yakko77 on November 13, 2006 at 10:07 PM

Saif al-Adel translated…causus belli

liberrocky on November 13, 2006 at 10:39 PM

Boy it would be nice if I could spell “Casus”

liberrocky on November 13, 2006 at 10:45 PM

Cherie’s putting Blair up to this and it will send the same signal that Chamberlain sent Hitler: “We’re afraid.”

I have been reading “Americal Alone” and stumbled on this gem today.

In 2002 Finnish prime minister Paavo Pipponen gave a speech in London saying that “the EU must not develop into a military superpower but must become a great power that will not take up arms at any occaision in order to defend its own interests”

Seems they are just playing it out.

AZ_Redneck on November 14, 2006 at 12:16 AM

AZ_Redneck on November 14, 2006 at 12:16 AM

Such idealism! Unfortunately it doesn’t work in the real world. Never has, never will. Strong militaries are the only thing that keeps a country’s enemies at bay. Can you imagine a weak America? With all our natural resources and wealth; if we were to simply say “we’re not going to fight”. Idealism quickly turns to idiocy when presented with reality. How do such people as the Finnish Prime Minister come to power? Under the protective umbrella of NATO. It must be wonderful to live in such ignorant bliss as long as it’s someone else’s problem to keep the world’s enemies at bay.

thedecider on November 14, 2006 at 12:37 AM

Shall we let the terrorists have europe? They deserve it, They are not our friends..

retired on November 14, 2006 at 12:51 AM

…never thought I’d see the day…even *after* reading Melanie Phillips’ book…but it’s fast approaching: the Brits are becoming the French.

Let us sit upon the virtual ground and sing sad songs about the deaths of kings…or we can drink….

Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 1:02 AM

Saif al-Adel translated…causus belli

…hey…Arabic to Latin…it’s Cassius Clay to Muhammed Ali in reverse.

…I wonder what that is in ‘Merican….

Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 1:04 AM

Allahpundit and Michelle,

Please have a read over this article from the Michael Coren in the National Post.

Discussing an interview with Dr. Tawfik Hamid, MD, author and activist once was a member of Egypt’s Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya. He was trained under Ayman al-Zawahiri and has great insights into the motivations behind Sunni suicide/homicide bombers.

He’s a disarmingly gentle and courteous man. But he’s determined to tell a complacent North America what he knows about fundamentalist Muslim imperialism.

“Yes, ‘imperialism,’ ” he tells me. “The deliberate and determined expansion of militant Islam and its attempt to triumph not only in the Islamic world but in Europe and North America. Pure ideology. Muslim terrorists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe.”

From a position of experience, he goes on to demollish the canards of the left:

“I’ve heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim by the way. There are millions of passive supporters of terror who may be poor and needy but most of those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated and free. If it were about poverty, ask yourself why it is middle-class Muslims — and never poor Christians — who become suicide bombers in Palestine.”

But then, he gets into the controversial meat of his thesis, something that’s taboo to discuss in the national media.

He leans back, takes a deep breath and moves to another area, one that he says is far too seldom discussed: “North Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings. If they understood contemporary Islamic society, they would understand the sheer sexual tension of Sunni Muslim men. Look at the figures for suicide bombings and see how few are from the Shiite world. Terrorism and violence yes, but not suicide. The overwhelming majority are from Sunnis. Now within the Shiite world there are what is known as temporary marriages, lasting anywhere from an hour to 95 years. It enables men to release their sexual frustrations.

and later:

This partial explanation is shocking more for its banality than its horror. Mass murder provoked partly by simple lust. But it cannot be denied that letters written by suicide bombers frequently dwell on waiting virgins and sexual gratification.

It’s a fascinating read. What is your take on it?

Christoph on November 14, 2006 at 1:24 AM

I linked it earlier in the “kinder, gentler Islam” post.

Allahpundit on November 14, 2006 at 1:24 AM

I missed it before. Glad you saw it as a worthwhile read too.

Christoph on November 14, 2006 at 1:33 AM

Strong militaries are the only thing that keeps a country’s enemies at bay

thedecider on November 14, 2006 at 12:37 AM

I am simply blown away by the European suicide pact. Can I imagine America being weak? Let’s see what happens in the next two years. (Also a correction – the fellows last name is Pipponen Lipponen.)

I served in the military years ago, but history teaches me to remain wary of standing armies. I believe the military is needed in today’s world, but citizens armed with military grade weapons are a better deterrent.

AZ_Redneck on November 14, 2006 at 1:45 AM

Yesterday we had Al Qaeda putting their two cents into Lebanon. I thought it was disturbingly odd that they seemed to be saying the same thing Hezballah was saying. Now, it makes more sense. Considering the fact that both organizations hate the rest of the world, should we be suprised to see them cooperating from time to time. Both hate America, Israel, western Democracy in the ME, the Saudi Royal family, etc. If FDR and Uncle Joe could make nice to take out Hitler, why not this?

BohicaTwentyTwo on November 14, 2006 at 9:18 AM

Well then Iran needs to be stopped the minute a Nuke see’s daylight. You don’t think a successor to Bin Laden is going to wave a Nuke around and make threats do you? NO. He’s gonna launch the sucker. All I can say is, if one goes off, that place [IRAN] will be off the map.

johnnyU on November 14, 2006 at 11:00 AM

It’s likely going to take Islamic Extremists goose stepping through the capitols of Europe before they wake up to the threat. This time however, the Sturmabteilung will be wearing Kafiyehs.

jasnell on November 14, 2006 at 12:11 PM

Let’s see, go into “partnership” with a group of people who are instructed by their Holy book to whenever possible, lie and try to deceive all infidels, kill them and their families, and conquer the world for “Allah”…yea, THAT makes a WHOLE lot of sense.

Idiots.

NRA4Freedom on November 14, 2006 at 12:12 PM

NRA4Freedom said:

Idiots.

Do you honestly expect anything less?

jasnell on November 14, 2006 at 12:22 PM

Great, that’s like asking Japan and Italy what to do about Nazi Germany.

Tony737

Exactly! When did America and other nations become so afraid of winning? Why are we so opposed to defeating our enemies? WHY??? Surely there’s more to this than political correctness! Maybe it just comes down to who has and who doesn’t have balls! I miss Ronald Reagan!!!!!!!!!!

Joshua P. Allem on November 14, 2006 at 3:02 PM

New York Sun is carrying the Telegraph article today;

Iranians Training Qaeda Terrorists to Attack Our GIs

Terp Mole on November 14, 2006 at 4:06 PM

There’s a lot going on in this thread that warrants comment but I’ll only address what some are portraying as Blair’s going soft on US.
These are merely words uttered a a fancy dress party. The fact is that the British & the Australians have had our back throughout the operation. I never expected Blair to be so stalwart, him being a Liberal and all. Our allies have been above reproach in Iraq. You never heard any gripes about how all the allies worked together or squabbles about the plans for the operation. And for a time there, it seemed like the Brits were suffering heavier losses than we were. No, the British & the Australians have been nothing but stand up guys. I salute them, every manjack of them.
Until some actionis taken that evidences British squishiness or intent to bail out precipitously, then I am going to revere their dutifulness.
Blair is required to say a lot of things and he must always appear eager for peace but until he does something contrary to the mission, he should be accorded the highest respect.
(I wish I knew more about the exploits of our other allies but I do know that you could hardly ask more of our British brothers in arm.)

thegreatbeast on November 14, 2006 at 5:36 PM

What kind of partnership can we have with Iran? Wait. I’ve got it. We stand up against a wall. The Iranians shoot and kill us dead. Granted that could take some time. We could do combinations. We stand under buildings and the Iranians pull them down on top of us (for those of non traditional sexual preferences). Or, we could gather in cities and they blow up the cities. I think most combinations of U.S citizens dying and Iranians killing them would work pretty well for them. Let’s hear it for peace in our time. Yay.

austinnelly on November 14, 2006 at 6:03 PM

GreatBeast, I agree, I was worried about Tony “Third Way” Blair keepin’ it up, but he’s hangin’ in there, isn’t he? Anybody remember the bayonet charge? That freaked out the islamonazis!

John Howard is hard core on our side because he understands what’s at stake. He’s already seen the first of many battles in his own country last summer (winter).

We have the Canadians helpin’ us out in Afghanistan, if only they had enough of a military to help in Iraq too.

Poland is also balls to the wall on our side. Their special forces (the “GROM”) has been there with us all the way.

Tony737 on November 14, 2006 at 7:19 PM