Home >> Terrorism >> Terror Threats

     Email   Print 

Interview with Aaron Klein on al-Qaida, WMD and Other Terror Threats

Ryan Mauro - 5/26/2005

Aaron Klein is WorldNetDaily.com's Middle East correspondent, who previously conducted interviews with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as leaders of the Taliban. Ryan Mauro interviewed Mr. Klein on terror threats, al-Qaeda and biological/chemical weapons possessed by Syria and other Arab states.


RM: Aaron, recently you reported on the capture of an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent in Queens. It has long been known that Al-Qaeda had networks inside the USA, so why is this so significant?

AK: Well, this arrest is particularly significant because the agent, Mohammed Junaid Babar, was part of a group, Al-Muhajiroun, that is still operating openly in Queens, NY. Al-Muhajiroun is a worldwide Islamic fundamentalist organization allied with Osama bin Laden with a branch in Queens that speaks at US colleges and meets weekly in a Jackson Heights mosque.

Al-Muhajiroun has long been suspected of ties to al-Qaida. One of the September 11 hijackers reportedly was involved with Al-Muhajiroun, and according to an internal FBI memo by Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams, another Al-Muhajiroun member with ties to al-Qaida trained at an Arizona flight school prior to September 11.

Now, as I reported, one of their members was just arrested by the FBI and he confessed involvement in plotting terror attacks in London, and told of his knowledge of al-Queda plans to smuggle agents through Mexico and attack America.

So it's significant that this information came from someone connected to a group still operating in New York. The FBI clearly needs to pay attention to these groups, and the American public needs to know that these groups are right here among us, and we must continue to remain vigilant.


RM: The sleeper cell had ties to radical Muslim networks in Europe. Do you believe that all or most of the Al-Qaeda-related cells in the US have European connections?

AK: Certainly al-Queda and its affiliate branches have networks in Europe, this is very well-documented. They have branches there firstly, to commit terror attacks, such as those in Madrid and those recently foiled in London, and secondly, to raise funds.

The fundraising part is interesting. Al-Queda, which is fighting against democracy and freedom and the so-called Westernization of civilization, has no problem using these things for their own advantage. They set up Western bank accounts, use Western nonprofit organizations such as the Holy Land Foundation, as [terrorism expert] Steve Emerson exposed, and even use American and European businesses to make money for their Jihad against the West.

We saw this dichotomy, too, with the September 11 hijackers, who committed the largest terror attack against the West and our culture, and yet they used their final days alive to go to strip joints and pizza shops in South Florida.


RM: Do you believe Europe is doing enough to crack down on terrorism? It seems that the terrorists run an elaborate recruitment and indoctrination effort over there.

AK: Absolutely not. Part of the problem is the large and powerful Muslim minority in Europe, and the EU's economic ties in Arab countries. We see these factors in countries like France, where anti-Semitism and the anti-American sentiment by the Muslim community has really gotten out of control, and in the UK, where Muslim groups are actually allowed to hold public rallies, with tens of thousands, in support of September 11, where they chant "Death to America."

The Europeans are really walking a fine line between how much they can crack down before they have a major domestic problem on their hands with the Muslim community.


RM: You have extensive sources in Israel. Why has there been so much success in Israel's War on Terror this year and do your sources expect it to continue?

AK: Israel has always had the ability to win the intifadah, that was never in question. Their military and intelligence capabilities are no match for Palestinian terrorists.

At the start of the violence, in 2000, the Israeli Defense Forces intelligence reported they can destroy Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and completely end the Intifadah within 3 days. Now it will take about 3 weeks.

The problem was that for various complicated reasons, including international pressure and America's attempted building of an Arab coalition in 2001 to invade Afghanistan, and for certain domestic reasons, Israel's hands were largely tied and they thought it in their best interests to keep the violence tit-for-tat and ride it out while essentially bleeding the Palestinian economy and gradually isolating the leadership.

There has been so much success this past few months because Israel's hands are in many ways no longer tied. Terrorists are now spending more time hiding from Israel's assassination policy than they are planning terrorism. The security fence, not yet complete, is clearly working -- not a single suicide bomber has been able to penetrate Israel proper in almost 6 months. They are trying, though. [Sharon spokesperson] Raanan Gissin told me Israel has stopped 104 of 109 terrorist attacks this year.

Some commentators, though, are saying the intifadah is just about over. You are going to see many more terrorist assassinations and raids in the next few months, ahead of Ariel Sharon's planned pullout from Gaza and parts of the West Bank in 2005. Israel will not withdraw from those areas until the terrorists have been obliterated, something the Palestinians should have done themselves a long time ago.

The new threat now is the possibility of Palestinians shooting rockets over the security fence deep into Israel. Just last week an Israeli was killed in a border town by rocket fire. Sharon's dilemma is going to be how to stop rocket firing after the Israeli withdrawal.


RM: Are the Saudis finally cracking down on terrorism, now that their oil industry and power is threatened?

AK: The Saudis are so steeped in terrorism, manufactured in their State sponsored Madrasas, that cracking down is going to be a major problem for them. For Saudis, terrorism has been a byproduct of the intense anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda they have had to use to channel their people's anger toward the West and away from their own despotic regime. And it is fostered by the Islamic fundamentalism the House of Saud depends on to preserve its power base, and keep the religious segments in check.

So now that their oil industry is being threatened, they have a major problem -- how to crack down on the terrorism that serves so many other purposes for them. And even if they wanted to really fight terrorism, we've seen recently that they might not even have the police capabilities to do it. It's a real mess that they've created for themselves.


RM: In the immediate aftermath of the war in Iraq, we saw rogue states such as Syria and Iran get visibly nervous. Do you feel that Syria is going to cave into pressure? They are now surrounded by pro-Western nations, are significantly damaged by the fall of Saddam, and the Reform Party of Syria is getting more and more popular.

AK: Syria is a major threat to peace in the Middle East and to our objectives in Iraq. Bashar Assad is occupying another country, Lebanon; he is outright allowing the overall leader of Hamas to live openly and operate from Damascus; he supports Hezbollah, a major destabilizing force in the Mideast; and he is brazenly supporting the insurgency against American troops in Iraq, allowing them to cross through the Syrian border.

There are also accounts that Syria has the largest illicit chemical and biological weapons programs in the Arab world, and that Saddam transferred some of his weapons to Syria ahead of the war in Iraq.

Assad has shown few signs that he's caving into American and international pressure, and the recent passing of the Syria Accountability Act. Even if Syria is getting "visibly nervous," his nervousness isn't doing any good, because he's still occupying Lebanon, supporting terrorism, and allowing insurgents to cross through Syria into Iraq.

I think the problem of Assad needs to be handled by more forceful ways than just pressure.


RM: What type of effect is the war in Iraq having in Iran? It appears as if the people there are ready to take action, but the West is doing little or nothing to help out.

AK: I think the people of Iran have been wanting a change of leadership for a very long time now. And the outcome in Iraq -- whether a stable Democracy or something like it can be created -- will have a huge impact on the future of neighboring Iran.

The elements for another Iranian revolution are there, brewing beneath the surface, and eventually they will probably act, with events in Iraq likely influencing when and to what extent.

As far as the West doing "little to help," actually I think our efforts in Iraq will ultimately help Iran and the entire Middle East in more ways than we can imagine. Perhaps we are even helping Iran covertly now, I don't know. What is clear is that our hands are very much tied in Iraq, and we need to dedicate most of our resources to making sure we suceed there, for the future of Iraq and the Middle East.


RM: Recent reporting from Israel indicates that Iran's nuclear program has been delayed by about a year due to IAEA inspection and Western scrutiny. What can you tell us about the progress Iran is making on nuclear weapons?

AK: Iran's nuclear programs are not at all delayed, they are charging ahead, full speed. Every time the IAEA inspectors turn around, they find something that indicates Iran has an elicit program, and incredibly the Iranians are receiving much help from Russia.

The problem is the inspectors can't be too forceful, because they don't want to risk being ejected by Iran.

Iran is exploiting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and is heading down the same path of North Korea. You see, the NPT allows participating countries to have a nuclear program as long as it can claim the program is for "peaceful purposes."

Iran can basically build the infrastructure needed to construct a weapon, all legally and under the guise of IAEA inspectors, as long as they can plausibly explain their efforts are for "peaceful purposes." And then once Iran builds the infrastructure and is just a few months away from being able to build a weapon, they can kick out the inspectors, reject the treaty, and quickly assemble an arsenal, exactly like North Korea did. And Iran saw the world, Clinton in particular, allowed North Korea to get away with this. North Korea now has five to ten warheads.


RM: Much is known about Iran's WMD programs. What about Syria?

AK: America claims to have strong intelligence indicating that Syria has the most advanced chemical and biological weapons program in the Arab world, including production of ricin and the VX nerve agent. I don't think Syria is seen as being a potential nuclear threat any time soon, but with Bashar Assad openly supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, his possession of chemical and biological weapons is indeed very troubling.


RM: Many people believe that rogue states like Iran and Syria should be ignored. They feel that the WMD materials won't be passed to terrorists or used offensively unless Israel or the US invades. Do you concur with this belief?

AK: Absolutely not. You cannot ignore terrorist-sponsoring states. Ignoring the situation in Afghanistan and with al-Queda, as was America's policy under Clinton for eight years, led Bin Laden and his state sponsors to believe they could mount the September 11 terror attacks without serious consequence to their organizations and country.

The terrorist threat needs to be handled by giving all sponsoring states a choice -- surrender terror or surrender power. We can't sit around and wait for a group like al-Queda to get their hands on a weapon that would allow them to take out an American city, or worse.


RM: What can we expect in the next few years in regards to the situation with Iran, Syria, and the war in Iraq?

AK: Well, I think that all depends on who wins the next election. With Kerry, there will be a lot of changes in foreign policy and our approach with Syria, Iran and Iraq. He will likely attempt to internationalize our response using the United Nations and the EU, and our approach will be more political than military.

I think if Bush wins, you will see a continuation of the Bush Doctrine of preemption, of not allowing countries to get away with harboring terrorists.

Syria's Bashar Assad is one of the most flagrant supporters of terrorism -- allowing the overall leader of Hamas to live in Damascus, supporting Hezbollah, occupying Lebanon, aiding the terrorist insurgency against American troops in Iraq. His government is very weak, and there are ways for America to rid the region of this Baathist nuisance.

Iran too is a major problem, and there, as we spoke about, you have a race of democratization versus nuclearization. Iran is getting very close to building a nuke, and there's not much we can do about it through negotiations or inspections. A revolution is brewing beneath the surface, and we need to do all we can to bring it about and topple the current regime.