RSS

Iran, the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world, has been playing a vicious role in abetting conflict in the Middle East. Tehran's support of terrorism in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan threatens local and national security as well as efforts to promote peace and economic stability in the region. The Iranian Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard finances terrorism through its support of groups such as Hammas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mehdi Militia, insurgent groups in Iraq, the Taliban as well as other militant factions in Afghanistan. Despite the gravity of these accusations, the US military has yet to officially press NATO the UN or the Afghan Government to launch an investigation.

Prior to the arrival of US forces in Afghanistan, Tehran supported the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. However, when American forces landed in Afghanistan, Tehran allied themselves with their former enemies. Many Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders, including members of Osama Bin Ladin's family, reportedly sought refuge in Iran. Furthermore, in interviews Osama Bin Ladin has promoted an alliance between the Taliban and Iran against the United States.

Though first reveled amid a media storm in 1997, the well substantiated Iran-Al Qaeda connection has faded from the news. In March 2002 a military operation in eastern Afghanistan found several documents, including unused Air Iran tickets and hotel bills from Mashad, and ammunition in the mountain caves in eastern Afghanistan. In June 2007, Director of US National Intelligence Michael McConnell, affirmed that compelling evidence exists which shows that Iran has supported terrorist groups in Afghanistan. In the same year, NATO seized a cache of Iranian-marked weapons being supplied to Taliban through Farah Province on the Iranian border. After a field analysis, NATO affirmed that these arms were used in Iraq against the US forces by insurgents. In 2009, British officials in London charged a NATO Commanding General Afghan interpreter with passing secrets to Iran.

Media investigative reports have also found several cases of Iranian involvement in the Afghan insurgency. In September 2008, BBC's Kate Clark revealed the Iranian arms are intensifying Taliban insurgency when a Taliban commander admitted that the arms supplied from Iran revolutionized their fight against the US. The commander is quoted as saying, "There's a kind of mine called the Dragon. Iran is sending it and we have got it. It's directional and very powerful." Furthermore, the commander revealed that Iranian arms were only available to special groups, those with "good contacts" to the Iranians. "There are people inside the state in Iran who donate weapons. There are also Iranian businessmen who sell them," he added.

Sunday Times newspaper recently reported that Iran is supporting insurgents through sophisticated training of IEDs to kill NATO and US troops in Afghanistan. Taliban commanders told the newspaper that they are trained in Iran's Zahidan city and in the camps near the Afghan-Iranian border. Taliban commanders also said they were taught to attack convoys and escape before NATO forces respond. Moreover, according to US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral, in preparation for the planned US military offensive in Kandahar, to be launched in June of this year, a huge shipment of weapons was ferried to the region by Iran.

Despite the wealth of media reports and substantiated military evidence, the US and NATO have limited their response to statements of to condemnation. No formal investigation has been pursued. Afghan President Karzai is hesitant to turn his back on Tehran especially now that the US has being openly critical of the rampant corruption and poor governance in his country. Karzai even invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to Kabul to discuss an alliance against the US, wherein the Iranian President abandoned diplomatic tactics in favor of blatantly blaming Afghanistan's western allies.

Despite a wealth of evidence, the US and NATO have yet to officially follow through with an investigation into Iranian-Afghan cooperation. The US has to be serious and practical and move from criticism to concrete steps regarding Iranian support to insurgents. This issue could be taken to the UN Security Council because international troops in Afghanistan are fighting under its mandate. The Afghan Government should be forced to ask Tehran to stop supporting militants in Afghanistan. Finally, accusations should be taken up officially in the form of an investigation so that the ongoing blame game can be circumvented.

Unless the Iranian double-game in Afghanistan is not blocked, insurgency will remain a quagmire for the US led NATO forces. The US must stop Iranian meddling through all possible channels of intermediation. A blame game of occasional statements by military officials will keep the waters muddy and encourage Tehran to keep supporting insurgents and force the US leave Afghanistan in a shameful defeat at the hands of insurgents.

Abbas Daiyar is based in Kabul  and affiliated with Daily Outlook Afghanistan. He is a member of the Atlantic Community and author of several articles. For more information please follow this link to Daiyar's blog.

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

• David Neil Lebhar: How the US and Germany Can Win in Afghanistan
• Antonio Buttitta: Implications of a Nuclear Iran
• Florian Broschk: Little Opportunity for the West to Influence Iran

May 4, 2010

Martin Scott Milinski, Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, Silver Contributor (27)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Certainly this is frustrating.
Yet, what can be done? For its part, the US made clear its position regarding Iran's support for terrorism decades ago. Aside from international condemnation and unilateral sanctions little can be done without the political unity of the US and its allies cooperating. What would an investigation prove? What would the results be?

I agree though, this is different than funding a terrorist group, this is supporting a US enemy in times of war. A proxy war, certainly something to take notice of. Yet again, what can be done? Does the US not support anti-government groups within Iran?

May 4, 2010

Hans Reuther-Fix

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Abbas Daiyar,

Your opinion is certainly appreciated, which may have some merit.
What would you say, if I just feel to assume, that the Taliban is a creation of the CIA,....
that Saudi Arabia is supporting the Taliban, ...that Osama Bin Laden is now reunited with his family and staying in Saudi Land.
Do you know how many players are in this Afghan game, of which Iran is properly part of it.
Look around.

HRF

Tags: | Iran/ Afghanistan |

May 4, 2010

Aviv Lubell, Tel Aviv University , (10)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

While there is no denying that Iran’s al Quds forces have been supplying Taliban fighters with specialized training, the real focus must be on the scale of assistance. Although I agree that Iranian influence in Afghanistan represents a disturbing trend, the response from the United States, NATO, and the Karzai government must be measured. To date, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal has stated, with reference to Iranian assistance, that: “the numbers are not operationally significant, they have not changed the fight, and I am not prepared to tell you that the government of Iran is executing that as a policy”.

Furthermore, explosive devices, unique to those used by Shi’ite militias in Iraq have not shown up in great numbers in Afghanistan. Additionally, one cannot with any degree of certainty determine what level of government within the Iranian regime is authorizing such assistance. McChrystal himself was quick to highlight the possibility that directives may be issued by local commanders without the full backing of the Iranian government. According to a 2007 report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, it is not clear whether or not al Quds operation are integrated with Iranian intelligence operations, and there is considerable debate over the level of control and authorization by the Supreme Leader and the President. The report however acknowledges that some level of activity has been authorized. That being said, it would be difficult for both the United States and NATO to mount an effective diplomatic response.

The region is replete with obstacles and dangers, and although there is conclusive evidence proving Iranian influence in Afghanistan, the extent to which it is affecting US and NATO operations does not at present merit an aggressive diplomatic response. While the situation must be carefully monitored, more pressing issues affecting Afghanistan and Iran must be addressed first. Iranian support for the Taliban is more likely a symptom of the larger problem, rather than the cause.

AL

May 4, 2010

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (531)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you for this important contribution Mr. Daiyar, which shows what is usually omitted in reports about the Afghanistan war: that NATO is not just fighting some bands of guerillas, but involved in a global power struggle.

I would not expect anything else than that the enemies of the US and NATO use this golden opportunity in Afghanistan to the maximum extent. Here they can hit us, hit us really hard, with minimum risk, and thanks to our stupid policies and failed strategy we have to take it. We have to take it with a smile and even say "thank you" like in the Chinese court rules where to stop smiling means losing face.

So what do you want to do about Iran? Escalate the war regionally by invading the country conventionally? I think there is a high likeliness that "the most successful alliance of the world" would simply lose such a war. The conventional US military is already now at its limits, and the reality in Afghanistan is that we are losing there already now without regional escalation. Or how can the fact otherwise be called that the "Taleban" now control about 80% of the country?

The other option, a nuclear escalation, is one we should not even think about. This post would be too long if discussing this issue, but one aspect should be mentioned: When Gorbatchov initiated the nuclear disarmament talks, the USSR was in huge economical trouble. Maintaining a big nuclear arsenal is very expensive. So let's hope the Obama administration embarked on another disarmament round because of idealism and not because of the financial crisis.

Now let's consider: what if the Taleban also get support from Russia, or China? That wealthy individuals in Saudi-Arabia and other islamists fund the Taleban is already sufficiently known. In fact, Iran as a Shi'a country might be more on the side of the US than other Sunni Muslim countries.

The big question is: what will be after NATO has been defeated? I guess that the players are now preparing for the time after, and in this context, I assume that Iran wants to secure some influence by building relations to the resistance fighters. However, I do not think that Iran played an important role supplying the Taleban, since the risk of US retaliations was much too high. But I guess that certainly support from other powers played an important role for NATO's military disaster.

If this was a strategy game, and I was ruling China or Russia, I had long supported the "Taleban" - the failed western strategy is a too golden opportunity to be missed in the worldwide struggle for the control of strategic resources.

May 5, 2010

Member deleted

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Firstly thank you Abbas for this insightful piece! Indeed, it is time to discuss an Iranian approach to the greater Middle East more detailed.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Basjid) has 11 000 000 men and women at arms to form a paramilitary guerrilla force in order to defend the Islamic Revolution on asymmetric levels,

Niruyeh Moghavemat Basij - Mobilisation Resistance Force
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/basij.htm

thats time has come as asymmetric warfare increasingly develops into a tool of self-expression in the grater Middle East, ...

The Gulf Military Forces in an Era of - Asymmetric War, Iran
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/060728_gulf_iran.pdf

for countless ethnic, tribal and sectarian militias under colonial blood-borders, ...

Blood borders - How a better Middle East would look - By Ralph Peters
http://www.afji.com/2006/06/1833899

now set to develop self-propelled economic, social and business dynamics in order to export the Islamic Revolution to the broader Middle East:

The birth of a new class - By Morris M Mottale
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/04/2010421104845169224.html

Articles here provide a sufficient explanation on what Abbas meant with "There are people inside the state in Iran who donate weapons. There are also Iranian businessmen who sell them,"

Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart (* 31. October 1895 in Paris; † 29. January 1970 in Marlow) who predicted the future of the likely non nuclear Middle East merely within the framework of an appendix shaping guerrilla tactics as a political fall out among non nuclear powers in order to enable warfare without risking diverging geo-strategic interest going nuclear.

The formula deriving from Hart's elaboration describes a world that witnesses a number of nuclear powers that wage wars among non-nuclear countries by asymmetric means for the first an foremost. Some refer to this as the Great Game.

However, given Iranian grip on the Arab Gulf (Persian Gulf) that channels 40% of contemporary oil reserves Iran already has something similar to a nuke if considered what harm a cut of this supply could cause to infrastructure and wealth on global levels.

The Basjid now serves as a chimney of asymmetric capabilities, weapons manufacturing and respective distribution. The Basjid therefore represents an ordinary, nevertheless hereto unknown large paramilitary force that could be compared with what has been the "Schutzstaffel" in Germany during WWII. One remembers the brutal and bloody crackdown on Iran's young democratic movement by the Basjid's very own anti riot force and Nazi ideology among the Basjid's Levant proxy, namely Hezbollah?

Abbas now asks for action through the UN security council ... well there are numerous sanctions in place and Iran doesn't care much and as long they can sell oil to China and have trade with them Iran is an economic autonomous country. And China has its own regional aims namely Taiwan aso... I don't think they are going to give in without other Super Powers making painful cuts on other occasions.

War? NATO forces are already stretched and budget spending is cut through the economic crisis due to the fact that 100.000 Insurgents were capable of waging a war in Iraq as we remember it... what about millions of them in Iran?

Air superiority, crippling infrastructure and targeted assassinations? Iran will set the region ablaze and cut off oil, hence China will turn violet with respect to its oil supply, worst case they attack Taiwan. Domestic outfall among NATO countries could spark an upraising of left wing parties as support for war is lowest ever anyway.

And the really bad news is, Iran, more precisely the Basjid, knows all this... therefore, welcome to the Multi-polar Nightmare!!!

May 5, 2010

Florian Broschk, Security Advisor, Northern Afghanistan, Platinum Contributor (197)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

This article is rather unbalanced in that it tries to draw analytical conclusions from emotional accusations, founded in a highly selective excerpt of the situation. "The most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world" or "Tehran allied themselves with their former enemies" are shibboleths with little analytical value. Unlike the well-known alliance with Irans Shia brethren in Lebanon and Iraq, the hints poitning towards a serious role of Iranian support in the (multi-faceted) Afghan insurgency are scarce (though they exist - a more nuanced discussion of the issue can be found at http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/04/29/iranian-weapons/).

True, the deep historical enmity between Iran and the Taliban (and of cause al-Qaida - despite Mr. Daiyar's claim, Iran aka "the rafidhi safavi empire" figures prominently, right next to Israel and the US, in the jihadi pantheon of enemies) does not preclude tactical alliances: for the moment, more than one player in Iran's foreign politics may feel much more concerned about a permanent presence of US forces right across the borders. Frankly, if I were an Iranian foreign policy advisor, I would also see the latter as a major source of uneasiness, especially given that the US repeatedly and publicly thought about attacking Iran.

However, there is an important difference between fanning the flames of an ongoing insurgency against an unwelcomed neighbour and being a driving factor behind this, something that would justify a sweeping conclusion like the above "Unless the Iranian double-game in Afghanistan is not blocked, insurgency will remain a quagmire for the US led NATO forces"

Politics tend to be muddy - and this explicitly includes Anti-Teheran-Terrorgroups like the leftist Mujahidine Khalq in Iraqi Camp Ashraf as well as Jihadi "Jombeshe Moqawamate Mardomiye Iran" (formerly known as Jundullah) operating from Pakistan and Afghanistan. As a political actor, you sometimes might support "Terrorist" groups - yet for tactcal reasons and thus on a low level that allows for leverage with both sides involved. This seems to be exactly what Iran does at its eastern backyard. Of cause these activities are monitored - that's why media article pop up that utter these accusations. Of cause weapons caches are uncovered - sometimes Iranian-made, sometimes not. US weapons also have turned up among the Insurgents. But a formal investigation leading to the diplomatic crisis Mr. Daiyar calls for, would predictably be no more than smug self-satisfaction. While Pakistan, not Iran, is central in this war, antagonizing even Iran without clear and attainable goals in mind would be unwise to say the least - especially given the second-tier value and scattered amount of support in the anecdotes cited by the above article .

May 6, 2010

Member deleted

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Broschk,

To roast Abbas Daiyar here for quoting "our" Western media outlet, that indeed blurs the lines between analysis and war mongering way too often, is a) necessary and b) less sensitive.

Necessary because even in Sudan rebel groups catch ones eye with Heckeler and Koch made equipment ... it swept me off my feet and indeed there is no link that could give Germany incentives to support the respective group.

Nevertheless, we should appreciate Mr. Dayars wake up call that motivated my comment above. Considering the way Iranian pressure lines form alliances is highly striking on cultural as well on levels of effect.

On cultural levels because here in the orient a certain market-mentality allows unnatural alliances to form quickly and against any odds western mentality would predict.
The levels of effect, however, witness a certain recklessness that uncovers if Palestinian sources are mentioned that remember Hezbollahs non interference during Israels Gaza offensive in spite of its frequent vocal support for its "ally".

Therefore I see no reason for Mr. Daiyars lack on analytical elaboration as he is in Afghanistan and witnesses the fall out of such actions directly.

I am used to quote Syrias President Bashar Al-Assad who criticized US policy in the region for opening the door for Iran that merely filled a vacuum. In my opinion Iran could have filled this vacuum long before given political fault lines and performance of some governments in the region, therefore Iran cannot be that reckless and expansionist as it is portrayed frequently, however, supports your quote saying:

"Frankly, if I were an Iranian foreign policy advisor, I would also see the latter as a major source of uneasiness, especially given that the US repeatedly and publicly thought about attacking Iran."

hence, supports many of my analytical conclusions that the main driving force behind the soar of the Basjid is very much FEAR! This also tends to hold for Mr. Dayiar... therefore let us be more sensitive as we represent an occupying force, hence are responsible in the end of the day ....

Mr. Daiyar remembered us on this responsibility.


yours sincerely


Samir

May 6, 2010

Abbas Daiyar, Daily Outlook Afghanistan, Platinum Contributor (184)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear all thanks for the feedback.

@Martin: True that political unity of the US and its NATO allies is important for any concrete response to the Iranian meddling in Afghanistan.
An investigation is very much different from media statements and political accusations by the US and NATO political and military leaders. Firstly, it will bring a more acceptable picture of the issue in front of the world from a neutral investigation. For instance, India is a leading supporter of the rebuilding process in Afghanistan. Indian nationals are being killed in Afghanistan by militants linked to Haqqani Network, whom Tehran supplies weapons. If an investigation by the UN SC proves the accusations against Iran, it would bring change of behavior towards Tehran in New Delhi and, probably Beijing regarding Afghanistan.
Secondly, a formal investigation would be more acceptable for Afghan media and the people of Afghanistan. Remember that just last week more than a thousand people staged a protest demonstration in front of the Iranian Embassy in Kabul for thousands of Afghans being persecuted in Iranian prisons. Once my people here in Afghanistan know, how Taliban can sustain the expenses of insurgency and who supply them weapons, there would be change in the mindset of people towards the general perspective of war as conceived here in Afghanistan.
And to your question “Does the US not support anti-government groups within Iran”? Even Ahmadinejad has not accused the US of “sending weapons to anti-government elements in Iran”.

@Aviv: It’s almost impossible in a police-state like Iran that “local commanders” supply arms to insurgents in another country without the acknowledgment of higher authorities or the intelligence. Even if it was so, the Govt. is responsible for that happening.

@Bernhard: “Iran as a Shi'a country might be more on the side of the US than other Sunni Muslim countries” Iran supports the Sunni Palestinian groups, it helped the Sunni factions of Northern Alliance before 2001, and now helping a Sunni Taliban. Agree to parts of your comment regarding the failures in NATO/US policy in Afghanistan.

@Samir: Thanks for the great links. True that an investigation would not bring something effective for the direct Iranian involvement in killing of NATO and US troops, but a neutral investigation can make other neighboring countries of Afghanistan, like India, think differently. Most important, media and the people of Afghanistan…
And thanks for the second comment clarification to Florian.

@Florian: My style of sentences might seem “emotional” to you, though my paragraphs are supported with military and media reports.
Terrorism by Iran-supported Palestinian groups, and the well-known Iranian involvement in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan, makes Iran the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Israel-Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan makes a larger part of conflicts in the world and Tehran being involved in all of them, is the most active. There is nothing emotional in this.
“Tehran allied themselves with their former enemies”; Gulbadin Hekmatyar, the leader of a leading insurgent group in Afghanistan was in exile in Iran for several years after Taliban was ousted by the US forces. He wrote books in Tehran calling a global Jihad against the US. There were some other Taliban leaders too, taking refuge in Iran. Also, Al-Qaeda leaders like Al Zarqawi were treated in Iran in December 2001 after he was injured in a US bombing. There are Iranian contacts in Al-Qaeda too. It was reported by the Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, who has interviewed Osama Bin Ladin twice and many other Taliban leaders. Recently (see the link below) reportedly Iran released Al-Qaeda leader Saif Al-Adil, who was responsible for Al-Qaeda operations in Iraq.

I agree with you on this “Pakistan, not Iran, is central in this war”. But we have to discuss all players in the Afghan quagmire. In the above article, I did it on Iran, as an article of 800 words cannot contain everything!
....
Here is a recent report in Asia Times Online
How Iran and Al-Qaeda Made a Deal
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LD30Df01.html

May 6, 2010

Aviv Lubell, Tel Aviv University , (10)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Abbas,

In theory you are absolutely correct, the Iranian regime is ultimately responsible for any and all training by government forces of Taliban fighters. That being said, what would be the benefit and opportunity cost of mounting a substantial diplomatic response? To date, has Iranian meddling in Afghan affairs had a significant impact on NATO and US operation in region? Is there the possibility that bringing this issue to the forefront may impact Iran's willingness to show flexibility vis-a-vis its nuclear program? Additionally, would bringing greater focus on Iranian involvement distract from more immediate and pressing threats?

AL

May 7, 2010

Florian Broschk, Security Advisor, Northern Afghanistan, Platinum Contributor (197)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Abbas Khan,
The report in Asia Times was also the subject of the discussion I linked above - and we should remember that even when something is printed, it is still speculation. Even a formal investigation would lead not much further, for intelligence tends to be murky and often little less than "guesstimates" and speculation while "connecting the dots". This of cause would be not only true for an "open" investigation. If you look for something, you will find something. You can always substantiate claims, you will always find Intelligence officials and journalists or even Insurgent commanders who will talk about an Iranian (or for that matter Saudi, Indian US) role in fueling the Insurgency. Remember the recent rumours about NATO-helicopters dropping Insurgents in the North. If Karzai had decided not only to believe these rumours (as he claimed to) but to launch a formal investigation, his team could have easily concluded, that the rumours are true and the Taliban are being substantially aided by the US.

Once again, the question (as put by Aviv Lubell) is the amount and significance of support (which we can assume to exist on a certain level) - and here we should be careful not to mix emotions and analysis. Support to Hizbullah or various Iraqi Shii factions is not the same as support to the Taliban and especially al-Qaida (which arguably makes 'Terrorism' and 'state support for it' a rather unhelpful analytical category; by the way, of cause Ahmadinezhad with some plausibility claims the US to support "Terrorist" Mojahedine Khalq and Jombeshe Moqawamate Mardomiye Iran). Support to Sunni Palestinian groups which are not explicitly Anti-Shia is not the same as support to explicitly Anti-Shia groups right across the border(s) or with a global agenda. That doesn't mean the latter kind of support can't be given, but it is very likely on another scale and with another aim. Giving refuge to activists and family-members (under some form of detention) is not equal with allying oneself to the other part. Hekmatyars stay in Iran of cause was before his alliance to the Taliban (he fought against them, as we should remember). Sending some weapons (under duress in order to release a kidnapped diplomat as claimed by the Asia Times-report or voluntarily) to selected commanders is not equal with all-out assistance.

Therefore, I wouldn't see any sense in starting a formal investigation. Governments (like India or China which you mentioned) anyway tend to know about the shades and nuances of other states' behaviour while easily ignoring findings they don't like or which don't fit with their existing policies (with some justification, as I have argued above even formal reports are often nor more than speculation while their impartiality may be doubtful). The treatment of Afghans in Iran as a whole is a shame, I completely agree, but even here I see little role for Afghans to exert pressure. If you could get all Afghan workers inside (!) Iran to go on strike, the country's economy might seriously be hampered, but demonstrations outside the Iranian embassy in Kabul are hardly a "game-changer".

May 7, 2010

Member deleted

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

To bring Mr. Borschk's argumentation into a nutshell, the Central Asia South-East Asia set is that much out of control and out of assess-ability that actually everybody supports everybody in order to have a door open. More precisely to speculate on a maximum amount on maneuverability in the next round of the game.

What we face by reading so called second-tier assessments, is a naive try to reduce the complexity into the nutshell of an easy friend-enemy scheme just by sorting news-streams intuitively.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org