The support and financing of al-Qaeda by the Mullahs’ regime has played a key role in rebuilding its structure…

On Tuesday, January 12th, the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, at the National Press Club, released information at this club for Journalists in Washington D. C. about how the Islamic Republic of Iran has provided al-Qaeda with new operations centers. Due to the appeasement policy this information had previously bypassed the press. He described in detail the operation as to how Iran has become a safe haven for al-Qaeda leaders.  Documents related to Iran’s connection and providing shelter for al-Qaeda leaders have been the subject of international debate for the past two decades.

Over the past two decades, the relationship between the regime and Sunni fundamentalist groups has gone beyond a purely political, financial, and military one, and it has had an ideological factor associated with it. Qassem Soleimani oversaw relations with al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda military leaders remained in Tehran until 2015, after which Qassem Soleimani sent five of them, including Mohammed Al-Masri, to Damascus on a mission to contact ISIS forces and encourage them to secede from ISIS and join al-Qaeda.

During these years, the Quds Force organized al-Qaeda in Syria using the remnants of ISIS. Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force under Khamenei, played a key role in coordinating Tehran-al-Qaeda relations and provided shelter for the bin Laden family and senior al-Qaeda commanders in Iran after the organization’s defeat in Afghanistan in 2001. Soleimani built a residential complex for them in the heart of an IRGC’s training garrison in Tehran. Last August, Abu Mohammad al-Masri, al-Qaeda’s number two figure, was killed in Tehran, which the regime initially denied, but later confirmed.

The support and financing of al-Qaeda by the Mullahs’ regime has played a key role in rebuilding its structure. “According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this organization had only 400 members during the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and dispersed after the US invasion of Afghanistan, but with the rise of ISIS in 2013, Al-Qaeda, with the pursuit and efforts of Qassem Soleimani, also came to life.”.

Some of the details of Iran’s relationship with Al-Qaeda were obtained amid documents collected in the attack on Al-Qaeda’s headquarters in Pakistan.

According to one of the documents obtained, “a prominent member of Al-Qaeda wrote in a letter that Iran is ready to provide Al-Qaeda with everything it needs, including property, weapons, and Hezbollah’s training camp in Lebanon, in exchange for Al-Qaeda to attack US interests in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region.”.

Another document states, “Iranian intelligence agencies have agreed to provide visas and facilities to Al-Qaeda forces and to shelter other Al-Qaeda members”. This was done through talks between the Iranians and Abu Hafs Al-Mauritania, one of the key figures in Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks.

The question is, why does the Iranian regime support Al-Qaeda?

Khamenei’s doctrine for his regime’s survival includes two policies: exporting terrorism to provide his regime with defense lines outside Iran’s borders and repression inside to prevent protests and uprisings. IRGC has a primary role in advancing both policies.

The IRGC’s Quds Force has had extensive terrorist interventions in various countries over the past two decades, such as Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and so on. The regime has also set up special units at its embassies in various countries and sent its trained special officers to assassinate dissidents abroad. An example of this is Assadollah Assadi, who, under the guise of a diplomat at the Iranian embassy in Austria, committed covert terrorist acts and was arrested. According to documents from the Belgian court in Antwerp, Assadi was the person who came up with the plot of the bomb transfer to the meeting of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

The Mullahs’ regime’s main concern is its survival and the crises they face for its overthrow. Therefore, the Mullahs need Al-Qaeda terrorist members to survive. And uses them as leverage to extort what they want in their dealings with the world and to interfere in the region.

Cyrus Yaqubi is a Research Analyst and Iranian Foreign Affairs Commentator investigating the social issues and economy of the middle east countries in general and Iran in particular.

With just eight days left in office for President Donald Trump, Pompeo is expected to offer details on how Iran has given safe haven to al Qaeda leaders and support for the group, the sources said, despite some skepticism within the intelligence community and Congress.

It was not immediately clear how much Pompeo intends to reveal in his speech to the National Press Club in Washington on Tuesday. He could cite declassified information on the killing of al Qaeda’s suspected second-in-command in Tehran in August, said the sources, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The New York Times reported in November that Abu Muhammad al-Masri, accused of helping to mastermind the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa, was gunned down by Israeli operatives in Iran. Iran denied the report, saying there were no al Qaeda “terrorists” on its soil.

Iran has been a target throughout the Trump administration and Pompeo has sought to further ratchet up pressure on Iran in recent weeks with more sanctions and heated rhetoric.

Advisers to President-elect Joe Biden believe the Trump administration is trying to make it harder for him to re-engage with Iran and seek to rejoin an international deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

More Sanctions

Pompeo has accused Iran of links to al Qaeda in the past but has not provided concrete evidence.

“There have been times the Iranians have worked alongside al Qaeda,” then CIA director Pompeo said in October 2017.

Earlier accusations by the George W. Bush administration of Iranian links to al Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States have been discredited. But reports have surfaced over the years of al Qaeda operatives hiding out in Iran.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official with direct knowledge of the issue said the Iranians were never friendly with al Qaeda before or after the Sept. 11 attacks and any claims of current cooperation should be viewed warily.

Shi’ite Iran and al Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim militant organization, have long been sectarian foes.

Relations between Tehran and Washington have deteriorated since 2018 when Trump abandoned Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal, which imposed strict curbs on its nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions.

Since the beginning of his administration, Trump has imposed sanctions on Iranian officials, politicians and companies in an effort to force Tehran to negotiate a broader deal that further limits its nuclear work.

And more sanctions are expected before Trump leaves office, U.S. officials say.

While sanctions have sharply lowered Tehran’s oil exports and increased the economic hardship of ordinary Iranians, it has failed to bring Iran back to the negotiating table.

Biden has said the United States will rejoin the nuclear deal “if Iran resumes strict compliance.”

Based on inputs from Reuters.

Do Norwegian politicians have a sense of humor after all? Or are they being deliberately provocative by nominating President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in the middle of the biggest campaign of character assassination faced by any Western politician in recent times?

At first glance, Trump may actually have a claim to the dynamite-maker’s prize. He has brokered normalization between Israel and two of its erstwhile Arab enemies, with more expected to follow. He may have also cleared the last foyer of conflict in former Yugoslavia by mediating a settlement between Serbia and Kosovo.

In both cases he has managed to jump historic, emotional and ideological hurdles that many, including this writer, believed could not be crossed in the foreseeable future. How he did it and what underhand measures he employed to clinch the deals is a matter for speculation. But what matters, as far as the Nobel judges are concerned, is that he did it; he brought peace where there was conflict.

Trump the peacemaker? The liberal elites on both sides of the Atlantic react to that phrase with a hearty “Ha! Ha! Ha!” or an angry cry of “scandal”.

But, wait a minute, a closer look may tell a different story. First, with the exception of Dwight Eisenhower, Trump is the only US president since World War II not to have led his nation into a war, big or small.

President Harry Truman took America into the Korean War. John F. Kennedy got the US involved in the Vietnam War. His successor Lyndon Johnson extended the war into Laos. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford prolonged the war and extended it into Cambodia. Ronald Reagan had his mini-war in Grenada plus proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua while also helping British allies in the Falklands conflict.

George H. W. Bush led the invasion of Iraq plus a mini but costly incursion in Somalia. Bill Clinton dragged the US into the Yugoslav conflict. George W. Bush drew a double by invading first Afghanistan and then Iraq. Leading from behind, Barack Obama got the US involved in the Libyan war while starting the largest drone war in history in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. He also incited the Arabs to rebellion against their governments but then refused to raise a finger to help them, thus lighting the fire of civil wars, notably in Syria. His support for the mullahs of Tehran also encouraged them to speed up their empire-building efforts, plunging much of the Middle East into violence and war.

In contrast, Trump the dealmaker, ignoring hawkish advisers, refused to take military action against North Korea. He even accepted to demean himself in the eyes of many by treating the North Korean despot Kim Jung-un with decorum. Trump also pulled the plug on a series of planned airstrikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Last but not least, Trump tried to broker a deal with the Afghan Taliban.

One may or may not approve of those acts, and in some cases, notably legitimizing the Taliban, one may even have a sense of betrayal. But, as far as Nobel judges are concerned, all those acts were aimed at making peace.

I doubt that, in the end, the liberal elites in control of the Nobel game will go for Trump. But if they do, he will be the fifth US president to gain the accolade. And if he does, he would be the most deserving of them all.

The first to win the Nobel was Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, for mediating a ceasefire in the Russo-Japanese war, which Russia had lost. The mediation did not remove the core of the conflict over the Sea of Okhotsk, with Russia recovering its losses in World War II and annexing the Japanese Kuril archipelago. Roosevelt, endearingly known as “Teddy”, was far from a “peace and love” icon. He waged war to complete the conquest of the Philippines and campaigned for joining the First World War. Worse still, the dear “Teddy” was a promoter of eugenics, ordering that “criminals should be sterilized and mentally retarded be forbidden to have descendants.”

The second of the four was President Woodrow Wilson, in 1919. Hailed for his “liberal internationalism,” Wilson had led the US into World War I, at the end of which he published a 14-point declaration promising self-determination to numerous “nations” and proto-nations in Europe and the Middle East. Britain and France ignored the declaration and went on to expand their empires with a series of treaties from Versailles to Lausanne and Montreux.

During his presidency, Wilson the peace laureate had led several wars, notably an invasion of Mexico to seize Vera Cruz and destabilize the despot Victoriano Huerta in favor of the “liberal” Venustiano Carranza. Wilson’s Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan talked a good talk for liberal elites but achieved little. Had he been around today, Wilson’s thinly disguised racism alone would have disqualified him.

The third Nobel laureate was Jimmy Carter for “his decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts and advance democracy.” Since Carter was president only for four years, it is not clear where those “decades of efforts” came from. In any case, by arming, training and financing the first Mujahedin, Carter started a war that is still going on in Afghanistan. Carter’s Keystone Cops-style mini-invasion of Iran to release US hostages showed that was not shy about using force; he just didn’t know how to do it.

The fourth Nobel winner was Barack Obama, who was chosen even before he had become president. His case illustrated what in 1817 Coleridge called “a suspension of disbelief” with Nobel judges deciding to honor Obama for what he might do in the future. That Obama did not turn out to be the champion, of “make love, not war,” as Nobel judges had expected, is beside the point. His fans like him because he talked their talk without walking the walk.

Trump’s message of “make deals, not war” isn’t intellectually sexy enough for the liberal elites who set the norm for Nobel-style gimmicks. He may yet win the Nobel, but don’t hold your breath.

Article first published on GateStone Institute International Policy Council.

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. He is the Chairman of Gatestone Europe.

Qatar allegedly skirted U.S. sanctions on Hamas and PIJ by enlisting several of its charitable organizations in a scheme to funnel funds to the terror groups.

Qatar secretly provided funding for several terror attacks that killed Americans and Israelis, according to allegations leveled in an unprecedented new lawsuit filed in New York City on Wednesday that seeks compensation for the families of those killed.

Multiple Qatari financial institutions, largely controlled by the country’s ruling monarch, provided millions of dollars to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), two U.S.-designated terrorist organizations that waged multiple successful attacks on American citizens, according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. As part of this alleged funding scheme, Qatari charities allegedly used the U.S. banking system to illegally funnel these groups the money necessary to orchestrate and conduct the attacks.

As Hamas’s most prolific funder, “Qatar coopted several institutions that it dominates and controls to funnel coveted U.S. dollars (the chosen currency of Middle East terrorist networks) to Hamas and PIJ under the false guise of charitable donations,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act and has been in the works for the last two years.

Revelations of Qatar’s alleged involvement in these terror plots is likely to fuel ongoing congressional investigations into Qatar’s support for terror factions and other anti-U.S. militia groups. Qatar’s involvement with these groups has also been a source of tension with its regional neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt—all of which cut ties with the regime in 2017 due to its support for terrorism.

The lawsuit was filed by American attorney Steven Perles, who has prosecuted several notable terrorism cases filed on behalf of the families and victims of these terror attacks. The current case includes among its plaintiffs the family of Taylor Force, an American military veteran killed by Hamas in 2016.

“In addition to holding those who have financed terrorism accountable, this case should serve as a strong deterrent to others who might consider similar activities,” Perles told the Free Beacon.

American victims of terrorism have won similar cases in the past, including the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks and those killed by Iran. Earlier this year, American victims of the 1983 attack on a U.S. embassy compound in Lebanon were awarded $1.5 billion in damages. Other cases, however, have dragged on for years with no end in sight. In many instances it has been difficult for the legal system to extract funds from malign regimes and their supporters.

Qatar allegedly skirted U.S. sanctions on Hamas and PIJ by enlisting several of its charitable organizations in a scheme to funnel funds to the terror groups. As with many other terror financing cases, it was critical this money be provided in U.S. dollars.

The lawsuit specifically targets Qatar Charity, which was founded in 1992 as Qatar Charitable Society. The organization serves as “a key funding source for international terrorists” and is believed to have been a major source of funding for deceased terror leader Osama bin Laden.

Qatar Charity allegedly worked with Masraf Al Rayan bank and Qatar National Bank to forward Hamas and PIJ millions of dollars, according to the lawsuit. Both banks “were essential to provide access to the U.S. financial system to obtain the U.S. dollars needed to sustain Hamas’s and PIJ’s terrorist activities,” the lawsuit states. The banks and charity group are largely controlled by members of Qatar’s royal family.

Masraf Al Rayan bank is currently under investigation in the United Kingdom for helping Qatar Charity send money to Hamas and PIJ.

After funneling the charitable donations through banks located in New York, the money was allegedly transferred to Qatar Charity’s accounts at the Bank of Palestine and the Islamic Bank in Ramallah, where the funds were then distributed to affiliates of Hamas and PIJ.

Between March and September 2015, at least $28 million dollars was distributed by Qatar Charity to its affiliates in Palestinian-controlled territories, according to the lawsuit. Internal documents from Qatar Charity noted in the lawsuit further indicate that it transferred funds to Hamas and PIJ fronts from at least 2013.

It is alleged that these funds directly aided at least six terror attacks conducted by Hamas and PIJ operatives between 2014 and 2016. This includes multiple car-ramming attacks in Israel, in which terrorists drove vehicles into crowds of people, killing several American citizens. Others were kidnapped and stabbed by Hamas operatives in and around Israel.

The most prominent plaintiff is the family of Taylor Force, whose name is attached to legislation passed by Congress in 2017 that blocks American aid to the Palestinian Authority due to its policy of using this cash to pay convicted terrorists and their families. Nine other families also are included in the lawsuit.

Article first published on FreeBeacon.

The Muslim Brotherhood encourages the Jihadist policy in their practices.

The historical relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists began with the emergence and attempts to contain and “separation” amid a fence of transcendent Brotherhood thought that sees itself as “the most powerful, rightful and able representation of Islam”.

Amid “Salafi” accusations of being away from “Sahih al-Din” or “Abandoning life materials in the pursuit of redemption in the afterlife” a philosophy sometimes emerges, and sometimes declines according to circumstances. It is the struggle of enemy brothers with a common goal.

Perhaps what the Egyptian scenario witnessed during the past century to date from a dispute that amounts to a conflict between the “dissolved” Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi currents has historical dimensions, one of many episodes of conflict between the two groups, each of which is kept under the umbrella of “political Islam” i.e. Islamism.

The historical roots of this conflict in what was known as the golden age of student work, the Salafi Da`wah in Alexandria arose between 1972 and 1977 at the hands of a group of religious students, most notably Ismail al-Muqaddim and Ahmed Farid, and Yasser Barhami. They all met at the faculty of Medical school of Alexandria as they were included in the currents of the Islamists group but refused to join the Brotherhood.

They were influenced by the Salafi approach, which they adapted by reading through the Islamic heritage books and chatting with the Salafi elders, and then they were influenced by the invitation of Ismail al-Muqaddim, who had preceded them to the Salafi approach by learning from elders of the moderate Ansar al-Sunna Muhammadiyah Association since the mid-1960s.

Over time, the first nucleus of Salafi youth was formed under the name of the Salafi School in 1977 as they rejected the Islamist teachings of absolute obedience to the Brotherhood that the Brotherhood followed and imposed their curriculum upon others, as Muhammad Ismail set out to establish the first nucleus through a lesson he was giving in the Omar Ibn Al-Khattab Mosque in Ibrahimia.

Thus this was the beginning of the Brotherhood’s Salafi conflict and the occurrence of clashes with the Brotherhood inside the university, as Yasser Barhami mentioned.

The early Salafist used to distribute papers and conduct lectures in the college square and talk about the issue of guidance and faith. The Brotherhood in fear from the expanding population of the young Salafists plotted to prevent their meetings and prevent students from going out to participate in their gatherings.

Researchers in the history of the relationship between the Brotherhood and the Salafists find that the Salafi advocates and affirms the rejection of the dominance of one faction in political life.

The Salafists (in Egypt, Salafist outside Egypt especially in the gulf countries are actually Muslim Brotherhood offshoots) and believes that they attribute this to their suffering from the Muslim Brotherhood dominance and its possession of power over the Islamist spheres.

Despite the differences between the Brotherhood and the Salafists, this does not deny many common matters between them. The Salafists and their symbols carry a great appreciation for the founder of the Brotherhood movement, Sheikh Hassan Al-Banna.

They always praise him by saying “God sent him down the homes of the martyrs”. They believe Hassan Al-Banna’s mistakes are immersed in the sea of ​​his good deeds, even if Hassan Al-Banna had no goodness except renewing the call to youth. But that the Brotherhood’s adherence to the principles of Al-Banna himself was a reason for the dispute between the Brotherhood and the Salafists.

Thus, the differences over the application of Sharia, according to the Salafists and the Brotherhood’s implementation of it according to the principles of Hassan al-Banna that the Salafists reject in full.

Likewise, the difference in jurisprudence is also one of the most important points of disagreement. Salafism adhere to the doctrine of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal on the path of the scholar Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab on monolithic Islam, while the Brotherhood doctrine stand on the group’s supremacy as conviction stems from its being a political before a religious group with a basis in which its structured religious hierarchy (inspired by the Sufi hierarchy).

The Muslim Brotherhood span off movements that bear aspects of its ideology, but the Brotherhood remained a political movement – claim it aims to reform according to the Murshid’s and top officials directive, unlike the Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood was established and had a clear structure.

The Muslim Brotherhood encourages the Jihadist policy in their practices. As for Salafism, it says that there is no policy of Jihad except as means of resistance, but it varies from one scholar to another based on their attachment to the Islamist or Islamic spheres.

The Salafists varying from the tolerant to the extremist is a result of the lack of structure and detachment from a political unity, as the tolerant Salafists are detached from politics and lack interest in engaging in politics, the more extreme Salafis are engaged in politics, and are more or less mirror models and teachings adapted from the Muslim Brotherhood ideology and other Kharijites groups.

The Salafists in essence do not adapt Takfir and embrace the peaceful calling to Islamic teachings in complete contrast to the extremist factions of Salafist (Jihadists Salafism) that’s more leaning towards Muslim Brotherhood teachings. The main criticism of the tolerant Salafist is that they don’t do enough to separate themselves from the extremist groups that poison their bodies, also Salafism is an umbrella that carries multiple schools of Salafism that vary greatly in their beliefs.

Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafism can be redeemed through regulation and reform that can shift the Salafists spheres to the moderate aspects of the belief system.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He often writes about Islamism, Islamist factions and modern Terrorism. He tweets under @0khalodi0.

Nearly 800 Islamist Imams were arrested in a heavily criticized campaign by the west.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques—is the Saudi branch of the global Jihad organization.

It was founded in the late 1990s by Suleiman Al-Awdah’s pupil, Youssef Al-Ayyari, known as “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula”, it was a byproduct of the “Awakening” movement in Saudi Arabia, the group launched its activities mainly focusing on recruiting youth.

The Group plotted against the Saudi Government under the pretext of objecting to the American and international role in the liberation of Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion and the subsequent American presence in the region. The leading figure behind it all was Abdullah AlHamid.

3️⃣The Group plotted against the Saudi Government under the pretext of objecting to the American and international role in the liberation of Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion and the subsequent American presence in the region.
The leading figure behind it all was Abdullah AlHamid pic.twitter.com/r0YzInB0B3

— Khaled Homoud Alshareef ?? Saudi? (@0khalodi0) April 26, 2020

The “peaceful” sit-ins, that AlHamid led with the political arm of the “Sahwa” movement did not resort to violence on the surface, but the movement’s takfiri speechs and their calls for armed Jihad through the mosques, audio cassettes and books.

The militant arm of the group at the time was Al-Qaeda. Young man from the awakening group Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman Al-Hudhaif is called by pouring an incendiary substance into a colonel in the General Investigation Department called Saud Al-Shibreen resulting in his death.

The Islamists received the news of the execution of Al-Hudhaif angrily and called him a martyr, and the guest became a symbol for the Islamists. The Islamists accused the Saudi government of opening the “door to bloodshed”.

A group of Al-Qaeda followers were: Riyadh Al-Hajri, Khaled Al-Saeed, Abdul Aziz Al-Mutam, and Musleh Al-Shamrani who stated that he said: “By God, we will not be men if we do not take revenge for (Sheikh Abdullah) .”

The retaliation came in the form of a cowardly terrorist attack on November 13, 1995 by a booby-trapped car weighing 100 kilograms that targeted a compound used by the American Army vinyl company working to train National Guard staff in Riyadh.

As a result of the attack, five Americans, an Indian were killed, and nearly 60 others were wounded. After the Riyadh bombing. In January 1998, the Security Forces arrested a group of armed men equipped with Sager anti-tank missiles in southern Saudi Arabia.

Al-Qaeda wanted to use the missile smuggled from Yemen to target the American consulate in Jeddah during the visit of the Vice President of the United States Al Gore to Saudi Arabia.

According to US and Saudi official sources, Osama bin Laden was behind the plan to target the American consulate in Jeddah, and directed Abdul Rahim Al-Nashiri to lead the operation .

Upon discovering the plot, the Saudi government responded with a swift arrest campaign targeting the Islamists leadership and Imams calling for violence. Nearly 800 Islamist Imams were arrested in a heavily criticized campaign by the west.

1️⃣2️⃣Upon discovering the plot, the Saudi government responded with a swift arrest campaign targeting the Islamists leadership and imams calling for violence . nearly 800 Islamists Imam were arrested in a heavily criticised campaign by the west. pic.twitter.com/wGW7nMNtod

— Khaled Homoud Alshareef ?? Saudi? (@0khalodi0) April 26, 2020

The Saudi government was determined to put an end to the extremist group and sent Chief of General Intelligence Prince Turki al-Faisal to Kandahar in Afghanistan to pressure Mullah Omar to hand over Osama bin Laden to the Saudi authorities.

Al-Qaeda admitted in the Voice of Jihad magazine in 2004 that many Islamists who had returned from “Jihad” in Bosnia and Herzegovina were arrested in relation of the missile smuggling case that occurred in January 1998.

A second attempt was made in 1998 to smuggle Strella-2 missiles by Egyptian Islamists via Yemen, they planned to transfer the missiles to Saudi Arabia to shoot down American and Egyptian aircrafts, the Saudi government responded to this plan by arresting 300 Islamists.

Osama bin Laden acknowledged at a press conference in Afghanistan in May 1998 that he had seized the missiles, but he boasted that the missiles that were found were much less than what had not been found.

The founder of the military council of Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, Ali Al-Faqsi Al-Ghamdi, blamed the leaders of the Sahwa “Islamic Awakening”.

Al-Faqsi said that “inciting them to violence and charging them with enthusiasm and passionate emotions towards conflict areas in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya, as well as the religious climate in society in the 90s, within a set of reasons, which led him to prison.”

An Iranian Revolutionary Guards official recently admitted that “since then, Iran has been present at the intersection and cooperation with Al-Qaeda in Bosnia, under the cover of the Iranian Red Crescent.”

During an exclusive interview with Iranian television on May 30, 2018, Iranian Judicial Aide Mohammad Javad Larijani revealed that “Iran has facilitated the passage of Al-Qaeda militants who carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York,” according to Al-Arabiya.

The preachers who remained avoided prison, because they were less influential or kept a low profile, kept the awakening soul alive in their minds of their followers when they restored to a less confrontational approach by rebranding themselves and the group.

The Sahwa movement has been renamed the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association abbreviated as Hasm; a Saudi non-governmental human rights association.

Abdullah AlHamid, Salman Alouda and other Sahwa leading figures started to distancing themselves from the usual process of instigation, recruitment and operations. But that’s a story for another day, where I will talk in depth about the Academy of Change—Qatar and Turkey.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He often writes about Islamism, Islamist factions and modern Terrorism. He tweets under @0khalodi0.

The commission also said that Al-Qaeda terrorists received training from Hezbollah, the Iran-created terror army in southern Lebanon which works closely with Gen. Soleimani.

Iran facilitated the movement of Al-Qaeda terrorists through its country, including September 11, 2001 attackers and for years was a critical channel for money and arms, according to the 9-11 commission report and internal Osama bin Laden’s documents.

Experts say, Qassem Soleimani  directed the terror partnership as he has headed since 1998 Iran’s Quds Force a U.S. designated terrorist organization and an arm of the IRCG.

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran has actively taken part in training, financing, and providing weapons and safe havens to the non-state militant actors, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas, (PIJ) and the (PFLP-GC) B9.

Iran utilized these terrorist groups to further their expansionist agenda in the Middle East and to exert their influence on the world stage amidst a weak and undecided international community’s war on extremism during the late 20th century.

In 1995, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard held a conference with worldwide organizations accused of engaging in terrorism including the Japanese Red Army, the Armenian Secret Army, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Iraqi Da’wah Party, the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain and Hezbollah for the purpose of providing training to these organizations to help in the destabilization of Gulf States and aid assistance to militants in these countries to replace the existing governments with Iran-like regimes.

A deep, dark and troubling history of the Iranian regime is proven by Osama bin Laden who called Iran “our main artery” for men and money. Iran has been the life line of the terrorist group, let’s not forget KSM escape to Afghanistan with the aid of Qatar was done through Iran.

Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said none of this would have happened without Gen. Soleimani’s blessings as he was the second in command and controlled the Quds forces that played a pivotal role in the Iranian regime’s expansionist plans.

Soleimani was the second most powerful man in Iran. He ran the overseas operations and those involving Iranian relations with terror groups, he formulated and developed them. There was not a single operation of any significance which he did not approve if not oversee.

The Osama bin Laden documents prove the 9/11 hijackers never would have been able to train in Afghanistan had it not been for Soleimani’s support and Iranian free-passage. The same holds true for Iran’s subsequent safe-haven to senior Al-Qaeda operatives in IRGC bases inside Iran.

The 9-11 Commission’s 2004 report paid close attention to how Bin Laden’s terrorists moved in and out of Afghanistan, its HQ in an alliance with the now-ousted Taliban regime. Its report said Iranian border officials were under orders not to stamp the visas of Al-Qaeda travelers.

KSM and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of Al-Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan,” the report said.

“For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of Al-Qaeda.”

KSM and Binalshibh confirmed that several of the 9/11 hijackers (at least eight, according to Binalshibh) transited Iran on their way to or from Afghanistan, taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports.”

The report says, “They deny any other reason for the hijackers’ travel to Iran. The commission also said that Al-Qaeda terrorists received training from Hezbollah, the Iran-created terror army in southern Lebanon which works closely with Gen. Soleimani”.

There is a large amount of evidence of an Iran-Qaeda working relationship. It is found in millions of pages of documents seized by Navy SEALs when they raided Bin Laden’s Pakistan hideout and killed him in May 2011.

Iran and the Iran-backed militas are a fair target for the United States based on all the above. The Iranian regime is not a state nor does it wish to be a normal state that can coexist with its neighbors and the world.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He often writes about Islamism, Islamist factions and modern Terrorism. He tweets under @0khalodi0.

The most virulent figures of world Jihadism take their inspiration from Qotbism, the radical current of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Sayyid Qotb

Apart from belonging to radical Islamist ideology, what is the common link between Al-Qaeda and Daesh, even though they are rivals? And the one between the brain behind the 11 September attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the ‘star’ preacher of the Al-Jazeera chain, Youssef Al-Qaradawi? And a myriad of pro-Islamic networks of influence and funding, established both in the Arab world and in the great capital cities of the West?

The answer is unequivocal: the pan-Islamic Fraternity of the Muslim Brotherhood! This emerges from a very detailed study titled ‘The Muslim Brotherhood’s ties to Extremists’ produced by the US think-tank Counter Extremism Project.

Despite the apparent pacifism of the Muslim Brotherhood and their alleged ‘moderation’, jihadist radicalism was created at the heart of this Fraternity, known as the ‘mother company’ of contemporary Islamism. That is what this very well-documented study endeavours to show, through a detailed review of the backgrounds and profiles of several jihadist terrorism figures who have -or have had- close links with the Fraternity.

The study points out that the jihadist terrorism the world is facing up to today is the prolongation of a violent ideology that emerged from the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the most virulent figures of world Jihadism take their inspiration from Qotbism, the radical current of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Sayyid Qotb, the theorist of the modern-day Takfir, who was executed by Nasser in 1966.

The study retraces the links of the leaders of Jihadism to the Fraternity, from just after the war against the Soviet Union waged by the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan (1979-1989) until the emergence of Al-Qaeda and then Daesh.

Abdellah Azzam, the historic leader of the Arab Mujahedeen, later known under the name of the ‘Afghan Arabs’, Osama Ben Laden, the founder of Al-Qaeda, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, his successor, and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of Daesh, all started out in the Muslim Brotherhood. The study points out that these leading figures of world Jihadism “all belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood before taking on their respective roles in their terrorist networks”.

In the long list of jihadist figures trained in the Muslim Brotherhood, the study puts the Palestinian Abdallah Azzam in pole position. Stemming from the Fraternity, he became the historic chief of the Palestinian branch of the Fraternity and later the founding father of global Jihadism. He was among the most influential figures who have helped to spread the Muslim Brotherhood’s thinking and to set up the networks of the Fraternity in several Arab and Asian countries. He later used these networks to set up ‘hotbeds of transnational jihadism’ such as Hamas, Al-Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Toiba.

Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani is another emblematic figure of radical Islamism. The founder of Al-Iman University in Yemen, he is known in intelligence circles for “his crucial role in the indoctrination of thousands of young Yemenis and Arabs”. Co-founder of the Yemen branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the local political showcase of the Fraternity, the party Al-Islah, he is known for his extremist positions and his commitment to the radical movements. The US Treasury claims that he “plays a key role in the purchase of weapons for Al-Qaeda and in the funding of Hamas, a movement affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood “.

The potential trouble-making capacity of the Fraternity also depends on the wide audience it reaches, both in Muslim countries and in the West, and thanks to a worldwide network of fierce preachers. Among them, according to the study, the case of Hani el-Sibai stands out.

An Egyptian exiled in the UK, he is considered as one of the “mullahs of Londonistan”. According to the study, the US authorities accuse him of “financing Al-Qaeda and conspiring to commit terrorist acts”. He is also suspected of having indoctrinated Mohammed Emwazi, alias Jihadi John, one of the most bloodthirsty Western fighters of Daesh.

Money: the sinews of holy war!

The links between the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist extremism are not restricted to ideological and organisational influences or to the radical nature of the narrative of many of its preachers. They also have to do with money, the fuel of any war, even a holy one.

Among the Muslim Brotherhood figures involved in the financing of jihadist terrorism, the study mentions Mohammad Jamal Khalifa, a member of the Fraternity and the brother-in-law of Osama Ben Laden. It also refers to a nefarious personality from Qatar: Abderrahman Al Nuaimi, a former member of the supervisory board of Qatar Islamic Bank. Included on the blacklist of personalities who finance terrorism, he is accused by the US Treasury of funding numerous terrorist groups, among them Al-Qaeda in Iraq and in Syria, Osbat Al-Ansar in Lebanon and the Shebab in Somalia.

Another no less nefarious figure, Ahmed Idriss Nasreddin is among the very first ‘Muslim Brotherhood bankers’ accused of being involved in the financing of jihadist terrorism. The US authorities accuse him of contributing to the financing of Al-Qaeda and Hamas through the Al-Taqwa bank, of which he was one of the founders, together with Youssef Nada and Ali Ghaleb Himmat in 1988.

The study also mentions another Muslim Brotherhood financial backer, Essam Mustafa, who has also financed Hamas through the Islamic NGO ‘Union of Good’, founded by the Egyptian preacher with Qatari nationality Youssef Al-Qaradawi. This NGO has been on the US Treasury’s blacklist of organisations that finance terrorism since 2008.

Spreading of the radical Islamist narrative

Beyond the financing of terrorism, the study refers to numerous figures in the Fraternity who finance projects designed to spread radical Islam and impose Sharia law, also in Western countries. Among them, Ali Al-Qaradaghi, the Secretary-General of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), founded also by Sheikh Al-Qaradawi and based in Doha. Another is the current president of this organisation, the Moroccan Ahmed Raissouni.

The study also highlights the close and organic links between the Muslim Brotherhood and leaders of Hamas in Palestine, both among its political leaders and the heads of its armed branch: Abdelaziz Rantisi, Ismael Haniyeh, Khaled Mechaal, Mohamed Deif and several other figures of Hamas are officially affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The study also describes the progression of several terrorist chiefs of the global jihadist movement who ‘started out’ in the ranks of the Fraternity, such as the Pakistani Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the brain behind the 11 September attacks, and the Turk Huseyin Mustafa Peri, one of the leading figures of Daesh.

The benevolence of the ‘big Brothers’

The study reveals that radical jihadist groups often adopt a critical narrative towards the Muslim Brotherhood, even though many heads of these groups emerged from the Fraternity. This can be explained by the fact that these groups are ‘mutants’ hatched by the Fraternity before leaving it and becoming more radical. In contrast, the Muslim Brotherhood acts towards these radicalised groups as ‘big Brothers’.

The proof can be seen in that when the Fraternity came into power in Egypt, its headquarters politically and diplomatically defended jihadist groups like Hamas or the Al-Nosra front, the branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria.

Article first published on Global Watch Analysis which is a part of Counter Terrorism Project – a US Think-Tank that publishes and distributes expert studies on Terrorist movements.