The Elrom Report

Part One - Why are we still asleep while they are not

Preparing the ground

Sleeper cells are undoubtedly a dangerous “fifth column” composed of members affiliated to an organization which its “reson de etre” is harming the country they live in as much as possible. Although there is a host of studies, assessments and general knowledge on this topic, and in spite of many investigative pieces published by the media, sleeper cells is a hot issue among security authorities because of the lack of “fair play” expected from terrorists as compared to dormant agents planted in targeted countries by intelligence services. A terror sleeper cell is incomparable more threatening than an Intel cell. Why write another article on top of the existing published material?

Because the hunt against Jihadi sleeper cells is influenced by external political and because the whole terrain is left for grab to the radical, fanatic extreme Wahhabi clerics, who slowly but surely gather and train extreme young forces in a manner designed to bring to an implosion of the American society. This may sound far-fetched right now, but day by day new forces join the Prophet’s army.

This article will present the threat, dissect it and reveal the facts and the reality shielded behind a myriad of fake facades, all intended to reach the ultimate goals prescribed in the Wahhabi doctrine: a global Islamic domination achieved by means of violence and fear, aimed at shortening the transition period between the destruction of the non-believers world and the establishment of Koranic Islam as the only true religion on earth.

What is a sleeper cell

The amorphous term “sleeper cell” hold different meanings to different people, and is widely referred to various threats, mostly related to intelligence and terrorism. A sleeper cell is a dormant (in a standby mode) number of people living amongst the population of a country, who were either smuggled in, entered in a legitimate manner, or were born in that country. The cell may be set up by one trained individual who then recruits new members. Training is either initiated by the cell leader or made available in other locations, including foreign countries (i.e. in Iraq, Iran, Somalia, etc.), depending on the group affiliation.

In spy stories, infiltration of sleeping agents which fully blend-in socially and politically, brings a certain flavor of adventure and mystery. It is difficult to imagine or romanticize on Jihadi sleeper cells, which already exist in various country on the globe, as something one would long for. Like Al-Takfir’s radical Islamic ideology, (see “Al-Takfir W’al Hijra” in www.omedia.org ), infiltration and cell building is often the most important stage, even if the interim goals are not defined yet. Based on thwarted terror plots and gathered intelligence, anti-terror professionals are convinced that sleeper cells are widely spread and ready to launch attacks when the call comes.
It is incomprehensible that how successful we are in protecting America against Jihadi terrorism is measured by emphasizing the absence of mass-casualty attacks in the homeland. As I have written time and again, this merely shows that the terrorists’ leadership have decided to opt for a plan that will be overwhelmingly more disastrous than the 9/11 attack. Postponement of attack has its internal logic attached to it:

• internal problems and contradictions between the basic Wahhabi/Jihadi radical belief and the Muslim non-religious, social ideology

• the growing unease in Muslim communities and countries, regarding the killing of Muslims by Muslims for no visible reason

• the growing number of Jihad-now sympathizing Muslim scholars that oppose the pact between “clean” ideological Jihad believers and “dirty” non-believers crime syndicates

• the growing sense of unworthiness experienced by Muslims as to the way UBL and alike lead the Muslim Umma, taking over the leadership from the more mild leaders

This is why, in spite of Al-Qeida’s rejuvenation, other terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hammas - which are more socially pragmatic and carry well defined ideologies - have emerged.
The exposure of a large Al-Qeida sleeper cell in Buffalo in NY, and the discovery of sleeper cells in Dearborn, Ann-Arbor and Detroit in Michigan; Sunrise, Orlando and Hollywood in Florida; in Phoenix, Arizona; Roanoke, Virginia; San Diego, California; Chicago, Peoria, and Justice, Illinois, and in places like Seattle and Portland, Oregon, have all but substantiated the conclusion that this is only the tip of an iceberg of hundred of such cells dispersed all over the country, embedded in every U.S. city that has a considerable large Islamic community. Furthermore, the mere fact that until now similar cell weren’t discovered in more cities yet, only shows how difficult it is to dig them out when they operate and are protected inside those communities.

The FBI has repeatedly stated that they believe that Al-Qeida sleeper cells operate in at least forty states in the US, laying low and awaiting orders and funding for new attacks on U.S. soil. The FBI believes that the cells are being funded by millions of dollars accumulated by an extensive network of bogus charities and foundations, which are legally setup, where members of those cells use extensively Muslim communities, mosques and their social institutions as venues to raise cash, recruit sympathizers and train them.

A forgotten subject is the growing number of sleeper cells put in place by other terror organizations like Hezbollah and Hammas, which operate slightly different than Al-Qeida, but basically embrace the same goal of having cells that operate publicly and covert cells that will be activated when the time comes.
In my view, those cells pose a much more complex challenge. Contrary to what is known from WW II and the creation of a “the fifth column”, present sleeper cells are more dangerous and deadly, and this is why:

• It is very easy to build sleeper cells anywhere today

• Because of the numerous terror groups, each is capable of calling independently its sympathizers in the targeted country to participate in Jihad

• Because of state-sponsored terrorism who support and protect terrorist organizations

• The widely use of the Internet (the dark web)

• The struggle of Western country trying to find the golden path of keeping an open society while fighting the deadly threat of Jihadi terrorism

• The vague and open interpretation of what is a sleeper cell, which sits well with the terrorists group leaders. Ambiguity allows adherents and sympathizers to define themselves as they prefer, while creating legal obstacles for the security authorities Read the rest of this entry »

High Seas Piracy & Terrorism

Part One - The Next “Unexpected” Disaster

Defining the Threat

The exotic adventures romantically depicted in The Pirates of the Caribbean movies are far from reality as one can imagine. There is little to none public knowledge or invested interest in the scary facts that high-seas piracy is gradually becoming the next “surprise” in the international agenda of combating Jihadi terrorism. Effective terrorism funding blocking, increasing pressure on underground financial channels like the Hawala and undercutting financial maneuvering of shadowy terrorism financiers, have forced terrorists to look for immediate highly profitable alternatives. Similar to the way terrorists “discovered” the Internet as a venue to overcome adversities resulting from the world wide war against them, so does the cooperation with crime rings and local mafia bosses.

Terror organizations are now in the midst of a global effort to develop close cooperation with high-seas pirate organizations which a majority are Muslims anyway and operate along Muslim countries coast line and straits mostly. Aggressive, cruel and merciless pirates began infesting international waters in the last three decades and have become more fearless and more terror-driven in the last six-seven years. Driven by a combined terrorism-profit renewed ideology focused on inflicting as much as possible damage to the “filthy infidels” this old-new front is rapidly becoming the next problem we are being forced to deal with globally. If until prior to 9/11 high-seas piracy was entirely the merchant maritime, the shipping companies and the cruising industry problem, it has become since an terrorism thwarting international priority because of the security threats it creates.

Past and Present

To understand the significance of the changes this destructive machine of fear and terror has gone through, one needs only to look at the quadrupled attacks and casualties percentage, in spite of higher awareness, improved protection and the support rendered by local authorities as part of the war on terror. For data comparison purposes 1998 is used by many as a baseline year. The summary of that year’s pirate attacks reads:

• 15 merchants vessels hijacked

• 138 merchant vessels boarded and attacked

• 13 merchant vessels fired upon

• Over 35 merchant crew members murdered

• 75 merchant crew members severely injured

• Over 400 merchant crew members taken hostage

The statistics contain though reported and documented attacks only. The real estimate maintains that at least 60% of similar and less damaging and unsuccessful incidents and attacks were never reported due to insurance marketing concerns, and fears of crew and passengers demoralization. In comparison, in year 2000 the overall attacks increased by 65%. The statistics do not include at least 3,000 more incidents involving yachts and smaller boats, and scores of unreported piracy events.

Piracy attacks concentrate in the following regions: Indonesia, Somalia, India, Philippines, Bangla Desh, Malaysia, the Arabian Peninsula, the West African Coast, the Coasts Venezuela, Columbia and Brazilian coasts, and the “Mosquito Bay” area between Nicaragua & Jamaica.

In 2003 there were 445 incidents compared to 370 events in 2002, and the numbers keeps climbing by an average of 25% yearly, in spite of concentrate efforts by local authorities and a growing cooperation between countries and intelligence agencies. More so, the attacks are increasingly more deadly reaching 23 crew and passengers killed and 71 crew & passengers missing in 2003 compared to the year before. Those figures do not include scores of incidents and piracy events that did not occur in international waters, many unreported events due to shipping companies’ policies, and attacks by or known to be connected to terrorism.

In 2005, in spite of concerted efforts as part of the global war on terror, the number of aggressive attacks increased by 45% while being more ferocious and deadly. The casualties and injuries were also more severe and gruesome.

The Terror-Crime Nexus

Security authorities witness a similar strategy used by terror organizations in the last four years: a designed effort to connect to existing organizations that bring to the table a structured basis of activity, smuggling and sell power and a will to cooperate. Obviously, dealing with mostly Muslim crime rings makes it easier to “convert” them to total Jihad war, while bending the rules to accommodate their activities so that it does not clash with Muslim beliefs, such as robbing and killing Muslims.

The nexus between piracy and terrorism is obvious and proven, if only by fact that the most dangerous waters are along the coasts of Muslim countries where we’ve witnessed a huge surge in Islamic extremism manifested in the establishment of numerous extreme Jihadi terror groups which challenge local regimes.

Terrorism financing-wise, high-sea piracy is a very profitable business. This is the reason why Al-Qeida and alike are constantly creating cooperation pacts with organized crime and maritime piracy gangs and organizations, especially in Eastern Asia and along the West African coasts. Terrorists bring experience in planning and military style execution while pirates bring to the table a host of organized crime syndicates, corrupt officials, cooperating port workers, and businessmen who can laundry the money and dispose of the booty. Evidence of sophistication following the increasing involvement of terrorist groups can be seen in the advanced tactical planning and the planning, preparations and execution of attacks, such as the simultaneous deployment of several boats that surround the ship, the use of high velocity machine guns and anti-tank missiles, and the merciless behavior towards the crew and passengers.

The most vulnerable resources and international assets which are an essential part of the international trade, are crude oil, LPG/NPG, raw materials, weapons, and skilled manpower. For example, the US energy industries rest heavily (more than 58%), on super tankers based oil imports. Vulnerability studies on past pirate attacks have clearly shown that the entire trans-maritime merchant industry and hundred of related industries, which either rely on, or supply to the maritime system, are highly susceptible to three basic types of attack:

• Suicide attacks – where a boat(s) loaded with high explosives is driven into the ship

• A rocket assault – followed by boarding the ship, taking over its cargo and maybe worth-ransom hostages

• Takeover of a supertanker carrying LPG/NPG, which is then steered into an energy port and exploded

Interim Summary

High-seas piracy is little known and far from the public eye and awareness. Security authorities though are very concerned as this is a new challenge they must confront because of its direct implications and impact on critical infrastructure and port security. As we have seen in similar domains related to terrorism, this venue is in a rapidly progressing and expanding because it offers a new dimension for terrorist organization in their efforts to deal with international anti-terror pressure, and an alternative venue to finance their activities.

Part two will deal with the problematic issue of maritime and port security and the energy supply threats.

Digital Terror As The Alternate Dooms Day Weapon

Prolog

Global connectivity, rapid technological development, highly skilled professionals, experienced employee mobility and lack of knowledge, expose IT and network infrastructure to a myriad of risks of which the risk of a malicious cyber attack by terrorists is the most threatening because of its final goals. Debating the terrorists capabilities to launch a sustained cyber-attack on networks and IT infrastructure argument, suffice to quote Kent Anderson in “Managing the Cyber Threat“: “Traditional wisdom holds that insiders are the greatest threat to an organization. This is based on two assumptions: first, insiders have access and second, that they have knowledge of a company’s systems, applications and processes“.

This quote summarizes in essence the extent to which terrorists can reach into our supposedly protected systems. The restrictions and self-inflicted disabilities in checking certain information and background on employees, which could unveil inside terrorist activities is restricted either because of the fears of infringing privacy and civil rights or because of “profiling” deemed as inappropriate. This irresponsible way of providing crippled security serves as an opened invitation for Jihadi sympathizers, devoted supporters and dormant terrorists - especially among the newly converted - to take advantage of the security gaps in many ways. There are four critical factors, as seen above, which are sure to make a cyber attack devastating:

• Insider restricted information - usually available to employees
• Access to hardware and software (codes, PW, systems status, etc) - which are part of the professional tasks and interacting with other employees
• Knowledge of the systems - a “must” task in order to be able to perform the work-duties
• Opportunity - by the very fact that opportunity situations occur daily for insiders

Kent Anderson’s quote should be a shining red light to all the experts and threat deniers ( “until I see it I don’t believe it exists”), and those that still believe that the threat level is low and that the terrorists lack the knowledge to launch a heavy duty attack.
Have they fallen prey to “consensus thinking”? maybe. Given the above, should we be surprised that UBL and alike see the internet as an effective weapon to fight the West;Will we again underestimate what they can do and to what extent?

A deadly scenario

It’s Wednesday, December 24, 2008. The financial markets are closed, the banking systems is inactive and the entire commerce and business system is in a low-key, standby mode worldwide; people in the US are in a celebrating atmosphere following a good year without terror attack in the homeland. It is an ideal picture of pre-Christmas. But then, without warning, at 2:15 am, “the worm” roared.

• An extremely sophisticated and complex virus, the “Storm Worm 2″, launched by UBL’s IT group three month before, was cleverly engineered to keep multiplying into and from itself, expending exponentially, constantly infecting and taking over the full control of more and more computers, servers and networks worldwide.
• By December 31, Storm Worm 2 - or “The Jihadi Storm“, the name given by Al-Qeida’s IT chief Jawad Ramadan - has already penetrated and quietly installed itself in a dormant mode inside hundreds of vital financial, commercial, military and private infrastructure networks, ready to be activated.
• In the early hours of January 2, 2008, at 1:20 am eastern time zone, twelve remote unmanned regional switching & control centers, and ten strategically located communication antennas towers and comm boosting and relay stations, were blown up by powerful C4 explosive charges planted in advance and activated by drive-by remote activation.
• At 1:25 am, The Jihadi Worm, began drilling, neutralizing the network’s protection software programs and opened the gates to external unauthorized access. The systems were left fully exposed and helpless. An the shift system administrators didn’t even know, because no alarm was triggered and no sign of intrusion was detected
• At 1:28 am, Joseph Stapleton(his new converted name being Yusuf Khalil Hammuda), the IT shift manager, opened the door to the main surveillance & monitoring control room at Google’s HQ using his high-security special badge and his confirmation tag key, and deactivated the antivirus and protective systems, by running a short and simple command program from a CD that was sent to him by regular mail a day before, which was written based on the information supplied by him. In order to avoid blowing up his covert activity, Joseph wrote an explanatory log then sent a short report message to his chief letting him know that “there is a glitch in several servers but I believe the system will be up again shortly”.
• At 1:45, a bombardment of millions of e-bombs were launched by thousand of zombie computers interconnected in controlled botnets, from hundreds locations all over the globe, using software that kept creating automatic messages, flooding public, government and open systems, until the systems began collapsing, dragging with them a host of direct and related networks, which were suppose to be independent, therefore protected from exactly such an attack.
• At 1:55 am, Hamzi Tauafik Hilal, the cook of the two million cubic meters LNG super-tanker “Independence Day”, climbed up to the deck, and confirmed that the tanker is docked and surrounded by several other LNG and LPG tankers within the perimeter of the Mississippi port. Being Muslim, he volunteered to remain on duty with a crew of other three shipmen. He walked calmly into the control room and shut off the refrigerating system that kept the natural gas below the freezing point, went back to the kitchen, cut off the gas tube from its wall socket, prayed for a minute praising Allah for the opportunity to become a shaiid, and without hesitation pulled the trigger of his Ronson lighter; a monstrous explosion shattered the surroundings. An enormous fire ball engulfed the entire port, triggering tens of secondary explosions farther from the center, in a terrible ripple effect.

On December 25, at 06:00 am, hell began: the West was on the verge of collapsing. There were no commanders nor security forces to launch, and the entire rapid response system was gone. Within a 4 miles radius from the port it was all but flatten, scorched earth, the roads blocked and help was not on the way.

If this imaginary scenario sends an icy shiver down your spine, it should, because it much more realistic than what you think.; It’s not accurate in its details but makes sense, and if you’re scared, you definitively should be. Given that so many security breaches occur daily, and so many local cyber attacks take place every minute on the internet, it can happen, and we’ve seen this degree of sophistication from Al-Qeida in the near past. No doubt that the new flat decentralized structure facilitates better coordination and synchronization through the internet. It takes time to put in place such a daring plan, but as mentioned in Part Two, terrorists have time and patience. And there is a continuous infiltration of Muslims with terrorist connections into government jobs, research institutions, the military and security forces, including the FBI lately, (Nada Nadim Prouty, who also worked for the CIA). Thousands convert to Islam every year and the government doesn’t and shouldn’t control or monitor the process, but do we know how many convert to Islam and don’t tell their employer; is this detectable by security managers, I doubt it; and if the authorities would be able to acquire the details via legal venues, what could they do?.

Is this a realistic scenario? Yes, because the accumulated threat of vicious, life-threatening cyber terrorism is far more higher than the sum of its parts. Can this really happen? It sure can. It’s not that the information and the warning signs don’t exist, they are all over the place; in the media, on the web, in chat rooms and forums, in lessons learned from breaching events, deep penetration into highly-secured networks, through hacking into academic networks, banks, stock exchange and public domains, etc. The problem stems from the same misunderstanding and arrogance which led us to military, security and moral defeat in the near past. It emanates from a sense of technological superiority many in the industry walk around with, which is factually true. What they miss though is the simple fact that the more they amass protective layers on the already sensitive systems and networks, the easier it becomes to find holes to penetrate it.

System administrators, computer engineers, programmers and security managers who battle every day with such problems, are actually very concerned. Again, like we’ve seen before 9/11, the executive management, driven by other than professional interests, prefer not to believe that it is much easier than what they’ve been manipulated to believe, to bring down their sophisticated grand networks. They are constantly tutored that terrorists using non-savvy internet “beginners”, which they believe them to be, don’t have the required knowledge to really expose the system to serious danger. Instead they pay lip tribute to the media partially agreeing that dark-web terrorism may develop into a real danger, sometime in the future. Such statements are typical acts of self-protection in case the threat materializes faster than expected. But this is by no means an answer to the real threat which keeps growing by the day. Some eye-opening examples:

Immediately after 9/11, several studies have shown certain signs of dark web cyber attacks generated by terrorists. It was obvious as early as 2001-02 that the level of sophistication, the targets chosen, the scope of the attacks, the sources and the numbers kept growing rapidly. Collection of data regarding those attacks indicated that the attacks focused on what terrorists perceived as very important targets, such as vital communications and critical infrastructure
systems. In time, since 2001, cyber attacks developed and evolved exposing various problems and vulnerabilities of networks which were suppose to be untouchable.

It is extremely important to emphasize that studies and analysis of cyber attacks launched by terrorists have shown an interesting pattern:
• A cyber attack came shortly before the terror attack, or
• The cyber attack was launched almost simultaneously with the physical attack (maybe a field test designed to coordinate and synchronize cyber and physical attacks)
• The cyber attack began immediately after the physical attack - meaning that it was prepared in advance, intended to propagate the victory whether true or not

Very important data can be found in “Cyber attacks during the war on terrorism: a predictive analysis” released on September 22, 2001 by The Institute for Security & Technology Studies at Dartmouth College. The importance of this study is in that it was published just two weeks after 9/11, and while the research was all done much earlier, the conclusions are still viable today. Read the rest of this entry »

“While Bin Laden may have his finger on the trigger, his grandchildren may have their fingers on the computer mouse,” (Frank Cilluffo/DHS)

Duality and Doubt

Addressing the issue of Cyber Terrorism in Nov 2004, Prof. Seymour Goodman, from the Sam Nunn School of Intl’ Affairs & College of Computing at Georgia Tech, stated that “there have currently been no cyber terrorist attacks or evidence of Al Qaeda or any other terrorist orgs attempting one“. “

We are much more imaginative in thinking what they could do to us then I suspect they are,”. Nonetheless, Prof. Goodman warned against “the presumption that terrorist organizations simply do not have or will never recruit the people with the expertise to carry out a cyber attack“. Prof. Goodman stressed the need to take the threat of cyber terrorism seriously because “as terrorists begin to realize the full potential of such an attack, cyber terrorism will become more of a threat later.”

This quote is a typical example of the duality surrounding the issue of cyber terrorism. Experts, from both sides of the debate, try hard to adhere with one side but still don’t wonder to far from the consensus line. A significant number of professionals agree that the potential damage exists, but differ in whether the threat will materialize, and if so, what would be the real damage terrorists will be able to inflict to global support and processing systems.

The Nay and Yea Sayers

“… Concern about the potential danger posed by cyberterrorism is thus well founded. That does not mean, however, that all the fears that have been voiced in the media, in Congress, and in other public forums are rational and reasonable. Some fears are simply unjustified, while others are highly exaggerated. In addition, the distinction between the potential and the actual damage inflicted by cyberterrorists has too often been ignored, and the relatively benign activities of most hackers have been conflated with the specter of pure cyberterrorism“ argues Gabriel Weimann in “Cyberterrorism: How Real Is the Threat”, and he is not alone. Many differentiate between the possibility and the capabilities that terror organizations have at hand to carry out cyber attacks that could create real chaos and crash critical infrastructure systems.

Another typical approach of those who believe that a cyber attack is negligible, is well presented in the 2002 report “Assessing the Risks of Cyberterrorism, Cyber War, and Other Cyber Threats“, published by the Center for Strategic & Intl’ Studies, by Jim Lewis, in which he states that “The idea that hackers are going to bring the nation to its knees is too far-fetched a scenario to be taken seriously. Nations are more robust than the early analysts of cyberterrorism and cyber warfare give them credit for. Infrastructure systems [are] more flexible and responsive in restoring service than the early analysts realized, in part because they have to deal with failure on a routine basis.“

On the other side of the rainbow, experts like Frank Cilluffo who served with DHS in 2004 declared that “while Bin Laden may have his finger on the trigger, his grandchildren may have their fingers on the computer mouse,”. In a more powerful and decisive opinion, other experts like Denning hereon, argue that “Future terrorists may indeed see greater potential for cyberterrorism than do the terrorists of today. Furthermore, the next generation of terrorists is now growing up in a digital world, one in which hacking tools are sure to become more powerful, simpler to use, and easier to access. Cyberterrorism may also become more attractive as the real and virtual worlds become more closely coupled. For instance, a terrorist group might simultaneously explode a bomb at a train station and launch a cyber attack on the communications infrastructure, thus magnifying the impact of the event. Unless these systems are carefully secured, conducting an online operation that physically harms someone may be as easy tomorrow as penetrating a website is today.“

Surprisingly, the results of a senior IT members survey conducted by Insight IT magazine in December 2006, show that “eighty-two percent of IT executives believe that a cyber-terrorist attack on U.S. companies is likely to occur in the next five years“. Furthermore, the same survey reports that “over half of companies over $1 billion report security breaches in the past 12 months, and 45 percent have been targeted by organized criminals. Penetration by spyware and viruses remain problems, but they’re not the only ones: nearly half of all companies that have had security breaches say equipment containing company data has been lost or stolen.” This is what they really think, despite fat budgets and layers of protection invested by the companies to protect their system against penetration. Based on this survey and many similar results from repeated polling of IT professionals on this issue, there exists an obvious duality, characterized by an innate disbelief of terrorists capability to launch a powerful cyber attack in one hand, and the personal conviction and real fear, that such an attack could take place in any given moment.

The results support the fact that there is a constant growing threat that terrorists will use a massive cyber attack, as part of a multiple attack strategy. In his thorough description of this threat, Gregory J. Rattray wrote: “Increasingly, cyberterrorists can achieve effects in the US from nearly anywhere on the globe. Terrorist groups can access global information infrastructures owned and operated by the governments and corporations they want to target. Digital attackers have a wide variety of means to cause disruption and/or destruction. Response in kind by the US government against sophisticated attackers is near impossible due to the difficulty of pinpointing activity in cyberspace and legal strictures on tracing attackers“

Furthermore, the renowned historian and terror expert Walter Laquer, observed in his essay “Post Modern Terrorism” as early as September 1996: “… why assassinate a politician or indiscriminately kill people when an attack on electronic switching will produce far more dramatic and long-lasting results.“
The writing was on the wall as early as the mid 90s, but again, nobody saw it, or preferred not to see it.

There is little doubt that the effectiveness of the means that could generate a digital attack continue to increase, meaning that the US will be more vulnerable to cyberterrorism. Terrorists using cyber terrorism have already reached a high degree of sophistication, developing technological attack tools and effective targeting strategies. On the other hand, Rattray points out that “limits to hitting back against cyberterrorism will remain a difficult problem“, recognizing that the threat is real, and that we are ill equipped to respond swiftly and decisively. Read the rest of this entry »

Cyber terrorism represents a much unknown facet of extreme Islamic terrorism. One must be extremely knowledgeable and well-versed in multi disciplines to gain a deep understanding of the professional meaning and potential destructive impact that cyber terrorism has on modern economies, national security and politics, and virtually on every aspect of our daily life. Dark Web terrorism, the “military” version of cyber terrorism application is known even less. This is the first part of a three series dedicated to this subject.

Why Now

Since the Internet became widely popular there were always negative forces that began testing the tremendous power available at their fingertips, resulting in a growing threat of viruses, worms, spam, phishing, hacking into protected systems, etc. The more major businesses and enterprises developed protective systems, the more it posed a new challenge to those doing it just for “fun”, but it became more of a “they’ll never stop me” for those that were doing it maliciously because of their own private agenda against the targeted entity, mostly government and businesses.

The renewed Islamic terrorism changed forms and structures, an evolution which began with the splintering of Al-Qeida after the demise in Afghanistan, will looking for other ways to regroup. At first the revival attempts were only virtual by using the existing websites, while their leaders were hiding, trying to stay alive as the manhunt launched by the coalition partners intensified. Cyber connectivity as an alternate communication tool wasn’t born in 2000 of course, but the use of the World Wide Web as an initiation to terror and an instructional tool, tripled that year alone because the “official” websites used by terrorists before 9/11 where the only safe venue to reconnect and regroup.

The new reality Al-Qeida was faced with following the immediate period after 9/11, led to what experts named “the critical convergence period”, characterized by changing physical attendance and face to face meeting with new methods of interconnectivity using the Internet. At that time, and even before realizing what a powerful tool it can be, the Internet was used as a last resort, because it maintained anonymous connectivity and because the anti-terror forces chasing them were not prepared to deal with virtual terror yet. After the initial shock following the demise of Al-Qeida in Afghanistan, OBL and Al-Zuhairi didn’t have neither the knowledge nor the leadership power to order or lead the change of using the Internet as a safe alternative; it was entirely initiated by local leaders who were desperately looking for ways to survive and know what was going on.

The faster, more accessible and more reliable the Internet becomes, the easier and safer it is to operate sites that contain and convey essential information without exposure, and it nourishes the foot soldiers’ expectations, alertness and operational readiness. The desired will to become a shaiid is supported by religious figures which preach and issue fatwas containing indoctrination and inciting messages. Fatwas and other forms of faith decrees are repeatedly cited on the websites as a powerful convincing factor, targeting those that are taught to blindly believe that dying in the holly war of total Jihad is the ultimate path Haven.

More than five thousand Al-Qeida and other terror groups websites, along with sympathizers’ and supporting web sites, operate today on the Internet. From the point of view of a Jihadist, the website is the virtual interpretation of the world-wide New Caliphate proclaiming Islam’s global domination in a world without borders.

The cyberspace becomes then, the means, the preaching and teaching tool, the communication facilitator, the planning forum and the coordination platform, all wrapped in one bundle of almost untraceable electronic transmission, allowing terrorists to function and thrive. It is also worthwhile to mention that the more terrorists use organized crime as an operational strategic partner, many of the basic coordination and preparations don’t need long periods of planning because much of the scouting, logistic and ground preparations is carried out by their criminal partners. Such activities may include transportation of weapon and explosives, infiltration of operatives and funding, preparation of safe houses, target scouting and leading the attackers to that target. The pact with organized crime minimizes the burden of simultaneous operation capabilities controlled from one command center, which in turn facilitates the new amorphous flat structure. Al-Qeida leaders provide operational instructions, codes and general guidelines; the rest is done on the websites, starting with spiritual and religious incitement. The ground preparations are, as mentioned, in the hands of their criminal partners. Read the rest of this entry »

Aviation security is an almost forgotten topic, commonly confused with flight security, because since 9/11 we did not encounter another terror attack on American soil. This article is meant to remind us that the threat did not disappear, as seen in several recent events. The author demands that Israeli aviation security philosophy be immediately adapted by TSA instead of reinventing the wheel.

A retrospective look

There is a no better compelling illustration of the current situation approaching the subject of aviation security than validating once again the saying “the chain is as strong as its weakest link”. This article was initially conceived in July 2003, when it was obvious to me that the chosen strategy and implementation by TSA to protect the commercial aviation and its facilities, was far from the best available methods and technologies. I am compelled to reiterate again the still existing aviation security wide flaws and gaps after reading Giving Human Intuition a Place in Airport Security, written by Joe Sharkey in The New York Times a few days ago. In that interview Kip Hawley, the head of TSA, proudly stated that now we put “new emphasis on a layer of screening called behavioral detection” and also “We started off thinking, (pay attention to started - SE), what is it we do better than anybody else? What’s the advantage we have? And it’s that we see two million people every day. We know what normal is”. Eureka, Mr. Hawley, the highly protected secret is finally revealed. My question is: Why did it take six years to reach this obvious conclusion?

Now, that the TSA discovered one of the basic and most essential security ingredients, are we about to see a revolution in the approach to aviation security; can we expect a new strategy which is much more human-based? And how long will it take until is fully implemented in the security processes? If you ask TSA they will tell you n that they will not move so fast. They intend to advance step by step also trying to take over part of the check in process and this takes time, proper recruiting and special training. But first and foremost it requires a change in conception and in the perception of what aviation security is all about today. “Behavioral detection is a technique, not a science (my underscore – SE). It’s an extra tool for “risk management. It doesn’t constitute a third-degree grilling like the vaunted Israeli airport security” emphasized Mr. Hawley. It is amazing to me how easy it is to miss your target if you are a TSA employee and this interview only strengthen my conviction that TSA still doesn’t get it. Classifying behavioral detection as a risk management category is wrong, unprofessional and dangerous from the get go. Because in aviation security, behavior (and Intel) is everything. When there is an over-use of highly-sophisticated outraging costly systems which are TSA sole and indisputable answer to aviation security the chances of a fatal breakdown, in spite of redundancy, are ten fold higher.

If we are to take TSA to their own word, the much expected long-term strategy, which in some areas is still in early developmental stage, will rely heavily on technology rather than on highly trained security personnel. The main problem with this approach is that the more widely spread the use of technology is, the higher the chances of a catastrophic failure to happened, that even redundant systems will no be able to cope with. Since 9/11, we’ve witnessed numerous incidents where weaknesses were reveled and severe vulnerabilities exposed. In several cases, only blind luck prevented yet another catastrophic terror attack.

TSA is yet to learn the lesson

The recent foiled plots in London and Glasgow and other EU countries were a stern reminder that terrorists are ready to take whatever the weakest link gives, in this case the weakness of aviation security.
To understand the severity of existing security gaps, it is worthwhile to look into the security breach event in the premises of Sky Harbor Intl’ Airport in Phoenix AZ a few years back, in which a drunk truck driver while chased by police, was able to drive through the airport secured area, drive around the supposedly “clean” perimeter on the tarmac, then pass and penetrate protective fences without facing any counter-measures. Just from watching the incident on live TV it was evident that none of the defense measures and quick response teams were either activated or engaged, neither were alternative intervention & response teams. This event may be defined as a local problem by officials, but could be also considered a real time live indicator as to how weak and semi-professional the system still is.

I am sure that procedures and written material are at hand in any airport, small or large, but let us not confuse regulations and written procedures with in-field actual implementation. This incident was a real eye-opener providing a real time unequivocal assessment as to the true level of ground aviation security and the existing (or the lack of) effective operational methods. Changes were made and probably implemented since that specific event, but the civil aviation as a whole is still one of the weakest links in the overall critical infrastructure protection list. Experts believe that yet another terror event using a commercial jetliner is in the planning because of its spectacular effect. Skyjacking remains one of the methods terrorists prefer, and many alternative targets can be found around and inside airports (i.e. the LAX shooting incident and the recent Glasgow car bomb failed attack) .

After almost six years since 9/11 the time has come to review DHS and TSA strategy and the operational concepts of aviation security. There is no doubt that they are far behind schedule in implementing a comprehensive aviation security strategy molded to fit the extreme changes in international terrorism, and the way it affects transnational and transitional terrorism specifically. Immediately after 9/11 it was acceptable that in the interim aviation security isn’t but a stitched together emergency method following the need to provide immediate security answers and some relief from the 9/11 anxieties and fears. Today though, it is not acceptable that much of the same persists even if some changes were made. Cosmetic changes may look good but do not provide the much needed answers. A thorough revision is a must, especially as we are being reminded again that terror attack threats are on the rise. Suffice to recall the conceptual mistake and the way the sensitive issue of air marshals was handled. A basic problem is that what is in place today is neither comprehensive not effective enough. More so when TSA discourages initiative and rewards dogmatism and “in-between-the-line” thinking and behavior.

TSA wrong approach

”This new system is working. Since February 2002, TSA has intercepted more than 1,500 firearms and more than 54,000 box cutters”, declared then TSA Deputy Admin. Stephen McHale in a testimony on 11/5/03, before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. The statement, although old, comprises in one sentence all that is wrong with aviation security. It summarizes TSA philosophical approached and the methods used to tackle this acute problem. Furthermore, it presents a clear picture as to how security personnel is trained and what the pure professional approach is. It seems as if DHS and TSA have not yet learned at least part of the obvious security lessons.

Heavily relying on hi-tech as the magic. solve-all” remedy instead of developing and improving the professional human factor, will prove life costly and dangerous. Until otherwise proven, why invest almost all available resources in technology? Terrorists will always be able to choose the target, the location and the timing. A target will be attractive to terrorists if it can potentially cause scores of casualties. This given, how certain are the big bosses at TSA that excessive high-tech is the best available answer to the threats today and in the feasible future? How far can we go with using technology to replace a human being? And in any case, where there is a machine-human interaction, who is in command? In other words, does the system rely on machine results or does the personnel have the power to overwrite machine reading? And if this procedure exists, why not use human capabilities more frequently?

Why is El Al aviation security so effective

Supporters of TSA’s current approach argue that comparing ElAl strategy and techniques with those used in US aviation security is like comparing apples to oranges, thus unreasonable. It is an argument that may sound plausible since El Al runs approx. 50 flights per day compared to more than 35,000 domestic and international daily flights by American companies. Still, this is not a valid comparison because what really counts is the strategies and the overall approach to the encountered and expected problems, not the number of flights. Some US airliners hired Israeli experts to improve security, but their initiative is not part of TSA strategy and is not mandatory. This article attempts to analyze El Al’s aviation security approach as an anchor reference aimed at proving why TSA must go back to the basics of aviation protection and make the proper changes in its procedures, its mentality and technology. To better understand the danger of over-using high-tech instead of people please read the article Uber-technology in www.omedia.org Read the rest of this entry »

« Quae volumus et credimus libenter, et quae sentimus ipsi, reliquos sentire speramus »
(What we desire we readily believe, and what we ourselves think we expect others to think)

They Mean It !!!

Julius Cesar’s quote embodies in one sentence the way we allow ourselves to believe in a “reality” which isn’t there. The public has a short and selective memory; True, there is an abundance of information available about any imaginable subject, more than we are capable to digest. And true, there are too many “experts” that have a say in everything we know, its source and meaning. Iran is in cross hair of the politicians, the military and the media since the late 1970s, following the Shah’s fall. The new revolutionary Iran is controversial, inciting and inflaming because of its undeniable support to terror organizations and has been a continuous source of global instability since. In spite of international pressure on this rogue regime, Teheran is making every effort possible not to deviate from the activist path that is aimed at making Iran an important regional leader and international player.

Iran’s domestic and international policies and the way it is perceived by the international community, both embody the perfect meaning of “where the truth lies”. In other words, there is no better definition that comprises in one sentence the  Iranian basic approach: lie to the world by telling the truth. The visible self-contradicting sentence is viable because Iran is telling the truth but the world refuses to listen or accept it at its face value. When Iran states officially that Israel has to be wiped off the world map, the really mean it; It is the world that refuses to believe that a second  Holocaust to the Jewish people can happen again. And when Iran joins forces with Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, in denouncing the US as the world’s madman and president Bush as the source of evil red devil they meant it. When Iran joins forces with Syria to undermine the Lebanese government and transform Lebanon into the new Hezbollahland, they really mean it.

It is extremely important to listen to what they are constantly saying but it’s also imperative that we peel off the layers of deception and finally understand that “what you see is really what you get”. Iran knows too well the international arena to be sure that speaking openly about its intention will be only interpreted as nothing more than a presidential whim (what some “smartologs” call Ahmadinejadism) which is not to be taken seriously. But exactly the opposite it true.

High politics is misleading because the public gets only bits of well-screened information on what is really going on behind the diplomatic curtains. Whatever convincing argument the public may raise contradicting the official policy, the politicians response is always that we, the public, can’t see the whole picture because it is a delicate diplomatic back and forth going on and it is more beneficial for the cause if the details remain secret.

How often have we heard experts saying that the Iranian leadership is too clever than to put itself in a situation where Israel and the US or better the world, turns against them, not to mention the expected Israeli counter-attack that may sever the main artery of the Islamic Shiite state. Following the same misconstrued logic, it doesn’t make sense for Iran to attack Israel; this is all part of Teheran’s battle to position itself as a regional leader, they say. Those experts prefer to stay within the consensus perimeter because it’s does not require an out-of-the-box explanation which they don’t have, it doesn’t threaten widely spread opinions and it’s easier to explain to the public. Again, as I keep repeating time and again, thinking Western style leads to conclusions which don’t sit well with Middle East realities.

Think how ingenious their plan is: Iran is laying by telling the truth, but it isn’t a “white lie”; Teheran knows the soul of its nemesis and is taking full advantage of it. Their strategy is composed of two scenarios running in parallel:

Scenario A – In regard to anything connected or related to its nuclear and missile programs, lie to your teeth, cheat, deceive & delay, and toggle between being confrontational and submissive (see Teheran’s sudden approval to allow visits to two of the more known nuclear facilities). Maintain and nurture a cloud of uncertainty over the whole issue knowing that the slightest doubt is enough for the international community to refrain again from making a decision that will really hurt Iran

Scenario B – Regarding the use Iran will make of the manufactured nukes, the strategy is simple: tell the truth, no one will believe you anyway. This truth is so straight forward, so aggressive and so incomprehensible that no one will believe

When the two mini strategies work in tandem, what the world sees is Iran’s “big mouth” talking nonsense hatred slogans (this is what they all believe), while Iran is trying to hide its real nuclear program from UN inspectors by giving then a bite they can chew which will generate more time to solve other more burning problems. What Iran lacks the most is time. There are several setbacks in Iran’s nuclear program, Russia being the sole source of all the present problems. This delay created a chain of regressions, some of them significant, which may slow down Teheran’s schedule significantly. If the lost time is not recuperated soon, it means that the synchronized moment at which Iran intended to reach a benchmark in the nuke development parallel to other several international developments may be lost. Such a development will send Iran back to the drawing board.

Why is Iran in such a hurry

• The upcoming US presidential elections in 2008

• The real possibility of American troops leaving Iraq after the elections

• A changed Pakistan after Bush leaves office means a growing fear from the Pakistani nuke

• A viable solution with North Korea means that one serious problem is of the international crisis agenda thus freeing more time to take on Iran

• The growing dispute with Russia

• Domestic economic problems and population resent

• The pressure and possible counter-attack on Hammas in Gaza

• Syria’s efforts to get closer to the US through talks with Israel

• The growing anti-Hezbollah sentiment in Lebanon coupled by the election of a right-wing president in France

• Al-Qeida revival Read the rest of this entry »

A severe threat that doesn‘t need introduction

Because of the closing gap between reality and fiction, our perceptions - as modern people living in a modern world - are being derelict by events that we refuse to accept or cope with. In spite of facts and widely publicized events that support this new reality, we all - public and elected leaders - prefer to close our eyes and chose not to see what’s out there and where it drags us to: to the end of the world as we know today.

We are increasingly complacent because there was no major attack on the scale of 9/11 on American soil, but totally disregard the thousands of terror attacks and terror related events that take place virtually, all over the globe. And there is this new trend of minimizing terrorist activities and the impact on our lives worldwide, coupled by a refusal to call it what it is: a war on international terrorism led by Jihadists and alike.

“…and liberty for all…” makes people act in very bizarre ways and do very strange things, like the recent idiotic decision by the English Foreign Office to seize using the phrase “the war on terror” because “it’s counterproductive and may lead to misconceptions”. In other places including the US, we see increased reluctance to use terms like “a long war” when describing the fight against radical Islam. Politicians fight to be first at the microphone telling us that there is no real war on terror, “because since 9/11 we haven’t experienced any such attack”. But they also state that the administration is not doing enough in this non-existing war. Where’s the logic you ask; well this is “political logic” that has nothing to do with reality. Why should we be complaining on what others think when John Edwards, the presidential democratic contender believes that, as he put it “there is not such thing as war on terror” and requests we should stop using it because it is producing unnecessary public anxieties and fears.

Studies, books, interviews and articles as are the so many “documentaries”published by the hundreds each year, minimize or criticize the importance of the war on terror. They also build false expectations that somehow in some mysterious way this nightmare will vanish. Blaming Republicans of inciting war and artificially elevating the terror threat opens the door to the conclusion that there is no need to prepare, cooperate, stay alert or provide funding for programs related to the war on terror because, as they maintain, it almost doesn’t exist. Furthermore, under no circumstances are they willing to infringe any of the constitutional rights (and don’t you dare mention the word “sacrifice”) even in the face of clear and present danger . Based on this extreme anti-war interpretation funding of activities that support the war on terror are denied as well, not to mention funding for special covert programs. In short, behind this smoke screen all is well and nobody gets hurt but reality  has its own ways to remind us that  facts are stronger than rhetoric.

We all have the right to own and express our opinion and those blind-folded by politics may think whatever the please; what is disturbing though, is the fact that these are typical signs of collective denial and silent acceptance of our probable defeat. Recognizing the problem means that we will have to make changes in the way we think and live, but the nation is not ready to undertaking this endeavor yet, and politicians are afraid to even talk about it fearing it would hurt their upcoming re-election. For many, life is still good and as long as somebody else in some remote location on the globe is being attacked, bitten, maimed or murdered, that’s their problem primarily.

We don’t want to believe, and still refuse to comprehend, that the same is happening here much faster than we think. In the era of final Jihad and international terrorism, total denial equals total destruction. This is the most dangerous state of mind a society can be in.

We repeatedly fail to settle the contradiction between the dedication required in the war against radical Islam and International terrorism, and the demands to stay alert while going on with our lives as if there is no terror and in spite of it. We still don’t know how to handle situations that demand our real involvement, yet we got used to watch terror attacks on live TV and Youtube, and it seems that many have developed a morbid attraction to watch beheadings and maniacal terrorists blowing themselves up in front of the camera. We watch with disgust decapitations and slaughtered and burned Americans being hanged and dragged behind a truck while the crowd is cheering and laughing; It’s terrifying, but we keep watching. This phenomena would have some merit if the result of watching would have had an impact on recruitment to fight terrorism, to volunteer and help the authorities or become an eye-opener for the public. Instead, as we watch, the common feeling is just a sense of relief because it is still far away from here. And so, while whispering in horror “how can they do that, they’re animals…”, we still don’t switch to another channel. And we’ve seen so much of it to the point that it’s almost trivial (victims anonymous). We’re fed daily with increasing doses of the same gruesome views to the point where the mind closes to objections. Instead of raising our will to fight back, we prefer to watch and continue our uninterrupted life.It’s sad but true: terrorism has become a routine part of our lives. Interested parties - the media, politicians, organizations and think tanks - which unwillingly and unknowingly provide moral aid to the terrorists, are among the leading reasons why we are so disoriented, and why we are able to distance ourselves from the atrocities of terrorism, which under other circumstances would have made rise to a powerful anti-terrorism popular movement. Instead, as long as it’s not in our immediate backyard, and we don’t know the victims, it will not make a strong enough impact on our life. Memorial Day is a perfect example. When patriotism becomes a word to be ashamed of this is wrong, sometimes deadly wrong. We live in times of crucial importance in the life of this planet, but most of us prefer to deny it or squeeze out other answers that look plausible but aren’t true. Read the rest of this entry »

The Iranian Death Wish

Introduction

Chess was invented in Iran. It’s a strategic game that requires special skills, forward thinking, planning strategically, high flexibility, willing to give up now to be victorious later and much more skills. Iranian policy does exactly all that.

The recent accidentally thwarted terrorist attacks in London certainly generated a new headache to the ruling clerics in Teheran because it shifted the attention from Iran to Al-Qeida or other affiliated terrorist group which Iran doesn’t control or support.

Why should the Iranians worry? Because Teheran has made constant efforts to make it clear that its actions should not be put in the same context with “ordinary” Jihadists. Iran is advertising itself not as a terrorism state-harboring entity but as a state supporting liberation movements. Every time an event such the recent foiled attacks in London occurs, it pushes Iran’s efforts in the regional and international arena out of focus of interest, thus delaying the Iranian purposed goals which are part of a carefully elaborated plan. In other words, Iran doesn’t want to be seen by the international community as a “second grade threat” because it shifts the focus away from them. Iran’s delicately crafted political and military master plan is based on a precisely- monitored crisis management, playing the right key at the right moment, then moving to the next planned phase.

Iran likes to control all the players around the chess table. Unexpected interference like the London event is not only undesirable but more so threatening the master plan, which will need to be updated and retuned, which will create a delay in implementation and Teheran if far from liking it. We may actually see soon some political and military activities aimed at correcting this situation and regain world’s attention. Iran is always thriving in “prime time” as the star player, therefore when other more “burning” issues are on the table of the international community that’s an interference Teheran will take the necessary steps to change as quick as possible. Second grade attention impedes Teheran’s ability to play in a controlled conflict clash environment. Expect action from Teheran soon.

Playing An Aggressive Chess Game

The Irano-Syrian pact is playing an offensive game along the entire Middle East front, and winning big up till now. And as we know, the Middle East and everything surrounding Israel carries always a immediate sense of about-to-happen crisis tag. The recent Gaza takeover by Hammas and the standoff between Lebanese forces and Al-Qeida linked terrorists group Fath Al-Islam in Tripoli, are to be interpreted through regional geo-political spectacles in order to see its truly deceptive prospects. Again, the fingerprints of the infamous Irano-Syrian offensive strategy aimed at gaining political, military and territorial achievements is visible from afar.

As I argued in Egypt, the Triumvirates and Israel‘s Strategic Dilemma, Iran and Syria with the help of Hezbollah and Hammas, are forcefully pushing a regional campaign focused on positioning themselves in the best possible political and territorial strategic stand before the elections in the US. They assess correctly that the closer the presidential elections are the less the US will stay involved in the regional conflict arena. They further assess that a harder political line is expected from the US foreign policy after the inauguration of the new president elect, be it a democrat or a republican.

There are clearly defined strategic guidelines according to which both Iran and Syria act in concert in this coordinated offensive across the Middle East, and deviations from the master plan can’t be accepted, thus the recent foiled London attack is an unwanted distraction. The mere fact that Al-Qeida is evolving in Gaza threatening Hammas’ hegemony as does the Jihadist movement in Tripoli’s refugee camps in Lebanon, are a new threat which Iran has to deal with urgently. How they handle it is still to be seen.

Iran is a key-role player in the revival of Neo-Talibanism and other Jihadist forces in Afghanistan, which are all Sunnis. Substantial evidence has shown that Iran is the main supplier of instructors, arms, explosives and training to chosen terrorist groups and war lords. Those relative new connection with Sunni Jihadists are part of the Iranian response designed to counter-balance Al-Qeida’s revival and diversification and are meant to show that the Iranian extended arms reach far beyond its immediate neighboring states. It is a painful reminder to the US that they too can provoke chaos and control anti-American activity in Afghanistan. The intention behind this Iranian showoff is to signal to the US that Iran must be a major partner in any future discussions and final agreements in the region, whether the US likes it or not.

Check-Mate

Furthermore, Iran has intensified its actions against the US and coalition forces in Iraq using Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army and other sympathetic or controlled terrorist factions, supplying them with weapons, explosives, training and logistic support. To create more sectarian tension Iran is leading a stealthy campaign attempting to disrupt the present US efforts to quell the increasing surge of terrorism against civilians in Iraq again, to prove the US that it can’t overlook Iran in any future settlement. In the north, Syria’s interests have taken a negative course following their shameful (in their own eyes) imposed exist from Lebanon. Here, the Teheran-Damascus coalition has targeted the fragile, under siege Seniora government, aiming to make the Lebanese army insignificant and crush the popular Cedars Revolution which has united long time enemies against the Syrian occupation. The most effective weapon they use is by-proxy terrorism and designated assassinations of political leaders of national stature, in sync with terror attacks against civilians which result in re-heating sectarian and religious tension in the Lebanon.

By defeating Al-Fattah and the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, the Iranian controlled Hammas (the political arm leads from Damascus) and Islamic Jihad have shown what they are capable of militarily and politically. More so, it is a stern warning to the West and the Sunnis majority in the Middle East, since Hezbollah in the north and Hammas in Gaza are a bleeding dagger in the heart of Sunni territory. Those premeditated actions have also intensified the tension with Israel which finds itself in a renewed strategic dilemma. Iran is the only state in the region that combines a powerful package of strategic assets and political ambition in terms of politics, economy and security, and has proven repeatedly that it knows how to outplay veteran rivals, especially in the Sunni-led regions.

There are proven warnings showing that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza, a massive terror basis is in the works, all connected and steered by Iran. Politically and militarily Iran and Syria have created a new war zone in a format that allows them to step aside and let their proxies do the dirty work for them. How much lack of understanding does the recent visits of US senators to Syria show, when we see the unfolding Irano-Syrian plan today. What a stupid, childish stunt it was, when it was obvious that it will only show put the US in an impossible position, showing the divide between the president and the Democrat congress. Are there any significant changes in Syria’s policy as a result of that visit? None. Read the rest of this entry »

An Imminent Threat To World Stability

The Art of Surviving in a Hostile Environment
As seen in the previous two parts, Al-Takfir is characterized by its robust ability to regenerate and by successful recruiting from many sources and diverse origin, which cuts across ethnic, class and national boundaries.

The rise of Al-Takfir and globalization and transitional processes are tightly knitted. Their increased ability to find new venues and resourceful support by using local, regional and international drug and criminal networks generates better financial resources used to increase their logistical and operational capabilities. Specializing in providing such services to other terror organizations including Al-Qeida, has made Al-Takfir “services” a highly desired entity, thus helping them to survive in an increasingly hostile environment.

Al-Takfir maintains a high degree of secrecy which attracts more recruits and fortifies the legend of the stealthy warriors which live among the infidels so that they can be destroys from within. Even if by joining to Al-Takfir a local terrorist group surrenders many aspects of independence they still want to become Al-Takfiris more than anything else. Just by spreading the word that they are now Al-Takfir members makes them more important in the eyes of potential “clients” and the Muslim public, not to mention that such a step is like a magnet for new recruits. In addition, being linked to Al-Takfir means new connections with crime syndicates, which translates into more money and goods. Nowadays, being an Al-Takfir member means being part of a prestigious elite group with a special status among the terrorist groups, which surpasses that of Al-Qeida.

Al-Takfir is able to sustain a totally flat (horizontal) network structure, not because it intended to from the very beginning, but because of necessity and operational needs due to pressure applied and the continuous scrutiny by intelligence services and police forces. Al-Takfir is able to expand its network because it adds small local cells which operate without external connections thus undetectable until their first attack. This means that there is no central command posts, no coordination nerve center and no vertical structure or chain of command, along which a weak link may be detected and exploited. Al Takfir sharpened its skills by cooperating with local crime gangs, novo-riche war lords, scrupulous armament dealers, laundering drug and theft money and smuggling weapons, explosives, people and drugs. In addition Al-Takfir focuses in indoctrination and recruiting in prisons. It developed a complex network of networks that facilitates financing, material procurement, recruitment and logistics, operations and information collection support. Al-Takfir uses this conglomerate of networked groups, organizations and cells smartly, to create opportunities and exploit existing vulnerabilities in our open society system, and there are many.

A frequent recurring mistake is that we target operational cells but don’t pay enough attention to the underlying support network without which - given the transnational nature of Al-Takfir and its “one-layer” operation and control structure - it will not be able to survive. Targeting cells that recruit members, procure supplies, sell smuggled material, move money and people, provide financial support, forge fake identities, ensure and secure transportation, maintain safe houses, disseminate propaganda, makes more sense and should be our first priority. We have already established that Al-Takfir is not a group which can be wiped out in one blow. Undercutting and choking the operational resources (crime profiting), the communication lines (cyber networks) and the venues (spy-like blending), are the three actions that will bring to the disintegration of Al-Takfir, because without any of them it cannot stay alive and prevail. Read the rest of this entry »