You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Mansoor Ijaz sez terrorists are planning an attack in Iraq
2004-01-14
BRIT HUME, HOST: The administration is not saying anything about this, and it is not even clear officials know anything about it. But some sources in Iraq are talking about a development that could prove an important turn in the search for weapons of mass destruction. For more on this we turn to the man who so often seems to know things before everybody else. Fox News foreign affairs analyst Mansoor Ijaz, who joins us now from Berlin. Mansoor, what?s up?
MANSOOR IJAZ, FOX NEWS FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: Well, Brit, what I have learned in the last 24 hours is that about three days ago in the northern part of Iraq, a convoy of trucks and jeeps and cars was brought across from Iran where some of the Kurdish Peshmergah -- these are these Kurdish rebels that are sort of like Mujahideen, if I may put it that way, from the old Afghan War. They intercepted one of those trucks that were carrying a large warhead that had extremely sophisticated plastic -- C- 4 plastic explosives in it. And when the driver of that truck was put under interrogation, he then admitted that as many -- there were a total of 30 warheads that apparently were scheduled to come across.

One of them got caught, and 29 made it across somehow or the other. Of those 29, we are told now that somewhere between six and 12 of them may have, in fact, been laden with chemical explosives that would be then attached to a rocket of some sort inside Iraq that?s already there in a separate convoy. And that those warheads would then be exploded over, for example, an encampment near the Coalition Provisional Authority or something like that.

Now, what alarmed me about this and the reason that I felt it was necessary to get this out as soon as possible, is because I have now heard three times in the last week, from separate sources that I have been talking to that something big is being planned for Baghdad. In which the idea that is being put forward is to kill as many as 3,000 to 5,000 people at one shot; something that would be similar to a World Trade Center type of attack. In that part of the world, the only way you could get that done is if you launched a massive chemical or biological attack.

HUME: Now, talk to me a little bit about the Kurdish forces who were involved in this event. Are these -- are they friendly to the United States and the coalition? Are they not? And what -- you know, and how credible are they?
IJAZ: Yes. It's a good question. The strange thing here is that what I have been told is that the sources that got this information out, what they saw on the ground physically going on is that the Kurdish leaders that had -- the Kurdish rebels that had caught this guy had taken the warhead and were actually trying to sell it back to the Iranians along with their silence. Because there's something else going on here that's of a larger political nature.

We now know that during the past week, the reformists in Iran have been pummeled and stopped from allowing their candidates to be fielded for the upcoming elections. We also know that there is, as we have said here before about a month and a half, two months ago, that there is a wintertime offensive being prepared with the help of the Iranian and Revolutionary Guard in Afghanistan, maybe with the help of Al Qaeda, maybe even bin Laden, al Zawahiri, and people like that who, as we've said here before, are in Iran right now.

And at the same time, they're trying to launch something in Iraq. The idea of which would be the wag the dog scenario, where if your domestic politics, you can't fix it, and it's getting too much pressure under honor the mullahs in Iran right now. Better to start the fire and ratchet it up a notch on both sides outside, both in Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time.

HUME: Now, how great a likelihood do you believe that you are finding this out or others finding this out, and it getting out, will have on it actually happening?
IJAZ: Well, I think the first thing we've got to do is go and talk to those Kurdish rebels and find out where the heck those other convoy trucks went. The second thing that we need to do, and I talked with General McInerney earlier this evening to determine what the range is, what type of warheads would be used and how these things could be put together. He made a very strong recommendation, and I agree with that, that we need to get Global Hawk One back in theater. Because if these things...

HUME: That thing out of there now?
IJAZ: ... these chemical warheads were attached -- they are out of there right now, and they're not in theater. And the trouble is that they're in desolate areas in which these rockets could be launched from. And remember, a chemical weapon, to have massive -- the most massive impact that it can have to have a midair burst. Which means that it needs to be launched from, let's say, 100 kilometers away or 50 kilometers away or 200 kilometers away. These are areas that our people are just not, you know, focused on right now because we've got so much work to do in and around the urban areas in Iraq. So I think we need to get down to finding out where that convoy of 29 warheads are and do that immediately. And get our Kurdish friends to help us rather than trying to sell them back to the Iranians. That doesn't make any sense.

HUME: Oh, we?ve got just a few seconds left. The credibility of your sources, your assessment?
IJAZ: They?re unimpeachable. Again, I think they've been right all along. We'll find out in the coming days in a print report about the bin Laden story in great detail. Everything has been verified. We will see that.

HUME: Thank you Mansoor.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#12  John Loftus of john-loftus.com thinks the report is credible (he said the explosive was RDX), but thinks that it is part of a bigger Iranian scheme (i) by the Mullahs to threaten the US with wider war (to distract from the Mullahs internal problems) or (ii) by the reformers to try to get the US more involved in the overthrow of the mullahs. Either way, I think there is reason for concern.
Posted by: Tibor   2004-1-14 11:25:38 PM  

#11  A2U, I think Ijaz and his source are credible. The guy who I do not trust is the driver of the truck with the C-4 and or the Kurdish militia members who tried to sell the material to Iran.

I would expect a Kurd and/or an Iranian that was caught in illegal activity to create a the story on a detailed ficticious conspiracy out of whole cloth.

Culturals in that area of the world will tend to generate misinformation. I will continue to take what Ijaz says seriously in any case. There is always some truth at the heart of these stories. I found Monsoor's explanation of why he thought the first attempt on Perv's life was a fraud to be credible. He was able to describe the area of the bombing from a first hand perspective. An American that can speak about Pakistan from a first hand prespective is quite uncommon.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-1-14 10:13:57 PM  

#10  Well, THAT didn't breed confidence. McInerney (sp) was just on Brit - they had no idea. W/in 15 minutes info was in Baghdad.

McInerney had lunch w/a kurd last week, it would play into their goals well.

As to C-4 not being used in warheads - if true, we have to start thinking about known unknowns. I'm no chem expert, obviously, but just because it's never been done doesn't mean someone won't try.

My motto is after 9/11 - anything is possible.

This'll make or break Ijaz.
Posted by: Anonymous2u   2004-1-14 6:23:33 PM  

#9  Never underestimate the stupidity of people who use human wave tactics.

The waves are going to turn into nuclear slush if Iran goes through with this. If it's even true.
Posted by: Charles   2004-1-14 4:40:59 PM  

#8  Anyone think the Iranians are this stupid?

Yes, actually. Never underestimate the stupidity of people who use human wave tactics.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-1-14 4:17:00 PM  

#7  been laden with chemical explosives

This is the statement that jumps out at e the most.
While it is true high explosives are made-up of chemicals,chemical weapons are not explosive.
Posted by: raptor   2004-1-14 4:10:27 PM  

#6  ...been laden with chemical explosives...

Now there's a coded message for ya.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-1-14 2:27:28 PM  

#5  This story smells for many reasons:
1. carrying a large warhead that had extremely sophisticated plastic -- C- 4 plastic explosives
C-4 is used for demolitions, I don't believe it's used in warheads. Of course, it's the only explosive reporters would be able to name off the top of their heads, so that could be the problem.
And what does he call large? 100 lbs? 500, 1000?

2. six and 12 of them may have, in fact, been laden with chemical explosives that would be then attached to a rocket of some sort inside Iraq that's already there in a separate convoy.
Again, size counts here. 122mm rocket? 155? Scud? If you only have 6 - 12, that's not a lot when you're talking about a chem attack. There's a reason Soviet tactics called for using massed banks of multiple rocket launchers for chem attacks. You need to deliver a lot to kill masses of troops.

3. the idea that is being put forward is to kill as many as 3,000 to 5,000 people at one shot
6 - 12 warheads ain't enough unless you're talking about civilians bunched together. Even then, you'd have to get lucky.

4.that there is a wintertime offensive being prepared with the help of the Iranian and Revolutionary Guard in Afghanistan
Anyone think the Iranians are this stupid? I mean they might give food, shelter and arms to al-Qaeda and some Taliban, but direct military action in Afghanistan? No way.

5. And remember, a chemical weapon, to have massive -- the most massive impact that it can have to have a midair burst
It goes off up in the air, wind blows it away and disperses it. Warhead needs to be down where the targets are, low level.

6. it needs to be launched from, let's say, 100 kilometers away or 50 kilometers away or 200 kilometers away.
Okay, this is in Scud class range. Think they're gonna be dragging 6 to 12 Scuds around without somebody noticing?
Posted by: Steve   2004-1-14 2:14:53 PM  

#4  ruprecht, what's he been accurate about? I usually here him making claims that so and so will happen immenently and then I never here anything else about it and it never happens. This sounds like another one of those...
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2004-1-14 12:54:14 PM  

#3  I think Mansoor Ijaz said that soon there would be some proof that the Iranians were sheltering Bin Laden as well. He's been accurate in the past.

Still, this all seems to be a perfect excuse to go after Iran. Almost too perfect. It's hard to imagine the Iranians would be so obvious.
Posted by: ruprecht   2004-1-14 12:45:15 PM  

#2  So Iranians smuggled 30 chem warheads and rockets over the border to start a major attack in Iraq?

Excuse me,this sounds like total BS.
Posted by: El Id   2004-1-14 12:44:00 PM  

#1  ..Curses - beaten by three minutes!!!

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2004-1-14 12:33:25 PM  

00:00