Another scenario?

After the September 11 incidents in the United States, Washington blamed 
the al-Qaeda network and waged its devastative war on Afghanistan that 
resulted in high casualties among innocent civilians.

However, after several months of intensive bombings and even following the 
downfall of the Taliban militia, whom the US administration blamed for 
harboring Al-Qaeda members, Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders 
described by Washington as masterminds of the September 11 attacks are 
still at large.

However, instead of feeling depressed at having failed to capture those 
they have called their arch-enemies, the White House officials even appear 
fairly pleased, as they have managed to establish military bases and gain a 
foothold in Central Asia and the Caucasus on the pretext of fighting 
terrorism.

Furthermore, the recent revelations indicating that US President George W. 
Bush as well as senior FBI and CIA officials had been given warnings about 
the possibility of terrorist attacks on the United States long before 
September 11, 2001, but did not take any effective measures to prevent the 
incidents make one wonder whether the United States actually needed a 
scenario such as the attacks on New York and Washington in order to advance 
its belligerent policy and military adventurism.

At this stage, it seems that US military policy under the Republican 
administration is not going to be confined to just establishing military 
bases in Afghanistan and some other countries in Central Asia and the 
Caucasus.

In other words, Washington is apparently seeking more objectives than just 
boosting its political and military presence and influence in the region 
through another scenario. To grasp the point, the following news reports 
are worth considering.

US Attorney General John Ashcroft said on Monday [June 10] that 
investigators thwarted a plot to detonate a radiation-laced "dirty bomb" in 
the United States by arresting a US "terrorist" linked to Osama bin Laden's 
al-Qaeda network.

Ashcroft said Abdullah al-Muhajir, 31, a US citizen born in New York as 
Jose Padilla, who was allegedly plotting the attack, was arrested at 
Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8, after flying in from 
Pakistan.

"We have captured a known terrorist who was exploring a plan to build and 
explode a radiological dispersion device, or 'dirty bomb' in the United 
States," Ashcroft said.

According to a BBC television report, a crude nuclear bomb can be carried 
on a truck and its explosion can affect at least 20 per cent of the 
population in a large US city. The report said the explosion could also 
cause great panic and make US citizens flee their homes.

And finally, the Arabic language daily Al-Hayat reported that the 
al-Qaeda has admitted on its Internet site that it has access to weapons of 
mass destruction through raw materials and equipment obtained from Russia.

The first report, in which Ashcroft revealed the news about Muhajir's 
arrest, after more than one month, and this in itself is quite 
questionable, seems to be aimed at preparing US citizens for another 
tragedy similar to the September 11 incidents or even worse.

The BBC television report also seems to be following the same objective.

Furthermore, this report also came at a time when US officials are 
asserting that the al-Qaeda network has obtained access to crude nuclear 
weapons, and that it is seriously planning another attack on the US.

As for the possible source of radioactive materials, US officials claimed 
that the network acquired these materials from Pakistan and Russia. But 
what is Al-Hayat trying to convey?

It is clear that it intends to put the blame for any possible nuclear 
attacks on the United States on al-Qaeda, as the network was blamed for the 
September 11 incidents, but without any concrete evidence.

These reports indicate that a new scenario is in the offing. It is no 
hidden fact by now that independent states refusing to submit to US 
domination have long been a target of US propaganda and baseless 
accusations such as sponsoring terrorism or seeking weapons of mass 
destruction.

However, so far nations throughout the world, even some US European allies, 
have mostly ignored such propaganda and accusations because they are well 
aware of the self-serving US motives behind these allegations.

But what would happen if the United States becomes the target of a nuclear 
attack by so-called al-Qaeda terrorists? It is clear that Washington will 
be provided with a suitable pretext, similar to the one after the September 
11 incidents, to launch a devastative campaign against any group that it 
labels as terrorist or any country that it calls a sponsor of terrorism.

Therefore, it seems that a horrible scenario is in the offing, horrible in 
the first place for the innocent US citizens who may become the victims of 
another tragedy in their country.

Another point worthy of consideration is that all three reports claim al-
Qaeda has obtained the raw materials for its nuclear weapons from Russia.

But why Russia? The answer is simple. If this tragedy occurs and the US 
tries to launch a campaign against independent states on the above pretext, 
countries like Russia may not be so willing to take part in the campaign 
and may even raise objections.

Thus, the claim that the raw materials for making the nuclear weapons have 
been obtained from Russia will help to turn public opinion in the United 
States and Europe against Russia and force Moscow into submission or at 
least silence about the unilateral and domineering US campaign against 
countries critical of US policies.

* * *

Tehran Times, June 12, 2002