Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Why Is the White House Pretending That Saudi Insurgents in Iraq Are Iranian?

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted July 20, 2007.


Nearly half of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops in Iraq have come from Saudi Arabia -- an inconvenient truth for the White House papered over with the lie that Iran is the chief instigator.
Advertisement

The Los Angeles Times is reporting nearly half of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops in Iraq have come from Saudi Arabia – one of Washington's closest allies in the Middle East. U.S. officials have so far refused to publicly criticize Saudi Arabia's role in Iraq, focusing instead on Iran. Democracy Now! spoke with an L.A. Times correspondent in Iraq, Ned Parker, and Toby Jones, a former Persian Gulf analyst with the International Crisis Group and history professor at Rutgers University.

Amy Goodman: We go now to Iraq to speak with Ned Parker, staff reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He joins us from Baghdad. Ned Parker recently wrote a widely read article on how Sunni militants from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Ned Parker. We saw over and over again on the Senate floor, as ultimately the attempt to pass the resolution that would begin withdrawal of troops from Iraq was defeated, we saw Iran raised and the idea that in Iraq US soldiers were fighting off Iranian insurgents, and that was part of what the battle in Iraq was all about, taking on Iran. You found that, in fact, there are more Saudi than Iranian foreign fighters in Iraq. How do you know this?

Ned Parker: Well, I mean, the Iranian issue is complicated, to say the least. And I don't -- it's from America's, US military's own numbers about foreign fighters in Iraq, that there are more Saudis fighting in Iraq than Iranians. I mean, that said, the Iranian element, there's no doubt that the Iranians are involved in Iraq, and if they are backing Shia militias, the military believes that this is with full government backing.

The Saudi issue is more complicated, because it's not really clear what the Saudi government is really doing. Are they actively involved in sending these Saudi fighters to Iraq, or are they just sort of letting it happen as a way to pressure the Shia government there? So, and then, Saudis are the United States's allies [inaudible], so there's all that at play.

Democracy Now! cohost Juan Gonzalez: And your report also gives some indication of the total number of foreign fighters, which I found -- or at least the ones that are in custody, which I found to be somewhat low, in terms of what we might imagine. Could you talk about the actual numbers?

Parker: Right. I mean, their numbers -- I mean, it's still -- I think the Americans would even say that their numbers aren't precise. It's based upon detainees arrested over the years, detainees currently in prison. Right now there's, I think, 130 foreign fighters in US custody. Of those, 45% are Saudi. The United States guesses that there are between sixty and eighty foreign fighters who cross into Iraq each month through Syria, so almost half of those, according to the United States, have been Saudi. So it is actually -- it's a fairly low number in the scheme of things, and the United States, even in releasing these numbers, were saying that the Saudi foot soldiers are being used as suicide bombers, for the most part, or fighters on the ground, people with, you know, a very quick shelf life, that are probably going to die. But they're quite open about the fact that the majority of al-Qaeda in Iraq, even if it has a foreign leadership, is Iraqi, and, I mean, that shouldn't be lost sight of. The vast majority of al-Qaeda in Iraq is Iraqi.

Gonzalez: And what did the military brass in Iraq tell you about their efforts to try to get Saudi Arabia to somehow or other control the Jihadist fighters that are leaving their country?

Parker: Well, we -- the officers I've spoken with, they believe that the Saudi government should be doing a tougher job on its border with Jordan, because that's the flow of Saudi fighters to Iraq, often by bus or plane, be it Jordan to Syria or by plane perhaps direct to Syria. So their objection is that there's no sense of real vigorous screening of the males crossing the border, meaning that if they fit a certain profile, there's no questioning of them. They just let people go. It's not suspicious if they have very little money, you know, narrow possessions, think they're going for a very short trip. There's no effort to stop them, according to the US military officers I've spoken with -- or the Iraqis, for that matter.

Goodman: And what are the military brass saying about the fact that they are Saudi? I mean, I think most people in this country, they now believe there are a number of Iranians fighting in Iraq, not Saudis, in the same way that probably many people in the United States don't realize the vast majority of those who flew the planes on 9/11 were Saudi and not Iraqi.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: white house, saudi arabia, iran, insurgents, iraq

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Go Visit Sometime.
Posted by: gellero on Jul 20, 2007 1:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course most of the foreign fighters are Saudis......Iranians are way too smart to follow Wahabiism or blow themselves up. Those who havn't been there ( I was in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan when I was a student ) don't know the reality of porous borders, lack of government control, and endemic corruption.
But fighters have to be paid, and they have to be armed. There appears to be evidence Iran is doing just that.
Do you think that those who glorify death of 'apostate' civilians would hesitate to get a suitcase nuclear device in the USA ?? The Weak Willies of this country had better wake up.
A hostile Iran IS the enemy, unless you think we should sacrifice Israel to them. If we did, the Israelis would nuke the Iranians in a millisecond. The resultant lack of energy resources for the WORLD would cause a worldwide depression like we have never seen.
Just remember, most of what you buy comes from China...and it takes FUEL to get it here. Unless you think you can survive with a bike and a vegetable garden.
You'd be much better off with 100 Krugerrands and 10,000 rounds of ammo........at least you'll be able to buy some food with that..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Go Visit Sometime. Posted by: farhada
» RE: Go Visit Sometime. Posted by: farhada
» I Love Iranians Posted by: gellero
» RE: I Love Iranians Posted by: farhada
» Who's paying the Saudis? Posted by: eddie torres
» ASPEN Posted by: gellero
» Bottom Line.... Posted by: gellero
» And who's paying you? Posted by: justaguy
I might be able to live with a bike and a vegetable garden...
Posted by: PirateJesus on Jul 20, 2007 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It depends on the size of the garden. Personally, I'd rather we stop getting crap from China, but then I'm a filthy localist. (Yes, I realize the irony that most of my computer parts were made in Taiwan.)

As I understand it, the Iranians are mostly providing support to keep the US from attacking them next. The US has done this exact same things many times. Iran's hope, no doubt, is to get us to leave them alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

911 insidejob.net
Posted by: Bushguiltyof911 on Jul 20, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
even though Amy Goodman does a good job compared to other media personalities, as long as she continues to make comments referring to 9/11 as the statement below, then she will unconsciously support the official 9/11 conspiracy, instead of the truth that elements of the Bush administration and the globalists planned and orchestrated 9/11 and used the 19 Arab terrorists as patsies.

the following is one of Amy Goodman's statements in this article.

And what are the military brass saying about the fact that they are Saudi? I mean, I think most people in this country, they now believe there are a number of Iranians fighting in Iraq, not Saudis, in the same way that probably many people in the United States don't realize the vast majority of those who flew the planes on 9/11 were Saudi and not Iraqi.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 911 insidejob.net Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: 911 insidejob.net Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: 911 insidejob.net Posted by: Conservasaurus
smoke and mirrors
Posted by: wawa on Jul 20, 2007 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am writing you from Jerusalem today and on page 1 of Haaretz, the Jordanian FM is quoted:

"The heart of the problem in the [Mid East] region is the Palestinian problem."


Lieberman said: "I had an Arab diplomat say to me two weeks ago that what is happening in the Middle East today reminds him of what happened in Europe during the 1930s, when Nazi Germany began to make moves and the rest of Europe and the United States did not act quick enough to stop the Second World War."


I ASK: What about the 40 years of Occupation, which according to International law is to be TEMPORARY, maintain the status quo and NOT transfer one's population into occupied territory. There are mow 149 ILLEGAL Jewish only settlements/colonies and over a half a million Israeli's now live in illegal territory.


THERE was no Hamas or al-Qaeda before Israel began it's occupation.


LIEBERMAN continues: "...because if Iran and al-Qaeda take over Iraq, they will destabilize the entire Middle East"


I respond it is destabilized already and Bush's war and doctrine of fear are major reasons.


e
http://www/wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: smoke and mirrors Posted by: aonghus36
» I TOTALLY AGREE Posted by: HistArch
» Continue the occupation Posted by: gellero
» RE: Continue the occupation Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: Continue the occupation Posted by: gellero
and over half of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis
Posted by: kellysgarden on Jul 20, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is, IF you are even gullible enough to believe there were even hijackers on those planes. Some of those "hijackers" have turned up alive and well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» AUTOPILOT Posted by: gellero
I think the reason it is "supposed" to be Iranian insurgents is...
Posted by: aonghus36 on Jul 20, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...because the Iranians apparently want a nuclear bomb, and wanted one for some time. Some say this is the real reason we invaded Iraq. Iraq would be a good jumping off point on our way to Iran. The problem with this is before the present leaders came into power in Iran; there were some moderates that offered to help invade Iraq back in '03, and offered to cut off support for Palestinians extremists. Dick Cheney threw the offer back in their faces. Now we have extremists running Iran. Good job, Dick, you a*s.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CITE YOUR SOURCES........ Posted by: gellero
» LOL Posted by: gellero
Fill em all up please!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jul 20, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One might remember Giulaini's saying NO THANKS to the Saudi gov't offer of millions in aid to the city (NY) after 9-11.. at least he had the balls to call it like it is...

At what point do we not sell our country for the pleasure of rich Hollywood liberals driving bloated SUV's, private jets and mega yachts.... while they protest our efforts to keep them in the comfort they demand!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fill em all up please! Posted by: farhada
» RE: Fill em all up please! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Fill em all up please! Posted by: Conservasaurus
How about stating that IEDs come from Iran, rather than from us?
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 20, 2007 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Warehouses filled with explosives, including WMD materials, were being guarded by the UN inspectors before the official attack began. The UN told Rumsfeld that their inspectors would be pulled if the US invaded. Rumsfeld apparantly had more important things to worry about- he had no plan to guard these facilities, and they were systematically looted. The UN inspectors watched it all via satellite- truck after truck pulled up to the warehouses and stocked up with explosives... where to? Who knows?

But now we have pundits having these serious, sober discussions about how IEDs in Iraq are probably coming from Iran.

Unbelievable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ho, hum
Posted by: willymack on Jul 20, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two things should be etched into the minds of even the rockheads in our country. One is that ANYTHING this regime does is bad for us and probably bad for the rest of the world as well. The second is that they'll NEVER tell the truth about anything they do. We need to rid ourselves of these cannibals, but all anybody's doing right now is waiting for somebody else to get things started. At that rate, we'll all die of old age with the status quo intact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why would the Saudis want to stem the tide of recruits?
Posted by: dkm on Jul 20, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To some extent it is counterproductive for them to stem the flow to the insurgency in Iraq because these people may come back to haunt the Saudis when the mess in Iraq is over. But on the other hand, they have a problem already in the Kingdom with radicals. Allowing them to go to Iraq to die as suicide bombers serves two purposes. One it to get them out of Saudi Arabia and safely dead. The other is to prevent the Shias from consolidating their position in Iraq.

I suspect that the Saudis are betting that the mess in Iraq will be an ongoing process for many years and they needn't fear the return of many of their homegrown terrorists after training. I suspect that they are right. Certainly none of the Republican candidates for president show any desire to reduce the mess, and the leading candidate on the Democrat side shows even less desire to do anything substantial even though she is now talking a different line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Damnit, you stole my post! Posted by: hurricane hugo
Cognitive dissonance...
Posted by: justaguy on Jul 20, 2007 6:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is alive and well in the authoritarian following minds of the western world.

In 2003 we were supposed to swallow the myth that Iraq had WMDs and that they presented an imminent danger to us. We were led to believe that their armed forces and their weaponry and, by extension the infrastructure, was a well honed, battle hardened force that required billions of dollars of shock and awe to defeat.

Now, we're supposed to believe that Iraqis are incapable of making roadside, unarmoured Humvee piercing bombs without Iranian knowhow.

Sure, I buy that. Let's nuke 'em now before they invade Europe and North America and turn us into goose stepping Hitler saluting automatons.

Quick. Fear. Muslims. Caliphate. Fear. They're killing our boys. Hilter. Fear. Terroro. Al Qaeda. Fear. Be frightened. Shhhhh. Stop thinking, trust us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran's Refusal to Play by US Rules
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 20, 2007 7:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, the insurgents in Iraq are mostly Saudi's. This thing is a civil war and has been from day one. Now, first of all, Saddam had to go because after he invaded Kuwait, (without Washington's permission), he became "persona non-grata." The Kuwait's were big US buddies and Saddam had to be taught a lesson. Now, the problem with the Iranians is that they are now threatening to price oil in Euros or another non-US currency. This scares the hell out of Washington because oil has always been priced in the USA dollar. With oil de-pegged from the price of crude, what happens to the trillions the USA has in outstanding debt? A lot of countries, China included which has an outstanding US dollar reserve of $1.3 trillion, could easily and rapidly dump those dollars for other currencies. The result, the American economy goes down the tubes, and fast. As for Israel, much of it's economy is interlinked to the tune of billions with Wall Street and American corporations, and it's defense apparatus is highly dependent on the largesse of the USA. She can also not afford for Iran to debase the US currency. What Washington would settle for now is reassurance and written promise from the Iranians not to depeg oil from the dollar.

As no doubt Iran has been told in "secret meetings," just "play ball." and then we can be "best buddies" again, just like we were with Saddam before he invaded Kuwait, we were with the Shah, and we are now with the Saudi's (no matter how many terrorist nut-jobs they send our way). But, Iran won't "play ball," and so it will go on and on. Next, we will hear more stories about Iranian's doing this or developing that weapon, etc. Shades of the WMD thing Bush II had with Saddam. However, if the Iranian's just "play ball," and not insist on going their "independent ways,' from Washington, this would all change.

As for "democracy," and "freedom," etc., etc., yeah right? You believe this? I mean, even the conservatives can't be that stupid, or can we sell them some land on the moon!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SAUDI $$$$
Posted by: gellero on Jul 20, 2007 11:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They won't dump the $$ because most if their money is invested here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wrong. Posted by: justaguy
what's the difference
Posted by: bohdan on Jul 23, 2007 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the Russians invaded and occupied Afghanistan, they set up a government to their liking, and had elections to justify their chosen rulers. Anyone who was against their rule was labeled as a criminal and terrorist. As a result, the United States government trained and supported Muslim Mujahedeen insurgents in their attempt to overthrow the “occupying” power, Russia.

The tactics were simple: shoot, bomb, and destroy the enemy so as to drive them out of their homeland. History has now repeated itself, only the names and places have changed and the spin cycle has renamed the sides.

Now, the invading occupiers are the United States and the new “insurgents” (jihadists) are Al Qaeda, and Iraqis. And the occupiers are a Western Government under a different name: The United States instead of Russia. And the United States armies are also engaging in atrocities against innocent Iraqi citizens just as the Russians did.

So what’s the difference if this time it's Iran instead of a western power? How dare we condemn Iran and Syria for supplying and training insurgents against the "new" invaders and occupiers of Islamic lands. It’s only natural. Isn't it the duty of any country’s citizen to fight to the last breath in removing any occupying power from their homeland. That is the history of all mankind in all its wars and will not change for the sake of moral charades. Al-Qaida is not the only force trying to remove the American occupiers; Iraqis themselves are also in that pursuit.

How hypocritical of Bush and his spin ministers to portray themselves as the “good guys” and Iran as the unholy supporter of terrorists or “insurgents”. I’m sure that Russia was calling the United States the same when Russia occupied and promoted a regime change in Afghanistan. And we saw the result there --- a defeat for the Russians and the start of the decline of the Soviet Union.

Nothing will be different this time either except for the name of the defeated. As with all invading armies, the United States too will leave as a defeated, spent force.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what's the difference Posted by: richholland
‘an illegitimate occupation" does not mean I love you and want you to stay
Posted by: Gaubladt on Jul 24, 2007 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quote from Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah regarding American military presence in Iraq: ‘an illegitimate occupation,’ So how do you figure that in a conversation he would tell our dear Vice President Cheney that he wanted us to stay in Iraq? The fact is that nobody knows exactly whay they said. But, a guy who says that we have no business being there probably wants us to go. Not only that, when it turns out the millions of dollars and hundreds of suicide bombers are meandering from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, one has to surmise that they are going with King Abdullah's good graces. So, why do people insist on defying reality and believing otherwise.
This has become a neurosis. It all stems from media conditioning of the American people by movies like Star wars and Laurence of Arabia. People, wake up, King Abdullah is not Alec Guiness in a head-dress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]