Don’t dismiss this op/ed piece as some whack-job conspiracy theory, there are plenty of those. The dynamics of 9/11 makes one thing clear, there was a successful conspiracy to bring down the twin towers and attack our seat of Government. That attack, ten years ago, was the most successful attack on the United States to date. It required planning, preparation, secrecy…it was, in every way, by definition, a conspiracy. Does that mean our government conspired to somehow let it happen? No, I don’t believe that. Does that mean that some in our government knew it could happen? Without question, they have admitted as much. Here is a piece I wrote last year on the 9th anniversary of 9/11. Questions that are serious and remain in the forefront of my mind in this terrible day.

Hindsight is 20/20 or so the saying goes. In our collective minds to make sense of things that seemingly make no sense it is easy to think “conspiracy”, however, it is just as easy and perhaps easier to believe the official report. Our desire for an “official report” of any catastrophe shows our need for answers as to how something so horrible can happen. There are many, many conspiracy theories about 9/11. From the collapse of the towers, to allegations of bombs being involved to reports on one blog that “airplanes never really hit the towers” followed by “the hijackers are alive and well in the middle east.”

To understand how something like 9/11 happens, you have to dissect it asking real questions but keeping in mind that any unproven theory is just that, a theory. What is abundantly clear on researching the disaster of 9/11 is that U.S. law enforcement agencies did not track down every lead, did not follow up on every report and may have missed significant incidents that pointed to specific culprits in the most devastating attack on this country since Pearl Harbor. The FBI and CIA admitted as much in the final 9/11 report before Congress. At the very least, a horrible lack of communication and cooperation contributed to the success of the terror mission on the United States but there may be more…much more.

This journalist decided on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 to ask questions. If for no one else, than for myself. I am sharing with you what I have found through investigation and research. You can take it with a grain of salt, check it out for yourself, discount it or believe it but there are lingering questions about that day that still give me pause for concern. I have been covering news for 35 years. I have been an eyewitness to major events that have impacted public conscience. I have reported and written about them. What I am sharing is my take on that day in September, 2001 based on my life experiences and professional abilities as advanced or limited as they may be.

An event such as 9/11 requires motivation. There is no doubt in my mind that the terrorists who stand accused of this attack were and are motivated by a deep hatred of this country, our culture and us in general. For the terrorists, extremists with a deep faith in Islam and jihad, no motivation was needed to attack “the great Satan.” Finding people that were or are willing to sacrifice everything for a chance at such an attack is not difficult to understand in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It’s important to remember that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were martyrs, assured that there deaths would actually be a passage into an after-life of unparalleled beauty and comfort, things that they could not find on this earth. It is just as important, and cannot be understated, that martyrdom is a means to an end but is not, in and of itself, an end.

My suggestion is that the 9/11 terrorists, guilty of 9/11 without question, were only one part of a bigger, well financed and intricate plot on the United States. Bringing this thought down to it’s most basic level is this. Who or what stands to gain the most from a terror attack on the United States? A terror attack committed by Egyptians and Saudi Arabians, all of whom shared a deep and very public faith in Islam? Saddam Hussein? The Taliban in Afghanistan? The Saudi Royal Family? Pakistan? Anyone of those entities or nations would have been foolish, in fact stupid, to have had any known role in the terrorist attack on the United States. Anyone of those entities, regardless of how they truly feel about us, our culture or are very existence thrive or have thrived off of our investments, money, love of drugs, our oil consumption, illegal drug consumption…whatever. The United States may be a convenient enemy of many foreign state’s but we remain a great customer of there goods.

The likely answer as to who stood the most to gain and who is most likely involved on a level that would shock the living hell out of most people is not that hard to understand, academically. Israel, our closest ally and most hated nation, in the middle east clearly gained more from 9/11 than any other political entity outside the United States itself. The Jews and Muslims have hated each other since the beginning of time. That deep-seated hatred is nowhere more evident than in the middle east itself, the State of Israel in particular where the very existence of the country is always threatened.

Don’t assume that this journalist makes this suggestion lightly or has an axe to grind. Neither is the case. I have always admired the ability of the Israeli’s to provide for themselves, protect themselves and to ensure their survival…ironically…these traits likely led to their clandestine support of the 9/11 terrorists. It’s hard for most people to envision a world where the Jewish State could utilize Islamic extremists to attack the United States to further their own goals. To better grasp the enormity of this or how it would be possible, you have to understand that the Mossad, Israel’s top-secret intelligence agency, is regarded as the best in the world. The best at what? Whatever suits Israels needs.

The Mossad is broken down into different  departments although it’s exact set-up is largely unknown. Global Security experts believe the Mossad has 8 departments broken down as follows. The Collections Department is the largest, with responsibility for espionage operations, with offices abroad under both diplomatic and unofficial cover. The department consists of a number of desks which are responsible for specific geographical regions, directing case officers based at “stations” around the world, and the agents they control. The Political Action and Liaison Department conducts political activities and liaison with friendly foreign intelligence services and with nations with which Israel does not have normal diplomatic relations. In larger stations, such as Paris, Mossad customarily had under embassy cover two regional controllers: one to serve the Collections Department and the other the Political Action and Liaison Department. There is, of course, a Research Department responsible for intelligence production, including daily situation reports, weekly summaries and detailed monthly reports. The Department is organized into 15 geographically specialized sections or “desks”, including the USA, Canada and Western Europe, Latin America, Former Soviet Union, China, Africa, the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia), Libya, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran. A “nuclear” desk is focused on special weapons related issues.

The most sinister of Mossad’s departments and the two most likely to have played a role in the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States are the Special Operations Division also known as Metsada which conducts highly sensitive assassination, sabotage, paramilitary, and psychological warfare projects. Equally dirty is the LAP (Lohamah Psichlogit) Department which is responsible for psychological warfare, propaganda and deception operations.

Israel clearly had the motivation for 9/11. Always threatened by it’s neighbors a frequent recipient of terrorism itself, the State of Israel has a history of self preservation on a scale equaled perhaps only by our own. With the worlds acceptance of Muslims growing in Europe and the United States over the past decades, Israel, no doubt, has been feeling even more isolated by its impossible stance against Islam based on it’s own deeply religious convictions. U.S. envoys went to Tel Aviv during the first Gulf War to beg the Israeli’s for restraint as Iraqi Scud Missiles fell on Israeli soil. The concern then, and now, that any attack by Israel on any Muslim nation would unleash a horrendous holy war that would lead to world war three. The Israeli’s obliged but became more weary of the United States alliance with Saudi Arabia in the war against Iraq. Israel, for years, had protested the United States sale of advanced fighter jets to the Saudi Royal Family. This world alignment, with the United States allying with Islamic countries against extremists threatened Israel or so they thought.

The motivation for 9/11 is so clear and obvious to me, it’s almost impossible to understand how anyone could have missed it. On the surface, the United States and Israel are the closest of allies. We always have been. That fact makes the suggestion of Israeli involvement impossible for some to swallow. It is only with a clear understanding of Israels self preservation instincts, the Gulf War and the growth of Muslim acceptance in the west that makes it obvious.

For anyone to think that a terrorist organization, housed in the caves of Afghanistan, carried out an orchestrated, major, intricate and successful attack on the United States is, on it’s face, crazy. There are likely only three intelligence agencies in the world who could have helped to orchestrate such events. The CIA, the Mossad and the British Secret Intelligence Service. Of those three, only the Mossad had the motivation. Many countries could have provided terrorist funding to carry out the attacks but only Israel had the motivation. Of all the nations on the earth, only one had both motivation and the ability to fund terror operations, the State of Israel.

No, I am not suggesting the Israeli’s approached Osama Bin Laden through any traditional means, yet the Mossad is more than capable, through a front organization on a level of secrecy that is still unknown to most of us to make this happen. The clandestine activities of the Mossad are well known in intelligence circles and it’s penchant for attacking Israel’s enemies is unparalleled. Remember the LAP (Lohamah Psichlogit) Department which is responsible for psychological warfare, propaganda and deception operations? They are more than capable of helping any rogue terrorist organization carry out it’s goals with complete anonymity as to the real source of the help. The Israeli art of deception in this underground world is unmatched.

9/11 served Israels purposes. The American people still believe they were attacked by Islamic radicals which is obviously true but the reason for the attacks was rooted in Tel Aviv not just the mountains of Afghanistan. The Mossad could never carry out an attack on an Israeli ally but it could damn sure provide technical expertise and money for the terrorists who would. Take note, President Obama has been strangely cold toward Israel and it’s leaders. Is it possible that he is aware of what really happened on 9/11 and cannot stomach our two-faced, deadly but very necessary ally in the Gulf region? Why does it seem there is less emphasis on catching Bin Laden? Could it be because U.S. military and intelligence sources now know the truth and Bin Laden and his band of terrorists are not that much of a threat after all?

This story continues to unfold and I am not the only one suggesting the Israeli-Al Quaida connection. Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera: “All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992. Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and ’80s. Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they termed “false flag” operations—terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcher Webster Tarpley saying “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.” Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America’s propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.

The connection between Israel and the 9/11 terrorists is hard to ignore when the leader of a sovereign nation, Italy, also a U.S. ally is on the record saying it happened. Then, of course, there is 9/11 itself. “The dancing Israeli’s” celebrating the attacks in Manhattan…

Mossad
The Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks
ha-Mossad le-Modiin ule-Tafkidim Meyuhadim

Mossad [Hebrew for “institution”] has responsibility for human intelligence collection, covert action, and counterterrorism. Its focus is on Arab nations and organizations throughout the world. Mossad also is responsible for the clandestine movement of Jewish refugees out of Syria, Iran, and Ethiopia. Mossad agents are active in the former communist countries, in the West, and at the UN.

Mossad is headquartered in Tel Aviv. The staff of Mossad was estimated during the late 1980s to number between 1,500 to 2,000 personnel, with more recent estimates placing the staff at an estimated 1,200 personnel. The identity of the director of Mossad was traditionally a state secret, or at least not widely publicized, but, in March 1996, the Government announced the appointment of Major General Danny Yatom as the replacement for Shabtai Shavit, who resigned in early 1996. Danny Yatom resigned on February 24, 1998, following the release of the Ciechanover Commission report which dealt with the failed attempt to assassinate Khalid Meshaal, a top Hamas political leader, and thus found faults with his performance as head of Mossad. Yatom was replace in early March 1998 by Efraim Halevy, then Israel’s representative to the European Union. Halevy, as a Mossad agent, had previously worked behind the scenes to help negotiate the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.

Formerly known as the Central Institute for Coordination and the Central Institute for Intelligence and Security, Mossad was formed on 01 April 1951. Mossad was established by then Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, who gave as Mossad’s primary directive: “For our state which since its creation has been under siege by its enemies. Intelligence constitutes the first line of defence…we must learn well how to recognise what is going on around us.”

Mossad has a total of eight departments, though some details of the internal organization of the agency remain obscure.

• Collections Department is the largest, with responsibility for espionage operations, with offices abroad under both diplomatic and unofficial cover. The department consists of a number of desks which are responsible for specific geographical regions, directing case officers based at “stations” around the world, and the agents they control.
• Political Action and Liaison Department conducts political activities and liaison with friendly foreign intelligence services and with nations with which Israel does not have normal diplomatic relations. In larger stations, such as Paris, Mossad customarily had under embassy cover two regional controllers: one to serve the Collections Department and the other the Political Action and Liaison Department.
• Special Operations Division, also known as Metsada, conducts highly sensitive assassination, sabotage, paramilitary, and psychological warfare projects.
• LAP (Lohamah Psichlogit)Department is responsible for psychological warfare, propaganda and deception operations.
• Research Department is responsible for intelligence production, including daily situation reports, weekly summaries and detailed monthly reports. The Department is organized into 15 geographically specialized sections or “desks”, including the USA, Canada and Western Europe, Latin America, Former Soviet Union, China, Africa, the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia), Libya, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran. A “nuclear” desk is focused on special weapons related issues.

Israel’s most celebrated spy, Eli Cohen, was recruited by Mossad during the 1960s to infiltrate the top echelons of the Syrian government. Cohen radioed information to Israel for two years before he was discovered and publicly hanged in Damascus Square. Another Mossad agent, Wolfgang Lotz, established himself in Cairo, became acquainted with high-ranking Egyptian military and police officers, and obtained information on missile sites and on German scientists working on the Egyptian rocket program. In 1962 and 1963, in a successful effort to intimidate the Germans, several key scientists in that program were targets of assassination attempts. Mossad also succeeded in seizing eight missile boats under construction for Israel in France, but which had been embargoed by French president Charles de Gaulle in December 1968.

In 1960, Mossad carried out one of its most celebrated operations, the kidnapping of Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann from Argentina. Another kidnapping, in 1986, brought to Israel for prosecution the nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, who had revealed details of the Israeli nuclear weapons program to a London newspaper. During the 1970s, Mossad assassinated several Arabs connected with the Black September terrorist group. Mossad inflicted a severe blow on the PLO in April 1988, when an assassination team invaded a well-guarded residence in Tunis to murder Arafat’s deputy, Abu Jihad, considered to be the principal PLO planner of military and terrorist operations against Israel. Gerald Bull, a Canadian scientist who developed the famed “Super Gun” for Iraq was killed by the Mossad at his Brussels apartment in March 1990, effectively halting the development of the Supergun project.

Egyptian security services reported the discovery of a total of seven Israeli espionage networks during 1996, which is a significant increase compared to the 20 similar networks discovered in the previous 15 years.

And Mossad’s record has also been blemished by a few embarrasing failures. In Lillehammer, Norway, on 07 January 1974, Mossad agents mistakenly killed Ahmad Boushiki, an Algerian waiter carrying a Moroccan passport, whom they mistook for PLO security head Ali Ahmad Salameh, believed to have masterminded the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics [Salameh was killed in a 1979 car-bomb explosion in Lebanon]. Following the attack, the Mossad agents were arrested and tried before a Norwegian court. Five Israeli agents were convicted and served short jail sentences, though Israel denied responsibility for the murder. In February 1996, the Israeli government agreed to compensate the family of Ahmad Boushiki.

On 15 November 1995, Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli citizen. Following the controversy over the failure of intelligence to protect Rabin, and the embarrassment over the mistaken assassination of a Swedish national, the Director Geneneral of Mossad, known only as ‘S’, was forced into retirement. On 24 March 1996, Prime Minister Shimon Peres appointed Major General Danny Yatom as the new Director General of Mossad, the first Director of Mossad to ever be publically identified.

On 24 September 1997, Mossad operatives attempted to assassinate Khalid Meshaal, a top political leader of the Palestinian group Hamas. The assassins entered Jordan on fake Canadian, and injected Meshaal with a poison. Jordan was able to wring a number of concessions out of Israel in the aftermath of the fiasco, including the release of the founder of Hamas, Shaykh Ahmad Yasin, from an Israeli jail.

Ephraim Halevy, a nephew of the late Sir Isaiah Berlin [who helped to negotiate a peace deal with Jordan], became the new head of Mossad after two bungled operations led to the arrests of agents in Switzerland and Jordan. Mossad scaled down overseas assassinations after the bungled operations in the late 1990s. But by 2002 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to remove Halevy, after the two clashed repeatedly about what strategy to adopt against Palestinian violence

In October 2002 General Meir Dagan, who served in the Israeli Army with Ariel Sharon, and assisted him during his election campaign, was confirmed as head of Mossad. Dagan led an undercover commando unit that tracked and killed Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. Sharon wanted Mossad to go back to the undercover and special operations for which it was renowned.

This commentary has been abbreviated - the full article is available at:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/456zfygd.asp

Radical Islam is not yet a great idea, but it is a dangerous one. And on September 11, it arose.

On September 11, American foreign policy acquired seriousness. It also acquired a new organizing principle: We  have an enemy, radical Islam; it is a global opponent of worldwide reach, armed with an idea, and with the tactics,  weapons, and ruthlessness necessary to take on the world's hegemony; and its defeat is our supreme national  objective, as overriding a necessity as were the defeats of fascism and Soviet communism.

That organizing principle was enunciated by President Bush in his historic address to Congress. From that day forth, American foreign policy would define itself -- and define friend and foe -- according to who was with us or against us in the war on terrorism. This is the self-proclaimed Bush doctrine -- the Truman doctrine with radical Islam replacing Soviet communism.

THE NEW WORLD ORDER

The post-September 11 realignments in the international system have been swift and tectonic. Within days, two  Great Powers that had confusedly fumbled their way through the period of unchallenged American hegemony in the 1990s began to move dramatically. A third, while not altering its commitments, mollified its militancy. The  movement was all in one direction: toward alignment with the United States. The three powers in question -- India,  Russia, and China -- have one thing in common: They all border Islam, and all face their own radical Islamic  challenges.

First to embrace the United States was India, a rising superpower, nuclear-armed, economically vibrant,  democratic, and soon to be the world's most populous state. For half a century since Nehru's declaration of  nonalignment, India had defined itself internationally in opposition to the United States.  September 11 made the transition instantaneous. India, facing its own Taliban-related  terrorism in Kashmir, immediately invited the United States to use not just its airspace but its military bases for the campaign in Afghanistan. The Nehru era had ended in a flash. Nonalignment was dead. India had openly  declared itself ready to join Pax Americana.

The transformation of Russian foreign policy has been more subtle but, in the long run, perhaps even more far-reaching. It was symbolized by the announcement on October 17 that after 37 years Russia was closing its massive listening post at Lourdes, Cuba. Lourdes was one of the last remaining symbols both of Soviet global ambitions and of reflexive anti-Americanism.

The third and most reluctant player in the realignment game is China. China is the least directly threatened by radical Islam.  It has no Chechnya or Kashmir. But it does have simmering Islamic discontent in its western provinces.  It is sympathetic to any attempt to tame radical Islam because of the long-term threat it poses to  Chinese unity. At the just completed Shanghai Summit, China was noticeably more accommodating than usual to the United States. It is still no ally, and still sees us, correctly, as standing in the way of its aspirations to hegemony in the western  Pacific.  China's posture of sympathetic neutrality is thus a passive plus: It means that not a single Great Power on the planet lies on the wrong side of the new divide. This is historically unprecedented. Call it hyper-unipolarity. And for the United States, it is potentially a great gain.

With Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa on the sidelines, the one region still in play -- indeed the prize in the new Great Game -- is the Islamic world. It is obviously divided on the question of jihad against the infidel.  Bin Laden still speaks for a minority. The religious parties in Pakistan, for example, in the past decade never got more  than 5 percent of the vote combined.  But bin Ladenism clearly has support in the Islamic "street."  True, the street  has long been overrated.  During the Gulf War, it was utterly silent and utterly passive. Nonetheless, after five years  of ceaseless agitation through Al Jazeera, and after yet another decade of failed repressive governance, the street is more radicalized and more potentially mobilizable. For now, the corrupt ruling Arab elites have largely lined up with the United States, at least on paper.  But their holding power against the radical Islamic challenge is not absolute. The war on terrorism, and in particular the Afghan war, will be decisive in determining in whose camp the Islamic world will end up: -- that of the United States, the West, Russia, India -- or Osama bin Laden's.

THE WAR

The asymmetry is almost comical. The whole world against one man.  If in the end the United States, backed by every Great Power, cannot succeed in defeating some cave dwellers in the most backward country on earth, then the entire structure of world stability, which rests ultimately on the pacifying deterrent effect of American power, will  be fatally threatened.

Which is why so much hinges on the success of the war on terrorism.  Initially, success need not be defined globally. No one expects a quick victory over an entrenched and shadowy worldwide network. Success does,  however, mean demonstrating that the United States has the will and power to enforce the Bush doctrine that governments will be held accountable for the terrorists they harbour. Success therefore requires making an example of the Taliban. Getting Osama is not the immediate goal. Everyone understands that it is hard, even for a superpower, to go on a cave-to-cave manhunt.

After September 11, the world awaited the show of American might. If that show fails, then the list of countries lining up on the other side of the new divide will grow. This is particularly true of the Arab world with its small, fragile states. Weaker states invariably seek to join coalitions of the strong.  For obvious reasons of safety, they go with those who appear to be the winners.  Great Powers, on the other hand, tend to support coalitions of the weak  as a way to create equilibrium.

The Arab states played both sides against the middle during the Cold War, often abruptly changing sides (e.g., Egypt during the '60s and '70s). They lined up with the United States against Iraq at the peak of American unipolarity at the beginning of the 1990s.  But with subsequent American weakness and irresolution, in the face both of post-Gulf War Iraqi defiance and of repeated terrorist attacks that garnered the most feckless American military responses, respect for American power declined. Inevitably, the pro-American coalition fell apart.

The current pro-American coalition will fall apart even more quickly if the Taliban prove a match for the United  States. Contrary to the current delusion that the Islamic states will respond to American demonstrations of solicitousness and sensitivity (such as a halt in the fighting during Ramadan), they are waiting to see the success of American power before irrevocably committing themselves. The future of Islamic and Arab allegiance will depend on whether the Taliban are brought to grief.

The assumption after September 11 was that an aroused America will win. If we demonstrate that we cannot win,  no coalition with moderate Arabs will long survive. But much more depends on our success than just the allegiance of that last piece of the geopolitical puzzle, the Islamic world. The entire new world alignment is at stake.

States line up with more powerful states not out of love but out of fear. And respect. The fear of radical Islam has created a new, almost unprecedented coalition of interests among the Great Powers. But that coalition of fear is held together also by respect for American power and its ability to provide safety under the American umbrella.

Should we succeed in the war on terrorism, first in Afghanistan, we will be cementing the New World Order -- the expansion of the American sphere of peace to include Russia and India (with a more neutral China) -- just now beginning to take shape. Should we fail, it will be sauve qui peut. Other countries -- and not just our new allies but even our old allies in Europe -- will seek their separate peace. If the guarantor of world peace for the last half century cannot succeed in a war of self-defence against Afghanistan(!), then the whole post-World War II structure -- open borders, open trade, open seas, open societies -- will begin to unravel.

The first President Bush sought to establish a New World Order. He failed, in part because he allowed himself to lose a war he had just won. The second President Bush never sought a New World Order. It was handed to him on Sept. 11. To maintain it, however, he has a war to win.

Charles Krauthammer is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.