Iran Nuclear Plans Start New Calls for Sanctions

By ALAN COWELL and THOM SHANKER New York Times PARIS — Iran told the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency on Monday that it would begin enriching its stockpile of uranium for use in a medical reactor, prompting officials from the United States, France and Russia to call for stronger sanctions against Tehran. Late Monday in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that it had received a letter from Iran declaring its intent to begin enriching uranium up to 20 percent. The agency’s statement gave no date for starting the enrichment, though Tehran said that might come as early as Tuesday. Tehran’s decision elicited a sharp reaction in the West. In Paris, the visiting United States defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, said the Obama administration and its allies had done all they could to entice Iran to negotiate. “All of these initiatives have been rejected,” he said. While “we must still try and find a peaceful way to resolve this issue, ” he said, “the only path that is left to us at this point, it seems to me, is that pressure track. But it will require all of the international community to work together.” Even in Russia, which along with China has consistently resisted sanctions against Iran, there were calls for stronger action against Tehran. Konstantin I. Kosachyov, the head of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of the Russian Parliament, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as urging the international community to prepare “serious measures.” At issue is a proposal for Iran to send its uranium stockpile outside the country to be enriched and processed into fuel rods for use in the medical reactor. This was attractive to the West because it would deprive Iran of stockpiles that it could convert into bomb fuel, while providing Tehran with fuel rods that would be very difficult to use in a weapon. Iran was reported last October to have accepted the proposal, but later backed away. Western officials say Iran has rejected the deal, but Tehran accuses the West of failing to respond to its proposals. If Russia does join the other world powers in backing President Obama’s call for tougher United Nations sanctions, that would isolate China, which has said such action could make finding a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis even more difficult. The United States has begun circulating ideas for possible sanctions among its closest allies on the Security Council and is hoping that Iran’s announcement might convince China that Tehran’s real purpose is to create a weapon, and not the civilian use of nuclear energy. Calling Iran’s move provocative, a senior American official said that the decision to enrich to 20 percent, if carried out, would suggest that Iran’s “intentions are not as they stated.” Iran’s nuclear program is one of the most contentious issues between the West and Tehran, which asserts its right to a peaceful nuclear program and rejects Western suspicions that it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon. In recent days Iran has sent a perplexing series of conflicting signals. In its letter to the nuclear agency, Iran set out a plan to begin enriching its stockpile to 20-percent purity, news reports said. That is high enough for use in the medical reactor but significantly lower than the 90 percent levels needed for weapons. The worry is that any effort to produce 20-percent enriched uranium would put the country in a position to produce weapons-grade uranium in a comparatively short time, nuclear experts say. That is alarming to, among others, the Israeli leadership, which has called an Iranian nuclear weapon an “existential threat.” It remains far from clear that Iran has the capacity to enrich fuel to the level ordered by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is apparently seeking to increase pressure on the West to reopen negotiations on providing fuel for the medical reactor on terms more favorable to Tehran. Indeed, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, was quoted by Reuters as suggesting that Tehran’s planned enrichment efforts would be halted if Iran received fuel enriched to 20 percent from abroad. He also said a previously announced plan to build 10 new enrichment plants would begin in the next Iranian year starting on March 21, Reuters reported. In another development, The White House and European Union issued a statement Tuesday expressing concern about signs of a renewed crackdown by Tehran around the approaching anniversary of the founding of the Islamic Republic.

China's debt bomb

By ARTHUR HERMAN 'He who pays the piper calls the tune": That old saying captures perfectly America's growing dependence on our No. 1 creditor in the world, Communist China. By their carelessness Congress and the Obama administration are steadily handing over control of America's economic and financial future to a handful of Chinese officials and generals in Beijing. Those who think the Chinese won't use that control if they feel they have to are ignoring history -- and the Chinese. The ancient military strategist Sun Tzu said that the best strategy was to render an opponent's army helpless even before the battle began. America may still have the biggest and best military in the world. But many at the Pentagon are starting to realize that, thanks to our growing fiscal irresponsibility, we may be surrendering control of America's destiny to a rival superpower -- and all without a shot being fired. Consider the scale of the problem. With President Obama's 2010 budget, 42 cents of every dollar the federal government spends will have to be borrowed. In the last decade, foreign investors have wound up lending us roughly half of all federal debt -- with just two countries, China and Japan, providing nearly half of that sum, or 44 percent, through the purchase of US Treasury securities. China now tops Japan as our biggest lender by some $30 billion a year, at $789 billion. (By comparison, our No. 3 lender, Great Britain, comes in at a measly $277 billion). But that's not all. As its booming economy becomes more global, China is also the world's largest holder of foreign-currency reserves. Most of that is in US dollars. Indeed, without most Americans realizing it, China has become the largest foreign holder of US dollars in the world. How many dollars foreign exchange traders at the Bank of China decide to sell or buy on any given day is increasingly determining whether the dollars in our purses and wallets buy a little or a lot. Seen from one angle, this dependence on China for the value of our national currency and the funding of our debt is like our dependence on inexpensive Chinese exports for our standard of living: the inevitable fruit of today's interlocking global economies -- and poor planning on our part. Seen from another, more strategic angle, it may spell disaster. History shows that nations that can't control their economic fortunes don't control much else. Debt freezes destinies -- as every credit-card holder knows. Europeans discovered that after World War II, when they lost the power to make major decisions without first checking with their lender-in-chief, the United States. At that time, we used our economic dominance to rebuild Europe, not reduce it to impotence. On the other hand, If US-China relations continue to deteriorate -- over arms sales to Taiwan, Internet freedom issues, Chinese industrial espionage and a Chinese military build-up that looks more and more like it's directed at challenging US power in Asia -- our lenders-in-chief in Beijing may not be so scrupulous. Indeed, back in 1999, the Chinese literally wrote the book on how to use economic asymmetries as a blunt instrument, entitled "Unrestricted Warfare." It draws no meaningful distinction between military, economic and political force (including using cyberspace) as means to defeat an enemy. Instead, it shows how a nation can dominate its opponents not with planes, ships and soldiers, but with foreign exchange rates, trade embargoes and armies of computer hackers. Suppose that in retaliation for some slight China decides to stop buying Treasury bonds, forcing our debt to cost us even more. A furious US Congress hits back with trade sanctions. China then responds by driving up the price of the dollar, crippling US exports -- or, alternately, it crashes the dollar by dumping its foreign reserves, even as Chinese computer hackers slow down our banks' ability to respond to the crisis. No one will call this a war. But it will certainly fit the classic definition of war as politics by other means. And the Pentagon knows it. Last March, the Pentagon held its first-ever economic-warfare war game, with China as the putative opponent and with economists and bankers (including from UBS) helping out. Details of what unfolded are still classified. However, sources told Fox Business News that the scenario played out as planned. That was the good news. The bad news is that China won. Today, some experts argue that rational self-interest will prevent China from waging this kind of economic warfare, because crippling the US would also severely wound its own economy. However, on an issue like Taiwan or Japan, rational judgment can take a backseat to national pride, and the desire to reverse old humiliations. That war game was almost a year ago, when the Federal deficit was half of what it is today. And China is moving out of its short-term debt positions -- although slowly enough not to roil the credit markets. In any case, Bracken and others argue that we need more coordination between the Treasury and the Pentagon on ways to deal with a vulnerability that seemed entirely theoretical then, but now seems all too real. Still others are pushing for rules restricting the future sales of Treasury securities to foreign buyers. All this, however, is only playing catch up. The real issue is whether we get our fiscal house in order, and realize that a $12 trillion national debt and a crippled economy could leave us as vulnerable as we once were on a December Sunday morning 69 years ago, at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Iraqi court lifts mass ban on candidates, cutting risk of Sunni election boycott

By Leila Fadel and Qais Mizher Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, February 4, 2010; A08 BAGHDAD -- An Iraqi appeals court on Wednesday overturned an effort to bar hundreds of candidates from Iraq's upcoming national elections, reducing the risk of a Sunni boycott that could render the entire process illegitimate. The panel asked Iraq's electoral commission to postpone until after the March 7 parliamentary elections the appeals of hundreds of candidates accused of allegiance to deposed president Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. The candidates would be allowed to run, and those elected would deal with their appeals then. If deemed unfit, they would be prohibited from taking office. The plan, which Iraqi officials said Vice President Joe Biden proposed in phone conversations last month, means the judicial panel would probably face only a handful of appeals cases, rather than having to process several hundred in less than two months. Electoral commission officials said Wednesday that they will not make a decision until they are officially informed of the appeals court's decision Thursday. The United States and United Nations have pushed for transparency in the appeals process, fearing that if the mass ban is seen as a sectarian or politically motivated move by the Shiite-led government, Iraq's large Sunni Arab minority will refuse to vote. Most Sunni Arabs boycotted the last national elections, in 2005, to protest the U.S.-led occupation. A powerful insurgency ensued, targeting the government and its foreign backers. The Supreme National Commission for Accountability and Justice, assigned to purge Hussein loyalists from government, announced the ban last month, sending shock waves through Iraq's fragile political system. The panel barred more than 500 candidates; some were Shiites, but the most prominent were Sunni. The commission condemned Wednesday's appeals court decision as unconstitutional and said the judges had been unduly influenced by the United States. "I appeal to the government and the Foreign Ministry in particular to ask the American Embassy in Baghdad to stop its interference and pressures on the accountability and electoral commissions," said Ali Faisal al-Lami, the head of the commission, speaking on state television. Lami, who is running as a candidate, said in a phone interview that the ruling is illegal and that the electoral commission has no right to authorize the candidates to run. "The appeals committee should come to us for every step," he said. "We are the only ones that have the authority to deal with this overturning." Iraq's Shiite-led government has pushed hard to weed out Hussein-era officials from public offices and security forces, a policy initiated by the United States shortly after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. But many contend that the policy has gone too far, penalizing innocent people and depriving Iraq of skilled government workers. The U.S. Embassy welcomed Wednesday's decision as a step toward legitimate elections. U.S. officials said they had yet to see the ruling but dismissed Lami's criticism that they had infringed on Iraq's sovereignty. "Mr. Al-Lami should take up his complaint with the Court of Cassation, not the U.S. embassy," Philip Frayne, an embassy spokesman, said in an e-mail. Also Wednesday, at least 20 people were killed and 117 injured when a motorcycle laden with explosives detonated among Shiite pilgrims converging on the southern city of Karbala. The attack was the second in three days to target pilgrims walking to the holy city to mark a Shiite commemoration.

US envoy says Iraq election on March 7 must be seen as fair

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill talks to The Associated Press in Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, Feb. 1, 2010. America's ambassador to Iraq says he thinks a fierce controversy over a ballot purge of candidates who are suspected Saddam Hussein loyalists will be resolved before March 7 parliamentary elections. Hill says he believes Iraq's government will open its vetting process to show voters why certain candidates were disqualified from running. Baghdad (Iraq) LARA JAKES Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. ambassador to Iraq outlined twin challenges Monday to the unsteady democracy's elections next month: assuring that voters and rival factions accept the result and then making sure the losers step aside quietly. Christopher Hill said the March 7 parliamentary balloting will likely shape Iraq's path long after the U.S. military pullout. It also will test Sunni-Shiite cooperation to quell violence — which struck again Monday as a suicide bomber killed at least 54 Shiite pilgrims. The vote, delayed from January, will be the last major election in which the U.S. military is helping with security. At stake are some of the country's most ambitious goals, including political and sectarian reconciliation and finalizing a law governing the oil industry, on which Iraq's economy is almost solely dependent. In an interview with The Associated Press, Hill said he was confident Shiite political leaders would soon settle a seething debate over the purge from the ballot of about 450 candidates accused of being loyalists to Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. The blacklist is widely seen as targeting Sunnis, even though Shiite candidates are also on the list. He predicted the Iraqi government would fully explain the reasons for banning each of the candidates because "there should be a situation where people don't scratch their heads at why certain people have been included on the list." "We don't want a situation where some people, or some groups of people, do not accept the outcome" of the election, he said. "That can make the security situation problematic." Among those barred from running is prominent Sunni politician Salah al-Mutlak, who has acknowledged he was a Baathist until the late 1970s, when he quit the party. An Iraqi court dismissed al-Mutlak's appeal and 41 others this week, said Hamdiya al-Hussaini, a member of the independent elections commission. A clear reason why was not immediately available. A high-profile sheik in Anbar province, Awakening Council leader Ahmed Abu Risha, is weighing whether to urge fellow Sunnis to boycott the election if the purge continues. His group was one of the first of Sunni insurgents to side with U.S. forces against al-Qaida. A perception among Sunnis that they are being shut out of the election could set back progress the U.S. military made in 2006 and 2007 in reversing the insurgency, which threatened Iraq with civil war. A breakdown in security could also hamper U.S. plans to withdraw all combat troops by the end of August, a move that is critical to President Barack Obama's new focus on Afghanistan. Violence has ebbed substantially across Iraq over the last two years. But in a grim and all-too-familiar reminder of sectarian attacks, Iraqi security officials said a female suicide bomber who hid explosives beneath her long black abaya cloak killed at least 54 people in Baghdad on Monday as Shiite pilgrims headed to the southern city of Karbala ahead of a Shiite holy day. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has staked his political future on an alliance with fellow Shiites and moderate Sunnis — all seeking to portray themselves as reliable leaders by citing improvements in overall security and hints of economic gains such as recent oil deals with foreign investors. But al-Maliki faces Shiite rivals from among religious parties and from his own interior minister, who has forged a bloc with the Sunni sheik Abu Risa. In his embassy office in the Green Zone, Hill spoke of what he called "the day after" — the transition into the new government's rule. He predicted it will "take a lot of time" for the government to get up and running — mostly to ensure balance and inclusion among competing political forces. After Iraq's last parliamentary election in 2005, bickering between and within political parties and religious groups delayed the new government from being seated for months. Part of that was because of U.S. insistence that Sunni lawmakers be given some power to balance out majority Shiite leaders. If the ballot purge leads to disputed election results, the government could be delayed even longer. International election observers believe a disputed election that leads to chaos could easily inflame insurgents who already have sent political messages in the forms of car bombs and suicide bombers to target government buildings in four spectacular attacks in Baghdad since August, including one last week. "What will help determine whether these elections are successful or not is not the behavior of the winners, but rather how the losers accept the elections," Hill said.

Gates' QDR Envisions a Do-It-All Military

By JOHN T. BENNETT The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) unveiled Feb. 1 envisions a U.S. military that would be very different than the one Defense Secretary Robert Gates found upon taking office in 2006. The much-anticipated review calls for a force shaped for a wide swath of activities in many hotspots, not one only shaped to simultaneously fight two peer militaries. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen speaks Feb. 1 at a news briefing at the Pentagon to discuss the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and the 2011 U.S. defense budget. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seated to his left. (JEWEL SAMAD / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE) The 2010 review keeps a requirement for a force capable of conducting two major contingencies at once, but it "breaks from the past … in its insistence that the U.S. Armed Forces must be capable of conducting a wide range of operations." Related Topics Americas Air Warfare Land Warfare Naval Warfare And it's no short list, ranging from two big operations to "homeland defense and defense support to civil authorities, to deterrence and preparedness missions, to the conflicts we are in and the wars we may someday face," the QDR states. Gates, during a briefing at the Pentagon, told reporters he found the Cold War-era force planning construct "too confining," and felt it "didn't represent the real world" in which the U.S. military will operate for years to come. The secretary prompted the change in the Pentagon's force planned construct months ago. As the QDR process was getting underway, Gates told reporters he asked DoD researchers and planners what would happen if the U.S. military, which already is involved in a pair of major operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, faced another serious challenge. Examples the secretary listed included a major earthquake like the one that destroyed much of Haiti last month and a major domestic disaster. The new construct "stresses the importance of fielding forces that are versatile and that, in aggregate, can undertake missions across the full range of plausible challenges," according to the QDR. "Because America's adversaries have been adopting a wide range of strategies and capabilities that can be brought to bear against the United States and its forces, allies, and interests, it is no longer appropriate to speak of 'major regional conflicts' as the sole or even the primary template for sizing, shaping, and evaluating U.S. forces," the review states. Instead, the quadrennial study calls for a U.S. force "prepared to conduct a wide variety of missions under a range of different circumstances." It goes on to describe operations that "may vary in duration and intensity for maritime, air, ground, space and cyber forces." Some former officials and analysts have raised concerns about the notion of creating a military largely composed of so-called "full-spectrum forces," meaning they are able to do many things. One source who reviewed a copy of the quadrennial study before it was publicly released said he worries it is pushing for a generalist U.S. force. "That notion is a total misnomer," the source said, adding he feels forces should have a clear and strong expertise. The Pentagon seems to have heard such alarms. "Ensuring flexibility of the whole force does not require each part of the force to do everything equally well," the quadrennial review states. "Not all challenges pose the same degree of threat to national interests, rely on U.S. military capabilities equally, or have the same chance of occurrence." The new force-shaping model was derived from what the draft report calls the Pentagon's four defense strategy priorities: "prevail in today's wars; prevent and deter conflict; prepare to succeed in a wide range of contingencies; and preserve and enhance the force." Sources say the priorities are known within the QDR process as "the Four Ps." The study also establishes frameworks that look beyond the five-year DoD budget plan that was rolled out along with the QDR. "Whereas [past] QDRs have often emphasized shaping the force beyond the five-year time frame, this QDR, of necessity, had to focus intensively on present conflicts as well as potential future needs," it states. "Our force-sizing construct therefore takes into account the realities of the current operational environment. In order to shape the force of the future, however, the construct also establishes sizing criteria for the midterm [5–7 years] and long term [7–20 years]." The study also hints Obama administration defense officials agree with many Pentagon observers who have long said past QDRs failed to make a lasting impact because they often aren't implemented within the Pentagon's annual budgeting process. "To ensure a tight coupling of strategic ends to means, the QDR force-sizing construct is defined according to the priority objectives of the defense strategy," the study states. Additionally, the draft QDR says Pentagon officials built the review around six key mission areas: defend the United States and support civil authorities at home; conduct counterinsurgency, stability and counterterrorist operations; build partnership capacity; deter and defeat aggression in anti-access environments; impede proliferation and counter weapons of mass destruction; operate effectively in cyberspace. The QDR calls for steps to ensure success in each mission area that could influence Pentagon procurement and research accounts. For defending the homeland, initiatives include enhancing crisis response forces, speeding development of nuclear and radiation detection tools, and bolstering counter-IED tools to thwart potential bomb attacks inside the United States. Under the counterinsurgency-stability-counterterror goals, the QDR calls for increased availability of helicopters, unmanned and manned ISR planes, increasing "enabling assets for special operations forces." For "deterring and defeating" foes in "anti-access environments," the QDR cites a list of steps: more long-range strike systems; "exploit advantages in subsurface operations"; enhance ISR platforms; and assure access to space. The QDR raises cyberspace operations to the top of the department's focus list. Here, the Pentagon must "develop a more comprehensive approach to DoD operations in cyberspace." Also needed are "greater cyber expertise and awareness," and better organization and command of cyber activities within DoD and across the federal government, it states. Meantime, the QDR also spawned a follow-on study that will "determine what combination of joint persistent surveillance, electronic warfare, and precision-attack capabilities, including both penetrating platforms and stand-off weapons, will best support U.S. power projection operations over the next two to three decades." That study will inform budget plans for long-range strike programs for fiscal 2012 through fiscal 2017. Reaction to the QDR from Capitol Hill has been largely predictable, with Democrats praising the strategic review and Republicans voicing questions and concerns. The top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said in a statement he is "concerned we are not making the necessary investments in research and development - as well as across-the-board investments in our weapons platforms - that will be required to meet the threats outlined in the Quadrennial Defense Review." Industry analysts say the review will create new opportunities for defense firms in realms like cyber security, giving a boost to helicopter- and unmanned aircraft makers.

Iran's Defiance Spurs Rise In U.S. Military Defenses

By PETER SPIEGEL Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON—The U.S. and its allies in the Persian Gulf have stepped up their military defenses in recent months in response to Iranian missile tests and Tehran's continued defiance of international efforts to curtail its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials. The moves, which have included upgrades, new purchases of American-made Patriot antimissile batteries and the addition of advanced air- and missile-defense radars, illustrate both growing concern with the Iranian moves and a new willingness by Arab allies in the region to more publicly tie their defenses to the U.S. "President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad has been the best recruiting officer for U.S. Central Command in the Gulf region," said a senior U.S. military official. View Full Image Associated Press A U.S. Navy boat patrols the harbor in Manama, Bahrain. Although some of the buildup has been going on for years—the Bush administration repeatedly sent envoys to the region in a bid to persuade Gulf allies like Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar to link their air and missile defenses in response to Iranian saber-rattling—the heightened profile of the moves comes as the Obama administration has toughened its rhetoric against Tehran. After months of attempting to engage Iran in nuclear diplomacy, the administration has been working in recent weeks to win an international consensus for a new round of sanctions against Iran. Another U.S. official said the willingness of Gulf allies to work more closely with the U.S. on their defenses is a sign of shifting attitudes toward Iran. "Clearly the opportunity cost of working with the U.S. in the region has come down," said the official. Some of the new initiatives were described publicly by Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, in a January address to the Institute for the Study of War in Washington. In the address, Gen. Petraeus said countries in the region were improving their shared early-warning air- and missile-defense systems by signing bilateral deals with the U.S. to share radar data, which can then be pulled together into a more sophisticated regional system. Gen. Petraeus also said that Gulf allies have increased purchases of weapons, including advanced fighter planes and that four countries have acquired new Patriot batteries. In addition, he said, the U.S. has deployed two Navy cruisers armed with sophisticated Aegis radar and ballistic-missile defenses to the Gulf to provide further defenses. Beyond Iran's missile tests and nuclear program, he said, the U.S. and its Gulf allies also have grown increasingly concerned about Iran's army of proxy extremists in Iraq, Gaza and elsewhere in the region. In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Friday, retired Gen. James Jones, the White House national-security adviser, said the U.S. believes increased pressure on Iran from both international sanctions and domestic unrest could lead it to use proxies to stoke violence. "History shows that when regimes are feeling pressure, as Iran is internally and will externally in the near future, it often lashes out through its surrogates," he said.

Key Al Qaeda leader killed in Iraq raid, US military confirms

By Chelsea J. Carter, Associated Press | January 29, 2010 BAGHDAD - A key Al Qaeda in Iraq figure involved in smuggling hundreds of suicide bombers across the border from Syria has been killed in a raid in northern Iraq, the US military said yesterday. The military called the death a blow to the insurgent organization in Iraq, but acknowledged it remains very much capable of carrying out well-planned, coordinated assaults with large body counts. A series of attacks against three hotels and a police crime lab in Baghdad this week killed dozens. The US military said it had confirmed the identity of the operative through fingerprints and other means. The man was identified as Saad Uwayid Obeid Mijbil al-Shammari, also known as Abu Khalaf, the military said in a statement. Abu Khalaf was killed Jan. 22 during a joint US-Iraqi raid in the northern city of Mosul, about 60 miles from the Syrian border. He was killed after he broke free from his restraints and attacked his guard, the military said. He was believed to have been moving foreign fighters across the border since 2006, the same year a US air strike killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The military said he also worked as a financier, gathering and distributing money and weapons to Al Qaeda throughout the country. Earlier this week, General Raymond Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq, said intelligence indicated there were five to 10 main insurgent leaders planning the attacks in Baghdad. Odierno also said there has been a decline in the number of foreign fighters crossing from Syria into Iraq, citing political pressure from Damascus and beefed-up security along the border. In an interview yesterday, Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani of Iraq said Al Qaeda has been hampered by the decreased number of foreign fighters. “The decline in the infiltration of terrorists has weakened Al Qaeda. But we think that Al Qaeda and other networks linked to it are still able to carry out some operations,’’ Bolani said.