Al Qaeda's Nuclear Ambitions

Ayman al-Zawahiri promises to make his next smoking gun a mushroom cloud.

BY ROLF MOWATT-LARSSEN | NOVEMBER 16, 2010

American authorities managed to foil al Qaeda's latest plot to attack -- via hidden explosives in mail parcels -- but the long-term question remains unanswered: How can they ensure that they stay one step ahead of the terrorist group?

The good news is that there's no need to wonder what the terrorists' strategic and tactical goals are -- one need only listen to what their leaders have already told us. The bad news is that we no doubt won't like what we hear. Al Qaeda's leaders yearn to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction against the United States; if they acquired a nuclear bomb, they would not hesitate to use it. Indeed, such an attack would be meant to serve as a sort of sequel to the 9/11 plot.

The evidence for those intentions aren't hidden in encoded communications or classified intelligence. Quite the opposite: They're hidden in plain sight. Just as Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa to declare war on the United States in 1998, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a fatwa a decade later to herald a prospective next stage in the conflict. If we take him at his word, some day jihadists will use weapons of mass destruction to change history once and for all.

Of course, al Qaeda leaders have spoken of acquiring weapons of mass destruction for well over a decade. They have had little observable success in achieving their goals of producing a nuclear bomb or biological weapon capable of producing mass casualties. Fortunately, it is extremely difficult, but not impossible, for a terrorist group to acquire a strategic weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Nonetheless, the al Qaeda core has kept at it over the years, in the hopes that time and opportunity will enable it to overcome the daunting challenges in this regard.

What has changed recently is that the goal is no longer theoretical, but operational -- a change spurred by Zawahiri's intervention. Rather than follow bin Laden in issuing a religious edict, Zawahiri chose to release a book in 2008 titled Exoneration. In it, he resurrects a fatwa issued by senior Saudi cleric Nasir al-Fahd in May 2003 -- notoriously, the only such treatise that ever endorsed the use of WMD. Zawahiri adopts Fahd's ideas wholesale. He uses the same ideas, thoughts, examples, and scholarly citations to reach the same conclusion: The use of nuclear weapons would be justified as an act of equal retaliation, "repaying like for like."

Zawahiri raises key Quranic themes to sweep away all potential objections to the use of WMD. He offers answers to questions about the legality of killing women, children, and the elderly; the justice of environmental destruction; the morality of harming noncombatants; the tactical prudence of attacking at night; and analyses of deterrence. Zawahiri adopts Fahd's examples verbatim: The Prophet Mohammed's attack on the village of al-Taif using a catapult, for instance, permits the use of weapons of "general destruction" incapable of distinguishing between innocent civilians and combatants.

The take-away from Zawahiri's book is that the use of weapons of mass destruction should be judged on intent rather than on results; if the intent to use WMD is judged to be consistent with the Quran, then the results are justifiable, even if they clearly violate specific prohibitions under Islam. The same reasoning is applied in a detailed explanation of such matters as loyalty to the state, contracts, obligations, and treaties; the permissibility of espionage; and deception and trickery. For example, on the topic of Muslims killed in combat unintentionally in the fight against infidels: "When Muslims fight nonbelievers, any Muslim who is killed is a martyr."

Aside from its general endorsement of WMDs, we should pay special attention to two operational messages embedded in Zawahiri's book.

 SUBJECTS: NUKES, AL QAEDA, TERRORISM
 

Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. He served over three decades in the U.S. Army, CIA, and Energy Department. An extended version of this article was published by the Belfer Center and can be found here.

JAYDEE001

4:41 PM ET

November 16, 2010

Well, they have to get the weapons first

Their most likely source is Pakistan - our 'ally' in the War On Terror.

The west faced annihilation on a much more real and present scale for decades when it stood against the Soviet Union. The concept of Mutual assured destruction prevented the virtual end of civilization. If Zawahiri wants to contemplate the morality of such weaponry, and dismiss all arguments against them with clever arguments drawn from his own interpretation of scripture, he can also perhaps contemplate the destruction of much of Islam's culture and its holiest cities as a form of retaliation.

As for worrying about the possibility of a major strike against the US, it will probably do no good at all. Our society was apparently ill-prepared for 9-11, although there were certainly warning signs. Our "homeland security" apparatus has to be effective 100% of the time to prevent further acts of terror on our soil; the terrorists only need to succeed once. The odds are in their favor as long as they have the will to try.

Of course, we could try to do less to pi$$ off the Islamic world. Try not invading their countries, stop deposing their leaders, using them as pawns in some geopolitical game of monopoly, and talking about our military adventures as 'crusades'. Minding our own business and working with people of like minds around the world on advancing the interests of those who are not terrified of modernity might help.

 

JOHN STEVENSON

1:38 AM ET

November 17, 2010

Did you hear that a nuclear

Did you hear that a nuclear submarine, one of Englands Trident fleet, ran ashore in Scotland a month or two ago. These kind of 'mishaps' are really concerning to say the least. I can not imagine the chaos a group like this could cause with such weapons. I can't imagine Pakistan or any other names around that area supplying them with something so powerful.

 

JBROCKLE

9:02 AM ET

November 17, 2010

No

It was an Astute class nuclear submarine that ran aground, not a Trident. The Astute is a nuclear submarine (nuclear reactor) but it carries no nuclear weapons.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

1:38 PM ET

November 17, 2010

khalid mufti

So it's your contention that Pakistans nuclear arsenal is more secure than our own? REALLY? That's your contention? I mean, you know that the country is essentially run by the ISI, to the point that President Zardari has even proclaimed that he fears them. And, you must also know that the ISI has MANY, MANY islamist sympathizers within its ranks. It was the ISI afterall that created/supported the Taliban, trained the Mumbai attackers, and provided training and shelter to AQ before 9/11...and possibly after. They are in charge of the nukes. You still feel that they are secure? I sure dont. I mean, they might be well guarded, but are they "secure"...no. This is why the CIA drew up a plan to airdrop mines around the nuclear complexes in case Pakistans government collapsed. This is a real danger. you can try pointing finger at the US all you want, but that doesnt change the fact that Pakistan is, by almsot anyones standards, the most dangerous/precarious country on the face of the earth. It is a REAL problem.

 

AEHSAN

1:33 AM ET

November 17, 2010

Small matter of proof Dr. K

Fact # 1 - Any recent eveidence beyond hearsay? US intel reports from 4-5 years ago are not recent. Fact #2 - Again any evidence? And lastly by the way I am all for disarming Pakistan from its nukes - where I differ significantly is the right methods. Force/sanctions is/are a non-starter as it is counter-productive and DIDN'T WORK (Remember the 90's Pakistan? Iraq? Hell Afghanistan?). Economic incentives (Trade not military aid), a push for peace, well thats new. Trying that might even work better in helping tpo at least secure Pak nukes better than even today.

 

HRIS

10:09 AM ET

November 17, 2010

Pakistan needs to be invaded

Pakistan needs to be invaded to remove ISI and keep control of the nuclear weapons.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

1:32 PM ET

November 17, 2010

what military do you intend

what military do you intend to use for that exactly? The U.S.? We are forward deployed across the globe, and engaged in two simmering insurgencies. What troops do you propose we use for such a mentally retarded endeavor...against a nuclear power.

 

HRIS

10:28 AM ET

November 17, 2010

time for another crusade

better late than never

 

DRLAKE777

12:04 PM ET

November 17, 2010

What a load of garbage. This

What a load of garbage. This is just another attempt to scare us into poorly thought out abuses of US military might using the nuclear boogeyman. Dick Cheney would be so proud!

 

HURRICANEWARNING

1:30 PM ET

November 17, 2010

maybe

this is all a little too like the boy who cried wolf. Because of Cheney and friends we are always going to be skeptical about threats, but every now and then, the threats will be real. just like the wolf was. This time, THE THREAT IS REAL, no question. AQ doesnt have the capability yet, and no one says they do, but they are actively seeking out such a capability.

 

TEXASAG08

3:07 PM ET

November 17, 2010

I don't buy it

Not saying that this isn't something that we shouldn't be concerned with, but I think the threat of a nuclear terrorist attack is overblown. Honestly, how likely is it that they will be able to acquire a WMD, much less be able to use it properly? I think there are just too many things that could go against them, and the fear of retaliation would prove too great for a state like Pakistan to be willing to supply them with a weapon. Really, though, the best thing to avoid an attack is to re-think our policy in the region and not meddle with the internal affairs of other nations.

 

THAT BLACK GUY

3:53 AM ET

November 18, 2010

Well isnt this just exciting.

Not sure why we're so focused on a guy who looks like the local bums i pass on the streets of the inner city in Germany. These jababas are all the same (And no Jababa is not a derogetory term, in fact its not even a real word). Attacking all "non believers" - rhetoric slays me. I think in order to prevent from having to qualm with one another they just convert to Islam to avoid infighting. Doesnt it say in the quran that Muslims shouldnt associate/speak with non-muslims? that makes for a pretty one sided conversation when the only disagreeable points you have with your name is how to interrupt what quotes of from the quran actually mean.

And big deal, Mohammed used a catapult against some village. Arent terrorists into more "surprise" style attacks and not well thought out and contemplated (not to mention extremely expensive) plans revolving around nuclear attacks? It just seems to me that there are a few things missing here.
1. How, if they do aquire a nuke would they get it to the U.S?
2. Where would they get it from, and how would we (the international community) not know about it?
3. Dont they realize (or perhaps they just dont care), that the level of retaliation against terrorists would make the holocaust look like a flesh wound on history?

I suppose its difficult to pin these fellas down but it really just seems like this fella is trying to keep the fire going by coming up with his own explanations for justifiable war with the infidels. Makes me wonder how many literate radical farmers are out there indulding in this material during break times in the outhouse. I mean for comical purposes this seems like a book id keep for light reading above the toilet anyway.

 

HRIS

9:53 AM ET

November 18, 2010

these muslims may be very dangerous

it is better if we strike first

 

HSAQIB17

5:43 AM ET

November 18, 2010

They need to find justification for use of WMD outside Islam....

The al Qaeda duo's edict for use of WMD is based on twisted evidence. They are neither qualified to issue edicts nor their edict conforms to any postulate of Islam's war ethics. They will have to go outside Islam to find justification for their designs. Read more at: http://pksecurity.blogspot.com/2010/11/al-qaeda-will-have-to-go-outside-islam.html

 

GUNNEROIF2003

5:09 PM ET

November 18, 2010

One question....

If al Qaeda is trying to get a clean/dirty nuke weapon why is this such a concern of the American people today? Since 9/11 we spent 7 years, and wasted more money than you can imagine on everything BUT taking out al Qaeda. In 2003 when I would pass through Bagdad International Airport (BIAP) I use to see pallets, one after another delivered daily on US Air Force jets in US currency being carted off by Iraqi armored trucks. At that time there were no al Qaeda in Iraq nor were there any extremist terrorist groups; Saddam didn’t allow it. Also if you go back and check we only had around 5,000 to 7,000 troops in Afghanistan and over 150,000 in Iraq.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and our Government ignored the real threat (thus OIF) and allowed al Qaeda to plan, train, execute missions after the Taliban were removed. These terror groups had 7 years to get it together and now all of a sudden this is a huge crisis for this country? And by the way, there were NO WMD in Iraq and our spook agencies knew this.

Our leadership, civilian and military should feel embarrassed, disgraced and held accountable for their actions (jail time would be a good start since it was criminal). Ours citizens should feel embarrassed by not holding their elected officials in check.

YOU CAN’T CHANGE TRIBAL CULTURES THAT ARE 6,000 YEARS OLD INTO A DEMOCRACY LIKE OURS (USA) WHICH IS ONLY 230+ YEARS OLD. My 11 year knows this so why can’t career politicians get this figured out? It’s because they have an AGENDA that conflicts with what’s really important to the people of the USA.

It’s disgusting because of the lives wasted over messed up priorities and these clowns got away with it and still are today. Wake up people! As a side note I and 4 of my siblings were deployed to Iraq between 2003 and 2005; 3 of us are 100% disabled from that little trip.

 

FALAS105

7:00 PM ET

November 18, 2010

ONLINE STORE—“ ====

ONLINE STORE—“ ==== http://xrl.us/bh7rym ====

Christan Audigier bikini $23

Ed Hardy Bikini $23

Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $16

Sandal $32

christian louboutin $80

Sunglass $15

COACH_Necklace $27

handbag $33

AF tank woman $17
dddddd
puma slipper woman $30

=== http://xrl.us/bh7rym ==

 

RKLM

8:28 PM ET

November 18, 2010

What a nonsense

The Pakis and the ISI tutune son routinely offer to "go between" and act as a proxy if we ever want to talk to the Taliban leadership - all while sinema claiming they can't go after them because of tv shop a lack of resources.

 

HRIS

4:23 AM ET

November 19, 2010

no need for Pakistan to be independent

it will be better off as a colony

 

RANIAGUSTIN

8:49 AM ET

November 20, 2010

Pakistan as a Training Camp & Nuclear Arms Supplier?

Pakistan is a Commonwealth of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's United Kingdom. United Kingdom is a lair and source of elite terrorists.

I could not rationalize and validate at the moment the possible relationship between the UK and Al Qaeda. Comrade Osama is a CIA-groomed in military skills but mentored philosophically and religiously by British-Muslims and/or Muslims Clerics Asylum Seekers in UK.

I wonder why US government could not question the UK foreign policy on Asylum/Immigration regarding the special treatment for Muslim Activists.

Kenyan US President Comrade Obama is also from a Commonwealth state of Her Majesty.