Muayed Al-Nasseri is Our Enemy (and Iraq’s)

by

There’s not much more to add to this stunning interview captured by memri.org. The interview of al Nasseri, commander of the Army of Muhammed, was aired by an Iraqi TV channel that operates from the UAE, Al-Fayhaa TV. It again shows that the so-called insurgents are enemies of freedom and democracy, and that they are aided and abetted by the governments of Syria and Iran. Some excerpts from al Nasseri:

The Army of Muhammad was founded by Saddam Hussein after the fall of the regime, on April 9, 2003. At first, Yasser Al-Shab’awi was put in charge, until his capture in July 2003. Then Sa’d Hammad Hisham was in charge until December 2003. Then I was put in charge from January 2004 until now. The Army of Muhammad has some 800 armed fighters…

…We carried out many armed operations against the coalition forces in all the districts. The operations included bombarding their military posts, their camps, and their bases, fighting these forces, and planting explosive devices against their patrols and convoys…

…The organization was a military armed one, which operated according to a method of non-centralized command…The Army of Muhammad is militarily independent. After Saddam Hussein’s capture in December 2003, for a period [of] four months, the Army of Muhammad had no connections with the party, but after April 2003, there was a meeting with the party and we are currently coordinating with them. In addition, Saddam Hussein distributed a communique via the party, back then, instructing all his supporters or whoever wants to fight the Jihad for the sake of Allah, to join the Army of Muhammad because it is the army of the leadership…

…Today, the leader of the party is ‘Izzat Ibrahim. He is the leader of the [Ba’th] party in Iraq. Next in line is Fadhl Al-Mashhadani, who is responsible for the local organizations within Iraq. Then, there is Muhammad Yunis Al-Ahamd, who is responsible for the organization outside Iraq. He is currently in Syria…

…Many factions of the resistance are receiving aid from the neighboring countries. We in the Army of Muhammad – the fighting has been going on for almost two years now, and there must be aid, and this aid came from the neighboring countries. We got aid primarily from Iran. The truth is that Iran has played a significant role in supporting the Army of Muhammad and many factions of the resistance. I have some units, especially in southern Iraq, which receive Iranian aid in the form of arms and equipment…money and weapons…

…As for other factions of the resistance, I have reliable information regarding the National Islamic resistance, which is one of the factions of resistance, led by Colonel ‘Asi Al Hadithi. He sent a delegation to Iran from among the people of the faction, including General Halaf and General Khdayyer. They were sent to Iran in April or May and met with Iranian intelligence and with a number of Iranian leaders and even with Khamenei…

…According to my information, they met with him [Khamenei] personally, and they were given one million dollars and two cars full of weapons. They still have a very close relationship with Iran. They receive money, cars, weapons, and many things. According to my information, they even got car bombs…

…In addition, as I’ve told you, Syria… Cooperation with Syria began in October 2003, when a Syrian intelligence officer contacted me. S’ad Hamad Hisham and later Saddam Hussein himself authorized me to go to Syria. So I was sent to Syria. I crossed the border illegally. Then I went to Damascus and met with an intelligence officer, Lieutenant-Colonel ‘Abu Naji’ through a mediator called ‘Abu Saud.’ I raised the issues that preoccupied Saddam Hussein and the leadership. There were four issues: First, the issue of the media; second, political support in international forums; [third], aid in the form of weapons, and [fourth], material aid, whether it is considered a debt or is taken from the frozen Iraqi funds in Syria…

…Through the Ba’th party – the Arab Socialist Ba’th Party operates in Syria with complete freedom. It maintains its relations and organizes the Ba’th members outside Iraq. The Syrian government is fully aware of this, and the Syrian intelligence cooperates fully, as well as the Ba’th Party, in Syria…

…As for the Ba’th Party, after we contacted them, they organized a meeting for me with a man named Fawzi Al-Rawi, who is a member of the national leadership and an important figure in Syria. The Syrian government authorized him to meet with me. We met twice. In the first meeting, I explained to him what the Army of Muhammad is, what kind of operations we carry out, and many other things. In the second meeting he told me that Syrian government officials were very pleased with our first meeting. He informed me that the Army of Muhammad would receive material aid in the form of goods, given to us for free or for a very low price, for us to sell in Iraq, in order to support the Army of Muhammad. This was done this way due to Syria’s current circumstances, international pressure, and accusations of supporting the terrorism and resistance in Iraq…

For me, two questions arise from this. First, did Memri translate the interview accurately? I have no way of knowing, but I’m not aware of their translators making mistakes of interviews like this. Second, was al Nasseri telling the truth? Again, it’s hard to know, but it doesn’t seem like he’s participating in a disinformation campaign. He sounds more like a guy who’s boasting of his accomplishments. In either case, al Nasseri is a Saddam loyalist with no other goal except to bring thuggish dictatorship back to this beleaguered country. This interview puts the lie to those who claim that the "insurgents" and terrorists are freedom fighters or are like the Minutemen of the American revolution.

14 thoughts on “Muayed Al-Nasseri is Our Enemy (and Iraq’s)”

  1. This seems really weird to me. One thing that seems to be going on is that he’s differentiating between his faction, which he wants to link to Hussein and Syria, and the “National Islamic resistance” (linked to a political party up for election, perhaps? I could I suppose find out), which he attaches to Iran.
    It’s hard for me to determine the credibility of either this guy or the translation, given my total lack of expertise in this area, but given the “my group vs. that other group” dynamics here, and given the current political context, this interview sounds a little, well, polemical.

  2. Memri has been quite frequently accused both of being very selective as to what it translates and of “gingering up” those translations. Juan Cole made detailed allegations along those lines quite recently.
    Emotions, rhetoric and evident boasting aside, there’s little new in this talk. Of course arms are coming over both the Syrian and Iranian borders – the US doesn’t have enough troops to stop that. More importantly, neither Syria or Iran could stop it even if they wished to (how do you think Saddam got through the sanctions all those years?).
    And of course the Syrian and Iranian governments are backing factions of the resistance – not necessarily the same ones (Iran is playing a very tricky double game here – backing Sistani but using some of his armed opponents both to force the pace along and to deter the US from aggression against themselves through a demonstration effect. Syria, in a terrible position, hopes to hurt the US enough so it just goes home and leaves them alone). But this sort of thing is exactly what was to be expected – not the “flowers and greetings” or “shock and awe” responses dreamt of by the neocons.
    You don’t have to believe the Vietcong were admirable people to believe it was a mistake to have fought them.

  3. I have heard complaints about MEMRI being selective (which would be unshocking to me) but the only time I’ve heard of even the accusation of ‘gingering up’ was the bin Laden tape where he may or may not have threatened individual Red States. After reviewing as much of the debate as I can without actually knowing Arabic, it appears that their translation was completely defensible and probably correct.

  4. Does it bother anyone that these are “televised confessions” of Muayed Al-Nasseri. First of all, is he the same guy as mentioned here?
    In a statement yesterday, Iraq’s interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said the leader of a militant group called the Army of Muhammad had been arrested. He identified the man as Moayed Ahmed Yassin.
    The Army of Muhammad is believed to be responsible for the beheadings of several Iraqi and foreign hostages, and is the armed wing of a group created by Saddam Hussein to fight for the return of his Baath Party, Allawi said.
    Is it plausible that an organization that is derived from Hussein’s Baath supporters is getting money from Iran? Are we sure that he is the right guy? I’m certainly not steeped in all this stuff, so if there are some links that would clear up these questions, please post them. Sebastian also references some debate, so if there is a link I am missing, please let me know.

  5. Sebastian: After reviewing as much of the debate as I can without actually knowing Arabic, it appears that their translation was completely defensible and probably correct.
    I recall the debate: I recall nothing showing that the MEMRI translation was either defensible or correct.

  6. Have a look here: Syria Comment, a very perceptive and knowledgeable blog about Syria.
    And do rmember that MEMRI has an agenda and is on one side in a declared war that is merely at an armistice at the moment.

  8. Ahh, I see, Seb was referring to the debate over the previous Memri kerfluffle. I note that Abu Aardvark has a whole section on Memri. I should also note that he’s closely followed the reaction to the tsunami and his reports on what was reported suggests all of our (by our, I mean the left side here) breast beating over the American reaction was overdone.

  10. This interview puts the lie to those who claim that the “insurgents” and terrorists are freedom fighters or are like the Minutemen of the American revolution.
    Exactly who is claiming that? Wait, look! Over there! Michael Moore! Quick, go argue with him!
    Let me explain to you the fallacy of the excluded middle, Chas. One does not have to believe that the Iraqi insurgents are “freedom fighters” (whatever that means), or morally defensible, or anything else to understand that they perceive themselves as defending their property from foreign invaders. Which, completely objectively, they are. You can understand that and deal with it and its implications, or you can set up strawmen — anyone here believe that the Iraqi insurgents, and any terrorists in-country, are the moral equivalent of American Revolutionaries or democratic movements? — and fight with them, then smugly pat yourself on the back for having defeated them. I know which one makes you feel better, but only one of them is really useful.

  11. This interview puts the lie to those who claim that the “insurgents” and terrorists are freedom fighters or are like the Minutemen of the American revolution.
    Name two people who say that.

  12. Incidentally, if this were untrue, I don’t think MEMRI would be the bad guy. The question would be whether what the politics behind the confession really are, what it means that Syria and Iran helped, etc. There’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup o’ the lip, or so I’ve been told.

  13. Charles, you need to think a little before you post these polemics. What is so revealing about this interview that is not already known?
    Everyone knows that Syria and Iran have some role in meddling in Iraq. However, the insurgency is not dependent on them, nor would it go away if outsiders were not meddling. Unfortunately, we are not in much of a position to do much about the meddling since our fearless leader would not and will not commit enough troops to even resolve Iraq properly. Think about what sort of message that has sent to Syria and Iran.
    Also, the current elections are going to result in Shia control that is nuetral-friendly toward Iran. The only real difference between Sistani and other Iranian clerics in Iran is one of degree — how much clerical involvement in government in order to make Iraq an Islamic state, rather than whether or not Iraq will be an Islamic state based on sharia law. Iran is going to come out ahead whether or not the insurgency is repressed (just like it has in Afghanistan, with Pashtun enemies diminished and Hazari and other factions that are Iran friendly on the ascendency).
    No one thinks of the insurgents as some sort of force for good or democracy.
    What they represent is a form of de facto civil war, except that the Americans are fighting the Sunni baathists at the moment for the benefit of the Shia instead of the Shia militia doing the fighting (and don’t they know and love it).
    Nearly everyone over there seeks to end our involvement — they are simply jockying for position in the aftermath. The Shia are the big winners of American intervention in Iraq, but I seriously doubt they’ll do much to repay the favor.

Comments are closed.