Understanding the Olympic terror threat

Image courtesy of Canada Free Press

By Douglas J. Hagmann

21 October 2014: What and who is behind the current terror threat at the Olympic games in Sochi? I was asked this question last night in an interview with George Noory on Coast to Coast AM for their news segment. After I explained the reasons and origins, I received an off-air telephone call from a nationally syndicated talk show host who heard my answer. “I never expected that explanation, but I must admit that it makes perfect sense,” was his response.

The key to understanding the terrorist threats for the Olympic games is to understand the bigger picture. Even on a good day and under the best of conditions, Middle East politics is not the easiest subject to comprehend. I often beg my intelligence sources to slow down when tossing around names of groups and alliances as it is difficult to keep up with the key players and groups. When researching this issue, I notice that many pundits, commentators and bloggers tend to over-simplify the politics of Middle East terror, saying or writing that homicide bombers are simply savages that have fallen victim to a convoluted belief system. I understand why, as that is the simplest method of categorizing this agenda and the threats. It’s often true in many cases as well. In the real world and especially in the case of the Olympic terror threat, however, it is far from the most accurate.

The Winter Olympics in Sochi will begin on February 7, 2014 and last for 17 days. Many news organizations have said that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s reputation is on the line as the upcoming games will be the most expensive in the history of the Olympics—$50 billion and rising, compared to the 2008 winter games in Beijing that cost an estimated $40 billion. Putin’s detractors have suggested that billions are “missing” and cannot be accounted for, which is something to keep in mind as you consider the “back story.” Here is what you are not being told by an obedient American press and their paid pundits.

It was last August when Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan visited Putin in Moscow in his capacity as the “Prince of the Mujahideen” in Syria, including those who hail from Chechnya, Dagestan, and the Caucasus in Russia’s backyard, according to FARS News Agency. You might recall Bandar bin Sultan as the infamous “Bandar Bush”in earlier times, but that’s another column.

Last August, Bandar was in Moscow to specifically discuss the Syrian issue. At that time, Bandar tried to bribe Putin into changing his policy on Syria by promising him “a safe and secure winter Olympics in Sochi” if he would stop the material support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He offered Russia other incentives in exchange for withdrawing his support for Assad, “including a major arms deal and a pledge not to challenge Russian gas sales if Moscow scales back support for the Syrian government,” as noted by the FARS News Agency.

The future of Syria, in the eyes of Putin, is not negotiable. I have written many times that Syria is Putin’s red line in the sand and that Syria, not Iran, will be the tripwire for World War III. Yet, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Israel and others are hell-bent on toppling Assad by all available means, which leads back to the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi. It’s interesting how we can see a pattern emerging, and how the Benghazi attacks suddenly make sense when the truth is exposed.

The Saudis fund and support the various terrorist groups in Syria and elsewhere. Bandar is personally in charge of all matters related to Syria and the initiatives to oust Assad in favor of a Muslim Brotherhood leadership. He also openly states that he can control terrorist actions in Sochi, meaning that he can either give them an operational green or a red light. His reach is also said to include the Chechen terrorists, which should cause a number of pundits on both sides of the theoretical political divide to rethink what we were told about the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombings and the Saudi national, visited by Mrs. Obama, who quietly disappeared into the night. That, however, is reserved for another column.

If Putin does not acquiesce to the Saudi’s demands, all possibilities will remain on the table. Also, the U.S. and Israel have been squarely on the side of the Saudis in this matter, reminding us all that Middle Eastern politics make strange bedfellows.

We should take note of the October 2013 bus bombing in Volgograd, Central Russia by female suicide bomber Naida Asivalova of Dagestan. In context, terrorist threats and bombings such as this are real evidence that such terrorist activity is actually a proxy war by another means. While many will consider this bombing the act of a crazed, brainwashed killer acting under religious motivation, few will see it as part of an asymmetrical war with larger implications. That bombing, and other less recent acts and threats, have been done to remind Putin of who controls the terrorists and what demands need to be met to avoid further terrorist acts. It is also important to note the timing of the bus bombing. It was done far enough in advance to cause Olympic participants to rethink their participation, thus causing Putin economic backlash and to perhaps lose face on the international stage. Truly, we are seeing a game of chess at three levels on the geopolitical stage.

In the end, the Olympic terror threat is directly related to Putin’s stance on backing Assad and Syria against the wishes of the Saudis and by extension, the U.S. and the Israelis. If the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi was insufficient to expose the covert fight for Syria, perhaps the deaths of more in Sochi will awaken people to the real world game of Risk that’s taking place on the world stage.

From Benghazi to Sochi, perhaps via Boston, it’s all about a larger global realignment of power where the Muslim Brotherhood is installed in countries across the Middle East to destabilize the region. Whether it’s Sochi, Benghazi or even Boston, the lie is bigger, the stakes are higher, the agenda is much deeper than most can imagine. Terrorism is a nation-state proxy war by other means.

Credit to Douglas J. Hagmann