While I am yet to see a transcript of the speech, there is
audio available here containing the latest threat by Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) entitled "A Response to Crusader Aggression." The
BBC has a news article up.
A Yemen-based offshoot of al-Qaeda has called on Muslims in the region to wage holy war against the US and its allies.
A purported audio statement by Said al-Shihri, deputy leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, warned "American and Crusader interests are everywhere".
"Attack them and eliminate as many enemies as you can," Mr Shihri urged...
He said the group aimed to gain control of the strategically important strait of Bab al-Mandab, which connects the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea.
Then militants could "close the door and tighten the noose on the Jews, because through [the strait], America brings support to them by the Red Sea", he said.
Evan Kohlmann of
Flashpoint Intelligence translated a few lines on Twitter today:
AQAP to al-Shabaab: "You have offered to send forces to support us... May Allah bless you, but let us cooperate each in his own trench."
AQAP to al-Shabaab: "We both are on the banks of the Mandab Strait... and let us complement each other in our warfare against our enemies."
The
Washington Post goes into more detail regarding the specific threat.
Shehri called on Somalia's Islamist al Shabaab insurgents to help block a narrow strait at the mouth of the Red Sea that separates Yemen from the Horn of Africa.
"At such a time the Bab (al Mandab) will be closed and that will tighten the noose on the Jews (Israel), because through it America supports them by the Red Sea," Shehri said.
Targeting a strategic choke point at sea specifically would suggest the strategic sophistication of Al-Qa'ida is improving, although the number of attacks that could be carried out effectively to close the Mandab Strait are very limited - in fact so limited one can only name two types of attacks that could be useful, and only one with any sustainability.
Mines.
Given the IED has become the weapon of choice for Al-Qa'ida in every theater they have fought the west, that would be the most likely capability AQAP would seek to utilize in that area. Sea mines however are very difficult to acquire, not exactly available on the black market, and require a much higher level of capability to develop and deploy than IEDs.
The other form of attack would be suicide boats, but the use of a suicide boat against a US flagged vessel might be difficult to pull off with ships actively watching for pirates in that region. One thing is clear, non-lethal force is not going to stop a suicide boat bomber, so if any US flagged ship is counting on non-lethal capabilities to prevent an attack by Al-Qa'ida with small boats in the region - not being armed to deal with an a suicide boat would seem very foolish.
This is a very serious problem that has huge ramifications on the entire region. How can one tell the difference between a pirate or a suicide boat? Shipping companies can bet their bottom line that Al-Qa'ida recognizes this confusion and is planning on exploiting it.
Piracy has been allowed to fester for over two years at growth rates each year of over 90% from the previous year, and is now in a position to add enormous tactical confusion. If you thought the problem was hard when ships were just being hijacked, wait until ships are being hijacked and attacked by suicide boats in the same seas, with nothing distinguishing one type of attack from the other until it is too late. Don't think they can sink a ship? That would be a foolish assumption, Al-Qa'ida has proven very resourceful in adding lethality to IEDs.
The question is whether the west waits and allows Al Qaeda to strike first before changing the rules of engagement dealing with small boat threats in the region. It is not an easy decision for the Obama administration, because the target could be a 50,000 ton chemical tanker that could potentially create an enormous environmental disaster in a region already struggling from drought on land and reliant on the sea for food.
However, to be more realistic, when one goes down the road of studying the level of sophistication Al-Qa'ida has demonstrated in major attacks, one can't stop at simple threats. That 50,000 ton chemical tanker may not be the real target, rather could be hijacked by Al-Qa'ida and become the weapon against something much more important... like the Yanbu' terminal in Saudi Arabia.
Our failure to study history will soon catch up with us. Piracy was treated as more than a crime for thousands of years for very valid reasons, and yet we have treated it as nothing more than a crime preventing the international community from dealing with a few dudes in speed boats with AK-47s. Recognizing our inability to deal with simple problems at the policy level, once again Al-Qa'ida looks to exploit our political blind spot - specifically our 'enlighted' western non-lethal policy towards piracy. The consequences are unlikely to be very pretty.
Hopefully point defenses will be effective, because every other type of defense against small boat threats in that region under current policy has been largely ineffective to date.
