As I travelled on the District Line yesterday I noticed a man reading intensely of the alleged conspiracy on the front of a Sunday newspaper. His attention obviously captured by the story, he looked up and stared at a man of Middle Eastern origin at the other end of the carriage. He then returned to his newspaper and carried on with urgency, occasionally glancing again at the Arab gentleman. As we drew into the next station, he put his broadsheet down and moved . .. precisely one seat further away from the imaginary assassin. That approach just about sums up the attitude of most of us to the threat of domestic terrorism. We are rightly alarmed at the prospect but not prepared to amend the normal conduct of life much to accommodate it.

This is not necessarily irresponsible. The arrests of the accused men should be a cause for comfort as much as concern for three reasons. The first, obviously, is that it suggests that the “plot” failed because of successful infiltration by the security services. The second is that, from what few details have emerged, it appears to have been a rather inept enterprise in its early stages and not on the very verge of execution. The third is that the target, if it was the Underground, was a rather obvious one — not the sort of completely original and unexpected concept that characterised the September 11 atrocities.

These factors are interconnected. Until 15 months ago MI5, in common with many other intelligence agencies, had not been very effective at infiltration. This was, in a sense, understandable — tall, white chaps with public school accents would tend to stand out at al-Qaeda meetings.

An enormous amount of effort has, of late, been directed into this area and has reaped rewards. The biggest dilemma for the likes of MI5 now is not too little material, but too much of it and how best to assess what has been obtained. There is “chatter” aplenty out there and most of it is bravado and deliberate disinformation.

It would also not be surprising if the supposed cell at work in the capital city made mistakes which led to its members’ capture. Most of the best al-Qaeda operatives either retreated to Afghanistan immediately before September 11 or have had to remain in hiding for fear of arrest in Europe. The network thus has to rely on some relatively new recruits, those misguided souls who had little connection with terror until after the twin towers were toppled. These are likely to be a motley crew of drifters and fantasists, rather than an elite corps of dedicated fanatics.

For all its bluster, al-Qaeda is in trouble. It needs to commit a major terrorist attack quite soon to show that it is still in business. That assault needs to be in Western Europe or the United States to have a real impact. It also needs to be, in that gruesome phrase, “spectacular”. For, to be blunt about it, when you have murdered 3,000 people in New York City via some unprecedented audacious hijacking, taking out three poor individuals through a handgun or a car bomb on a wet Saturday night in Newcastle is not much of a sequel.

The War on Terror will look like a serious fight only if al-Qaeda can demonstrate that September 11 was but the first shot, not the only notable shot, in the offensive.

It is possible that it will be able to do that. Open societies will always present a range of opportunities. The terrorists do not want for money, basic resources and volunteers. It is, nonetheless, also becoming much more difficult for them to organise an atrocity which would be viewed as anything close to the standard set on September 11. The al-Qaeda holding company is obliged to work with less skilled personnel of its own against a more sophisticated intelligence effort. The compelling need for the “spectacular” is as much of a ball and chain for the terrorists as it plainly is for the authorities.

This is not an argument for complacency. It is, though, a plea against panic. The fear of terror is probably the best weapon left in the al-Qaeda arsenal. It is the best means of promoting the organisation’s message in more awkward circumstances.

If you are standing in a crowded Tube train this morning, attempting to read the first section of The Times, and someone chooses to let off poison gas then, alas, you may not make it to the sports pages. But the chances of such a terrorist coup are much smaller today than they were on September 10, 2001. The man who shifted just one seat along in his carriage yesterday was being actually entirely right and rational.

Contribute to Debate via
comment@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden