For two days in succession, the New York Times has run op-ed articles highlighting the dangers posed by technologically-savvy terrorism. Given that tomorrow marks the seventh anniversary of the atrocities of September 11, 2001, that’s perhaps not surprising.

Yesterday, Jeffrey Goldberg had these words of advice for the next US President: “He must prevent Al Qaeda, or a Qaeda imitator, from gaining control of a nuclear device and detonating it in America. Non-proliferation experts whom Goldberg spoke with judged the chances of such a detonation in a major American center within the next decade at 50 per cent.

Today, Ronen Bergman provides thoughtful insight into the discussions on suicide terrorism currently taking place on Al Qaeda’s closed online forums. In part because of theological debates about suicide, as well as the problematic ratio of Muslim to non-Muslim fatalities in suicide attacks, Al Qaeda ideologues are moving away from suicide terrorism in favor of harnessing technology to cause as much damage as possible.

Writes Bergman:

Unfortunately, Al Qaeda seems well on its way to gaining such an ability. Chatter on these sites has tended toward discussions of the various types of remote-piloted aircraft able to carry the necessary weights, as well as specific robot designs, including models that police forces use to dispose of explosive devices. One extremist pointed out the ease with which such robots can be acquired commercially. Also, in a document posted last month at Maarek, the most sophisticated jihadist forum for discussing explosives manufacturing, a prolific technical expert calling himself Abu Abdullah al-Qurashi suggested training dogs to recognize American troops’ uniforms, then releasing other dogs carrying improvised explosive devices toward American soldiers so the bombs can be detonated from a safe distance. The author begins with the following words: “I.E.D. operations, but this time, with dogs. Yes, dogs! Brothers, some may find my words fantastic. But, believe me, we should better let a dog die, than let a Lion of Islam die!”

In the wake of the Iraq War, there is a tendency to scoff at such claims as being based on precisely the same shaky intelligence-gathering which propelled the conflict with Saddam Hussein. Such reasoning is faulty and dangerous, since it is rooted in the assumption that western governments overstate terrorist threats for political purposes.

That’s why we should give Goldberg and Bergman their due. Technology presents terrorists with new opportunities. These are not uncomplicated - as Goldberg says, acquiring fissile material remains hard - but the fact that they exist should warn us against complacency.

These scenarios are also a reminder that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be looked at in isolation. There are circumstances in which regional factors, such as the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon or another 9/11 style outrage, could place local ones in the shade. Equally, regional developments will impact local decisions - in the struggle between Hamas and Fatah, for example, what happens in Tehran may be as critical as what happens in Ramallah.