In a long awaited decision, Federal Judge George Daniels in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York ruled that Iran and its Lebanese terrorist proxy Hezbollah, had joint responsibility with al-Qa’eda for the 9/11 attacks.
The ruling in the cases of Havlish, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., and Bingham, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. was in response to lawsuits filed by families of 9/11 victims.
As I mentioned previously, this is by no means new or even previously unknown material. The 9/11 Commission stated in its report that there was "strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers." There's more than just 'strong evidence' that Iran allowed members of al-Qaeda into Iran after we invaded their stronghold in Afghanistan. That's exactly how so many of them got to Iraq so easily via Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran.
On page 240 of the Commission’s final report, it mentions a “senior Hezbollah operative” accompanied some of the future 9/11 hijackers on their final airline flights into and out of Afghanistan, Iran, and Lebanon.
It's now known beyond question that the “senior Hezbollah operative” was our old friend Imad Mugniyeh. You'll remember that he was not only a member of al-Qaeda but a founding member of Hezbollah and a former member of Yasser Arafat's Force 17. He was the commander of the operation that killed 247 marines in Beirut, the man who tortured to death Marine Colonel William Buckley,videotaped the proceedings and sent it to the White House, the liaison man in the Karina A arms shipment, which involved Iranian weapons sent to the PLO.
Mugniyah was the natural liaison man for the 9/11 hijackers as well,because he was one of the few people trusted by by all parties involved...Hezbollah, Iran and al- Qaeda.
The 9/11 commission urged further investigation at the time, but neither the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration ever saw fit to follow up.
As evidence given in the trials show, in addition to directing Mughniyah’s extensive involvement in recruiting, guiding, and training the hijackers, Iran provided vital material support to those hijackers by ordering its border and passport officials not to stamp their passports when they crossed Iranian territory. That meant they could enter the U.S. with clean passports, no questions asked.
This was probably what Saddam Hussein was talking about when he mentioned that he thought a strike on the U.S. was imminent, but that 'no ties to Iraq will be seen.' Given that the Iraqis had already gotten away with involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing ( and likely the Oklahoma City bombing), Saddam wasn't expecting anyone to draw a line to Iraq this time, especially since he may have known of or suspected Iran's involvement in the coming carnage.
Iranian assistance to al-Qaeda didn't stop with the 9/11 attacks, as you already know if you read this site. After Tora Bora, al-Qaeda's top leadership and a number of fighters were able to flee to safety in Iran aided and abetted by the regime, including Ayman Zawahiri and Osama bin-Laden. Many of the fighters ended up in Iraq and Afghanistan, while bin-Laden and Zawahri returned to Pakistan.
These and other details were revealed by declassified material that came out in the trial and 25 hours of sworn testimony (filed under seal) from three former Iranian intelligence officers, who described the direct participation of top Iranian government officials like current Iranian defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi as well as Imad Mughniyah's role.
The next step, since this is a civil trial, will likely be to obtain financial judgments, which may ultimately involve seeking reciprocation in European courts that recognize US judgments.
Of course, the real question to be answered is one I posed before, one some of us have been asking for a long time - exactly why did we go after Saddam Hussein and ignore the real threat in Iran? Especially since our government was made aware of Iran's complicity?
From the Iranian standpoint, they have to be astounded as well. They've taken over an American embassy with impunity, killed our soldiers, armed, trained and abetted our enemies and provided essential support for the worst terrorist strike on America's soil in our history.And these people are now actively seeking nuclear weapons via a rogue program.
Any of these actions are normally grounds for war. Yet the United States continues to attempt to 'engage' with the Iranians.
If I were them, I would assume that America was so petrified of Iran, so ineffectual and decadent that no accommodation with America was necessary and no attack or insult too insufferable to offer. I would hold America and its leaders beneath contempt.
That is likely how they regard us, and I certainly can see why.It will unfortunately make a violent confrontation at some point that much more likely.
1 comments:
Exactly why did we go after Saddam? In the post 911 world, the US viewed security threats differently than it did prior to 911. Saddam and his government were actively threatenting the US. Due to the skilled manipulation of the oil for food program Iraq had already for all practical purposes achieved a de facto end to the sanctions. The US and its "allies" were already involved in what many analyists referred to as a "low grade war" with Iraq. Due to the de facto end of the sanctions the US and its "allies" were for all practical purposes losing this low grade war. As such, very soon the US and its "allies" would have been forced by necessity to call of the sanctions very soon and Iraq would have been poised to fully break out and would have posed an even bigger threat to the US and its "allies." In addition, the US and its allies had prior dealings with Iraq in the first gulf war. Also, Iraq had actively invaded its neighbors in the past and had it not been thwarted in the first gulf war likely would have annexed Saudi Arabia as well. These factors made it possible to get the kind of support from other nations that was needed for successful removal of the Hussein government. These factors were not present with regards to Iran.
In regards to Iran, due to their clever use of proxies Iran's supporters can blythely claim to have never invaded another country. Also, there is the support they are getting from Russia and China. In addition, our prior history with Iran is a problem for us in getting together the kind of support needed to confront Iran in a military fashion. I've already discussed the narrative on this conlfict before here. Suffice it to say until it is confronted and altered we are going to have a very difficult time here.
Any "engagement" with Iran should be primarily focused on the puppet masters who are Russia and China. Also, part of the problem with our diplomatic efforts are they are not focused properly. All the focus in on what America must do, what America must not do, what concessions America must make, and things of this nature. Enemies and potential enemies are not expected or required to make any concessions.
The Iranians know as long as they have the backing of Russia and China military action by America against them is impossible. Furthermore unless the narrative on the conflict with Iran is somehow altered we simply cannot get the kind of support necessary for a military solution with regards to Iran and any support we do get would only be token support at best and not enough to make any real difference.
If it is contempt for America they feel, it is the kind of contempt that a bully holds for a smaller weaker adversary. As long as big brother in this case Russia and China are behind Iran and as long as the narrative blames America for the conflict, there is no military solution to the Iranian problem for America. If there ever was one, the media has worked tirelessly to undercut it.
Until these problems are addressed we only have one real solution for our national security interests. This is a redeployment to defensible positions along our borders. This way we have a fighting chance.
As for a military solution, Israel might be able to pull it off. Saudi Arabia may be able to help in terms of intellegence or sabatoge to Iranian infrastructure. If it is decided to rely on Saudi assisance, know this, at some point you will have to fight the Saudis as well.
After the attacks of 911 I wanted a strategy to deal with Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran. I would have started with Saudi Arabia first. Alas, due to horrific mismanagement many options avaible to us after 911 have dwindled to only one. Redeploy to defensible positons and do it now!!
Post a Comment