Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Federal Court Ruling: Iran and Hezbollah Helped Al-Qaeda in 9/11 Attacks

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-Qaeda 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.

please helps me write more gooder!


B.Poster said...

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!!

Anonymous said...

Wowser! Whatta encapsulation.

Why indeed did we go after Saddam?

Wasn't he one of our best buds, and arms buyers, coming out of his go round with Iran? He was in the unenviable position of just having failed to win something. Surely to goodness the notion of grabbing Kuwait wasn't some sort of 'rally the nation' thingy. He already had all the oil, and contracts that he needed.

Maybe he was 'taking advantage' of a natural price increase of which he shouldn't have been taking advantage.

And on the distaff side were the evil imams of Iran. They'd taken an American-sponsored (with gulf 'allies) kicking and kept on ticking. Couldn't let them start think 'revanche' as the frenchmen say. So they had to be turned into the biggest threat our latter-day Nazis bent on some secret plan of world domination. Gotta love the Chamberlain/appeasement bit - it first with every enema. But who, proxies included have the Iranians actually invaded, usurped, destabilized, or regime changed? Short answer: they haven't. Other than in the minds of those who can figure out who actually is to blame. The evidence however points more to a latter -day 'Sudeten' approach to 'defending' something by aggressing the target of choice.

The writer is right about one thing however, that Saudi Arabia and the Wahabist perspective of islam is a clear and present danger to any not of that religious persuasion.

It goes back to a primitive form of that religion marked by a primitive form of philosophy and not too many redeeming social values outside the Ummah. And it's being actively spread with oil money.

The unmentioned part is that, if necessary, Saudi Arabia, like the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan are easy-tippers. They will be cake-walks. Israel could do both in a month. If they had no help.

Hence the need to trash Iran first.

Rob said...


Contrary to popular belief, Saddam was not 'one of our best buds, and arms buyers.' And no, Saddam was never an ally of ours in any sense.

The arms we sold him were fairly limited, with most of his weaponry coming from the Soviets, France and China in that order. Our attitude towards him during the Iraq/Iran war was summed up pretty well by Dick Cheney: "It's a pity they can't both lose."

Desert Storm was an operation led by the US to protect the Saudis an dour access to Persian Gulf oil, nothing more, and they and the other GCE countries paid the entire cost of that war.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was also designed to protect the Saudis and GCE countries, something I wrote about 6 and 1/2 years ago.

As for Iran being bent on regional domination and being a threat to America and the West, I recommend you find out a bit more about the Iranian regime, Khomeini's villayet e-figh doctrine and the Twelver sect that dominates the country.

The Iranians declared war on the Great Satan in 1979, and nothing has changed since. The revenge you speak about is something already cemented in the regime's mindset, based on our alliance with the Shah. One of the stupidest foreign policy moves in American history was Jimmy Carter pressuring the Shah to allow Khomeini back in the country. Without his presence. even if the Shah was overthrown the secular/Left moderates under Bakhtiar or Barzagan would probably have been able to consolidate a government. Khomenei subverted the Iranian Revolution the same way the Bolsheviks subverted the Russian one.

Carter's second blunder wasallowing these creeps to successfully do what no other country had done - invade one of our embassies and take our diplomats hostage. Since then, all the West has shown them is weakness.

What the Ayatollahs have cleverly done instead of all out hostilities is to strike in ways where it's been opportune without provoking total hostilities. The Beirut Bombing, arming and training proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and stunts like the one documented here are some examples. Meanwhile, the regime has been playing two presidents for thirteen years and buying time for its nuclear weapons program.

BTW, Israel has no interest in taking out the Saudis or the Hashemeites. In Jordan, it's the Muslim Brotherhood and the 'Palestinians' who want Jordan to become what it was originally intended to be per the San Remo Agreement between Britain and the League of Nations in 1934 - the Arab part of Palestine.

The Saudis face threats by Iran, especially in the eastern part of the country that's mostly inhabited by a Shi'ite underclass..and is also where the oil is.

Arun said...

Ouch! You call this a proper court proceeding?
"In an unusual move, Judge Daniels did not require any of the expert witnesses to appear in court. (I was originally supposed to testify at this hearing today.) Instead, based on the credibility of the witnesses, and their expertise, the judge instead simply had an open dialogue with the attorneys who worked for eight years gathering evidence – often at risk to themselves – against Iran and Hezbollah in this case."

Arun said...

The Germans must be complicit as well, what did they do?

"On July 23, 2001, a former senior Iranian intelligence officer,Abolghasem Mr. Mesbahi,learned that Iran’s plan to strike the United States had been activated. Mr. Mesbahi knew it was important and real because he had worked on this plan previously, when he had helped set up Iran’s intelligence service, the MOIS, as far back as the mid-1980s. Mr. Mesbahi - known outside Iran as one of a core of “Assassins”- told German intelligence, which had given him protected status as a key witness in German prosecutions of brutal Iranian assassinations of dozens of dissidents.

On Aug. 13, 2001, Mr. Mesbahi received greater specificity as to the plot. The coded messages from former colleagues inside Iran revealed that the longtime plan to crash civilian airliners into American cities had been activated. Again, the officer told his German handlers, who responded that they would convey the information - we do not know if they did or to whom or exactly what information they might have passed on - and the Germans would let Mr. Mesbahi know if there were any developments. On Aug. 27, 2001, Mr. Mesbahi once more received confirmation that the plan was in motion, and the messages indicated a German connection. The 9/11 Commission would later confirm that key 9/11 liaison Ramzi Binalshibh and pilots Mohammad Atta and Ziad Jarrah were all German residents leading up to Sept. 11."

If the Germans had indeed told the Americans, then the Bush claim of not having actionable intelligence would be BS, no? i.e., the Germans knew on August 13,2001, "that the longtime plan to crash civilian airliners into American cities had been activated". If they didn't pass it on, they are complicit in 9/11, and if they passed it on, then Bush & co need to be put on trial.

Rob said...

Arun, You surely can't compare actively the aiding and abetting of the 9/11 hijackers by Iran and Hezbollah to a US ally passing on an intel report (if we believe your story) from a suspect source that at best was received a couple of days before the attack and like the famous Clinton memo mentioned no specifics of any threat!

Hearsay tips and 'intel' like this take a lot of time to check out.

Oh, and about that court proceeding? The witnesses testified in open court all right... but hidden behind screens so their identities and lives wouldn't be compromised. This is common procedure in courtrooms where witnesses lives might be at stake if their identities were known. It's not 'unusual' inthe least especially when organized crime is involved - something Hezbollah and the fascist Iranian regime have a lot in common with.

Face it..even the 9/11 commission admitted that Iran and Hezbollah were very much involved. They ought to be very thankful that GW Bush was president, rather than Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan.