Iran and 9/11: Down the Rabbit Hole of Blame | HuffPost
Iran and 9/11: Down the Rabbit Hole of Blame
Kristen Breitweiser
Largely unreported and unknown to almost everyone is the
recent push to re-establish an Iranian role in the 9/11 attacks. To be more specific,
some in Washingtonare currently trying to allege that Iran played a larger role in the 9/11 attacks than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Why
this assertion about Iran— that has been lying fallow for years—is so recently being resurrected raises questions, bears scrutiny, and begs an examination.
Prior to delving into the Iranian revelations, some background is needed to best understand the rather
inorganic evolution of this Iranian evidence. As many know, the 9/11 Families have spent the past 16 years trying to hold the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks accountable for the mass murder of our loved ones. First,
we fought for the
9/11 Commission so that we might have an independent investigation into the attacks, learn lessons, fix problems, and hold those in government accountable for their failures that contributed to the vast devastation of that horrific day. Next, as an expressly granted right given to us by Congress in the creation of the
2001 Airline Stabilization Act (more commonly known as the 9/11 Victims’ Compensation Fund), we attempted to hold all the co-conspirators of the 9/11 attacks accountable in a federal court of law. Notably, to the 9/11 Families the definition of “co-conspirators” was always a “both-and” situation, not the more exclusionary “either-or” scenario. In other words, we wanted any and all of those who played a hand (however large or small) in the murder of our loved ones held accountable.
Trying to hold co-conspirators of the 9/11 attacks accountable in federal court is not as easy as the public might think. First, the U.S. government plays a large role with a strong hand in determining who can be qualified as a “co-conspirator.” Notably, this decision historically hinges upon who is “in favor” or “out of favor” with the U.S. government. It can also depend on the foreign and domestic policy agendas of the U.S. government. (Ironically enough, both of these things—
domestic and
foreign policy agendas —are what created the 9/11 attacks in the first place but that is a much larger topic in need of a tome not a blog.)
As an example of how the U.S. government and its agendas control who gets held accountable for bad acts and who doesn’t, in 2002, a
lawsuit on behalf of some 9/11 families was filed against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Obviously, this lawsuit fell in favor with the U.S. government, since at the time, President Bush was trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks to
serve as a basis for the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, nearly at the same time in 2002, another group of 9/11 family members (represented by yet another attorney) filed their
lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This lawsuit was not looked upon as favorably by the U.S. government for several reasons: President Bush considered the members of the Saudi Royal Family to be
close family
friends; the United States was extremely
dependent on Saudi oil; the U.S. had always been
dependent on
Saudi cash; and finally, perhaps most pragmatically, the U.S. needed Saudi
military bases to stage its upcoming war in Iraq. It should come as
no surprise then, that the Saudi lawsuit continues to falter to this day while the Iraq lawsuit had a favorable resolution.
Fifteen years later, the 9/11 families are still trying to hold the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accountable in a federal
court of law for the mass murder of our loved ones. And, unfortunately for us, the Kingdom seems to still remain “in favor” with the U.S. government—which is probably why our path to justice has taken so long and why our court case against the Saudis is constantly getting delayed and dismissed by the Judge. To wit, 16 years after the cold-blooded murder of our loved ones, we have yet to even reach the discovery phase of our federal court case—the part of our case where we get to show our evidence (the money transfers, the checks, the FBI reports, the travel documents, the correspondence, the wiretaps, etc.). As an aside, the government in its own criminal prosecution of the co-conspirators of the 9/11 attacks, via its use of the military tribunal system, is as largely unsuccessful as the 9/11 families have been in our federal civil court case. Notably, nearly all of the
GTMO cases haven’t even moved passed the pre-trial stages and/or hearings, yet. Clearly, the government’s self-created military tribunal system has proven to be (much like its twin-sister program of enhanced interrogation)—just another ill-conceived, hastily done, colossal mistake, and abject failure. And more importantly, both of these post-9/11 U.S. government-created programs have, thus far, only obstructed our rocky path to justice.
The 9/11 Families’ case against the Saudis has been
dismissed at the trial level for a myriad of reasons, more recently, because the Kingdom was not a named State Sponsor of Terrorism. In case you didn’t already know this horrifying dirty little secret, for the most part, getting on and off the official State Sponsor List is mostly a
political decision, having very little to do with reality—i.e.
whether you really deserve to be on the list in the first place. And typically, you can get off the list by buying your way off, just as long as you are deemed “in favor” with the right people and/or Presidents at the right time. This is what happened with
Pan Am Lockerbie and Libya, by the way. Notably, while Libya took responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Lockerbie, more recent reports have shown that Iran was actually responsible for the terrorist attack.
Nevertheless, in response to being unable to hold the Saudis accountable for their role in the 9/11 attacks because the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not an “officially named State Sponsor of Terrorism,” the 9/11 Families fought for and won
JASTA (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act). JASTA enables any victim of mass terrorism on U.S. soil to hold any nation accountable—regardless if that nation was on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. JASTA is a solid anti-terrorism law that can in some ways get around the “politics” that sometimes block the path to justice for victims of terrorism. Notably, the entities that fought most stridently against JASTA were certain key members of the
Foreign Relations Committees and the
Armed ServicesCommittees; the
U.S. State Department’s Near East Affairs Desk; former
CIA Director John Brennan; former Attorney General
Michael Mukasey and American Enterprise Institute’s John Bolton;
Secretary of State John Kerry; and
President Barack Obama. Obviously, each of these individuals and
entities had their own
agendas, but clearly their
overall reason to oppose anti-terrorism legislation like JASTA should be fairly apparent to all. Sadly, saving lives from terrorist attacks and holding official and unofficial state sponsors of terrorism accountable for their role in supporting terrorism and/or terrorist groups—were not chief among
their interests. Nevertheless, after overcoming such
staunch “establishment”
opposition, JASTA
became the law of the land in October 2016. And, the 9/11 Families returned, once again, to federal court to hold one of the largest co-conspirators of the 9/11 attacks, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, accountable for their very
well-documented and well-known logistic and financial support of the 9/11 hijackers and al Qaeda.
Finally last spring, directly due to the enactment of JASTA, the 9/11 Families
filed our Complaint naming the Kingdom—regrettably, not specific Saudi Royal Family Members like Prince Bandar bin Sultan or his wife who sent money to the 9/11 hijackers—as defendants in our
new lawsuit. In their answer to our complaint, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claimed that the 9/11 Families’ lawsuit should be
dismissedfor several reasons, chief among them, that the 9/11 Commission
exonerated the Saudis from any role in the 9/11 attacks. This novel defense was not new to us. In fact, in 2016, when the infamous
28 pages were finally released to the American public, many establishment-type folks—the
Saudis, the
Director of the CIA,
the Obama Administration, etc.—said eerily similar things about the 28 pages “
exonerating the Saudis” and there being “
no there, there” with regard to the evidence presented in the 28 pages. Of course, these statements were ridiculous since the pages themselves represented 28 f-u-l-l pages of facts and evidence detailing the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks—indeed, even Forrest Gump could discern that there was plenty of “there, there.”
Stay putting out articles that don't carry weight in your conversation.