Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Was Iran An Al Qaeda Accomplice In 9/11?

With the help of an article in the New York Times, interesting and controversial information is rising to the surface concerning pre-9/11 military intelligence that apparently fingered Mohammed Atta and three other terrorists months before they took over four passenger jets on the US East Coast.

According to two thoughtful analyses by Captain Ed and Dafydd ab Hugh at Captain's Quarters, it looks as if Clinton era policies allowed the CIA to bury the information instead of passing it on to the FBI as the intelligence gathering report had requested.

Not only does the CIA look bad but also the Official 9/11 Report which was apparently told of the incident but failed to include it in their report. Members of the Commission actually deny that they ever received that information. But one of the Commission members had formerly been the Clinton legal advisor who had crafted the policy that prevented intel info from moving between the CIA and FBI in the first place. Was there an embarrassing conflict of interest here?

Not only do the CIA and the 9/11 Commission have a lot to answer for, but so does the country of Iran. Other reports surfacing today (which are being officially discounted as "unreliable" by the CIA) point to meetings between Al Qaeda leadership (including #2 leader Zawahiri and one of bin Laden's own sons) with top-level Iranian religious and government figures, including Ayatollah Khamani himself.

According to what appears to be at least two independent sources, Iran was not only told about Al Qaeda's plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, etc. but agreed to help make it possible by rechanneling money from Islamic charities in Iran to help fund the plan.

If this allegation can be proved as being true, then Iran would become Public Enemy #1 on the U.S. List of Nations Most Likely to Be Bombed Into Oblivion.

Such collaboration would, of necessity, be seen as an act of war upon the United States. A U.S. military strike on Iran or other aggressive measures would very likely be forthcoming in some shape or form in the not-too-distant future.

Do we really want a nation that has already helped plan and carry out an attack on the United States to build a nuclear weapons arsenal?

Whether the credibility of the sources prove to be less than zero (as the CIA would have us to believe) or something more troublesome will soon become a major political issue.

No one wants a military confrontation with Iran. But there are those who are willing to once again take some form of "pre-emptive action" against Iran and there are those who would, once again, prefer to let the Europeans and the United Nations sort the whole thing out.

The whole thing sounds like deja vu all over again!