Iran Will Answer for Bin Laden
Published in Kommersant
(Russia) on 19 December 2011
by Ekaterina Zabrodina (link to original)
(Russia) on 19 December 2011
by Ekaterina Zabrodina (link to original)
Translated from
by Lucile McKay.
Edited by Josie Mulberry.
A United States court ruled that Iran aided the suicidal hijackers who organized the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Up until now, the American authorities have not openly accused Tehran of involvement in the tragedy in New York. Experts believe that the judgment is evidence of an increase in U.S. pressure on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime. Washington and its allies simultaneously developed the most serious economic sanctions against Tehran, including an international embargo on the import of Iranian oil.
A Manhattan court sustained claims filed in May by lawyers working for families of 9/11 victims. The defendants' representatives did not appear at the hearing, and this allowed the court to render a guilty verdict in absentia. Those involved include not only the Afghan Taliban movement and the international terrorist organization al-Qaida, but also the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah as well as several official Iranian figures, including Khamenei, Iran's spiritual leader.
The theory of Iran's involvement in the 9/11 attacks previously evoked serious doubt from experts. After all, the Sunni al-Qaida militants had organized terrorist acts against the Shiites in Iraq on more than one occasion. Also, the group's nucleus is active in Iranian territory, and it resists the local regime. However, the plaintiffs assert that the hardened antagonists "put aside [their] differences...to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States."
The prosecutors believe that the Hezbollah leader Imad Mugniyah was the connection between the branches of the Shiite regime in Tehran and the al-Qaida militants. In 1993, he even met with Osama bin Laden. Together, they developed a strategy for the clandestine battle and the preparation of suicide terrorists. Of course, it is impossible for them to be punished now. Mugniyah was killed in 2008, and in May, U.S. special forces eliminated "Terrorist No. 1."
According to experts, the court's verdict is evidence of an increase in U.S. pressure on Iran. It was the attacks on the World Trade Center that served as an alert for the United States to send troops to Afghanistan. Now, America is transferring its focus to Tehran. At the same time, Washington intends to seek the harshest economic sanctions against the Islamic republic. According to U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman, American negotiators will conduct active consultations on this issue with their partners.* It is possible that talks will cover the introduction of an international embargo on the import of Iranian oil.
Previously, the U.S. Congress had already approved a bill on the expansion of sanctions against Tehran. It affects companies connected to the Iranian oil industry. In particular, limits will be placed on the supply of petroleum products to Tehran at a sum of more than $5 million per year. There will also be limits on investments in Iranian infrastructure and the construction of ports. In addition, there are measures specified concerning foreign banks that conduct major dealings with the Iranian Central Bank. However, up until now, Washington has not raised the issue of an oil embargo, fearing a sharp upswing in global prices of energy sources.
*Editor’s note: This is a reference to Poneman speaking in Tokyo, December 15.
A Manhattan court sustained claims filed in May by lawyers working for families of 9/11 victims. The defendants' representatives did not appear at the hearing, and this allowed the court to render a guilty verdict in absentia. Those involved include not only the Afghan Taliban movement and the international terrorist organization al-Qaida, but also the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah as well as several official Iranian figures, including Khamenei, Iran's spiritual leader.
The theory of Iran's involvement in the 9/11 attacks previously evoked serious doubt from experts. After all, the Sunni al-Qaida militants had organized terrorist acts against the Shiites in Iraq on more than one occasion. Also, the group's nucleus is active in Iranian territory, and it resists the local regime. However, the plaintiffs assert that the hardened antagonists "put aside [their] differences...to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States."
The prosecutors believe that the Hezbollah leader Imad Mugniyah was the connection between the branches of the Shiite regime in Tehran and the al-Qaida militants. In 1993, he even met with Osama bin Laden. Together, they developed a strategy for the clandestine battle and the preparation of suicide terrorists. Of course, it is impossible for them to be punished now. Mugniyah was killed in 2008, and in May, U.S. special forces eliminated "Terrorist No. 1."
According to experts, the court's verdict is evidence of an increase in U.S. pressure on Iran. It was the attacks on the World Trade Center that served as an alert for the United States to send troops to Afghanistan. Now, America is transferring its focus to Tehran. At the same time, Washington intends to seek the harshest economic sanctions against the Islamic republic. According to U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman, American negotiators will conduct active consultations on this issue with their partners.* It is possible that talks will cover the introduction of an international embargo on the import of Iranian oil.
Previously, the U.S. Congress had already approved a bill on the expansion of sanctions against Tehran. It affects companies connected to the Iranian oil industry. In particular, limits will be placed on the supply of petroleum products to Tehran at a sum of more than $5 million per year. There will also be limits on investments in Iranian infrastructure and the construction of ports. In addition, there are measures specified concerning foreign banks that conduct major dealings with the Iranian Central Bank. However, up until now, Washington has not raised the issue of an oil embargo, fearing a sharp upswing in global prices of energy sources.
*Editor’s note: This is a reference to Poneman speaking in Tokyo, December 15.