More Iran-related teasers from the 9/11 Commission report to be released tomorrow:
The report also concludes that al Qaeda's relationship with Iran and its client, the Hezbollah militant group, was far deeper and more long-standing than its links with Iraq, which never established operational ties with the terrorist group, said officials familiar with the document.Among the newest findings is evidence, disclosed in media reports this week, that as many as 10 of the Sept. 11 hijackers transited through Iran before the hijackings...
...Commission and government officials stress there is no evidence indicating that Tehran knowingly aided in the Sept. 11 plot. But Iran's apparent willingness to allow al Qaeda members to roam across its borders underscores the complicated relationship that emerged between them despite historic animosity between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. There is compelling evidence that Shiite Iran continued to give al Qaeda leaders haven even after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the commission report and other intelligence sources.
There's nothing really new in all of this.
But we need to very carefully assess this last underlined portion. Just how wide-spread and long in duration (rather than episodic and highly transient) was the provision of safe harbors to al-Q terrorists?
Regardless, given the political climate right now, with even some on the Left beating the Iran war drums--the 9/11 Commission findings will doubtless raise the temperature on Iran within the Beltway.
Me, I'm waiting to read the fine print.
Especially with hyper-opaque Iran (the situation there is much more complicated than a bunch of mad Mullah's blowing things up, sorry to say)--the devil is in the details.
Also worth noting, just for the record.
I supported the war in Iraq not because of potential contacts with al-Q.
Or even a possible nuclear program--which I thought was not very close to development (though yes, their reported attempt(s) to secure uranium alarmed me).
I supported intervention there based on Saddam's historic recklessness (two regional wars, SCUD's launched hither dither, assassination attempt of Bush 41, grotesque human rights violations) AND (critically) because I believed he possessed material stockpiles and/or easily re-startable programs in the biological and chemical sphere (this last prong not wholly disproven).
Given the post 9/11 risk environment, given his long history of contravention of U.N. resolutions, given the material violations of 1441--I felt, enough is enough.
And, not least, we sent a powerful signal to the international community that we would be proactive in this new post 9/11 world--before getting punched in the face--especially with rogue actors who had run afoul of the international community for years and actually used WMD.
All this to say, I'm not sure the Iranian leadership is as irrational and dangerous as Saddam was. They haven't, for instance, used WMD on their own people. That's part of the reason why I blogged the case for limited engagement yesterday.
More soon.
Posted by Gregory Djerejian at July 21, 2004 01:41 PM