COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Iran and Hezbollah

The hijackers’ trips through Iran, and a court judgment by default

← Interactive guide and chronology · The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

The travel through Iran

What the Commission found, and what it could not.

The Commission found “strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11,” and evidence suggesting that eight to ten of the fourteen Saudi muscle hijackers traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001. Under an arrangement it describes, Iranian border inspectors were told not to put telltale stamps in these travelers’ passports, which particularly helped Saudi members of al Qaeda. [1]

It reported some evidence that Hezbollah was closely tracking travel there, but cautioned it might be a coincidence. Its conclusion: “We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.” It added, “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.” [1]

What we can’t tell you. The Commission’s evidence came partly from late intelligence reporting it did not fully assess.

The sources

  1. 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 7: The Attack Looms ↗

    The hijackers in San Diego and Florida, Bayoumi and Thumairy, Atta’s alleged Prague trip, transit through Iran, flight schools and the final preparations.

The court judgment

Liable, by default.

In Havlish v. bin Laden, Judge George Daniels entered findings in December 2011 that Iran, its leaders and Hezbollah gave material support to al Qaeda. Iran and the other defendants had been found in default after failing to answer the suit, so the findings were made on the plaintiffs’ evidence alone. [1]

What we can’t tell you. A default judgment is not a contested trial. It does not show Iran knew of the plot.

The sources

  1. U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.), 22 December 2011: Havlish v. bin Laden, findings of fact and conclusions of law ↗

    A default judgment against Iran, entered after Iran did not appear to contest the claims. Image-only PDF.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

2 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 162 rated claims ↗

← The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFiles911 shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFiles911.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.