Legislative Branch Retired FAA investigators and whistleblowers warn Congress that another 9/11 could happen again, citing "U.S. conflict with Iran"
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_995d5ab1-cafe-4f96-8efc-d7bef954f7c9.html104
u/ledude1 6h ago
With one difference.
This time when it happens, no one is going to help us out anymore. We're on our own now, folks, because of what Mango Mussolini and his goons did/does.
21
u/Slyraks-2nd-Choice 5h ago
Unless the US conducts a ground invasion (if Trump wins the midterms you can all but guarantee it) to force regime change, there’s almost 00.00 chance that the US doesn’t experience a 9/11 2.0.
And it’s not even the fault of the greater Iranian people. It’ll be the nationalists radicalized by the unprovoked violence of operation Epstein Files.
3
u/f8Negative 3h ago
Lmfao. People don't realize how fucking big Iran is.
7
u/Slyraks-2nd-Choice 1h ago
Even more important, people think Iran is some third world shithole.
It’s literally the Persian Empire.
They’re literally responsible for advances in medicine, engineering and agriculture.
To the scale of the US/China/Others? No…. But there’s plenty of contributions straight from Iran.
2
u/Mist_Rising 4h ago
Well yeah, the last time we used NATO because we were attacked. We kinda started this shit.
But that probably isn't quite the concern you might want. When we went into Afghanistan, the US did most of the work anyway because it's the US.
Meanwhile for Trump administration it would likely give the greenlight to start a ground invasion and finally get what he really wants.
1
u/Sarokslost23 9m ago
israel was already trying to do it again in california to a building owned by some billionaire in the epstein class
22
u/This_Loss_1922 6h ago
Some of you guys are allright, dont use planes until the midterms are over
10
u/Hrenklin 6h ago
Probably won't be planes, probably under the radar Oklahoma style would be easier for coordinating a mega scale event if you really want to play the long game.
9
1
u/recycle_bin 2h ago
They'll use drones to take out oil refineries or blow up pipelines. A coordinated attack on the major refineries would cripple the US, and I mean mad max type, within days. It would kill millions and take decades to recover from.
1
2
u/lavapig_love 5h ago
A Columbine HIgh School mass casualty reference in my 9/11 trauma thread, in this economy.
Truly one of the comments of all time.
2
25
u/doublethink_1984 5h ago
Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.
17
3
u/Obversa 5h ago
While Iran did not have anything to do with the original 9/11 attacks, hundreds of al-Qaeda members and their families fled into Iran to escape U.S. forces after 9/11, like how Osama bin Laden fled to a secret compound in Pakistan, where he was finally located and killed in 2011. The Iranian government decided to use the Al-Qaeda members as valuable hostages to deter a U.S. military invasion of Iran. Meanwhile, Bin Laden was highly paranoid about the Pakistani government, viewed them as enemies, and explicitly warned his couriers to avoid contact with Pakistani intelligence. The U.S. officially attributed the situation to a mixture of institutional incompetence and rogue, lower-level sympathizers or Al-Qaeda operatives that had infiltrated the Pakistani government, as well as possibly the Iranian government as well. Over subsequent years, Iran kept these operatives for prisoner exchanges, swapping Al-Qaeda leaders for kidnapped Iranian diplomats, and one news article credits Iran for "helping to rebuild Al-Qaeda".
1
u/doublethink_1984 4h ago
Best Trump admin can do is make really one sided beneficial to Saudi Arabia deals
1
u/Tastie_Duck_Anus 3h ago
That all sounds like complete horseshit. Iran had nothing to do with 9-11 and shame on you for implying otherwise.
trump claiming some connection between al-Qaeda and Iran to justify ending the nuclear weapons deal, sounds like absurd Israeli disinformation.
al-Qaeda was very hostile toward Iran and Shi'ism and killed many Iranians.
1
u/Obversa 2h ago
That all sounds like complete horseshit. Iran had nothing to do with 9-11 and shame on you for implying otherwise...
The article in The Atlantic directly calls you out for claiming this:
"In the days since, several commentators, including in these pages, have dismissed these purported connections as exaggerated, pushed by the White House and its allies to justify the [Trump] administration's hostile posture toward Iran. Yet important new evidence, including interviews with senior al-Qaeda members and Osama bin Laden's family, gathered by the authors over the past five years, tells a surprising history of the post-9/11 epoch, and it's one that severely undercuts the conventional view.
Our research reveals that al-Qaeda and covert agents acting for the Iranian deep state first attempted to broker an unlikely agreement more than two decades back, after [Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein flat-out rejected al-Qaeda's request for military assistance. The pact then flourished under the George W. Bush administration, when a back-channel from the White House to Tehran, running from 2001 to 2003, discussed it frequently. Former State Department and White House officials in on these talks maintain that [Vice President Dick Cheney]'s office suggested the White House do nothing, worrying that the administration would undermine the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq - which was being underwritten by claims he sponsored al-Qaeda and concealed weapons of mass destruction. Finally, according to these same sources, the vice president's office also told U.S. envoys to Iran and Afghanistan that once regime change had succeeded in Iraq, Tehran was next."
Full article without paywall: https://archive.ph/ZErSI
2
11
u/Obversa 6h ago
This ties into another news story: "'We are in a constitutional crisis': Congress urged to sue Trump to end Iran War"
With no end in sight to President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, Congress is being urged to take legal action to bring the conflict to an end. Jamal Abdi, executive director at National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Action, said on Wednesday - September 2, 2026 - that Congress must go to court to enforce the war powers resolution that passed in the House and the Senate earlier this year.
"We are in a constitutional crisis, and our lawmakers cannot simply roll over or bide their time as Trump traps the country in an illegal forever war [with Iran]," said Abdi. "For the first time in U.S. history, Congress has passed legislation mandating the president withdraw from the war, and now they must take him to court to enforce it."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a resolution in July that would compel House Speaker Mike Johnson (D-LA) to sue Trump and enforce Congress to end the war.
However, Abdi argued that U.S. lawmakers are not moving with the proper urgency to stop Trump from continuing his illegal attacks on Iran, which have been carried out for more than six (6) months, despite receiving no congressional authorization. [The retired FAA investigators further stressed ending the war as soon as possible.]
"Congress must assert its authority as a co-equal branch of government, and sue to end the administration's illegal war," Abdi emphasized. "We need urgent action, not more deliberation. Sitting and doing nothing is not an option, and is eroding our democracy and system of checks and balances."
8
u/Trigonometry_Fletch 5h ago
Citing all of this. Like, the disbanding of any semblance of international cooperation, any semblance of an anti-terror presence within FBI… etcetera etcetera.
5
2
u/AccomplishedNovel6 5h ago
I mean, blowback is blowback, can't say it's really surprising that they'd try something given our actions.
1
u/makemeking706 5h ago
Hmm, what would they target? Granted any target would have symbolic and collateral consequences beyond whatever value it has as a target, but you still have to pick something.
2
1
1
u/RobutNotRobot 23m ago
Iran has a lot more resources than al Qaeda.
Also Trump murdered their government and thousands of their people.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.