Friday, April 17, 2026
Home Blog Page 109

US federal judge refutes Saudi Arabia’s efforts to dismiss 9/11 lawsuit

11 September

US district judge George Daniels, in a 45-page opinion, rejected Saudi Arabia’s effort to claim sovereign immunity, saying that while the kingdom “attempts to offer seemingly innocent explanations or context, they are either self-contradictory or not strong enough to overcome the inference” that Saudi Arabia employed two men to assist the hijackers involved in the attacks.

Daniels found that the plaintiffs, the families of the 9/11 victims, offered credible evidence that two men, Omar al-Bayoumi, an accountant for a Saudi aviation company, and Fahad al-Thumairy, a diplomat stationed in the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, had a role in assisting the hijackers.

Daniels said it was “more likely than not” that there was “some connection” between the employment of Bayoumi and Thumairy by Saudi Arabia and the assistance they allegedly provided to the hijackers who lived in the US.

He added that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs “casts doubt” on whether Bayoumi was merely sent to pursue studies in the US, as lawyers for the Saudi government claim.

“By getting himself involved into the hijackers’ preparation for a terrorist attack, Bayoumi appears to have done much more than what a typical accountant or data processing technician would do,” Daniels wrote, referring to what his official job titles were.

Daniels did not make any decision on Saudi Arabia’s potential culpability.

Saudi Arabia can still appeal Daniels’ decision or reach a settlement with the victims’ families to prevent the case from going to trial.

Saudi Arabia has long attempted to quash the case. The kingdom is pursuing liberalising social reforms under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He has curbed the power of the religious police and has tried to lure investment firms and tourists to the country.

At the same time, the 39-year-old crown prince has cracked down on any form of political dissent.

Daniels’ decision was welcomed by lawyers and other representatives of the 9/11 victims’ families.

“Today’s decision is another powerful step toward justice,” Terry Strada, the chair of a coalition representing victims’ families and survivors, stated.

Almost 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The victims’ families and survivors have waged a 23-year legal battle to take Saudi Arabia to trial over the attack. The Gulf state is one of the world’s largest oil exporters and home to a sovereign wealth fund valued at over $1 trillion.

The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) owns approximately $20bn in US-listed stocks alone, not including real estate and other investments.

The decision by Daniels was made possible because of a 2016 law passed by Congress called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which allowed the 9/11 victims’ families to sue Saudi Arabia.

The law gives a broad scope for foreign governments to be sued in US federal court if they played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on US soil.

It has real-world implications.

Oftentimes, it can be difficult for US courts to enforce their rulings against defendants abroad. The law allows for US courts to seize any Saudi assets held in the US to pay the 9/11 victims’ families if their suit is successful.

Former Iranian FM warns parliament against pushing for leaving NPT 

Salehi made the remark in an interview with Entekhab onlione news outlet when he was asked about the parliamentary initiative to withdraw from the NPT.

The ex-head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran also said the issue of leaving the NPT has both a religious dimension and a governmental dimension. He added that, in his view, discussing this matter is exclusively within the leader’s jurisdiction, as his decree carries both religious and governmental authority.

Salehi underlined that individuals or governmental bodies, such as parliament, should not express opinions on such matters without consulting the leader, because such statements could be exploited by enemies due to Iran’s unique position in the international arena, potentially complicating the country’s diplomatic efforts.

Iran urges EU to stop “selective interpretations” of JCPOA

Abbas Araghchi

In a letter to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who serves as coordinator of the JCPOA Joint Commission, Araghchi criticized “biased and distorted narratives” regarding the implementation of the deal and its dispute-resolution mechanism.

The remarks followed the decision by the three European parties to the JCPOA to trigger the snapback mechanism at the UN Security Council in order to reinstate sanctions on Iran.

He reiterated that Iran activated the mechanism in May 2018 after the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and Europe’s “failure to fulfill commitments to normalize trade and economic ties with Iran.”

He added that Russia and China also reject European attempts to trigger the mechanism or reinstate UN sanctions.

Araghchi also said the EU and the E3, France, Germany, and the UK, have failed to meet key obligations, including those tied to the JCPOA’s “transition day” in October 2023, ignoring illegal attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites by the US and Israel.

Despite the criticism, Araghchi emphasized that Iran “remains committed to diplomacy” and is prepared to resume “fair and balanced negotiations,” provided other parties demonstrate seriousness.

Iran’s ambassador denies Australia’s anti-Semitism allegations

Speaking to reporters at Sydney Airport, Sadeghi also dismissed Australia’s renewed travel warning advising citizens not to visit Iran, stating that Australians “will be safe” if they travel to the country.

The move follows comments by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who reiterated his government’s advice against travel to Iran and announced plans to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) as a “terrorist organization,” citing alleged links to anti-Semitic incidents in Melbourne and Sydney last year.

Sadeghi said the accusations were “part of a conspiracy” aimed at undermining relations between the two countries and said Australia’s actions were influenced by “the anger of the Zionist regime” over Canberra’s stated intention to recognize an independent Palestinian state.

The ambassador added that despite the diplomatic tensions and his expulsion, “Iran has very good feelings toward Australia,” highlighting a “positive mission” during his two-and-a-half-year tenure.

Sadeghi condemned last year’s anti-Semitic attacks in Australia but denied any Iranian involvement.

Spox: E3 Move Against Iran Follows Orders of JCPOA Violator

Esmael Baghaei

In a post on the social media platform X, Ismail Baghaei, questioned the independence and “credibility” of the three European states, the UK, Germany, and France, as “negotiating partners.”

He stressed that their attempt to revive the annulled UN Security Council resolutions against Iran reflects a distorted notion of a “credible negotiating partner” in a so-called rules-based international order—one in which force creates rights and the “chief violator” dictates the rules of the game.

According to Baghaei, the decision of the three European countries to initiate the process of reimposing the canceled Security Council resolutions against Iran stems neither from a legal obligation nor from a rational assessment.

He added that, as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted in his August 28 press statement, the move is based on a directive from the US President under Presidential Memorandum No. 2 dated February 4, 2025.

Baghaei underlined that this is being driven by a party that is not a JCPOA member, has been the main violator and destroyer of the agreement, unilaterally withdrew from it in 2018, and triggered a chain of adverse developments that continues to this day.

Iran sends letter to UN Security Council after activation of snapback mechanism

According to state media, Araghchi said the E3 letter “misrepresents facts” and seeks to undermine the legal basis of Iran’s measures taken after the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions.

He rejected claims that Iran triggered the JCPOA dispute-resolution mechanism only in July 2020, insisting the process was formally activated by Tehran in May 2018, in line with Articles 26 and 36 of the deal.

Araghchi warned that any attempt to extend provisions of Resolution 2231 beyond its scheduled expiration would be “illegitimate” and could deepen divisions within the Security Council.

He emphasized that Iran will take a “firm and proportionate” response while remaining open to “meaningful diplomatic engagement” aimed at achieving a new, balanced agreement that addresses all parties’ concerns, including sanctions relief.

Iran Foreign Ministry: E3 UNSC notification null, void, without legal effect

The statement says, this unjustifiable measure, being in contravention of the Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRM) provided under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), constitutes an illegal and unfounded attempt to reinstate annulled resolutions and stands in manifest contradiction to Resolution 2231 (2015).

It points out: “As emphasized repeatedly in numerous prior communications with the Security Council of the United Nations, the three European States possess neither legal nor moral standing to resort to the so-called “snapback” mechanism. Their notification is, therefore, null, void, devoid of validity, and without any legal effect whatsoever.”

It says, as confirmed by certain members of the Council, most notably China and Russia, the three European States have not observed the prerequisites of the dispute resolution mechanism envisaged in both the JCPOA and Resolution 2231. Their notification is thus a legally defective attempt to abuse Resolution 2231 for the purpose of pursuing a biased political agenda against Iran.
The statement adds given that these States have, over an extended period, gravely breached their obligations and aligned themselves with the unlawful withdrawal and coercive measures of the United States, they can in no manner lay claim to the status of “good-faith parties.”

It further points out that it was the United States, and not Iran, that unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated sanctions in 2018. It was the European Union and the three European States, and not Iran, that failed to fulfill their commitments to mitigate the economic consequences of the U.S. withdrawal.

The Foreign Ministry reiterated this decision of the three European States will gravely undermine the ongoing course of interaction and cooperation between Iran and the Atomic Energy Agency. Such provocative and unnecessary escalation shall be met with appropriate responses.

Iranian parliament initiates urgent plan to withdraw from NPT

The proposal, according to Hossein Ali Haji Deligani, will be uploaded to the parliamentary system on Friday and is expected to be reviewed in next week’s public sessions.

The move follows the recent activation of the “snapback mechanism” by Germany, France, and the United Kingdom as part of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aimed at reinstating sanctions on Iran.

“As predicted, these three countries have triggered the mechanism,” Haji Deligani told Tasnim News Agency, calling the measure neither surprising nor new.

He criticized Iran’s diplomatic team for continuing negotiations with European powers, accusing them of pursuing “futile talks” that have only emboldened Western nations.

The lawmaker noted that negotiations with these countries should be halted until they “abandon their double standards.”

He also slammed the US and Israel for their aggressive actions, including strikes on Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities.

Haji Deligani said that “Iranian public opinion widely supports a tougher stance against Western powers.”

Iran ties IAEA cooperation to parliamentary law, natl. security council decisions

Mohammad Eslami

Mohammad Eslami said that assessments of damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear facilities during the recent 12-day war are still underway, stressing that the process is lengthy due to the sensitive security conditions at the affected sites.

He emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program is a fundamental requirement for the nation’s scientific development and will continue despite external pressures.

Commenting on the latest exchanges with the IAEA, Eslami stated: “If the Agency reaches an arrangement with the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the law passed by Parliament, then the Supreme National Security Council will decide on the framework of cooperation.”

Iran warns of possible halt to IAEA cooperation if E3 triggers snapback mechanism

Iran Nuclear Program

Kazem Gharibabadi, Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, stressed that Iran has repeatedly conveyed to European parties and the European Union that such an action would not go unanswered.

“For seven years, the Europeans have failed to implement the JCPOA,” Gharibabadi said, pointing to new sanctions imposed on Iran in sectors such as shipping and aviation.

“If they proceed with snapback, Iran will respond accordingly, and our current path of engagement with the IAEA will be completely affected, possibly halted.”

He added that Iran would formally notify the Security Council of its position if the European powers move ahead.

“It makes no sense to expect Iran to continue with cooperative measures while they pursue snapback. Europe will effectively exclude itself from diplomatic dialogue with Iran.”

The developments come as the E3 states have informed the UN Security Council that they are activating snapback sanctions against Iran, although if negotiations on a nuclear deal resume in the next 30 days, before the sanctions take effect, the snapback process will be halted.