Why Iran Should Join The International Islamic Commission For 9/11 Justice

An Open Letter from Captain Dan Hanley, Retired United Airlines Pilot and Executive Director of the International Islamic Commission for 9/11 Justice, to the President and Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

To: His Excellency Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
To: His Excellency Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Cc: Iranian news agencies, editors, journalists, and international affairs correspondents

FORMAL INVITATION TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN TO JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC COMMISSION FOR 9/11 JUSTICE

Your Excellencies,

I write in my capacity as Executive Director of the International Islamic Commission for 9/11 Justice, whose international campaign was officially launched on October 15, 2026.

I am Captain Dan Hanley, a retired United Airlines Boeing 777 captain with 35 years of professional flying experience and the founder of 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers. I respectfully invite the Islamic Republic of Iran to participate in this international initiative to investigate unresolved questions surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks and their far-reaching consequences.

IRAN’S HISTORY WITH FOREIGN INTERVENTION

Iran’s modern history provides important context for understanding why an independent international investigation into September 11 and the subsequent transformation of global politics deserves serious consideration.

1953 — The overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. American and British intelligence agencies supported the coup that removed Iran’s democratically elected prime minister after he nationalized the country’s oil industry. This intervention remains a defining episode in Iran’s relationship with the West and a powerful example of how strategic and economic interests can undermine national sovereignty.

1979 — The Islamic Revolution. The revolution ended the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic. Among the grievances that shaped the revolutionary movement were political repression, foreign interference, and the legacy of the 1953 coup. The subsequent breakdown of relations with Washington ushered in decades of confrontation.

1980–1988 — The Iran–Iraq War. Iraq’s invasion of Iran initiated an eight-year conflict that devastated both countries. The United States subsequently tilted toward Iraq, including providing intelligence and other assistance, despite evidence of Iraqi chemical-weapons use. The war left an enduring legacy of suffering and distrust.

1988 — Iran Air Flight 655. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian passenger aircraft over the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 people aboard. The United States said its crew had mistaken the aircraft for a military threat. For Iran, the tragedy remains a profound example of the consequences of military action and the importance of accountability.

Decades of sanctions and economic pressure. Iran has faced extensive American sanctions, restrictions on international commerce, and repeated confrontations over its regional policies and nuclear program. The United States’ 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action further intensified tensions.

These events demonstrate why the independence of nations, the accountability of powerful governments, and the impartial examination of contested official explanations are matters of profound international importance.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK AND THE PROPOSED CAMPAIGN AGAINST SEVEN COUNTRIES

There is another historical matter that I believe merits consideration in understanding the strategic environment following September 11.

In public interviews and accounts, retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark described a conversation in which a senior military officer allegedly told him that a Pentagon memorandum outlined plans to remove governments in seven countries over five years.

The countries Clark identified were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

Clark recounted this information after the September 11 attacks, describing a proposed sequence of military campaigns that would culminate in Iran. His account has been publicly discussed in interviews and published reporting.

This account does not, by itself, establish that every subsequent conflict was directed by one master plan. Nevertheless, it raises an important question: to what extent did the events of September 11 become the political and strategic justification for a broader campaign to transform governments across the Middle East and surrounding regions?

Iran’s inclusion in Clark’s account is particularly relevant to the Commission’s proposed work. It provides a reason to examine the relationship between September 11, subsequent military interventions, and the strategic objectives pursued by powerful states.

THE CONCEPT OF A “GREATER ISRAEL”

The concept commonly referred to as “Greater Israel” has different meanings among religious, nationalist, and political movements. Some interpretations concern the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, while more expansive interpretations invoke biblical boundaries extending across parts of the wider Middle East.

The positions of Israeli political figures and movements on territorial expansion vary, and the existence of these ideas does not establish that every Israeli government policy is directed by a single territorial plan.

Nevertheless, the concept is relevant to regional discussions about occupation, annexation, territorial security, and the future political balance of the Middle East.

My concern is that Iran’s position as a regional power opposed to Israeli policies may be a significant factor in the strategic confrontation between Iran, Israel, and the United States.

I believe these wider strategic interests deserve examination alongside the publicly stated security concerns of the governments involved.

THE CURRENT CONFLICT: NUCLEAR SECURITY, REGIME CHANGE, AND STRATEGIC INTERESTS

Your Excellencies, I believe the current conflict involving Iran cannot be understood solely as a dispute over nuclear weapons.

The United States has publicly identified preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, degrading its missile capabilities, and countering its regional influence as objectives. President Donald Trump has also publicly expressed support for regime change. These stated objectives must be distinguished from the broader strategic motives that critics believe may be involved.

My own assessment is that the conflict also concerns the future of Iran’s government, control over strategic energy resources, and Iran’s ability to resist Israeli regional ambitions.

I am concerned that the ultimate strategic objectives may include weakening or replacing Iran’s existing government, gaining greater influence over the country’s substantial oil and gas resources, and neutralizing Iran as a regional counterweight to Israel.

These are serious matters, and I do not present them as conclusively established facts. I believe they warrant examination through independent research, documentary evidence, and scrutiny of the decisions made by the governments involved.

The question is not whether Iran’s nuclear activities deserve scrutiny. The question is whether nuclear security represents the entirety of the strategic dispute—or whether broader geopolitical, territorial, energy, and regime-change objectives also influence the confrontation.

An independent international inquiry should be prepared to examine all relevant evidence without allowing any government to determine the limits of the investigation in advance.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

The September 11 attacks transformed international affairs. They were followed by the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, expanded counterterrorism operations, and profound changes in the relationship between Western governments and Muslim-majority countries.

The consequences extended far beyond the United States. Millions of people experienced the effects of war, displacement, political instability, and intensified suspicion directed toward Muslim communities.

In his book Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored, Canadian author Ray McGinnis examines questions raised by family members of the victims and their concerns about the official investigation.

According to the figures discussed in his work, approximately 70% of the questions submitted by the families’ steering committee were ignored, while only 9% were satisfactorily answered.

These figures do not independently prove an alternative account of the attacks. They do, however, illustrate why questions about the completeness of the original investigation continue to deserve serious attention.

Some commentators have alleged that individuals within powerful American and Israeli political or security establishments may have played roles in facilitating, planning, or concealing aspects of September 11. Such allegations remain disputed and have not been established as fact.

I believe that allegations of this magnitude must be examined through evidence rather than accepted or dismissed on political grounds.

The Commission should investigate who planned, financed, facilitated, and executed the attacks; what relevant authorities knew before and after September 11; whether significant evidence was overlooked or withheld; and whether the official conclusions withstand independent scrutiny.

Our position is straightforward: no government, intelligence agency, political movement, or individual should be exempt from an evidence-based investigation.

WHY IRAN SHOULD JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC COMMISSION

I respectfully submit that Iran has several compelling reasons to consider participating.

First, an independent examination of September 11. Iran could contribute to a serious international effort to examine unresolved questions concerning the attacks and their consequences without being required to endorse predetermined conclusions.

Second, the relationship between September 11 and subsequent wars. The Commission would examine the evidence surrounding the attacks and the extent to which they were used to justify subsequent military interventions and changes in international security policy.

Third, national sovereignty and accountability. Iran’s historical experience gives it a direct interest in the principle that powerful states must be accountable for their actions and that international standards should apply consistently.

Fourth, regional security and strategic interests. Iran could contribute its perspective on the transformation of the Middle East since 2001, including the effects of military intervention, sanctions, and regional confrontation.

Fifth, justice for Muslim communities. The attacks were widely associated with Muslims in public discourse, contributing to Islamophobia and discrimination. An impartial investigation could help establish responsibility on the basis of evidence rather than religious identity.

Sixth, international cooperation. Iranian participation could encourage further involvement by governments, researchers, aviation professionals, legal experts, and independent investigators interested in resolving unanswered questions.

OUR FORMAL INVITATION

Your Excellencies, the International Islamic Commission for 9/11 Justice is intended to provide an independent international forum for collecting, preserving, authenticating, and examining relevant evidence and testimony concerning September 11.

We have petitioned senior Pakistani government officials to consider hosting the Commission in Islamabad. Our proposed initiative would involve international participation and seek to present documented findings to appropriate institutions, including the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and, where jurisdiction and admissibility permit, relevant international judicial bodies.

I respectfully invite the Islamic Republic of Iran to consider joining the initiative and designating appropriate representatives or experts to participate in preliminary discussions about its mandate, governance, investigative procedures, and international participation.

I am not asking Iran to endorse a predetermined theory about September 11 or to accept allegations against any government without evidence. I am asking Iran to consider supporting an independent process in which relevant claims can be tested, documentary evidence examined, witnesses heard, and conclusions reached on the merits of the available evidence.

The ultimate objective is to establish a credible record of what happened on September 11, who was responsible, whether significant questions remain unanswered, and what lessons must be drawn for international peace, security, and justice.

I would welcome the opportunity to provide a briefing to the appropriate Iranian officials and discuss how Iran might contribute to this initiative.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Captain Dan Hanley, Retired
Executive Director
International Islamic Commission for 9/11 Justice
Founder and Director, 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers
Whistleblowing Airline Pilots Association International
Islamabad, Pakistan

Categories: Geopolitics, International Affairs

Tags: Geopolitics, Iran, Islam, Muslim Ummah, Muslims, September 11, USA