The Iran Controversy Most People Missed

TOP LINE

This week's threat of retaliation by Iran is not a hypothetical and could have consequences inside and outside the US.    

Based on a recent court filing by the Solicitor General, the US government’s lawyer before the Supreme Court,  if Iran were to attack American citizens, they could not seek compensation for their injuries.  They must show a US court that a death resulted from the attack.

The controversial legal position, first adopted by the Biden Administration and now the Trump Administration, has effectively closed the courthouse doors to US victims of terrorism.  Victim advocates complain that Americans are taking a back seat to politics and Iranian interests.  

It wasn’t always this way.  Legal experts we interviewed said the current position breaks with long standing precedent where attempted killings counted under the court’s interpretation of the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act or FSIA.

Terrorism victims are urging congress to intervene and add the one word “attempted” killings to the terrorism exception under FSIA.   It is a straightforward fix that would hold Iran accountable for terrorist attacks against American citizens.

DEEP DIVE

Iran retaliated against American forces under the first Trump administration. It is just a matter of time before Iran targets American troops again. In the current situation, severely injured service members would not be able to seek accountability from Iran through the US courts.

On January 8th, 2020, Iran launched the largest ballistic missile attack on American forces in US history.  A dozen warheads, each weighing 1600 pounds, struck Iraq’s Al Asad air base where US forces were stationed.  It was Iran’s revenge for a US strike that killed its top general Qassem Soleimani days earlier. 

The resulting brain injuries were well documented. This week, Retired LTC Al Johnson, who was the Al Asad base flight surgeon, contributed to a new report that assessed the missile attack’s long term health impacts. The chief author was Lieutenant Colonel Shana Godfred.

This legal case is called Hansen v. Islamic Republic of Iran.  It takes its name from then-Army Captain Geoffrey Hansen who was among the more than 50 soldiers diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries.   To add insult to injury, dozens of soldiers at Al Asad were initially denied the Purple Heart.

(At CBS News, my reporting along with investigative producer Michael Kaplan helped secure the Purple Heart for more than 50 soldiers. This was one of the largest awards of Purple Hearts outside World War II.  The Purple Heart brings with it significant health and financial benefits.  This investigative project was recognized with an Emmy award.)

The issue of terrorism victim compensation has reached the highest levels of the US government. The Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General for an opinion on a separate, but related case. 

In Borochov v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, the plaintiffs sued Iran and Syria for providing material support to terrorist attacks.   The same legal question arose:  can victims seek compensation for a terrorist attack that injures them, but does not cause death?

The Trump administration’s Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court not to take up the Borochov case because no one died in the attack.   If the Supreme Court does not consider the legal arguments in Borochov, it will have a ripple effect on the US soldiers bombed by Iran. 

FREE PREVIEW 🔓️ 

Catherine Herridge Reports Is Backed By Readers Like You

Our team relies on your subscriptions. No corporations. No pressure from advertisers. We can follow the facts wherever they lead.

Please consider supporting our independent, fact based journalism. Your support makes it possible!

While one soldier, Jason Quitugua, had a severe traumatic brain injury that was blamed for his suicide, the courts  found his death did not qualify for compensation.  The 22-year-old’s suicide was an indirect result of Iran’s missile strike.   He was not killed in the strike itself.

If the Solicitor General's recommendation to the Supreme Court stands, 73 badly injured service members and their families will have no legal pathway for compensation. This conflicts with the current administration’s stated commitment to put merit and our service members first.

Steve Perles, who is a pioneer in this area of the law, and part of the Al Asad litigation said the court’s interpretation breaks with precedent, and “…allows compensation for minor injuries so long as there is at least one death in an attack but disqualifies crippling life altering injuries if no one happens to have been killed in an attack intended to kill people.”

In addition to their brain injuries, leaked military memos obtained by our investigative team and shared in our October 2nd newsletter were shocking.  The military memos showed that US service members were also exposed to potentially toxic and hazardous agents from the blast, including radiation.

“We're going to have another Agent Orange situation,” Retired LTC Robert Broadbent warned. Broadbent is also part of the legal team representing the Al Asad soldiers.

As part of our commitment to transparency, CHR newsletter is posting the full documents for your independent review and analysis.

The remainder of this newsletter is for paid subscribers only.

Catherine Herridge Reports: Telling the stories we could not tell before. Where the facts have a power all their own.

✅ Whistleblower investigations that demand government accountability and get results with long overdue benefits awarded to US service members.

✅ Analysis that is fact driven and unafraid to challenge the prevailing narrative.

✅ Unlimited access to our online archive where you can read previous editions of the newsletter.