Lobelog

Europe’s Extreme Right Is In Bed With MEK

Until recently Spain was the envy of Europe. While in most countries the resurgence of the populist right was reshaping national politics, Spain was able to dodge the trend: a centre-right government lost power six months ago in a no confidence vote, and was replaced, in an orderly fashion, by a centre-left one. A minority Socialist government, which had more female ministers than male, steered the country in a decidedly pro-European direction. The extreme right, meanwhile, polled in single digits.
Not any longer. The December 2 regional elections in Andalucia, Spain’s largest region, saw a noisy irruption of Vox, a hitherto marginal extreme right party, into Spanish political life. Vox won almost 11% of the popular vote, which gave it 12 seats in the 109-seat regional chamber. For the first time since the death of the dictator Francisco Franco in mid-1970s, the extreme right has entered a Spanish parliament, albeit for now only a regional one.
Vox leader Santiago Abascal is a professed admirer of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French extreme right, and built his campaign on a platform of Euro-scepticism, anti-feminism, xenophobia, and exacerbated Spanish nationalism. The transatlantic extreme right political guru Steve Bannon sees Vox as a valuable part of his global ideological crusade against the “liberal elite” and “cultural Marxism”.
What is less known is that Vox’s emergence is intimately linked to Mojaheddeen-e Khalk (MEK), an exiled Iranian cult bitterly opposed to the current government of Iran. MEK was on European Union’s terrorist list until 2009 and on the U.S. terrorist list until 2012.

The Vox-MEK link goes beyond any ideological affinity that might exist between the two groups. According to an investigation on Vox’ finances conducted by El Pais, a leading Spanish newspaper, Vox received a donation of 500.000 euros from MEK, acting under the umbrella of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), in 2014. The money reportedly came via thousands of contributions ranging from 200 to 5000 euros from individual members and sympathisers of the NCRI. This money allowed the party to kick-start its election campaign for the European Parliament.

The person who played a key role in securing this funding was Alejo Vidal-Quadras, a veteran Spanish politician who served as a vice-president of the European Parliament from 2009 to 2014. Vidal-Quadras abandoned his center-right Partido Popular (People’s Party—PP) in 2013, on the grounds that it moved too far to the center under the leadership of Spain’s former prime-minister Mariano Rajoy. He became one of the founders of Vox, which sought to attract the disaffected voters of the right.
During his years as a vice-president, Vidal-Quadras was the most influential MEK lobbyist in the EP, leading the cross-party group “Friends of Free Iran“. This group acted mostly as a mouthpiece for the MEK. In his role as a vice-president he hosted on numerous occasions the NCRI “president-elect” Maryam Rajavi in the European Parliament.
At first sight, Vidal-Quadras and Rajavi would make strange bedfellows. Given Spain’s own traumatic experience with terrorism, the country’s right-wing has traditionally projected an image of unwavering toughness on the issue. Vidal-Quadras, however, saw no qualms in advocating for a removal of an avowedly Islamic-Marxist cult like MEK from the EU terrorist list—an effort that eventually culminated successfully in 2009. A self-professed defender of the “West”, Vidal-Quadras was lobbying on behalf of an organisation that was responsible for terrorist attacks on Westerners in Iran.
Vox did not make it to the EP in 2014, and Vidal-Quadras eventually parted ways with the party in 2015. He still spends a lot of time in Brussels, however, continuing to promote the NCRI/MEK, now through the “International Committee in Search of Justice” (ICSJ). Unfortunately the ICSJ’s website shows a marked lack of transparency. It gives no disclosure on its funding and staff. It claims that it “enjoyed the support of over 4000 parliamentarians on both sides of Atlantic”, but doesn’t identify a single one. Despite its lofty name, it seems to be narrowly focused on pushing the NCRI/MEK agenda of regime change in Iran. In sum, the “committee” looks more like a one-man operation.
Vidal-Quadras may no longer be with Vox, but that hardly means that MEK-Vox ties are severed. Rafael Bardaji, a former adviser to the Spanish prime-minister Jose Maria Aznar, recently joined Vox and is a staunch advocate of Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy against Iran. And Aznar himself addressed a MEK rally in Paris in 2010.
Current leaders of Vox insist that they no longer receive any funding from foreign sources. They claim that the party is supported exclusively by small Spanish firms and crowdfunding. This, however, flies in the face of the party’s apparent financial strength, as reported by El Pais, which has enabled it to acquire real estate, hire new personnel, pay lawyers to file complaints and petitions against the government, etc. Former party leaders accuse the current leadership of running financially opaque operations, falling far short of satisfying legal standards for transparency.
Whatever the financial status of Vox currently, the role of MEK in enabling this newcomer into the ranks of Europe’s extreme right cannot be ignored. It should also serve as a wake-up call to mainstream Western politicians who have allowed themselves to be fooled by MEK’s siren songs about democracy and secularism in Iran.
This article reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily the opinions of the European Parliament.

By Eldar Mamedov, Lobelog

ELDAR MAMEDOV
Eldar Mamedov has degrees from the University of Latvia and the Diplomatic School in Madrid, Spain. He has worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and as a diplomat in Latvian embassies in Washington D.C. and Madrid. Since 2007, Mamedov has served as a political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the EP delegations for inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, and Mashreq.

December 19, 2018 0 comment

Missions of Nejat Society

False Flag Op In Albania Would Drive A Wedge Between The EU And Iran

President Trump’s floundering Iran policy was firmed up earlier this month when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a new ‘Iran Action Group’. According to Pompeo, “The Iran Action Group will be responsible [for] directing, reviewing, and coordinating all aspects of the State Department’s Iran-related activity, and will report directly to me.”

As the name indicates, action rather than diplomacy now tops the State Department’s agenda toward Iran. Action that will surely include increased sanctions, economic warfare, cyber warfare, inciting protest, and very possibly support for terrorist groups. Not a new repertoire. But Iran has proven remarkably vigilant and resilient in withstanding all these pressures, fending off various terrorist groups on its borders, some cities, and even an attack on the Majlis (parliament). More recently, attempts to subverteconomic protests in the country have come to nothing. Other means are called for.

As America pressures the European Union to line up behind its sanctions regime and end trade with Iran, there are indications that this could open another front for confronting Iran. The question for America’s anti-Iran pundits currently is how to engineer distance between Europe and Iran. One way would be if it could be demonstrated that Iranian terrorism has reached Europe itself, a theme that Pompeo himself addresses at virtually every Iran-related opportunity.

While rational observers recognise that any such activity would be political suicide for Iran, we are clearly not living in rational times. There are signs that the groundwork for a covert false-flag operation have been in place for some time that would blame Iran for an atrocity conducted outside its borders.

Such a possibility was hinted at in June when an Iranian diplomat was arrested in Germany over an alleged bomb plot on the eve of President Rouhani’s visit. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted “how convenient.” Iran claimed that the Belgian couple found to be behind the fake plot were Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) activists. The target for the bombing was the MEK rally in Paris which would then presumably be blamed on Iran. How convenient indeed.

That the MEK is named in this way is no surprise. While other terrorist groups have been contained by Iran, MEK has proven tenacious, due in main to the support it receives from Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the U.S. This is also due to its cult conditions which enslave and brainwash its members. But the fact that MEK is now based in Albania, far away from Iran’s border, might have doomed the group to obscurity if MEK’s violent regime change agenda didn’t so closely coincide with the desires of hawks in the Trump administration.

Trump, deliberately or unwittingly, has surrounded himself with MEK supporters. John Bolton, National Security Advisor, is a long-time MEK advocate and Rudy Giuliani, currently tackling Trump’s legal problems, has regularly spoken at MEK rallies. Now with former CIA man Pompeo as Secretary of State and taking a hard-line regime-change stance in all but words, all that all that remains is for an action plan to be put in place.

It could be that this is already taking shape in Albania where the MEK has deliberately curated a false narrative through its own websites that Iran is sending agents to attack and kill its members. This narrative is then repeated as established fact by political supporters and paid advocates.

In July, Pompeo repeated ‘news’ of the alleged bomb plot and also referenced the MEK-manufactured allegation that two retired Iranian journalists had been sent by Iran to conduct terrorism against them in Albania. It was MEK itself that falsely tipped off police to arrest the two innocent men. Building on this, Raymond Tanter, part of a cabal of mostly ex-CIA and former military officials who advocate for MEK, inserted this false information into a long article promoting the group MEK as bringers of peace and democracy to Iran. Nothing could be further from the truth.

MEK has a long history of covert as well as overt activities aimed at regime change against Iran. Over the years, when events were blamed on Iran, MEK often insinuated itself in various ways—as it did, for instance, in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. After extensive investigation, the primary testimony implicating Iran’s leadership came from four high-ranking intelligence officers from MEK—specifically, Hadi Roshan Ravan, the chief witness who not coincidentally also served as the head of MEK intelligence. In 2013, Israel arrested a Swedish Iranian man, Ali Mansouri, who “confessed” to be spying for Iran in Tel Aviv. He turned out to be an MEK member. MEK’s role in publicizing intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program and alleged complicity with Israel in the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists is widely known. Whether or not MEK was directly involved in many of such activities or not, its propagandizing role is indisputable.

Since arriving in Albania between 2013 and 2016, MEK has already shown itself to be aggressive, criminal, and dangerous. Recently a scandal erupted after a British Channel 4 film crew, headed by prominent journalist Lindsey Hilsum, was assaulted by MEK operatives while filming outside the MEK’s closed camp in Manez, Albania. A few days later, Aaron Merat, a journalist with The Guardian, was also subjected to an assault by MEK operatives during his investigations. MEK accused them of being “agents of the Iranian regime.”

This news, shocking as it is, did not find an audience outside Albania. So far, so local. But it demonstrated the ease and impunity with which MEK uses violence when the outside world encroaches on its secrecy. Albanians were even more shocked that their security services tried to hide these events.

Interestingly the group’s self-portrayal of victimhood largely serves its own internal dynamics. MEK moved 2000+ members to a closed camp in Manez to prevent more members leaving the group. MEK leaders claim that Iran has sent various intelligence agents to Albania plot against them and kill them and the camp is their only protection. While this serves to frighten its own members and stiffen their thirty-year resolve to continue their struggle, it also fits the kind of false narrative that leads to the kind of false-flag operations that could be blamed on Iran.

Former CIA Director Pompeo’s Iran Action Group is a sub-group in the State Department answering only to him. This also favors the kind of covert operation with which the MEK is only too willing and able to engage. Worryingly, the attacks on foreign journalists could serve to escalate and accelerate secret plans already in place for a false-flag operation in Albania which would be blamed on Iran. The first victims would be MEK members. The next targets could be Albanian. And this time, in order to convince Europe that Iran is a dangerous sponsor of terrorism, people would die.

Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh,

September 1, 2018 0 comment

The Ugly Destination Of Trump’s Iran Policy

President Trump’s belligerent, all-caps tweet about Iran this past weekend is hardly a natural response to anything the Iranians have been saying or doing lately. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani did make a speech on Sunday in which he stated, “America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” while advising Trump that “to play with the lion’s tail” would become a source of “regret.” So, Rouhani was saying that he wants peace with America and that moving toward war would be a bad idea. Hardly the stuff that ordinarily would provoke a flaming riposte.

To the extent Iranian leaders might be sounding a little testy these days, no one should be surprised. In response to Iran’s internationally certified compliance with an agreement in which the country willingly subjected itself to some of the most severe restrictions and intrusive monitoring in the history of nuclear arms control, the Trump administration has reneged on U.S. obligations under the same agreement, sworn hostility toward Iran, waged economic warfare against it, and blatantly attempted to destabilize it.

Trump’s now-familiar methods give rise to some possible motivations for his blast on Twitter. The president is, of course, a master of commanding and diverting the attention of the media and the public. This stoking of the fire aimed at Iran helped to steal headlines from a miserable, Russia-centered week that included the embarrassment at Helsinki. The week continued with a release of documents that knock down a scenario that Trump and his partisan defenders have tried to spin about allegedly ignoble motives underlying the investigation into Russia’s election interference.

Trump’s threat in his tweet of “consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before” brings to mind his earlier threat against North Korea of “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” This comparison in turn evokes another of Trump’s now-familiar tactics, which he tried to use with the North Korean issue, which is to create a crisis as part of his contention that his predecessors left him a mess and then, after holding a meeting or signing something, claiming that he has achieved a wonderful success. The current tension with Iran, featuring the U.S. reneging on the nuclear agreement, certainly is a creation of the Trump administration. But there any similarity with the North Korean case ends. There is no U.S.-Iranian summit meeting, or even normal, working-level diplomacy, in the offing. The administration is too committed to permanent hostility toward the Islamic Republic of Iran to move in that direction.

A critical difference between the two cases concerns the positions of other states in each region. Neighbors of North Korea have welcomed dialogue and détente with Pyongyang, with South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in deserving most of the credit for moving things in that direction. By contrast, the principal regional rivals of Iran—to whom Trump has subcontracted most of his Middle East policy—don’t want any detente between Washington and Tehran. For Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, unending U.S.-Iranian hostility sustains their own privileged relationships with the United States, keeps a major regional rival isolated, and diverts attention from their own foibles and vulnerabilities.

The timing of Trump’s all-caps blast most likely was related to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech the same day, which was a full-throated call to destabilize the Iranian government. The secretary and the president probably hope for some form of regime change in Iran as the one development that somewhere up the line—say, within about two years, before the U.S. election in 2020—they will be able to point to as a foreign policy “accomplishment” in the absence of any other developments for which they can make that claim. Pompeo, at least, is smart enough to realize how implausible is a “better deal” with Iran on its nuclear program, despite the administration rhetoric on that theme. A nothing-but-pressure approach was tried before for years and failed, and now it’s even less likely to yield results when its only protagonist is not an international coalition but instead an isolated United States.

In this regard, it is revealing that in his speech this week, Pompeo said almost nothing about nuclear matters—an issue that would have dominated any U.S. speech on Iran a few years ago. There was nothing to say, other than that the issue was resolved, in the best feasible way, by the multilateral agreement that was negotiated under the previous administration and that the Trump administration categorically rejected.

On North Korea, it must be sinking in even with Trump that, despite his rhetoric after the Singapore summit meeting, the North Korean nuclear problem is nowhere near being solved. Solving it would be a genuine foreign-policy accomplishment, but this, too, may be out of reach during what would be a politically meaningful time frame for Trump.

Regime change in Iran is itself an unlikely “accomplishment,” notwithstanding the administration’s rhetoric and economic warfare intended to bring it about. Wishful thinking prevails. Street demonstrations in Iran that are far smaller than those that fizzled out in the time of the Green Movement several years ago are looked on with hope as harbingers of the regime’s imminent collapse. (An interesting duality in Pompeo’s appearance was that, although he pointed to protests in Iran as evidence of what he portrayed as a population unhappy with the regime, his response to a protestor who interrupted his own speech—shouting something about the migrant children controversy—was “if there were only so much freedom of expression in Iran.”)

Much of the administration’s interference and economic warfare makes regime change in Iran less, not more, likely. The sanctions lend credibility to the regime’s argument that Iran’s economic shortcomings are due more to the United States than to the regime’s mismanagement. The sanctions hurt ordinary Iranians far more than privileged members of the regime. Moreover, a U.S. administration that is openly anti-Islamic—as represented by the travel ban, which affects Iranians more than any other nationality—is hardly taken in Iran as a credible source of inspiration.

Even if the regime in Iran were to change significantly in the next couple of years, that leaves the question of the direction of change. The bankruptcy of the administration’s thinking on this subject is underscored by the role that the cult-cum-terrorist-group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (or MEK)—which was invited to Pompeo’s speech—plays in that thinking. The MEK has American blood on its hands, and it lost almost all support it once had in Iran when it became an auxiliary to Saddam Hussein’s security apparatus during the Iran-Iraq War. Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, and his lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, are among those close to the president who have sung the praises of the MEK in exchange for fat speaking fees.

If significant political change were to occur in Tehran in the next couple of years—especially after everything the Trump administration has done, including reneging on the nuclear agreement, to discredit moderates such as Rouhani—that change would most likely be in a hardline direction. One possibility would be the Revolutionary Guard acquiring more extensive powers, even to the point of a military dictatorship.

Change is unlikely to be in a more democratic direction. Indeed, the regional rivals of Iran with sway over the administration’s policies do not want more democracy (or any democracy, for that matter) in Iran. Such a development could become a basis for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement that they definitely do not want, and that could lessen their own privileged positions with Washington. An Israeli intelligence officer told a visiting scholar when Iran’s Green Movement was active in 2009 that a victory by the movement would be “Israel’s worst nightmare” because it would mean less Iranian isolation and, consequently, more Iranian power.

The Saudi regime needs to worry not only about a possible tilt by the United States toward a more democratic Iran but also the example that such a democracy would set for subjects of the Saudi regime’s own highly autocratic rule. Herein lies another curiosity in Secretary Pompeo’s speech, which made a big deal about Iranian leaders supposedly enriching themselves as a reason to look for regime change in Iran. Wouldn’t there be similar political implications for the rake-offs of Saudi oil revenues that sustain the expensive tastes of the royal family?

The best outcome—and it isn’t good at all–that one can hope for from the administration’s current course on Iran is endless tension, more antagonizing of Iranian citizens who see the United States as hostile to their own interests, and a constant risk of escalation to open warfare. If the remaining parties to the nuclear agreement cannot keep that accord going, and if the Trump administration’s threats continue to revive thinking in Iran about the value of a nuclear deterrent, then a new nuclear crisis might be added to the mess.

Armed conflict would, of course, be even worse. Donald Trump probably is not now seeking such a war, but one cannot rule out that someday he would as a way to escape from greater political troubles he encounters concerning the Russia investigation or anything else. The bigger worry in the meantime is Bolton, who has long yearned for such a war and, in his current job, is in a position to increase the chances of one breaking out.

Paul R. Pillar,

July 25, 2018 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Politics Behind The Sabotage Of The Iran Deal In Europe

As the EU scrambles to offer a viable package of economic incentives to convince Iran to stay in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) after the US withdrawal, some forces are attempting to undermine this effort and fully align the bloc’s policies with the Trump administration’s strategy of isolating Iran.

A case in point was an attempt in the European Parliament to block one of the key measures that EU governments proposed to preserve the JCPOA: to give a mandate to the European Investment Bank (EIB) to support financing investment projects in Iran. As of June 4, when the proposal was made, the Parliament had two months to object by issuing a resolution blocking the measure.

The first such attempt was undertaken on June 28 in the Budget committee (BUDG). A resolution was drafted by Gerard Deprez, a Belgian politician and the spokesman in BUDG for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats of Europe (ALDE). It included some genuine concerns expressed by the senior management of the EIB about the bank’s exposure to US sanctions if it engaged in Iran.

But there were also some blatantly political statements, unrelated to either the JCPOA or the measure at hand, namely, that Iran is a “significant state sponsor of terrorism” and a “theocratic, centralized state” where “power is invested with unelected institutions” and human rights violations are “still rampant and systematic.” It also accused Iran of “consistently violating its international obligations regarding its nuclear deterrent” and, bizarrely, “preparing for the failure of the JCPOA”—despite Iran’s certified record of compliance with the agreement. The resolution was roundly defeated in the committee.

Why would a mainstream, pro-European political group like ALDE, led by former Belgian prime minister and passionate Euro-federalist Guy Verhofstadt move to undermine the JCPOA, a singular diplomatic achievement of the EU? The reason is that Deprez is the chair of an informal “Friends of Free Iran” caucus in the EP. The sole purpose of this group is to act as a mouthpiece for the violent, exiled Iranian cult Mojaheddeen-e Khalk (MEK), on the EU terrorist list until 2012 and bitterly opposed to any thaw between the EU and Islamic Republic.

Not to be deterred by their defeat in BUDG, the promoters of the blocking motion pushed for a full floor vote. A different vehicle was found this time: the far-right Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) group that includes euroskeptics from UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) and other populists. The group copy-pasted the same resolution defeated in the committee. It was duly rejected in the EP plenary as well, by a whopping 573 votes to 93, with 11 abstentions.

The main political blocs in the house—the center-right conservatives and center-left social democrats, joined by smaller groups like the Greens and the Left—backed the EIB mandate to work in Iran. But an overwhelming majority of ALDE MPs voted against as well, thus confirming that Deprez acted on behalf of MEK rather than his political faction. In the end, only the far right and assorted MEK supporters, including Deprez himself, voted to support the blocking motion.

In truth, there was never a realistic chance that the motion would pass. The clout of MEK has been on the wane in recent years. It has lost some influential backers. More MPs are willing to speak up against MEK abuses, as evidenced by hearings recently held in the EP. Overall, the group has been reduced to obstructing and delaying the normalization of ties between the EU and Iran, rather than shaping outcomes. When it truly mattered, the vote on the EIB exposed its real weight.

On the other measure to preserve the JCPOA—the reactivation of the Blocking Statutes to protect EU companies from US secondary sanctions—MEK and other anti-Iranian lobbies, like the right-wing pro-Israeli groups and their Saudi and Emirati allies, did not manage even to table an objection, let alone win it. This means that the Parliament has decisively backed both measures to enter into force as of August 5, the day before the re-imposed US sanctions kick in.

The fight, however, is not over. In theory, the national governments could still block the measure before it enters into force. The US is already reaching out to weaker members of the EU, such as the Baltic states, Poland, and Hungary, to force them to take Washington’s, rather than Brussels’s side when it comes to Iran. As the vote in the EP revealed, these efforts are matched by those on the far right in Western Europe who synchronize their agenda with Trump’s.

Given this context, the vote in the European Parliament gave a significant political boost to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini as she gears up to present, together with the EU trio of France, Germany, and UK, a package of economic incentives to Iran. Ultimately, for the EU the fight to preserve the JCPOA has become about something bigger than just a non-proliferation agreement with Iran. It’s a battle to save the rules-based, multilateral world order from an assault by those who seek to dismantle it.

This article reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily the opinions of the European Parliament.

By ELDAR MAMEDOV

Eldar Mamedov has degrees from the University of Latvia and the Diplomatic School in Madrid, Spain. He has worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and as a diplomat in Latvian embassies in Washington D.C. and Madrid. Since 2007, Mamedov has served as a political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the EP delegations for inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, and Mashreq.

July 11, 2018 0 comment

Missions of Nejat Society

US Forces Albania To Take IS Fighters After Hosting MEK

“Albania will become a coordination center for fighters returning from ISIS to the Balkans,” announced Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Boyko Borissov during a joint press conference with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama during a conference against violent extremism, which took place in Tirana this week.

Neither prime minister offered additional details, such as who is pushing this plan or with whom it is being negotiated. This vagueness generated criticism that Rama had not only failed to consult with parliament on this matter of grave importance to his country but perhaps he himself was not fully consulted.

Albania has been used before to host undesirables. In 2005, the United States sent five inmates from Guantanamo Bay there. Between 2013 and 2016, Washington also relocated 2,901 Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) extremists there from Iraq, which had been trying to expel them since 2003.

Now, the Trump administration is telling Albania to host and de-radicalize former Islamic State (ISIS or IS) fighters who originated from the Balkans region. According to Colonel Bardhyl Kollcaku, head of Albania’s Intelligence and Security Agency, “We have the appropriate experience to contribute in the study and addressing the phenomenon of foreign fighters.”

If the MEK had been de-radicalized, Kollcaku’s assertion would be credible. But they weren’t.

In 2013, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pragmatically removed the MEK from the US terrorism list to allow members to be sent to third countries so that Iraq could be rid of them. European countries would not take them because of their terrorist past. Instead, the Albanian government agreed to take them only on the promise that a de-radicalization institute be established to reintegrate the extremists back into society.

This did not happen. The allocated budget, lodged with the American embassy in Tirana, has not been touched. Instead, after Donald Trump became president and set about dismantling every detail of Barack Obama’s legacy, the MEK were “allowed” to regroup.

Regrouping meant that the MEK would continue to call for violent regime change against Iran, backed by US extremists like Rudi Giuliani and John Bolton who now occupy influential posts in the Trump administration. As a result, Albania has become a front-line enemy state in relation to Iran.

Regrouping also meant re-enslaving members, who are not paid and have no human rights. It also meant building a closed camp in a remote part of the country to which Albanian authorities and security services have no access. As though Albania wasn’t having a hard time already cracking down on criminal and mafia gangs, now the MEK are implicated in criminal activity. Among several individuals arrested for money laundering last month, two Israelis were found to be associated with FARA NGO. This is the same company involved in building the closed military training base in Manez to which rank-and-file MEK fighters were moved last autumn.

At the same time that was happening, word got out that the widows and orphans of killed IS fighters would soon be transferred to the MEK’s deserted buildings in the Albanian capital of Tirana. Such rumors were dismissed at the time. Now it appears that the truth is much worse. Actual IS fighters will be sent to Albania.

It’s possible, however, that the IS fighters will follow a similar trajectory as the MEK in Albania. Western powers have seen Syria and Iraq fall away from their influence. Hezbollah governs Lebanon, and a restive population wrapped up in the politics of Palestine is challenging the stability of Jordan. These are uncertain times in the Middle East. Some individuals in Western power structures have broached the possibility of creating a bespoke covert mercenary force to bring fresh chaos and violence into the mix. Although the MEK has been such a handy tool for aggravating Iran, former IS fighters could, with the right training, constitute a similar force against other countries.

And although John Bolton recently remarked that regime change against Iran is now off the Trump administration’s agenda, continued patronage of the MEK belies that claim. So, this is not just Albania’s problem. The West needs to urgently ask, “What use is the Islamic State now?”

Massoud Khodabandeh is the director of Middle East Strategy Consultants and has worked long-term with the authorities in Iraq to bring about a peaceful solution to the impasse at Camp Liberty and help rescue other victims of the Mojahedin-e Khalq cult. Among other publications, he co-authored the book “The Life of Camp Ashraf: Victims of Many Masters” with his wife Anne Singleton. They also published an academic paper on the MEK’s use of the Internet. Anne Khodabandeh is a UK expert in anti-terrorist activities and a long-standing activist in the field of deradicalization of extremists. She has written several articles and books on this subject, along with her husband, who is of Iranian origin.

by Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh

June 11, 2018 0 comment

USA

Risk with Iran Deal Decision

In 2002 and 2003, as the United States geared up for the invasion of Iraq, many protests broke out across the country, as did a passionate public debate about why America was going to war and whether it should. That debate, sadly, was not proportionately reflected on Capitol Hill, but it still mattered.

The invasion destroyed Iraq as well as the dual containment policy that, despite its many flaws, had kept a relative lid on Iraq’s ambitions and Iraq’s ability to upset regional stability. The ensuing years of combat spawned the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, and destabilized the entire region, most severely affecting Syria.
Now, the same forces have come together to take down the most significant diplomatic achievement in the Middle East in recent memory and create a new, highly unstable future. Donald Trump today announced the reimposition of sanctions on Iran, putting the United States in direct violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), colloquially called the Iran nuclear deal. In Iraq, the United States went in with no exit strategy. The Trump administration likewise has no plan for the day after exiting the Iran nuclear deal. In both cases, however, the real goal is regime change.
While this diplomatic debacle is going on in Washington, Israel has gone on high alert in anticipation of an Iranian attack. The Israeli military has said that it has detected “unusual” Iranian movements in Syria, and it has been anticipating an Iranian attack since Israel struck Iranian positions in Syria last month.
Such a high alert is not common for Israel unless an attack is imminent. But it would mark a departure for Iran, a country that has generally avoided direct conflict with Israel, the United States, and Saudi Arabia. If an attack does happen, it will mean things have changed, as they inevitably will now that Trump has violated the JCPOA by reinstating sanctions.

A Post-JCPOA World

Once Trump decided to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal, whatever brinksmanship Iran and Israel are playing at in Syria took on greater significance. With the lone exception of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis (who has advocated attacking Iran in the past), Trump is surrounded by pro-war voices. His new lawyer, Rudy Giuliani took time out from deepening Trump’s legal troubles with his gaffes to tell an audience on Saturday that Trump is “as committed to regime change as we are.” That event, incidentally, was organized by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, a front group for the Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran, or MEK, a notorious cult that advocates for regime change in Iran. The MEK has been banned from Iran and, until only a few years ago, was labeled a terrorist organization even by the US.
It is the season of regime change in Washington and Jerusalem. Pulling out of the nuclear deal was the first, key step. But it seems unlikely that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are going to just sit back and hope that Iran takes some provocative action. No doubt, the Europeans, and very likely the Russians as well, will take steps to convince Iran to keep the JCPOA alive and not retaliate against Trump’s action.
To justify upping the military ante, therefore, will require whipping up greater anger at Iran. There is more than enough apprehension over Iran in Israel. But the military leadership there continues to oppose regime change, preferring to focus strictly on pushing Iran out of Syria. That could lead to a wider conflict, which would please Israel’s political leadership.
In the US, there is still a strong, bipartisan distaste for getting involved in another Middle East conflict. There will no doubt be a large public relations blitz reminding every American that Iran is the greatest threat to stability in the world, the “leading state sponsor of terrorism,” and even the devil incarnate.
It’s unclear, however, whether such a blitz could overcome the current aversion to any military escalation.
Iran in Perspective
The hatred of Iran in both the United States and Israel is visceral. When the Shah was deposed in 1979, the protesters who led the rebellion and, later, the religious leaders who came to power were fiery anti-Zionists who, rightly, blamed the United States for years of autocratic rule under the Shah. The subsequent hostage drama made Iran even more hated and reviled in the US than the Soviet Union.
Iran is a theocracy, and a Muslim one, so it is easy for many Americans to view it as a barbaric and backward country, despite how far removed from reality that is. Iran has done little to hamper the United States directly in the region, but it is a competitor—albeit one punching above its weight—to U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia. And, of course, its support for Hezbollah and, sometimes, Hamas demonstrates its enmity to Israel in a concrete way.
The Iranian regime is also quite repressive and a frequent human rights violator. But in this, it runs a long way behind Saudi Arabia. And although Iran surely meddles in the foreign affairs of other countries in the region—usually by supporting one side in a conflict or, in the case of Lebanon, a political competition—it again lags far behind Saudi Arabia in this.
The US loves to repeat that Iran is the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” but this has always been a disingenuous statement. Iran’s support for Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas, and various Shi’a militias has always been relatively transparent. As Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institute points out,
Understanding Saudi Arabia’s relationship with terrorists…is far more difficult than assessing Iran’s backing of terrorism, which is open, extensive, and state-sponsored. Much of Saudi support is done by non-state actors. Yet being ‘non-state’ does not absolve the Saudi government of responsibility. These non-state actors enjoy a range of relationships to the Saudi regime. Some receive or did receive official patronage. Others, particularly those tied to leading clerics in the Kingdom, are embraced indirectly by the regime’s self-proclaimed role as Defender of the Faithful. And still others are truly private, acting independently of the government and in times in opposition to it.

Iran is certainly not a free and open society, but it has far more elaborate parliamentary systems and genuine, complex politics than many U.S. allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia. It has cracked down on protesters, as has been widely noted, and its elections are restricted to candidates approved by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But these elections produce different results, as was evident in the change in policy from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hassan Rouhani.
The point is not to defend a problematic regime. But any suggestion that the Iranian regime is uniquely evil and should therefore be pushed out is nonsense. Similarly, although the majority of Iranians favor better relations with the West, any move toward regime change is going to turn that same majority against the United States.
A Manufactured Crisis
Trump has betrayed the world and US national interests. He has shown that the commitments of the United States cannot be trusted. Iran abided by the deal it signed. That deal was not the horribly flawed one Trump claimed. It took away most of Iran’s enriched uranium and its plutonium. It allowed by far the most intrusive inspection regime ever implemented. And even if Iran had tried to get around it, the deal substantially lengthened the time it would take Iran to develop a weapon.
It was not only an historically good deal, it was one that Iran continued to abide by even though the US under Trump was violating the deal on a daily basis by frightening international investors away from investing in Iran, something the US specifically committed to refrain from. Now that Trump has backed out of the deal, he has created a crisis in the region and for the US that didn’t exist before.
This is something more Americans need to have the courage to say. The march to war will only be slowed or stopped if Americans stand up and say that Washington does not have the right to push for regime change anywhere, let alone in a country where it led to disaster the last time the United States did it.
The next step in the regime change plan will be winning the narrative. If Trump can do that, war will not be far behind. Neither Europe nor anyone else can help with that. This is a struggle that only Americans can decide. History will not look kindly on us if the regime changers win.
Mitchell Plitnick, Lobelog

May 9, 2018 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Iran Protests, Regime Change, and the MEK

When protests broke out in Iran at the end of 2017, most countries maintained a hands-off approach. After all, these countries maintain diplomatic and trade relations with the Iranian government. Even some influential U.S. observers recommended caution. Former Secretary of State John Kerry, for instance, tweeted: “With humility about how little we know about what’s happening inside Iran, this much is clear: it’s an Iranian moment and not anyone else’s. But the rights of people to protest peacefully and voice their aspirations are universal and governments everywhere should respect that.”

But other American observers, eager to exploit the protests for their own purposes of promoting regime change in Iran, quickly rushed in where the more cautious feared to tread. The first push came from the media. Lacking any organizations or opposition leaders to interview inside Iran, some American media substituted Iranian exiles as representatives of the people. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s Monarchists got some coverage.

But it was Maryam Rajavi, leader of the notorious Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), who received the most coverage, appearing by video link on Fox News and Voice of America.

The MEK is a fringe, cult-like group that was once on the U.S. terrorism list. Rajavi’s appearances, in which she talks as though she represented the Iranian people, provided Iran’s leaders with a gift. Among other angry Farsi commentary, she provoked a hashtag storm on Twitter, with Iranians of every political stripe telling Rajavi in English and Farsi to #shutuprajavi. It is hard to overstate how much Iranians both inside and outside the country hate the MEK.

Indeed, the Iranian media immediately translated Maryam Rajavi and the MEK’s social media output and video speeches into Farsi to inform all Iran’s citizens how the US was hoping to impose the MEK on the country through regime change. Some Iranians might want regime change but what comes after is just as important. No Iranian wants the MEK to substitute for the mullahs.

Later, what had begun as working-class protests against economic hardship and government corruption were quickly politicized by agitators who instigated violence. Iran’s Spiritual Leader Ayatollah Khamenei attributed these incidents of violence to “foreign interference,” naming America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their proxy, the MEK. Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), announced that the MEK trained a number of people involved in the violence. Iran’s intelligence service in the western Iranian province of Lorestan also said it had disbanded and arrested four members of a terrorist cell linked to the MEK in Boroujerd. Iran also claimed to have uncovered a network of agitators organized from Afghanistan and Iraqi Kurdistan that planned to launch violent actions later in 2018. The spontaneous and widespread working-class protests had apparently triggered the network into action ahead of schedule.

If the plan had been to provoke Iran’s security services into a harsh crackdown on the protesters, which the Western media could then present as human rights violations, it largely didn’t work. Instead, the establishment brought out its supporters in big counter-demonstrations. Above all, when the protests turned violent, ordinary people went home. They wanted no part in manufactured regime change. Iran’s hardliners know that the most effective way to denounce the protests without resorting to bans or violence is to blame the MEK. This allows them to spin their suppressive activities to the populace as counter-terrorism.

Iranians are not surprised by the involvement of the MEK in violence. They know the group and its history. A visitor to any war museum in Iran will find a section dedicated to the MEK’s military collaboration with Saddam Hussein. New Iranian films and TV docudramas educate a new generation about the MEK terrorism, which caused thousands of civilian deaths.

Nevertheless, the MEK’s backers have worked for years to whitewash the group’s past crimes for a Western audience. For anti-Iran elements in the United States, the MEK has been a useful tool by leaking faked information during the nuclear negotiations and posing as human rights advocates. This carefully constructed narrative of victimhood and supposedly democratic values has allowed the MEK to operate in political circles where they could push the regime change agenda.

Meanwhile, in Albania, the MEK was busy secretly reconstructing the terrorist training camp it had lost in Iraq. When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negotiated an agreement to transfer 3,000 MEK fighters from Iraq to Albania, funding was earmarked to establish an Institute for De-Radicalisation so that the MEK could be successfully rehabilitated back into society. That didn’t happen. In this past year, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and former UN ambassador John Bolton both visited Albania to promote the MEK and its regime-change agenda.

These and other MEK activities have driven a wedge between Europe and the Trump administration. Even before the protests, European parliamentarians had demanded a ban on the MEK, particularly after an incident of MEK violence on parliamentary premises. Relations between France and Iran now make it possible for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to directly demand that France curtail the MEK’s activities there.

In an attempt to maneuver her way out of this isolation and irrelevance, Maryam Rajavi recently published an article in the Wall Street Journal as though none of this had happened. It is just one more attempt by the MEK to portray itself as an influential representative of the Iranian people. But if the MEK had even one iota of influence inside Iran, the protests would have become much more violent. Instead, all the MEK seems to have accomplished is to provide Iran’s hardliners with a convenient rationale for suppressing an authentic civic movement for change.

by Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh

January 20, 2018 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Who else pays MKO lobbyists!

“In Washington, D.C., money talks. Whether you’re a Democrat like Dean or a Republican like Bolton, a former head of the CIA like Porter Goss or an ex-head of the FBI like Louis Freeh, what seems to matter most is that the MEK can cut fat checks,” Mehdi Hassan of the Intercept asserts.

Reports say that the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/ MEK/ PMOI/ Cult of Rajavi) is not the only source of funds for the paid advocates of the group in the Unites States. Money and its potentially corrupting influence in the US politics is so crucial that the journalists Jim Lobe and Eli Clifton have authored an investigated detailed report on the influence of the Jewish Republican lobby on Trump’s words included in his Friday night speech against the Iran deal:

Money talks in teh USA politics

Trump Ignores Advisers on Iran Deal, Follows Money

by Eli Clifton and Jim Lobe

Although much of the Washington commentariat has depicted Trump’s extraordinarily bellicose speech Friday against Iran and the nuclear deal as the latest example of his determination to undo the legacy of his predecessor, meeting the demands of his most important campaign donors may well have served as a major motivation as well. Indeed, his biggest campaign donor, casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, may have influenced the specific language Trump used in his remarks.

Trump rejected the reported views of his own national security adviser and secretaries of defense and state by refusing to certify Iran’s compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). But he also echoed talking points developed by organizations, notably the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), that are generously supported by a number of those same donors.

With Watergate back in the public consciousness, in part due to Hollywood’s depiction of Mark “Deep Throat” Felt, it seems fitting to test the relevance of his advice to Woodward and Bernstein to “follow the money” in this case, as in many others.

A hint that this approach may indeed shed some light on Trump’s motivation was offered in a profile of UN ambassador Nikki Haley – the least experienced but most neoconservative of Trump’s foreign-policy team and the beneficiary of $250,000 of Adelson’s political contributions last year – that appeared in Politico Friday. It reported that the most threatening line in Trump’s address – that he would cancel Washington’s participation in the JCPOA if Congress and U.S. allies did not bend to his efforts to effectively renegotiate it – was suggested by none other than John Bolton.

The line was added to Trump’s speech after Bolton, despite Kelly’s recent edict [restricting Bolton’s access to Trump], reached the president by phone on Thursday afternoon from Las Vegas, where Bolton was visiting with Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson. Bolton urged Trump to include a line in his remarks noting that he reserved the right to scrap the agreement entirely, according to two sources familiar with the conversation.[Emphasis added.]

Bolton’s access to Trump may indeed be restricted, but, if he’s speaking on Adelson’s behalf, that probably makes a difference. Even before his visit to Las Vegas after the mass shooting there last week, Trump took time out to meet with the billionaire casino owner at the White House. The meeting’s purpose was not confined to the expression of condolences, according to Adelson’s spokesman.

Adelson’s Influence

Adelson is the former chairman and almost certainly the biggest funder of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), an ultra-hawkish group that includes on its board of directors Trump’s second-biggest campaign donor (after Adelson and his wife, Miriam), Bernard Marcus, as well as other wealthy donors whose worldview largely corresponds to that of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party.

And it bears repeating that Trump himself warned specifically about the RJC and Adelson’s desire to control politicians using campaign contributions.

Trump told an RJC audience in December 2015:

You’re not gonna support me because I don’t want your money. You want to control your politicians; that’s fine. …I do want your support, but I don’t want your money.

And Trump mocked his primary opponent, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for seeking Adelson’s financial support, saying:

Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to Rubio because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet. I agree!

After Trump won the nomination, Adelson emerged as Trump’s biggest campaign supporter. And Adelson reportedly has a narrow set of policies (aside from restricting internet gambling) he seeks to influence through his political contributions.

Newt Gingrich, himself a huge recipient of Adelson’s financial largesse during his failed 2012 presidential campaign, said that Adelson’s “central value” is Israel.

Among his policy priorities are tacit if not explicit U.S. approval of Jewish settlement expansion on the West Bank and Jerusalem; moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; and undoing the JCPOA (or, in Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s words, “fix it or nix it.”)

Adelson must be disappointed by Trump’s failure so far to move the embassy; just last week, he signed a temporary order keeping it in Tel Aviv. Indeed, he may have felt obliged to personally explain that decision to Adelson in their White House meeting. “I want to give [peace talks between the Israeli and Palestinians] a shot before I even think about moving the embassy to Jerusalem,” he said. On the other hand, the casino magnate must be very pleased with the relative silence by the Trump administration over the question of settlement expansion which has proceeded at record rates since he became president.

On Friday, however, Trump really came through for his benefactor. Bucking the advice of his secretary of defense and secretary of state to decertify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement, the president effectively gave Adelson (who contributed $35 million to pro-Trump Super PAC Future 45), alongside fellow Republican anti-Iran deal donors Marcus (who contributed $7 million to pro-Trump Super PACs) and Paul Singer (who contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee), their first real shot at sabotaging the JCPOA.

The Role of Cotton

Trump’s announcement effectively punted the decision to Congress whether to reimpose sanctions or take other actions that would almost certainly put Washington in violation of the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration, European allies, China, Russia and Iran.

Senate hawks, led by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Bob Corker (R-TN), have proposed legislation that would institute automatic reinstatement of sanctions if Iran comes within a year of a nuclear weapons capability and eliminates the JCPOA’s sunset clauses, effectively rewriting of the agreement and potentially putting the U.S. in violation of the accord.

Coincidentally or not, Cotton, who reportedly advised the White House on its Iran policy, is deeply indebted to Singer. Singer was Cotton’s second largest source of funds supporting his campaign. The New York based-hedge fund billionaire contributed $250,000 to Arkansas Horizon, an independent expenditure group supporting Cotton’s 2014 Senate .

(Cotton also received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month of his campaign from the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), a right-wing group headed by the neoconservative pundit, Bill Kristol, who infamously predicted that the Iraq war would last two months. At its inception, the ECI was based out of the same Washington office as the Committee of the Liberation of Iraq, a pressure group that lobbied for the 2003 invasion.)

Singer, alongside Marcus and Adelson, also funded anti-Iran deal groups such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which played a leading role in opposing any nuclear deal or serious diplomatic engagement with Iran for more than a decade.

Cotton has himself made no secret of his desire to sabotage nuclear diplomacy with Iran. In March 2015, Cotton organized a controversial letter warning “the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” that the U.S. government might not abide by an agreement made with the Obama administration. At the time, he argued that Congress should work to undermine U.S. negotiators and scuttle talks between the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) that resulted in the JCPOA.

That opposition to diplomacy was still evident this June when Cotton told Politico, “The policy of the United States should be regime change in Iran,” a position that puts into question his sincerity about wanting to “fix” the deal.

Indeed, Trump’s decision to decertify and punt the question about reimposition of sanctions, potentially in violation of the JCPOA, to Congress was welcomed by Iran hawks like Cotton and, presumably, by Adelson, Singer and Marcus.

Unsurprisingly, the RJC applauded the White House’s announcement in an email immediately after Friday’s speech. It said:

With today’s decision, President Trump is delivering on a major campaign promise, bolstering security for the United States, Israel, and our allies, as well as creating an opportunity to truly curb Iran’s nuclear ambition and find lasting peace in the Middle East.

Adelson and Marcus rarely speak directly about the Iran deal but when they do, they reveal hawkish and apocalyptic views about how the U.S. should handle relations with Iran and the nature of the Iranian people. Adelson proposed exploding a nuclear bomb “in the Iranian desert” in 2013 as warning of what would happen to Tehran itself if it didn’t abandon its nuclear program. As for Marcus, “I think that Iran is the devil,” he said in a 2015 Fox Business interview.

It seems Trump may be more inclined to listen to them on Iran policy than to his most experienced national security officials.

October 21, 2017 0 comment

The cult of Rajavi

New Neocon Mantra: Iran, like Soviet Union, on Verge of Collapse

Iran hawks suddenly have a new mantra: the Islamic Republic is the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, and the Trump administration should work to hasten the regime’s impending collapse.

It’s not clear why this comparison has surfaced so abruptly. Its proponents don’t cite any tangible or concrete evidence that the regime in Tehran is Somehow on its last legs. But I’m guessing that months of internal policy debate on Iran has finally reached the top echelons in the policy-making chaos that is the White House these days. And the hawks, encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s rather offhand statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan. Indeed, this comparison is so ahistorical, so ungrounded in anything observable, that it can only be aimed at one person, someone notorious for a lack of curiosity and historical perspective, and a strong attraction to “fake news” that magnifies his ego and sense of destiny.

This new theme seemed to have come out of the blue Tuesday with the publication on the Wall Street Journal’s comics—I mean, op-ed—pages of a column entitled “Confront Iran the Reagan Way” by the South Africa-born, Canada-raised CEO of the Likudist Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), Mark Dubowitz. I wish I could publish the whole thing (which is behind a paywall), but a couple of quotes will have to suffice:

In the early 1980s, President Reagan shifted away from his predecessors’ containment strategy toward a new plan of rolling back Soviet expansionism. The cornerstone of his strategy was the recognition that the Soviet Union was an aggressive and revolutionary yet internally fragile regime that had to be defeated.

Reagan’s policy was outlined in 1983 in National Security Decision Directive 75, a comprehensive strategy that called for the use of all instruments of American overt and covert power. The plan included a massive defense buildup, economic warfare, support for anti-Soviet proxy forces and dissidents, and an all-out offensive against the regime’s ideological legitimacy.

Mr. Trump should call for a new version of NSDD-75 and go on offense against the Iranian regime.

…the American pressure campaign should seek to undermine Iran’s rulers by strengthening the pro-democracy forces that erupted in Iran in 2009, nearly toppling the regime. Target the regime’s soft underbelly: its massive corruption and human-rights abuses. Conventional wisdom assumes that Iran has a stable government with a public united behind President Hassan Rouhani’s vision of incremental reform. In reality, the gap between the ruled and their Islamist rulers is expanding.

….The administration should present Iran the choice between a new [nuclear] agreement and an unrelenting American pressure campaign while signaling that it is unilaterally prepared to cancel the existing deal if Tehran doesn’t play ball.

Only six years after Ronald Reagan adopted his pressure strategy, the Soviet bloc collapsed. Washington must intensify the pressure on the mullahs as Reagan did on the communists. Otherwise, a lethal nuclear Iran is less than a decade away.

Dubowitz, who clearly has allies inside the administration, asserts that parts of this strategy are already being implemented. “CIA Director Mike Pompeo is putting the agency on an aggressive footing against [the Iranian regime’s terrorist] global networks with the development of a more muscular covert action program.” Dubowitz predictably urges “massive economic sanctions,” calls for “working closely with allied Sunni governments,” and argues—rather dubiously—that “Europeans …may support a tougher Iran policy if it means Washington finally gets serious about Syria.” As for the alleged domestic weaknesses of the regime, let alone its similarity to the USSR in its decline, he offers no evidence whatever.

I thought this was a crazy kind of one-off by FDD, which, of course, houses former American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Freedom Scholar Michael Ledeen, who has been predicting the imminent demise of the Islamic Republic—and Supreme Leader Khamenei—for some 20 years or so. Ledeen also co-authored former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s bizarre 2016 autobiography and no doubt tutored the NSC’s 31-year-old intelligence director, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, whose conviction that the regime can be overthrown has been widely reported.

But then a friend brought to my attention a short piece posted Wednesday on The Washington Post’s website by Ray Takeyh, a Council on Foreign Relations Iran specialist who in recent years has cavorted with Dubowitz and FDD and similarly inclined Likudist groups, notably the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Entitled “It’s Time to Prepare for Iran’s Political Collapse,” it also compared Iran today with the Soviet Union on the verge.

Today, the Islamic republic lumbers on as the Soviet Union did during its last years. It professes an ideology that convinces no one. It commands security services that proved unreliable in the 2009 rebellion, causing the regime to deploy the Basij militias because many commanders of the Revolutionary Guards refused to shoot the protesters.

…Today, the Islamic republic will not be able to manage a succession to the post of the supreme leader as its factions are too divided and its public too disaffected.…

The task of a judicious U.S. government today is to plan for the probable outbreak of another protest movement or the sudden passing of Khamenei that could destabilize the system to the point of collapse. How can we further sow discord in Iran’s vicious factional politics? How can the United States weaken the regime’s already unsteady security services? This will require not just draining the Islamic republic’s coffers but also finding ways to empower its domestic critics. The planning for all this must start today; once the crisis breaks out, it will be too late for America to be a player.

Once again, actual evidence for the regime’s fragility is not offered. Indeed, although he claims that the 2009 “Green Revolt” “forever delegitimized the system and severed the bonds between state and society,” he fails to note that May’s presidential election resulted in a landslide win for President Hassan Rouhani with 73 percent voter turnout, or that reformist candidates swept the local council polls in most major cities, or that the leader of the reformist movement, leaders of the Green Movement, and prominent political prisoners encouraged participation. Nor does he address the question of whether Washington’s intervention in Iran’s internal politics—in whatever form—will actually help or harm efforts by the regime’s “domestic critics” to promote reform, particularly in light of the recent disclosures of the extent and persistence of U.S. intervention in the events leading up to and including the 1953 coup that ousted the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadeq. Or whether last month’s terrorist attack by ISIS in Tehran might have strengthened the relationship between society and state.

This is not to deny that the regime is both oppressive and highly factionalized, but why is it suddenly so vulnerable—so much like the Soviet Union of the late 1980s—compared to what it was five or ten or 20 or 25 years ago? Only because Khamenei is likely to pass from the scene sooner rather than later? That seems like a weak reed on which to base a policy as fraught as what is being proposed.

Again, I’m not sure that this Iran=USSR-at-death’s-door meme is aimed so much at the public, or even the foreign-policy elite, as it is toward the fever swamps of a White House run by the likes of Steve Bannon or Stephen Miller or Cohen-Watnick. But here’s why a little more research into the new equation really got my attention.

Dubowitz’s article, it turns out, was not the first recent reference. The most direct recent reference was offered by none other than former Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who incidentally is one of three members of FDD’s “Leadership Council,” in a speech before none other than the annual conference of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and its cult leader, Maryam Rajavi, outside Paris July 1. Seemingly anticipating Takeyh (plus the Rajavi reference), Lieberman declared:

Some things have changed inside Iran, and that’s at the level of the people. You can never suppress a people, you can never enslave a people forever. The people of Iran inside Iran have shown the courage to rise up… To just talk about that, to just talk about that, to hold Madam Rajavi’s picture up in public places, is a sign of the unrest of the people and the growing confidence of the people that change is near. The same is true of the remarkable public disagreements between the various leaders of the country…It is time for America and hopefully some of our allies in Europe to give whatever support we can to those who are fighting for freedom within Iran.

He then went on, “Long before the Berlin Wall collapsed, long before the Soviet Union fell, the United States was supporting resistance movements within the former Soviet Union”—an apparent reference, albeit not an entirely clear one — to the Reagan Doctrine and its purported role in provoking the Communist collapse.

And, in a passage that no doubt expressed what at least Dubowitz and his allies think but can’t say publicly at this point:

The Arab nations are energized under the leadership of King Salman and Crown Prince [Mohammed] bin Salman. [Saudi Prince (and former intelligence chief) Turki Al Faisal Al Saudi addressed the “Free Iran Gathering” just before Lieberman.] They’re more active diplomatically and militarily as part of a resistance against the regime in Iran than we’ve ever seen before. And of course for a long time the state of Israel, because its very existence is threatened by the regime in Iran, has wanted to help change that regime. So you have coming together now a mighty coalition of forces: America, the Arab world, and Israel joining with the Resistance, and that should give us hope that we can make that [regime] change.

Putting aside the question of just how popular or unpopular Madam Rajavi is in Iran for a second, there are a number of truly remarkable things about Lieberman’s speech. How much will it help “the resistance” in Iran to be seen as supported by the Saudis and the “Arab nations?” And how will it help to boast about Israel’s assistance when most Iranians already appear to believe that the Islamic State is a creation of the Saudis and/or Israel? Is there any “mighty coalition” more likely to permanently alienate the vast majority of Iranians? Is it possible that the MEK has become an IRGC counter-intelligence operation? It’s very clear indeed that the group is lobbying heavily—and spending lavishly—to become the administration’s chosen instrument for achieving regime change. But advertising Saudi and Israeli support for the enterprise will likely make that goal more elusive. The MEK’s reputation in Iran was bad enough, but this is really over the top.

Lieberman no doubt received ample compensation for saying what he said. Other former prominent US officials, including John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and Gen. Jack Keane—all of whom probably have closer ties than Lieberman to the White House – also spoke at the MEK event, which, incidentally, makes me think that the White House is indeed seriously considering supporting the group as at least one part of its Iran policy. I suspect we’ll find out soon enough.

July 9, 2017 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Reacting to the Tehran Attacks in Europe and the US

The European Parliament started its plenary session last week with a minute of silence to honor the victims of the recent terrorist attacks in London and Tehran. In this way, the EP has joined a number of other institutions, as well as leaders of the EU and its member states, in offering sympathy to the Iranian people.

For a country like Iran, which cannot boast of an abundance of international support and empathy, such a gesture from a leading Western institution was extremely valuable. The news and pictures of the minute of silence spread through the Iranian media immediately and boosted the good will towards the EU among the officials and general public.

There is a deep democratic significance for a parliament to offer its solidarity to a fellow parliament that was a target of a terrorist attack. In this particular case it also conveys a symbolic recognition by the European Parliament of the legitimacy of the Iranian parliament as a relatively democratic pillar of the Iranian political system.

This matters, given the background of intense efforts over the years to de-legitimize the Iranian institutions, including the elected ones, with the aim of building support for regime change. The well-financed exile dissident group Mojaheddeen-e Khalk (MEK), in particular, has developed a strong lobby in the European Parliament promoting this cause.

The times, however, are changing. The images of Iranians voting in the last presidential elections, in a region where few other populations go to the polls, and re-electing their moderate president in a landslide, have certainly made an impact. They have also debunked, once again, the MEK’s claims that the Iranian elections are void of any meaning. In fact, such efforts are provoking a growing backlash among the Euro MPs.

In this context, the fact that the European Parliament perceived the minute of silence dedicated to Iran as completely “normal” and appropriate is itself a testimony of the changing climate in EU-Iran relations.

Contrast this with the attitude in the United States. Although the State Department did issue a proper statement, the majority in the Senate rejected the proposal of Senators Bernie Sanders and Diane Feinstein to postpone the consideration of new anti-Iran sanctions. Instead, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the measures the week after the attacks in Tehran—despite a warning from former Secretary of State John Kerry that it could jeopardize the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Such an attitude reflects Washington’s dominant view of Iran as a country unworthy of minimal sympathy even in such tragic circumstances. Hence, Trump’s infamous words about states becoming targets of the “evil they promote.” The sheer ignorance and insensitivity of these remarks is highlighted by the fact that the “evil” that hit Iran was also responsible for the terrorist attacks in America on 9/11 and in subsequent years in Paris, Brussels, London, Madrid, Manchester, and so on. Such attacks are not inspired by anything that has to do with Iran, but rather an extreme version of Wahhabism, the official creed of Saudi Arabia, whose vision for the Middle East Trump seems to have eagerly embraced.

In an irresponsible escalation shortly after the attacks, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has endorsed the idea of a regime change in Iran. He issued his comment, ironically, on the same day that his State Department released documents pertaining to the role the US played in overthrowing the popular government of Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953, an event to which today’s poisoned state of the US-Iran relations could arguably be traced.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, by contrast, has reaffirmed once again the EU’s strong commitment not only to the nuclear agreement, but also to a deeper engagement with Iran in diverse areas, from economy and energy to conflict resolution in the Middle East.

Recent history, particularly the process leading up to the conclusion of the nuclear deal, suggests that when Iran is shown a modicum of respect and recognition, it is more likely to respond positively to the concerns of its international counterparts than when bullied and insulted. The EU way of showing such respect puts it in a much better position to persuade Iran to abandon some of its more objectionable ways than threats coming from Washington.

The US could have built on the channel established by Tillerson’s predecessor John Kerry with his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif in trying to solve outstanding issues, in particular regarding regional conflicts. Instead, the current administration is making sure not only to destroy that channel but also, with its callous and insulting response to the anti-Iranian terrorism, to create damage to US-Iranian relations that may well outlast Trump. This will not advance any of America’s core interests in the Middle East. However, there is nothing to suggest that this administration realizes that.

Photo: Federica Mogherini (Wikimedia Commons)

by Eldar Mamedov

About the Author

June 21, 2017 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts