Western Bloggers

The MEK is a weird political cult

This Group Hopes to Push America toward Regime Change in Iran

American policymakers and pundits have an unfortunate history of embracing odious foreign political movements that purport to be democratic. During the Cold War, embarrassing episodes included Washington’s support for the Nicaraguan Contras and Jonas Savimbi’s National Union for the Total Independence of Angola. The post–Cold War era provides ample evidence that influential Americans have not learned appropriate lessons from those earlier blunders. The Clinton administration made common cause with the Kosovo Liberation Army, which proceeded to commit numerous war crimes during—and following—its successful war of secession against Serbia. Both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations allied with Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC’s false intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, which the New York Times and other prominent media outlets reflexively circulated, was one of the major factors that prompted the United States to launch its ill-starred military intervention in Iraq.

There is mounting danger that the Trump administration is flirting with committing a similar blunder—this time in Iran. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was asked explicitly by Rep. Ted Poe whether the United States supported a policy of regime change in Iran when he testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in June 2017. Poe argued that “there are Iranians in exile all over the world. Some are here. And then there’s (sic) Iranians in Iran who don’t support the totalitarian state.” Tillerson replied that the administration’s policy toward Iran was still “under development,” but that Washington would work with “elements inside Iran” to bring about the transition to a new government. In other words, regime change is now official U.S. policy regarding Iran.

That strategy entails numerous problems. An especially troubling one is that the most intense opposition force (inside and especially outside Iran) is the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK). Although Tillerson did not explicitly mention the MEK, any U.S. promotion of dissidents would almost certainly have to include that faction. More moderate reformists have repeatedly rejected an American embrace, justifiably concerned that such an association would destroy their domestic credibility. Indeed, a significant segment of Iranian moderates endorsed President Hassan Rouhani and were a major factor in his decisive reelection victory over a hard-line opponent in the 2017 election.

The MEK’s history should cause any sensible U.S. administration to stay very, very far away from that organization. The MEK is a weird political cult built around a husband and wife team of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. It has been guilty of numerous terrorist acts and was on the U.S. government’s formal list of terrorist organizations until February 2012. The group did not even originate as an enemy of Iran’s clerical regime. It began long before that regime came to power, and its original orientation seemed strongly Marxist. The MEK was founded in 1965 by leftist Iranian students opposed to the Shah of Iran, who was one of Washington’s major strategic allies. And the United States was very much in the MEK’s crosshairs during its early years. During the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, the MEK directed terrorist attacks that killed several Americans working in Iran.

The MEK’s worrisome track record has not deterred prominent Americans from endorsing the organization. In the months preceding the State Department’s decision to delist the MEK, dozens of well-known advocates—primarily but not exclusively conservatives—lobbied on behalf of the group. Vocal supporters included former CIA directors R. James Woolsey Jr. and Porter Goss, former FBI director Louis J. Freeh, as well as Tom Ridge and Michael Mukasey, both cabinet secretaries in George W. Bush’s administration. Several members of Congress, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, were also prominent advocates. Rohrabacher stated confidently that the MEK seeks “a secular, peaceful, and democratic government.” Other proponents included former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. John McCain. Gingrich has been especially enthusiastic about the MEK over the years, describing it as the vanguard of “a massive worldwide movement for liberty in Iran.” More recently, Gingrich showed up along with former Democratic senator and former vice president nominee Joe Lieberman at a conference in Paris to laud the MEK.

Such enthusiasm has increased since its delisting as a terrorist organization. The House Foreign Affairs Committee even invited Maryam Rajavi to testify at a hearing on strategies for defeating ISIS. The decision to give Rajavi a platform for her broader agenda was not that surprising. Many of the committee’s members (especially GOP members) are staunch advocates of a regime-change strategy toward Iran. The MEK serves the same function for such hawks as Chalabi and the INC did in the prelude to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Americans have reason to be wary when prominent advocates of an extremely hard-line policy toward Iran also want “vigorous support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran,” as former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton recommends. Given his vocal cheerleading for the MEK in recent years, there is little doubt that he is not referring to the moderate, anti-clerical “Green coalition” inside that country, but to the MEK.

Therein lies the principal danger of Tillerson’s embrace of a regime-change strategy toward Iran. Granted, he referred to U.S. support for peaceful regime change, but the MEK’s American backers show no signs of making that distinction. The MEK has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars cultivating their support, and such gullible (or venal) Americans continue to tout the organization as a genuine democratic movement with strong support inside Iran. The extent of the financial entanglements is deeply troubling. Many prominent American supporters have accepted fees of $15,000 to $30,000 to give speeches to the group. They also have accepted posh, all-expenses-paid trips to attend MEK events in Paris and other locales. Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell confirmed in March 2012 that the MEK had paid him a total of $150,000 to $160,000, and it appeared that other “A-list” backers had been rewarded in a similar fashion. Needless to say, accepting such largesse from a highly controversial foreign political organization—and one that was still listed as a terrorist organization at the time—should raise justifiable questions regarding the judgment, if not the ethics, of the recipients.

U.S. opinion leaders are playing a dangerous and morally untethered game by flirting with the likes of the MEK. Daniel Larison, a columnist for the American Conservative, recently highlighted the problem with their approach. “I have marveled at the willingness of numerous former government officials, retired military officers, and elected representatives to embrace the MEK,” he wrote. “There’s no question that they are motivated by their loathing of the Iranian government, but their hostility to the regime has led them to endorse a group that most Iranians loathe.” The last point is not mere speculation. The MEK aided Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran in the 1980s, and even Iranians who detest the clerical regime regard the MEK as a collection of odious traitors.

President Trump should learn from the follies of his predecessors who backed the agendas of foreign groups that purported to be democratic but turned out to be nothing of the sort. There are ample warning signs about the real nature of the MEK. The administration needs to avoid that organization like the plague.

By Ted Galen Carpenter, The National Interest

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books and the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.

July 19, 2017 0 comment

Duplicity of the MEK nature

Gary Sick: To understand MEK we need to understand the source of its revenue

Columbia University’s Gary Sick spoke to The Iranist about conspiracy theories pertaining the Islamic Republic, Tehran’s trajectory, and Donald Trump’s Iran policy.

THE IRANIST: You served on the National Security Council in President Jimmy Carter’s administration. Do you have any regrets about how foreign relations with Iran were handled before the 1979 revolution?

GARY SICK: Except for the fact that we got it all wrong, I guess everything was fine. My book, All Fall Down: America’s Fateful Encounter with Iran, was supposed to indicate that nobody—certainly no one in the Carter administration or anywhere else—thought that we understood everything going on. The reality is that no one got it right. And to all the people now who feel the revolution was preordained and predictable and that everyone should have seen it coming, there was no one like that at the time. No one was saying it was going to be a revolution. Almost everybody knew that Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had overwhelming superiority—support, organization, money. We were all wrong. Everyone involved in the events of those days now agrees on that.

THE IRANIST: What do you say to those who believe that the Carter administration backed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and that the Islamic Revolution was preplanned?

GARY SICK: As someone who was close to Carter and working with him on that subject at the time, that notion is ludicrous. Having Khomeini in Iran was exactly the last thing in the world that Carter wanted. Basically, what is happening—like all conspiracy theories—is that people want to explain away things that were painful. They don’t want to be seen as responsible for things themselves. To the people who say, “Weren’t you really responsible for getting Khomeini into power?” I say to them, “Where were you at the time? Where were the people who were supposed to be standing up for the shah at the time?” They disappeared and went over the horizon.

I understand why people want to find a scapegoat. But the reality is everyone got it wrong and the people who suffered the most have reason to be unhappy with the way things went.

THE IRANIST: What are your thoughts about the 1953 coup documents being released?

GARY SICK: With regard to the 1953 coup—or countercoup, as it is referred to—that was a matter which involved CIA resources and methods. In many cases, the people involved were very anxious. As time went on—particularly since the United States was involved in efforts to negotiate with Iran both before and during the period of the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal]—there was a reluctance to put out information that could interfere with that process.

Whether that was right or wrong, I cannot say. Many historians were very upset about the fact the documents were not released and held for many years. They are out now and I think what we see is what we are going to get.

THE IRANIST: How do you find the Trump administration’s handling of relations with Iran right now?

GARY SICK: They basically came in with the idea that Iran was the enemy, and they have not changed their attitude. They are not interested in making a deal with Iran. They are not interested in whatever positive benefits that could come of cooperating with Iran, like in Afghanistan and other places where our interests coincide. They are out to oppose Iran in any way they can. And at the same time, there are a lot of people in the administration who want to see regime change in Iran. It is a very dangerous thing.

I was not a Donald Trump supporter by any means, but I was pleased that when he came into office, he said, “Let’s reduce our presence in the Middle East. We’re overcommitted and we’re paying too high of a price for all of this. It has nothing to do with us.” I think he was right. I thought it was very constructive and it was the one area where I could really support Trump. After a few months in office, he seems to have changed course entirely. Now he has surrounded himself with a group of generals, and basically delegated responsibility to them for increasing military presence in the region. We have a presence in virtually every part of the Middle East. Everything Trump said [regarding foreign policy] during the presidential campaign has not taken place. In fact, it’s going the opposite way. That does bother me very much because I think of all the things that could happen in the near future, which is truly disastrous for the Middle East and the United States, would be getting into a shooting conflict where we find ourselves spending enormous amounts of money without any positive outcome at all. We seem to be looking for military answers to all our problems.

THE IRANIST: U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently talked about regime change in Iran. Why hasn’t Washington learned that regime change isn’t the way to go?

GARY SICK: Regime change is always a tempting idea. Governments everywhere think if they can just change the government or change the rulers, everything would then be fine. That usually backfires, and there are unintended consequences. They haven’t learned their lesson because they believe all their problems are tied to one ruler in one place.

THE IRANIST: The Trump administration has been rather vague as to what “regime change” means. What do you think they have mind?

GARY SICK: At the moment, I’m not sure we can say the Trump administration has a point of view; it has multiple views. By the way, it is not unusual for the U.S. government to have multiple views. However, it is unusual to have them out in the open so blatantly. Clearly, right now there is infighting in the U.S. government, comparable to the worst kind under the Nixon administration and the famous ones between National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance under Carter. This rises to the level of some of the worst infighting in White House history.

THE IRANIST: Do you think the Trump administration could be considering the formerly designated terrorist organization, the Mojahideen Al-Khalq (MEK), as an option for regime change?

GARY SICK: I don’t know how much influence the Mojahideen Al-Khalq has. One question that is asked often but has no answer is, “Where is all that money coming from?” The MEK is paying $50,000 to $100,000 for people to deliver a speech that basically preaches their message of violent overthrow of the Iranian government. We would understand the MEK better if we understood the sources of its revenue. Those sources are significant and they have a wealth of political influence.

THE IRANIST: Do you think a war with Iran is a possibility over what is happening in Syria?

GARY SICK: We are in fact fighting on the same side, in opposition to ISIS, but we are on opposite sides when it comes to Syria and what happens there. As we have seen, Iranian aircraft and drones have been shot down south of Raqqa, the ISIS capital. As the fight against ISIS progresses, people are looking at what the aftermath is going to be and are concerned Iran and Syria will benefit from the downfall of ISIS. And then matters complicate further: Russia is basically allied with Iran and Syria, but these three nations also have their problems with each other, because they do not fully trust each other. The chances of misinformation, mistakes, and unintended consequences are very high. I don’t tend to be alarmist, but I think the chance of us getting into another war in the Middle East is very high.

THE IRANIST: How do you interpret Iran’s current political trajectory?

GARY SICK: There are two major traditions in Iranian politics. One is that the Iranian people usually vote for whichever candidate is least supportive of the establishment in every election. They are a very rebellious bunch. The second great tradition is that every Iranian president that gets a second term is stunted by the actions of the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Even if the Iranian people vote for someone who they think is really a reformer, there are a lot of people in the country who do not want to see that happen, and they can do a lot to frustrate the president. That’s where we are now.

The Iranist

July 17, 2017 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Here’s Why Washington Hawks Love This Cultish Iranian Exile Group

What were a Saudi prince, a former Republican House Speaker and a former Democratic vice-presidential candidate doing together in a suburb of Paris last weekend?

Would you be surprised to discover that Prince Turki Bin Faisal, Newt Gingrich and Joe Lieberman were speaking on behalf of a group of Iranian exiles that was officially designated a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” by the United States government between 1997 and 2012?

Iran hawks long ago fell head over heels for the Mojahedin-e Khalq, known as the MEK, and loudly and successfully lobbied for it to be removed from the State Department list of banned terror groups in 2012. Formed in Iran in the 1960s, the MEK, whose name translates to “Holy Warriors of the People,” was once an avowedly anti-American, semi-Marxist, semi-Islamist group, pledged to toppling the U.S.-backed Shah by force and willing to launch attacks on U.S. targets. The MEK even stands accused of helping with the seizure of hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran; the group condemned the hostages’ release as a “surrender” to the United States. But after the Iran’s clerical rulers turned on the group in the early 1980s, its leaders fled the country and unleashed a series of bombings across Iran.

These days, the organization — run by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, though the former’s whereabouts are unknown and he is rumored to be dead — claims to have renounced violence and sells itself to its new American friends as a 100 percent secular and democratic Iranian opposition group. The biggest problem with the MEK, however, is not that it is a former terrorist organization. Plenty of violent groups that were once seen as “terrorists” later abandoned their armed struggles and entered the corridors of power — think of the Irish Republican Army or Mandela’s African National Congress.

Nor is it that the MEK lacks support inside of the Islamic Republic, where it has been disowned by the opposition Green Movement and is loathed by ordinary Iranians for having fought on Saddam Hussein’s side during the Iran-Iraq war.

Rather, the biggest problem with U.S. politicians backing the MEK is that the group has all the trappings of a totalitarian cult. Don’t take my word for it: A 1994 State Department report documented how Massoud Rajavi “fostered a cult of personality around himself” which had “alienated most Iranian expatriates, who assert they do not want to replace one objectionable regime for another.”

You think only people inside of dictatorships are brainwashed? A 2009 report by the RAND Corporation noted how MEK rank-and-file had to swear “an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran” and highlighted the MEK’s “authoritarian, cultic practices” including ‘mandatory divorce and celibacy” for the group’s members (the Rajavis excepted, of course). “Love for the Rajavis was to replace love for spouses and family,” explained the RAND report.

You think gender segregation inside of Iran is bad? At Iraq’s Camp Ashraf, which housed MEK fighters up until 2013, lines were “painted down the middle of hallways separating them into men’s and women’s sides,” according to RAND, and even the gas station there had “separate hours for men and women.”

You might understand why a Saudi prince, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, or uber-hawk and former Bush administration official John Bolton — who all attended the Paris rally — might be willing to get behind such a weird collection of fanatics and ideologues. But what would make a liberal Democrat from Vermont such as Howard Dean — who has suggested Maryam Rajavi be recognized as the president of Iran in exile — want to get into bed with them? Or Georgia congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis, who spoke out in favor of the MEK in 2010?

Could it be because of the old, if amoral, adage that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Perhaps. Could it be the result of ignorance, of senior U.S. figures failing to do due diligence? Maybe.

Or could it be a consequence of cold, hard cash? “Many of these former high-ranking U.S. officials — who represent the full political spectrum — have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK,” revealed a wide-ranging investigation by the Christian Science Monitor in 2011.

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.

Take Gingrich, who once lambasted Barack Obama for “bowing to the Saudi king” but has himself been caught on camera bowing to Maryam Rajavi. The former House speaker bizarrely compared Rajavi to George Washington in his speech in Paris over the weekend.

Or Giuliani, “America’s Mayor” and self-styled anti-terror hawk, who nevertheless has had no qualms accepting thousands of dollars since 2010 to shill for a group that murdered six Americans in Iran in the mid-1970s; joined with Saddam Hussein to repress Iraq’s Kurds in the early 1990s; allegedly worked with Al Qaeda to make bombs in the mid-1990s; and fought against U.S. troops in Iraq in 2003.

Have these people no shame? To quote Suzanne Maloney, an Iran analyst at Brookings and a former adviser to the State Department: “How cheaply Gingrich/Guiliani/Bolton/Lieberman value their own integrity to sell out to MEK cult.”

Meanwhile, regime change in Tehran is very much back on the agenda in Donald Trump’s Washington. Candidate Trump, who blasted George W. Bush’s Middle East wars of aggression, has been replaced by President Trump, who appointed Iran hawks such as James Mattis and Mike Pompeo to run the Pentagon and the CIA, respectively; counts MEK shills such as Giuliani and Gingrich among his closest outside advisers; and appointed Elaine Chao, who took $50,000 from the Rajavis for a five-minute speech in 2015, to his cabinet.

Let’s be clear: The Trump administration, the Saudis and the Israelis — who have “financed, trained and armed” the MEK in the past, according an NBC News investigation — are all bent on toppling Iran’s clerical rule; they long for a bad sequel to the Iraq war. And Maryam Rajavi’s MEK is auditioning for the role of Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress: The group’s 3,000-odd fighters, according to former Democratic senator-turned-MEK-lawyer Robert Torricelli last Saturday, are keen to be the “point of the spear.”

That way madness lies. Have U.S. political, intelligence, and military elites learned nothing from their Mesopotamian misadventure and the disastrous contribution of Iraqi exiles such as Chalabi? Well, the brainwashed fanatics of the MEK make the INC look like the ANC.

It is difficult, therefore, to disagree with the verdict of Elizabeth Rubin of the New York Times, who visited the MEK at Camp Ashraf back in 2003 and later “spoke to men and women who had escaped from the group’s clutches” and “had to be reprogrammed.” The MEK, warned Rubin in 2011, “is not only irrelevant to the cause of Iran’s democratic activists, but a totalitarian cult that will come back to haunt us.”

By Mehdi Hasan, the intercept

July 8, 2017 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

From Paris: Regime Change Calls by Arab Princes and American Lobbyists and Paid US Politicians

Mujahideen Khalq, MKO, MEK is [a]n Iranian organization with a long history of switching sides and shifting alliances.

During the rule of the Shah of Iran, the MEK/MKO were a radical group that targeted Americans.

They were part of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and had a role in the storming of the American Embassy in November of that year and the taking of American hostages.

In the early 1980s they broke with the ruling theocratic clerics (under Khomeini) and their leadership left Iran, but some remained and waged a guerilla-style war against the mullahs. A large number of them moved to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq next door, where they switched sides and served him faithfully in the war against their own country, Iran, as well as against the Kurdish rebels. That was fine by the Arab oil kings and potentates: at that time they also financed Saddam’s wars.

As soon as Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, the MEK/MKO became pariahs along both sides of the Persian Gulf. During the Desert Storm and its aftermath, they were reportedly helpful in crushing rebellions against the Baath rule in southern Iraq.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western powers, with strong Arab help, the MEK/MKO moved to a huge camp outside Baghdad. When the Iraqi elections brought a Shi’a-Kurdish-dominated government, the MEK/MKO found new sponsors and financiers: Arab kings and princes. They also were eventually, and painstakingly, forced to move out of Iraq.

Ever since, the organization has been close to the Al Saud rulers, eventually they also got close to the Israeli Mossad. The Iranian regime often accuses MEK/MKO agents of committing acts overseas for which the regime gets blamed. Eventually Hillary Clinton and various Republican and Democrat politicians in the USA helped take the Mujahideen off the US government terrorist list a few years ago.

Since then, the organization has suddenly become rich and generous with money towards American politicians. It can afford lobbyists in Washington, and it can buy former and current American politicians. Its leaders for life, the Rajavi couple, live in the Paris area. They hold occasional huge conferences called “Iran Liberation” conference. The emphasis at these “conferences” is on photo-ops with famous American politicians, current and former. And they pay well for these photo-ops. The list of famous Americans who get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, allegedly for “speaking” but really for showing up includes: Newt Gingrich, his wife Callista (a new face at this year’s conference), Rudy Giuliani, General Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, John Bolton…… Among many others (just wait until Trump leaves office).

They all probably know that this organization has little if any support or credibility inside Iran, that its siding with Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime was probably an unforgivable act. So, it is a waste of American time and money to emphasis it. But the money received is too good for them to resist.

Speaking of the money: a has-been Saudi prince (Turki Al Faisal Al Saud) now attends every conference of this organization, no doubt assuming that this bestows some Neocon-type “legitimacy” on it among American officials. Of course the reaction to the use of this un-elected absolute Saudi prince inside Iran is obvious. Even the lousy self-styled Palestinian leader, the Mayor of Ramallah, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) attended the previous conference.

The self-delusion about Iran and the Middle East during and after these conferences is breath-taking. They actually seriously talk about “regime” change in Iran, meaning outside action to change the regime. It almost matches the self-delusion inside the US Congress (both houses, both parties) on the same topic.

They all must know it is pure nonsense, but the again money is too good for all participants, and the futile message sounds good to many extreme right-wing US media outlets. Besides, the Israeli Lobby and the newly influential Saudi lobby and the sources of oil money in Washington like it.

Cheers

By Mohammed Haider Ghuloum, Arabia Deserta

July 4, 2017 0 comment

Iran

Iran Should Give France Ultimatum for MKO Gathering

An Iranian analyst says Tehran-Paris relations need to be redefined after the French capital recently hosted the annual gathering of the notorious anti-Iran terrorist group MKO.

The editor-in-chief of the Iranian Diplomacy news website has, in an analytical piece, talked about the recent gathering of the terrorist Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO or MEK) in the French capital of Paris.

Sergei Barseghian has underlined the need for a redefinition of Tehran-Paris ties given the European side’s support for the anti-Iran terrorist cult.

The following is the full text of article:

The gathering of MKO ringleader Maryam Rajavi’s cult in Paris was a repeat of last year’s show; there were even no new faces among the VIP guests, who included former officials of different countries. In other words, the MKO had failed to attract any new individuals. Turki al-Faisal, Bernard Kouchner, Newton Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Joe Lieberman, John Bolton, etc., all have delivered speeches at MKO gatherings before. However, no new member has joined their clan, which means a failure. The presence of former French President Bernard Kouchner at this year’s gathering and his delivering a speech must be strange. However, it was not the first time he made comments about Iran’s political system. He had made similar remarks during Iran’s 2009 post-election unrest when he was foreign minister. Turki al-Faisal’s comments should not be taken seriously, either. This Saudi prince, who claims Iran’s presidential elections are undemocratic, has objected to Riyadh’s handing over the throne to Mohammad bin Salman. The former US officials attending the gathering are the same individuals present in previous events. Bolton, Lieberman and Giuliani are the same people who wrote a letter to US President Donald Trump urging him to cooperate with the MKO against Iran.

The Associated Press and Fox News reported in early 2017 that Newton Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani had benefited from the MKO’s “generosity” for delivering speeches against Iran. Incumbent US Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao has confessed that he received $50,000 for delivering a five-minute speech. Still, Rajavi has failed to entrap any new bribees.

But what is important is that the MKO gathering was held just hours after Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif visited Paris. Of course, in reaction to the gathering, Zarif said the MKO get-together was a “moot point in relations” with France, and quoted French officials as saying that Paris has no relations with the MKO. But a terrorist group holding a gathering in another country attended by former officials of some other countries and marked by speeches against the legal and official system of a certain state (Iran) is something beyond a moot point, and is regarded as a “move against” international law, which the Iranian foreign ministry and embassy should not easily ignore. Moreover, the timing of Zarif’s trip is under serious criticism given that the date of the MKO’s gathering had already been announced. And there is some doubt about the French officials’ giving assurances that they have no connection with the MKO, especially at a time when they remain silent in the face of a gathering that the former French foreign minister calls a “family meeting.”

The issue cannot be settled simply by summoning the French ambassador or charge d’affaires in Tehran to the Foreign Ministry. Kouchner has claimed that “You were oppressed in my country, France, and I feel guilty for that.” By “being oppressed” he meant the French government’s attack on the MKO’s headquarters in Auvers-sur-Oise, a commune in the northwestern suburbs of Paris, in mid-2003. Some 300 members of the terror group were arrested in the raid on charges of planning to carry out terrorist operations. But France seems to have changed its approach toward the MKO since 2003, so much so that it hosts the terror group’s annual gathering.

The raid on the MKO’s base came a few days after then Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi hit out at his French counterpart Dominique de Villepin, saying it was unacceptable and not understandable that a terrorist organization was present in France and operating there.

“It seems these terrorists, who have dealt a blow to us in Iran, enjoy a sort of immunity in Auvers-sur-Oise,” Kharazi had noted at the time.

MKO members claim de Villepin had told Kharrazi that “I can tell you that Nicolas Sarkozy is preparing an operation in this regard.” If this admission by MKO terrorists is accepted, then the Iranian diplomacy will assume a much more important role. Perhaps here we should change the diplomatic language from a “moot point” to the “element of accusation”. Governments which have fallen victim to terrorism “enjoy the legitimate right to defend themselves against armed operations conducted by non-governmental dissident groups in a third country.” Under the current circumstances, Iran-France relations need a serious ultimatum and should be redefined, given that Paris has hosted an MKO banquet for former politicians with a past rife with failures. Another point is that not even one election has been held at the MKO while the terror group claims that there should be “elections and freedom” in Iran.

The MKO is the most hated terrorist group among Iranians because of its dark history of assassinations and bombings and for siding with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s.

One of the MKO’s deadliest terrorist operations was carried out on 28 June 1981 when a powerful bomb went off at the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party of Iran in Tehran, while a meeting of party leaders was in progress. Over 70 top Iranian officials were killed in the bomb blast.

Out of the nearly 17,000 Iranians killed in terrorist assaults since the victory of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, about 12,000 have fallen victim to MKO’s acts of terror.

Iran Front Page (From Iranian Diplomacy),

July 4, 2017 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Dangerous Development: Iranian Missile Launch into Syria Against ISIS Puts US in Precarious Position

Yesterday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced that it had fired several missiles at ISIS positions in the Deir Az Zor province in Syria. The reason given for this unprecedented military strike was retaliation for a double terrorist attacks which struck Tehran two weeks ago. Readers should not underestimate the significance of this event.

21st_WIRE_Patrick_HenningsenAccording to a statement issued by the news agency for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Sepahnews, “Multiple medium-range missiles were fired from the Iranian provinces of Kermanshah and Kurdestan, and a large number of terrorists were killed and their weapons were destroyed.”

Regarding the alleged ISIS attack which killed 13 people and wounded 50 others, the Revolutionary Guard added, “The spilling of any pure blood will not go unanswered.”

Make no mistake about it – this was a major media event. It’s been 30 years since Iran has fired missiles at targets outside of its own borders.

Iranian television featured images of the IRGC missiles being launched at night…

1 Iran Missile SyriaThe following image (above) was released in a media handout from Iranian news agency, Sepahnews, showing a missile launched by the Revolutionary Guards Corps in the west of Iran, targeting an ISIS position near the city of Deir Az Zor.

The IRGC has also warned that more missile strikes will follow should ISIS militants plot any future attacks on Iran. “If they carry out a specific action to violate our security, definitely there will be more launches, with intensified strength,” said General Ramazan Sharif of the IRGC (also cited by AP).

Fars News Agency added, “The IRGC warns the Takfiri terrorists and their regional and trans-regional supporters that they would be engulfed by its revolutionary wrath and flames of the fire of its revenge in case they repeat any such devilish and dirty move in future.”

This latest move by Iran is worrying for a number of reasons. Justified or not, Iran’s launch from its western provinces, over Iraqi airspace and into Syria will most certainly heighten tensions in an already tense Syrian theatre. If the situation escalates, the question of who has the upper hand may not matter should the situation descend into all-out war involving the US.

Syria: A Crowded Theatre

Iran’s missile strike took place on Sunday June 18th, targeting an ISIS command center located near the embattled city of Deir Az Zor, a key choke point on the road to the ISIS-held city Raqqa in northeastern Syria. This area is currently a hive of international military activity featuring a host of players – the Syrian Army, Russia, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah militia and opposing US, UK, Australia, France, Turkish and German forces positioned alongside numerous US-allied (and paid for) militias like the Kurdish SDF, YPG militias – all presumably camped in the region to “defeat ISIS.” Add to this the problem of US having repeatedly attacked Syrian military forces in a manner which has aided the strategic advances of ISIS. Following from this point, it should be well-known by now, based on successive US aggressions inside Syria, that the Pentagon is probing both Syrian and Russian defenses, testing their level of patience, perhaps in the hope that either Syria or Russia might retaliate against an US aircraft, or US support positions on the ground. In the event that the US loses a single aircraft, or loses one member of its combat team to hands of a Syrian or Russian military asset, then Washington will no doubt seize on this event as an “act of aggression,” initiate its media machine to begin consensus-building internationally, ramping-up military operations on par with Iraq in 2003. This would be the excuse that the US-led Coalition has been needing in order to blow the Syrian theatre open into a wide regional or possibly, world-wide war.

The missile strike by Iran could be a mid-term game changer in the sense that it places Iran squarely into the frame of fighting international terrorism, and ISIS. Up until this point, parties in the US led by the Neoconservative right, the Trump White House, and the sister lobbies of Israel and Saudi Arabia – have tried hard to enforce a strict party line that Iran is somehow, “The number one state sponsor of terror on the planet,” despite the fact that no evidence is ever presented to back-up this sensational geopolitical plank. One of the main beneficiaries of this talking point is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who gains on two fronts; the ‘Iranian terror’ line deflects from Saudi’s own sordid role in supporting and funding armed militants, terrorist groups (including active factions in Syria) and radical mosques worldwide. This dovetails well with the Trump Administration’s current embrace of Saudi in the ‘War on Terror’ and the simultaneous casting-out of gulf state Qatar from the US-led Coalition’s inner circle in Middle East military and diplomatic affairs. This week, Turkish troops were deployed to Qatar, in a show of support for the gulf state by Ankara. This is just another signal that the geopolitics of the region and around Syria, is getting more complicated by the day.

trump saudi arabia5BFFs? Trump and the Saudis, sword dancing at the Arab Summit in Riyadh last month.

However, Washington and Riyadh’s efforts to bracket Qatar with ‘state sponsor of terror’ Iran will be even more difficult following the Tehran’s twin-terror attack and Sunday’s retaliatory missile strike. For this reason, the IRGC believes that Saudi and the US are linked to the Tehran attacks. The FT explains:

However a statement from the Revolutionary Guards linked the “brutal attack” to Donald Trump’s visit last month to Riyadh, where the US president singled out Iran for fuelling “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror”.

“This terrorist act took place a week after a joint meeting between the US president and head of a reactionary regional country [Saudi Arabia] which has been a constant supporter of terrorism,” the statement said. “The fact Isis claimed responsibility proves that they [Saudi Arabia] were involved in the brutal attack.”

Despite all of this, Trump has placed all his chips on Saudi Arabia as Washington’s only major Arab partner in the region. Does Washington really think Saudi is of high moral standing in the region? You can blame their decline in popularity for a number of reasons – supporting Wahhabi extremism, beheading Shia clerics, or Saudi’s ability to buy their seat at the head of the UN Human Rights Committee, or cynically acquiring the UN Womens Rights chair. Perhaps Washington is over-estimating Saudi Arabia’s position in the Middle East.

Tehran Attack: Who Did It?

Another interesting but under-reported component of this story has to do with the reason for Iran’s missile retaliation. Although ISIS apparently claimed credit for the Tehran attacks on June 6th, other evidence suggests that another well-known international terrorist entity might have been involved.

After events in Tehran, the US-backed regime change terrorist proxy, the MEK (Mojahedin-e Khalq) was named by senior Iranian politician Mr. Hamid-Reza Taraghi, as a partner in the terrorist attacks. This theory gains a bit more credence following a statement from former member of the MEK, Massoud Khodabandeh, who has stated that ISIS drew on MEK ‘expertise’ for the terror attacks on Tehran. Certainly, the MEK have been active in carrying out operations inside of Iran for decades now, while ISIS has not. Massouds analysis of the attacks is stunning, and raises two essential points:

“The targets selected by ISIS were sites constantly targeted by the MEK. The Iranian Parliament and its members had always been primary targets for the MEK since the 1980s. The group had managed to assassinate several members of the Parliament and tried to plant a bomb there at one point. They were unsuccessful and some members were killed by security forces while other terrorist teams were arrested. Similarly, after Ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine was created, Massoud Rajavi, the late MEK leader, announced that “Khomeini’s grave must be exploded”. It became a mantra among MEK members which they would chant in indoctrination sessions. The MEK tried unsuccessfully to send terrorist teams there in 1991 and 2002.”

“While ISIS and the MEK have the same interests in attacking Iran, ISIS could have caused much greater anti-government fear and hatred among the civilian population in line with its regime change agenda if they had bombed a civilian target like transport infrastructure or a shopping mall. They could have done more damage by targeting the Revolutionary Guards whose forces are in Syria. Instead, the ISIS targets matched those which had been constantly under attack by the MEK for thirty years.”

The MEK factor is extremely worrying because it signals a new leg in Washington’s asymmetric war in the region. History shows us that when great powers sow this level of chaos, the chances for a multi-country conflagration becomes more likely.

Regardless of where blame is apportioned in this case, Iran seems to have accepted the claim by ISIS for these attacks on Iranian soil, effectively giving Tehran an internationally recognized green light to act unilaterally against ISIS assets inside Syria. For those who subscribe to the school of thought that implicates Saudi Arabia and the US for aiding and supporting ISIS covertly, then Iran has not only called their bluff, but co-opted their own ‘anti-ISIS’ narrative too. Presently, Iran has military assets deployed in Syria at the invitation of the government in Damascus, so it’s certain that both Damascus and Moscow were aware of Iran’s missile strike in advance, but not the US – once again demonstrating that without significant ground assets deployed in the region the US cannot really control the situation around Raqqa. This means that Washington, no matter how hard its media machine can spin, are simply not able to dictate facts on the ground in Syria.

Clearly, Iran seized an advantage here, but how this plays out in terms of increased tensions with the US-led Coalition in Syria remains to be seen.

Timing is Everything

The most worrying aspect of this development is the timing. On the same day as Iran fired missiles into Deir Az Zor province in Syria, a US F/A-18E Super Hornet shot down a Syrian SU-22 fighter jet near Raqqa. Washington claimed it as an act of ‘collective self-defense’ as the Syrian jet had dropped bombs “near US-backed forces.” As a result of this overt act of aggression by the US, the Russian Defense Ministry announced this morning that it is halting its “Deconfliction” cooperation with its US counterparts set out in their bilateral Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria.

Add to this the fact that each day the US continue to kill more Syrian civilians during their supposed ‘anti-ISIS’ strikes in Raqqa, and it’s not difficult to see that the US position is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle Eastern theatre, leaving its only two remaining solid partners as a pair who themselves are now widely regarded as rogue states in the region: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The scene has now been set for a wider war. All it will take is a small spark between the two major opposing geopolitical forces or their allies.

Patrick Henningsen is an American-born writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire and host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR).

By Patrick Henningsen, 21st Century Wire,

June 21, 2017 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Path to Persia: The Proxy War Path through MEK/ISIS

US Legislator Brookings´ “Path to Persia” II: The Proxy War Path through ISIS

Iran has just been hit for the first time by ISIS – the tool of the US, Turkey, the UK and Israel – so this is a declaration of war by those powers on Iran!

The BBC 7 June 2017

Twin attacks on the Iranian parliament and Ayatollah Khomeini’s mausoleum in the capital, Tehran, have killed at least 12 people and injured many more. The Islamic State (IS) group has said it carried out the attacks, which would be a first in Iran.

NATO-General Wesley Clark sagte im Jahr 2001 auf Pentagon-Insider-Informationen basiert voraus, der Iran sei die Letzte von 7 Regierungen, die die USA zu stürzen plane.

Brookings/US incredible hypocrisy to fool the world

On 29 Nov. 2013, I wrote, referring to Tony Cartalucci: The Brookings Institution is a very influential US think tank that has been building US policies over the past 70 years.

In Brookings´paper “Which Path to Persia?“, 2009, Brookings writes on p. 39:

“…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

Indeed, Iran may come under attack according to plan. Brookings writes: Goading Provocations for an Air Strike, p. 97-98): “…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.”

Now the US is using proxies to bring about regime change in Iran – so far mostly letting ISIS fight against Iran.

However, the problem is that all Syrian anti-Assad warriors cooperate with IS(IS) and Al Qaeda! So, the Brookings article indirectly admits IS(IS) as a US ally.

This plan is not new in principle: Divide and rule – as already the ancient Romans said, using Muslim mujahedeens – in this case ISIS – as a tool to smash the order of states like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, indeed even Europe, and here and here

Tony Cartalucci, Activist Post 9 May 2017 writes:

Armed Violence Targeting Tehran Was the Stated Goal of US Policymakers

The recent terrorist attacks in Tehran are the literal manifestation of US foreign policy. The creation of a proxy force with which to fight Iran and establishing a safe haven for it beyond Iran’s borders have been long-stated US policy. The current chaos consuming Syria and Iraq – and to a lesser extent in southeast Turkey – is a direct result of the US attempting to secure a base of operations to launch a proxy war directly against Iran.

In the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” Es gelang then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail.

The report explicitly stated:

The United states could also attempt to promote external Iranian opposition groups, providing them with the support to turn themselves into full-fledged insurgencies and even helping them militarily defeat the forces of the clerical regime.

The United states could work with groups like the Iraq-based National council of resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.

Brookings policymakers admitted throughout the report that MEK was responsible for killing both American and Iranian military personnel, politicians, and civilians in what was clear-cut terrorism. Despite this, and admissions that MEK remained indisputably a terrorist organization, recommendations were made to de-list MEK from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization registry – which happened in 2012 – so that more overt support could be provided to the group for armed regime change. and the group would receive significant backing from the US openly.

This included support from many members of current US President Donald Trump’s campaign team – including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton.

However, despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups.

Under a section of the paper “Which Path to Persia 2009” titled, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” Brookings notes:

Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply.

For the US proxy war on Syria, Turkey and Jordan fulfill this role.

Brookings noted in 2009 that:

A group not mentioned by Brookings in 2009, is the Islamic State. Despite claims that it is an independent terrorist organization propelled by black market oil sales, ransoms, and local taxes, its fighting capacity, logistical networks, and operational reach demonstrates vast state sponsorship.

The Islamic State reaching into Iran, southern Russia, and even as far as western China was not only possible, it was inevitable and the logical progression of US policy as stated by Brookings in 2009 and verifiably executed since then.

The Islamic State represents the perfect “proxy”.Surrounding the Islamic State’s holdings are US military bases, including those illegally constructed in eastern Syria.

Here US-Senator John McCain meets in Syria with ISIS. The head in the red circle belongs to al-Baghdadi, the Jewish Mossad-Agent, who is the boss of the Isis

The use of terrorism, extremists, and proxies in executing US foreign policy, was demonstrated definitively during the 1980s when the US with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – used Al Qaeda to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan. This example is in fact mentioned explicitly by Brookings policymakers as a template for creating a new proxy war – this time against Iran.

For the US, there is no better stand-in for Al Qaeda than its successor the Islamic State. With terrorists now killing people in Tehran, it is simply verification that this agenda is advancing onward.

In reality, the Islamic State – like Al Qaeda before it – depends on the state sponsorship the US, Europe, and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf are providing. It is also sponsorship they can – at anytime of their choosing – expose and end. They simply choose not to in pursuit of regional and global hegemony.

The 2009 Brookings paper is a signed and dated confession of the West’s proclivity toward using terrorism as a geopolitical tool. While Western headlines insist that nations like Iran, Russia, and China jeopardize global stability, it is clear that they themselves do so in pursuit of global hegemony.

by Anders , new.euro-med.dk

June 20, 2017 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Sordid History Of State Sponsored Terrorism Against Iran

For decades, Western empires have waged a silent war against Iran, using tactics ranging from supporting known terrorist groups to deposing the country’s leaders and leveraging regional rivalries. The war continues today, even as the U.S. condemns Iran for sponsoring terrorism itself.

People gather around a car as it is removed by a mobile crane in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 11, 2012. Two assailants on a motorcycle attached magnetic bombs to the car of an Iranian university professor working at a key nuclear facility, killing him and wounding two people. The assassination was later confirmed to be a joint effort by the MEK and Israeli intelligence by U.S. officials. (AP/Meghdad Madadi)

NEW YORK (Opinion)– With blood still fresh on the streets of Tehran after last week’s deadly terror attack, the U.S. was quick to condemn the attacks. But in a sadly predictable move, President Donald Trump’s White House also blamed the victim, condemning Iran as a sponsor of terrorism.

While this may seem like merely the latest instance of insensitivity on Trump’s part, it is, in fact, emblematic of the strategy of supporting terrorism against Iran that Washington has employed for decades.

The official White House statement, while expressing grief over the attacks, was noteworthy for implying that Iran itself was responsible for the tragedy. “We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote,” reads the second sentence of the statement.

Aside from the sheer tastelessness and callous disregard for the victims of the attack, the irony of the official statement was obviously lost on Trump. Perhaps if Trump would’ve chosen to pull his head out of the posteriors of Saudi oil executives, he might realize that it is the U.S., not Iran, that has a long history of sponsoring terrorism to which it later falls victim

Moreover, if Trump had a sense of history beyond having watched all ten seasons of Ice Road Truckers, he would know that Iran has, for decades, been the victim of a terror campaign backed both directly and indirectly by the United States in the hopes of bringing regime change to the Islamic Republic, returning the country to its place as energy footstool of the West.

Perhaps, Mr. President, you could consider reading on. You might learn something.

The recent history of terrorism against Iran

The subject of terrorism directed against the Islamic Republic of Iran would likely need a dissertation-length analysis well beyond the scope of this article. However, even a cursory examination of the use of terror against Iran reveals a number of worrying trends, with all roads leading West.

Put another way, terrorism against Iran is as American as apple pie; as British as shepherd’s pie; as Israeli as stolen Palestinian pie.

For instance, take the oft-touted “freedom fighters” of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK; also known as MKO), a terrorist group hailed as heroes by the U.S. neoconservative establishment, despite having been officiallyrecognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization from 1997 through 2012. Indeed, so warm and cozy were these terrorists with policymakers, including key government officials, that through an intensive lobbying campaign, including advocacy from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the MEK was officially removed from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Senator John McCain has meets with the head of the US-designated terrorist organization, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), Maryam Rajavi, in the Albanian capital, Tirana, April, 2017.

Never mind the fact that MEK was implicated by the Obama Administration itself as having colluded with Israel in assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, a blatant violation of international law. But of course, this was nothing for MEK, whose history is one of assassination and terror against Iran.

As Anthony Cordesman and Adam C. Seitz noted in their book “Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?”:

“Near the end of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Baghdad armed the MEK with heavy military equipment [provided by the US] and deployed thousands of MEK fighters in suicidal, mass wave attacks against Iranian forces…In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries…In April 1999, the MEK targeted key Iranian military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff…The pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during “Operation Great Bahman” in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran.”

It should also be remembered that the U.S. opened its military base in Iraq to MEK, which used Camp Ashraf (also known as Camp Liberty) as a safe haven and staging area until it was closed (and MEK members killed) by former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Perhaps a hundred other examples of MEK terrorism against Iran, sponsored and backed by the U.S., could be provided. Suffice to say that the removal of MEK from the U.S. government’s official terror organization list was the result of a well-funded and well-orchestrated lobbying campaign with many key allies on Capitol Hill and the Beltway, including some of the most influential neoconservative figures, such as Max Boot, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and Rudy Giuliani.

Another way of looking at this relationship would be to say that the U.S. has been the principal sponsor of one of the most violent and prolific anti-Iranian terrorist groups. And they are certainly not alone.

Washington has long been seen by many as a backer of, and potential handler for, the organized crime and terror organization known as Jundallah. This notorious terror organization, which has operated on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border in the region of Sistan-Baluchestan, has been led for decades by the Rigi family, a well-known anti-government crime family, and has been linked a number of high-profile terror attacks in recent years, including a deadly October 2009 bombing that killed over 40 people, including 15 Iranian Revolutionary Guard members.

During a funeral ceremony, people mourn next to flag-draped coffins of victims of two bomb blasts in the city of Zahedan, Iran, July 17, 2010. Jundallah, which has carried out several other bombings in southeast Iran over the past few years, claimed responsibility for the blasts, which killed 27. (Fars/Ali Azimzadeh)

Counterterrorism experts have long been aware of Jundallah’s historic ties to both U.S. and Israeli intelligence. As Foreign Policy reported in 2012, Israeli Mossad and U.S. CIA operatives essentially competed with one another for control of the Jundallah network for years. The report noted that:

“The [U.S. government] memos also detail CIA field reports saying that Israel’s recruiting activities occurred under the nose of U.S. intelligence officers, most notably in London, the capital of one of Israel’s ostensible allies, where Mossad officers posing as CIA operatives met with Jundallah officials.”

Consider for a moment the reality of what the report illustrated: U.S. intelligence officials were livid that their Israeli counterparts would meet with Jundallah while posing as CIA agents. Not only does this signal a turf war between the two ostensible allies, it indicates a much deeper and more intimate relationship between Western intelligence agencies and the anti-Iranian terror group. Considering Jundallah became the battleground between the CIA and Mossad, it’s not a stretch to say that the organization is, to some degree, influenced or even directly controlled by the U.S.

Like Jundallah, Jaish al-Adl is a terror group operating in Iran’s southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan, as well as Pakistan’s Balochistan Province. The group has carried out numerous attacks against Iranian government institutions, including one infamous incident in March 2014 in which five Iranian border guards were kidnapped, with one being executed later.

According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium:

“[Jaish al-Adl is] an extremist Salafi group that has since its foundation claimed responsibility for a series of operations against Iran’s domestic security forces and Revolutionary Guards operating in Sistan and Balochistan province, including the detonation of mines [link added] against Revolutionary Guards vehicles and convoys, kidnapping of Iranian border guards and attacks against military bases… Jaish al-Adl is also opposed to the Iranian Government’s active support of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which they regard as an attack on Sunni Muslims…Jaish ul-Adl executes cross-border operations between the border of Iran and Pakistan and is based in the Baluchistan province in Pakistan.”

Jaish al-Adl is certainly not riding alone on the terror train, as their cousins Ansar al-Furqan – a fusion of the Balochi Harakat Ansar and Pashto Hizb al-Furqan, both of which have been operating along Iran’s eastern border with Pakistan – have entered the anti-Iran fray in recent years.

According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium:

“[Ansar al-Furqan] characterize themselves as Mujahideen aginst [sic] the Shia government in Iran and are linked to Katibat al Asad Al ‘Ilamiya; Al-Farooq activists; al Nursra Front (JN), Nosrat Deen Allah, Jaysh Muhammad, Jaysh al ‘Adal; and though it was denied for some time, appears to have at least personal relationships with Jundallah…The stated mission of Ansar al Furqan is ” to topple the Iranian regime…”

Here one sees the intersection of the war against Iran and the ongoing war in Syria. Sunni extremist organizations such as Jaish al-Adl and Ansar al-Furqan see their war against Iran as an extension of the war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, itself part of the broader jihad against Shia Islam.

Weaponizing Iraq’s Kurds against Iran?

Thanks to WikiLeaks, it is well-documented fact that Israel, as well as the U.S., have long attempted to use Kurdish groups such as PJAK (an Iraqi Kurdish terror group) to wage continued war against Iran for the purposes of destabilizing its government. At the same time, however, both Washington and Tel Aviv have been involved on the ground with the Kurdish Special Forces by attempting to use them against Iran.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh noted in 2004:

“The Israelis have had long-standing ties to the Talibani and Barzani clans [in] Kurdistan and there are many Kurdish Jews that emigrated to Israel and there are still a lot of connection. But at some time before the end of the year [2004], and I’m not clear exactly when, certainly I would say a good six, eight months ago, Israel began to work with some trained Kurdish commandoes, ostensibly the idea was the Israelis — some of the Israeli elite commander units, counter-terror or terror units, depending on your point of view, began training — getting the Kurds up to speed.”

Ethnic Kurdish Israelis protest outside the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 8, 2010.

Iran’s leaders have been keenly aware of the presence of Israeli special forces and intelligence on the ground in Kurdistan, knowing that ultimately it is Tehran in the crosshairs. And indeed, that has been the recent history of relations between Israel and the Barzani/Talabani-led Iraqi Kurds. As pro-Israeli blogger Daniel Bart noted:

“During most of that time there were usually some 20 military specialists stationed in a secret location in southern Kurdistan. Rehavam Zeevi and Moshe Dayan were among Israeli generals who served in Kurdistan…The Israelis trained the large Kurdish army of Mustafa Barzani and even led Kurdish troops in battle…The “secret” cooperation between Kurdistan and Israel is mainly in two fields. The first is in intelligence cooperation and this is hardly remarkable as half the world including many Muslim states have such relationships with Israel. The second is influence in Washington.”

Here again one sees the rich diversity of tactics employed by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. And while no one should be surprised that Washington and Tel Aviv would use regional antipathy and rivalries to gain leverage over and ultimately destabilize Iran, the use of terrorist groups as a weapon might come as a surprise to the uninitiated. But indeed, terrorism has been perhaps the most potent weapon in this war.

A new chapter in an old story

For Iran, the last seventy years have demonstrated that so-called “Western democracies” are actually anti-democratic and function as state sponsors of terrorism – precisely the terms hurled at Iran on a near-daily basis in the corporate media. From the CIA and MI6’s “original sin” of deposing Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in a coup d’etat in 1953, to imposing the U.S. puppet Shah with his secret police, torture chambers and forced disappearance of dissidents, the U.S. and its allies have been waging a terror war against the people of Iran for decades.

And what exactly is the great sin of the Iranian people? For one, they had the misfortune of residing in a country that sits atop trillions of dollars in energy reserves, making it a prime target for empires throughout the last century. Additionally, with its large, well-educated population, Iran is a lucrative market for Western corporations, so long as the pesky democratically elected government can be removed as an obstacle. And Iran, strategically located along both the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea, bordering the Middle East and South Asia, forms a critical node in the projection of power for all Western empires, including the U.S.

For these reasons, the Islamic Republic is rightly seen by Tel Aviv and Riyadh as a regional rival, a growing power that challenges Israeli-Saudi hegemony in the region. So it should come as no surprise that Iran has been repeatedly victimized by Western-sponsored terrorism.

And so, when the Orange Buffoon currently occupying the White House, or any of the neocons who have held the reins of US foreign policy for years, blasts Iran as a sponsor of terror at precisely the moment the country is reeling from a national tragedy, it is rather revealing. Because, indeed, it is the US and its closest allies that have the long and sordid track record of sponsoring terrorism, not Iran.

So when Trump or any of the neocons who have held the reins of U.S. foreign policy for years blasts Iran as a sponsor of terror at precisely the moment the country is reeling from a national tragedy, it is rather revealing.

It is the U.S. and other Western powers that have allowed the ISIS (Daesh) to proliferate, backed al-Qaeda, and sponsored myriad terror groups in waging war against Iran. It is Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh that have cast Iran as the villain and painted terror groups as legitimate resistance against the “mullocracy.”

Here again, when it comes to terrorism and U.S. foreign policy, we see the pot calling the kettle black. However, given Iran’s unwillingness to be cowed by terror, no one should be surprised if the kettle finally boils over.

By Eric Draitser, Mint Press News,

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eric Draitser is a geopolitical analyst based in New York and the founder of StopImperialism.

June 15, 2017 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

A communist terrorist group in Albania must be condemned by all friends of Iran

The Albanian based MEK could have helped Saudi funded ISIS to carry out the terrorist attack on Tehran.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for today’s deadly terrorist attack in The Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran in turn has pointed a finger at Saudi Arabia which is well known as an agitator for aggression against Iran and also a major covert supporter of ISIS and al-Qaeda.

But it is another group that historically has waged terrorist atrocities against Iran. This group is Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) also known as the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran.

The group is an expressly stated communist terrorist group whose goal ever since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 is to overthrow the government of Iran. That being said, the group is often more than willing to forgo its ideology in order to make alliances of convenience with any state or group willing to help it pursue its penultimate goal of destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Throughout the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s the group found shelter in Iraq, but the Shi’a dominated Iraqi government kicked the group out of the country in 2009.

The group then relocated to the NATO member state of Albania, a known sponsor of semi-secular Sunni terrorism in the Balkans.

The group now thrives in Albania as does ISIS. Under the radar of international scrutiny, ISIS has quietly co-opted much of the lucrative narcotics trade in Albania from local mafia lords. The result is the early stages of a perfect storm whereby Albanian political corruption and the effective Albanian mafia state are sharing the same political geography with a communist anti-Iranian terrorist group and also ISIS.

Although there is little doubt that as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have said, Saudi has a hand in today’s tragic event, but this does not preclude the MEK from having a hand in the attack.

Concerned parties must seriously examine whether the MEK and ISIS have forged some sort of pact beneath the radar. Such a thing is entirely possible for several reasons.

First of all, ISIS has never once carried out an attack on Iranian soil and given the secure and stable nature of Iran, it almost beggars belief that they were able to do so.

Secondly, if indeed the Saudi/ISIS hand was in play and was therefore able to penetrate deeply into Iran, in Tehran no less, which is geographically far from both Iraq and Syria, it means that whoever did this had to penetrate deeply into Iranian territory before carrying out the crime. The MEK, although with difficulty, have managed to penetrate into Iran many times before and carry out terrorist atrocities. They know the internal geography of the country far more than the average ISIS commander. Furthermore, studies have shown that like ISIS, the MEK also receives funding from Saudi Arabia.

Consequently, there is every possibility that ISIS and the MEK have forged some sort of alliance or at minimum an agreement on the sharing of intelligence.

In either case, the NATO member state of Albania is guilty of harbouring and facilitating terrorism, something that Serbia has warned of for many years.

Albania is the place where the MEK, ISIS, NATO and Europe meet. If Iran wants to truly avenge this atrocity, it must focus on not only its traditional Middle Eastern enemies, but also on Albania.

By Adam Garrie ,The Duran

June 13, 2017 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Terrorism in Tehran: Reality Confounds Rhetoric

For Americans fed a diet of rhetoric about Iran that constantly links it to the sending, not the receiving, end of terrorism—in which “the leading state sponsor of terrorism” is the adjectival phrase routinely affixed to Iran, and in which official rhetoric such as President Trump’s speech in Riyadh mashes Iran together with Sunni Islamist terrorism of the ISIS variety into one undifferentiated blob of evil—the deadly attacks today in Tehran generate much cognitive dissonance. But however disorienting this news may have been, it is true. An obviously well-planned operation struck at the heart of Iran, at its parliament and the monument to the Islamic Republic’s founder. At least a dozen people were killed and dozens more injured. The credibility of the claim of responsibility by ISIS is enhanced by the group’s posting of video footage from the attack.

For anyone looking beyond rhetoric and at reality, the attack is no surprise. Iran has been one of the staunchest and most active foes of ISIS. Probably the main reason an attack like this had not happened any earlier is the difficulty that ISIS has had in finding recruits among Iranians. Iran has, partly with its own personnel but mainly through material support of clients and allies, been a leader in combating ISIS, especially in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Syria. Many Iraqis give Iran, with good reason, the main credit for saving Baghdad from ISIS when the group was making its dramatic territorial gains in northern and western Iraq in 2014. If the United States could overcome its current hang-up about doing any business with Iran, it would find a worthwhile partner in many aspects of counterterrorism, especially as far as the fight against ISIS is concerned.

There has long been a willingness, and a necessary awareness of shared interest, on the Iranian side. In September 2001, immediately after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and then-President Mohamed Khatami strongly condemned the attacks. Expressions of sympathy in Iran for the American victims included candlelight vigils and observing a minute of silence by tens of thousands of people at a sporting event. Two weeks after the attack, Khatami stated, “Iran fully understands the feelings of the Americans about the attacks in New York and Washington.” Khatami correctly noted that American administrations had been at best indifferent about terrorist attacks in Iran since the revolution of 1979, but that Iranians felt differently and were expressing their sympathies accordingly.

We wait to hear from the Trump administration the kind of expression of sympathy and solidarity that commonly is offered to foreign nations that have become victims of major terrorist attacks. We should not hold our breath while waiting. The Iranians certainly aren’t. They have experienced a long history of American postures toward Iran, in the context of a common terrorist threat, that have ranged from indifference at best to door-slamming at worst. In the first few months after 9/11, Iranian officials worked cooperatively and effectively with U.S. officials to midwife a new regime in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban. The Iranians thought this could be the beginning of further cooperation against a common threat. But then the United States slammed the door shut, as George W. Bush declared an axis of evil in which Iran was lumped together with North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The principal perpetrator of terrorism in Iran over the past four decades has been the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the Marxist/Islamist cult/terrorist group that prior to the revolution had claimed Americans among its victims. Thanks largely to the MEK’s activity, Iran necessarily has had much experience in countering terrorism. [Ayatollah] Khamenei lost the use of his right arm when he was injured by an MEK bomb in an assassination attempt in 1981. The U.S. handling of the MEK in recent years has seen the U.S. Government succumbing to a well-financed lobbying campaign on behalf of the group, with that campaign winning much support for the group in the U.S. Congress and the group eventually being removed from the U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. If the crippled Khamenei exhibits some reflexive anti-U.S. sentiments, do you suppose this history has something to do with it?

Right now, on the very day of the terrorist attacks in Tehran, the United States Senate is scheduled to take its first vote on a bill that would impose still more sanctions on Iran. It appears the most immediate American response to the attacks will be sanctions on, not sympathy for, the victim.

In the months ahead, Iran may take actions outside its borders in response to the attacks. The United States, ever since 9/11, has claimed a right for itself to be ruthlessly aggressive in the name of responding to terrorism, lashing out with force while sometimes being little restrained by collateral damage or international law (not to mention its own constitutional requirements). Iran may see a need to be more aggressive in places such as Iraq or Syria in the interest of fighting back against ISIS. Will the United States grant Iran the same kind of slack it grants itself? Or, as has been customary in opposing anything Iran does and taking no account of exactly what interests are being advanced or threatened, will the Iranian responses be denounced as more “nefarious,” "malign," and “destabilizing” behavior?

By Paul R. Pillar , National Interest

June 11, 2017 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts