Mujahedin Warmongers

MKO along the lines of Western hardliners

As the co-leader of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization, Maryam Rajavi, calls on the West for more sanctions against Iran, her leading sponsor in the US Congress is demanding new sanctions to pressure Iranian government. The US-MEK campaign is paired with Israeli propaganda against Iran.

Immediately after a seven-month extension in talks between P5+1 was announced, Maryam Rajavi started to blame the West for not being firm on Iran. According to Rajavi “Exercising firmness and tightening the sanctions” is the only option to deal with Islamic Republic that should be followed with supporting the MKO as the alternative for the Iranian regime.

On the other side of the world, Rajavi’s paid advocates also launched their own campaign to obstruct nuclear talks. Even before the ink dried on the extension agreement in Vienna, skeptics in Washington were demanding new sanctions to pressure Iran`s rulers, reported Reuters. [1]

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, long regarded as one of the most effective lobbying groups in Washington, called on Congress to take up sanctions legislation.[] Members of AIPAC are mostly found among advocates of the MKO in the US government. You can find certain names on both lists of recipients of the MKO and AIPAC contributions such as Robert Menendez, Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin. [http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all]

Senator Robert Menendez, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Carl Levin are three of the long list of the MKO supporters who receive large amounts of speaking fees to speak on behalf of the group. They are paid for their luxurious trips to attend the MKO’s rallies around the world. News and videos of their advocacy for “the cult of Rajavi” are available on the group’s websites.

Reuters reported that Sen. Robert Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Obama’s Democratic Party stopped short of calling for new sanctions immediately, but said: "The cycle of negotiations, followed by an extension, coupled with sanctions relief for Iran has not succeeded.” [2]

Opponents of the Iranian government including the MKO and American-Israeli warmongers disrespect the fact that the alleged Iranian nuclear program was basically a forged story made by Israeli Intelligence service and published by the MKO propaganda arm. The investigative journalist Gareth Porter studied the case and included that the key “evidence” of an Iranian nuclear weapons program came via the MKO cult and was produced by Israel. [3]

Porter suggests, “The MEK role in transferring the documents indicates that they originated in Israel, because the MEK had been serving as a client of Israel for several years, including the “laundering” of Israeli intelligence reports by presenting them to the IAEA and the press as coming from the MEK itself.” [4]

Moreover, in November 2007, National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of the US reported that Iran had “halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.” [5] However, Iran never had a weapons program—at least not one that has been confirmed by U.S. Thus that the unproven MKO-Israeli, nuclear weapons claim has become the source of all deceptive propaganda of the group.

While the MKO leader makes efforts to show off her cult of personality as a secular democratic alternative for Islamic Republic, critics found out the opposite. Holly Dagres of the Huffington Post refers to Rand report to prove dishonest of Maryam Rajavi and her supporters,” Despite denials, its [the MKO’s] conduct tells otherwise as cited by a RAND report: deceptive recruitment, emotional isolation, extreme degrading peer pressure, forced labor, imprisonment, lack of exit options, sexual control, sleep deprivation, and physical abuse.” [6]

Dagres remarks that the MKO has no public support inside Iran and despite its claims its slogans never reflect the aspirations of the Iranian nation. He writes,” Not only has the Mojahedin-e Khalq lost its support because of its alliance with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s–an insult to the Iranian people’s nationalism–but also for its position against Iran’s nuclear program, something the average Iranian sees as their legitimate right.” [7]

Maryam Rajavi and her sponsors must understand that their determination to obstruct nuclear talks and engagement with Iran is not in line with the Iranian people’s longing for independence and security.

Mazda Parsi

References:

[1] Reuters, Domestic pressures in U.S., Iran threaten slow-moving nuclear talks, Nov 25, 2014

[2] ibid

[3] Porter, Gareth, How US Policy on Iran Came to Be Based on Fabricated Documents, the Nation, June 9, 2014

[4] ibid

[5] Key Judgments From a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Activity, the New York Times

December 4, 2007

[6] Dagres, Holly, Dear Washington: Kick Out This Iranian Militant Cult, Huffington Post, December 14 2014

[7] ibid

December 18, 2014 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MKO happy with GOP victory

Less than a week after the US midterm elections– in which Republicans snatched control of the Congress– the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) sounds hopeful for its ambitions for power in Iran. It seems pretty obvious that the MKO is dreaming of failure of nuclear talks between Iran and West and eventually the imposition of more sanctions against Iran and finally military invasion.

The takeover of Republicans over the US Congress may narrow the path for Obama and his foreign policy makers who tend to engagement and diplomacy with the Iranian Government and this is exactly what the MKO wants. The group’s advocates in the Congress mostly belong to the GOP party. However, it has been successful to buy the support of some Democrats too.

The MKO’s multimillion-dollar campaign of lobbying in the corridors of the Capitol Hill ultimately ended in the removal of the group from the List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations of the State Department in September 2012. A few months after its delisting, the MKO reopened its office in Washington a block away from the White House, eating cake with some of its congressional sponsors.

In fact, the MKO has a long list of advocates among republicans. The group has hired the most powerful republican lobbying firms such as Akin Gump to run its agenda in the US government. Rep. Ileana Ros-lehtinen, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher are two of most vocal supporters of the MKO in the Congress. They often appear in the group’s rallies to speak on behalf of the group and its warmonger belief. Also, former republican figures and hardliners have deep pockets of the MKO dollars. Tom Ridge, Rudy Guiliani, Fran Townsand, Patrick Kennedy and Micheal Mukasey are other formerly high profiles in the MKO campaign who have been beating on war

drums against Iran for years.

The MKO hopes that the republican majority could be able to stop nuclear talks while the last round of the talks is now taking place in Oman. It means that before next January and the start of republicans’ rule over the Congress the talks will be done. Therefore, it is clear that the result of the midterm elections is not going to affect the negotiations, at least for the time being. However, President Obama has promised that he would try to convince Republicans in case of reaching any agreement with Iran.

Today, the MKO propaganda office has found itself with new supporters of war in the Congress. Thus, the timing to launch the old repeated propaganda against the Iranian nuclear program seems appropriate for the group.

Last Friday, the office of the MKO’s propaganda arm, the so-called National council of Resistance held a press conference show to claim that Iran has installed explosive chambers in Parchin site. Yet, the so-called revelation of the NCR has hardly ever gained attention in the media.

Seemingly the efforts of the MKO’s lobby and huge expenses it paid will not simply bear fruit. By the way, any agreement with Iran that is defendable by Obama and his party can very probably satisfy the Republicans, considering that the US public opinion extensively oppose a new war.

Regarding the current crisis of the Middle East and the threat of terrorists of the Islamic State group, and the Iranian good will to reach an agreement with the West, any agreement between the two sides is considered as a win-win deal, regardless of who won the US congressional elections.

The only loser of the entire story is the MKO and its warmonger opportunist drive that is seeking to overthrow the Iranian government at any cost.

By Mazda Parsi

November 10, 2014 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Direct, intentional, unmistakable support for the terrorist MKO

Although pursuing hegemony in today’s world is a futile tasks because of Russia and China’s resistance, yet the United States pushes for its dominance over the world. To achieve this ambition, the US is not hesitant to use any means necessary such as capitalizing on terrorist groups. This tactic was clearly seen when the US created Taliban after the invasion of Afghanestan by Russia.

“It is not merely hyperbole when it is said the US created terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the so-called Islamic State,” Writes Tony Cartalucci the Bangkok based political analyst. ‘’ It is documented fact.”

He suggests that the chaotic situation of the Middle East is “intentional, engineered “ by the US and its “many eager allies” to create regional fronts in a war against Iran. In his opinion Western support for terrorists is “direct, intentional, and unmistakable”.

Cartalucci states that the support for Mujahedin Khalq Organization is “perhaps the most overt and bizarre declaration of allegiance to terrorism to date”. He points out the speech of one of the well-paid supporters of the MKO the American retired General Hugh Shelton who “hysterically” pledges American material, political, and strategic backing for the MKO.

General Hugh Shelton is the permanent participant of Maryam Rajavi’s masquerade shows in Paris. He is always offered luxurious trips to flatter Mrs. Rajavi. Shelton’s shilling for the MKO is also observed in his piece on Global Research. Persuading the US foreign policy makers to apply pressure against Iran. He often praises Maryam Rajavi for her rhetoric and warmongering ideas.

As Cartalucci correctly states, “To this day MEK terrorists have been carrying out attacks inside of Iran killing political opponents, attacking civilian targets, as well as carrying out the US-Israeli program of targeting and assassinating Iranian scientists.” The MKO’s use of violence against Iranian nation is undeniable. Most of its terrorist acts have been glorified in the group’s media. They are well documented. However this does not stop the West from sponsoring it.

“There is no guiding principles of peace, stability, democracy, freedom, or any confining principles of humanity that prohibit US foreign policy from exercising the most abhorrent practices in order to achieve its goals”, according to Tony Cartalucci.” Failure to identify these interests blindly chasing hegemony at the cost of global peace and prosperity leads not only America over a cliff into a ravine of madness, but the entire world as well.”

The same thing is true about the MKO. The Rajavis believe in Machiavellianism that is embodied by the saying “the ends justify the means”. They have so far used any sort of violence, treason, dishonesty and fraudulent tactics to spur their hegemony over their cult – not Iran. Just as Cartalucci sees no future for the US empire-building policy, there is no future seen for the MKO’s futile efforts for power in Iran.

“ That a US general can stand before terrorists even as the US bombs two nations in the name of fighting terrorism, is but a glimpse into this madness”, He concludes. “For America and the Western aligned nations and interests caught in its orbit, there is no future. Chasing hegemony for the sake of hegemony alone leaves no room for actual progress. “

For the time being, for both the MKO and the West “anything and everything obstructing the path to hegemony is seen as an “enemy” to be destroyed by any means necessary.”

The MKO leaders used to try to win hearts and minds with tanks and mortars and Kalashnikovs and now they are trying to win the support of the West by huge amounts of money they offer. They created their army of brainwashed and manipulated minds who murder and lie for their guru. They justified any means to gain their ends. They sold themselves to the West. Obviously the group has gained nothing except ill fame for itself. The group is notorious for its violence and abuse of its own members. But there is no use of the whole notoriety they made for themselves.

Mazda Parsi

October 22, 2014 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MEK: US War on Iran Takes Bizarre Turn

It is not merely hyperbole when it is said the US created terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the so-called “Islamic State.” It is documented fact. The current conflict in the Middle East may appear to be a chaotic conflagration beyond the control of the United States and its many eager allies, but in reality it is the intentional, engineered creation of regional fronts in a war against Iran and its powerful arc of influence.

It is not Western policy that indirectly spurs the creation and perpetuation of terrorist organizations, but in fact, direct, intentional, unmistakable support.

This support would manifest itself in perhaps the most overt and bizarre declaration of allegiance to terrorism to date, US Army General Hugh Shelton on stage before terrorists of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) and their Wahabist counterparts fighting in Syria, hysterically pledging American material, political, and strategic backing. MEK was listed for years by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, but has received funding, arms, and safe haven by the United States for almost as long.

General Hugh’s speech titled, “Making Iranian mullahs fear, the MEK, come true,” was most likely never meant to be seen or fully understood by Americans. In titled alone, it is clear that US foreign policy intends to use the tool of terrorism to exact concessions from Tehran. If the true nature of America’s support for terrorist organizations like MEK were more widely known, the current narrative driving US intervention in Iraq and Syria would crumble.

MEK Has Killed US Servicemen, Contractors, and Iranian Civilians For Decades

MEK has carried out decades of brutal terrorist attacks, assassinations, and espionage against the Iranian government and its people, as well as targeting Americans including the attempted kidnapping of US Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II, the attempted assassination of USAF Brigadier General Harold Price, the successful assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations of Colonel Paul Shaffer and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, and the successful ambush and killing of American Rockwell International employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard.

Admissions to the deaths of the Rockwell International employees can be found within a report written by former US State Department and Department of Defense official Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. on behalf of the lobbying firm Akin Gump in an attempt to dismiss concerns over MEK’s violent past and how it connects to its current campaign of armed terror – a testament to the depths of depravity from which Washington and London lobbyists operate.

To this day MEK terrorists have been carrying out attacks inside of Iran killing political opponents, attacking civilian targets, as well as carrying out the US-Israeli program of targeting and assassinating Iranian scientists. MEK terrorists are also suspected of handling patsies in recent false flag operations carried out in India, Georgia, and Thailand, which have been ham-handedly blamed on the Iranian government by the United States and Israel.

MEK is described by Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh as a “cult-like organization” with “totalitarian tendencies.” While Takeyh fails to expand on what he meant by “cult-like” and “totalitarian,” an interview with US State Department-run Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty reported that a MEK Camp Ashraf escapee claimed the terrorist organization bans marriage, using radios, the Internet, and holds many members against their will with the threat of death if ever they are caught attempting to escape.

US Has Been Eagerly Supporting MEK Terrorists For Years

Besides providing MEK terrorists with now two former US military bases in Iraq as safe havens, the US has conspired to arm, fund, and back MEK for years in a proxy war against Iran.

Covert support for the US-listed terrorist group Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) has been ongoing since at least 2008 under the Bush administration, when Seymour Hersh’s 2008 New Yorker article “Preparing the Battlefield,” reported that not only had MEK been considered for their role as a possible proxy, but that the US had already begun arming and financing them to wage war inside Iran:

The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. “The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.” He added, “The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.

More recently, the British Daily Mail published a stunning admission by “US officials” that Israel is currently funding, training, arming, and working directly with MEK. The Daily Mail article states: Seymore Hersh in an NPR interview, also claims that select MEK members have already received trainingin the US.

U.S. officials confirmed today that Israel has been funding and training Iranian dissidents to assassinate nuclear scientists involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Washington insiders confirmed there is a close relationship between Mossad and MEK.

In 2009, an extensive conspiracy was formulated within US policy think-tank Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, proposing to fully arm, train, and back MEK as it waged a campaign of armed terror against the Iranian people. In their report, they openly conspire to use what is an admitted terrorist organization as a “US proxy” (emphasis added):

“Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.”

Besides US Army General Hugh Shelton, other prominent US politicians to literally stand before crowds of baying MEK terrorists and their supporters include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean, Tom Ridge, John Lewis, Ed Rendell, former ambassador John Bolton, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, retired General Wesley Clark, Lee Hamilton, former US Marine Corps Commandant General James Jones, and Alan Dershowitz. US Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi would also stand in front of MEK terrorists to deliver to them an Iranian New Year “greeting.”

Blind Lust for Global Hegemony is Leading America Over a Cliff

What it says about American foreign policy, to trick US servicemen and women into dying in far off lands to “fight terrorism” when US politicians in the highest positions of power openly pledge support to terrorism – using it as a battering ram against its enemies abroad, and failing to topple them by proxy, using their own terrorist hordes as a pretext for direct military intervention to do so – is that such policy is underpinned by nothing more than blind lust for power, wealth, and influence in senseless pursuit of global hegemony. There is no guiding principles of peace, stability, democracy, freedom, or any confining principles of humanity that prohibit US foreign policy from exercising the most abhorrent practices in order to achieve its goals.

Failure to identify these interests blindly chasing hegemony at the cost of global peace and prosperity leads not only America over a cliff into a ravine of madness, but the entire world as well. That a US general can stand before terrorists even as the US bombs two nations in the name of fighting terrorism, is but a glimpse into this madness.For America and the Western aligned nations and interests caught in its orbit, there is no future. Chasing hegemony for the sake of hegemony alone leaves no room for actual progress. When anything and everything obstructing the path to hegemony is seen as an “enemy” to be destroyed by any means necessary, that includes setting aside resources and attention to solving some of the most pressing issues of our time – health care, infrastructure, education, better jobs, peace, and prosperity. All of these are seen as obstacles toward hegemony, and the very same interests standing before MEK terrorists pledging America’s resources to their campaign of terrorism against Iran, are the same interests calling for and implementing austerity upon the American people to continuously fuel its foreign adventures.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

NSNBC.me

October 18, 2014 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The adventures of the MKO and warmongers

The ISIS threat in the Middle East might be over someday but the threat of cult-like extremism will not leave the region unless the super powers stop pursuing their empire-building policies in the region.

The beginning of the sectarian violence in the region perhaps goes back to the time of Russian influence in Afghanistan when the US supported Afghan Mujahideen and then created Taliban, the extremists group to fight the Soviet Union –the US strategic adversary in the Middle East. The rise of Taliban was the start of al Qaeda. Al Qaede in turn has been the originator of even worse extremist groups such as ISIS or IS. The entire historical memory of the world indicates that the Threat of extremism is a Western creature.

“The ISIL or IS threat is a smokescreen,” Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya the award-winning author, sociologist and geopolitical analyst states. “The strength of the ISIL has deliberately been inflated to get public support for the Pentagon and to justify the illegal bombing of Syria.” He suggests that the US has a broader dream which is regime change in Iran. ”… Baghdad and Damascus have been viewed as pathways for the Pentagon towards Tehran, “he writes. [1]

To accomplish such an objective, the US has the same plan for the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO, Rajavi’s Cult, MEK). As Nasemroaya notices, “disingenuously and ironically, the US and Britain used Saddam Hussein’s support for the MEK to justify labeling Iraq as a state-sponsor of terrorism and to also justify the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq”. [2]

That part of the US government that is opposed to diplomacy with Iran is dramatically manipulated by the MKO propaganda. The group’s multi-million dollar lobbying campaign finally resulted in getting removed from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations of the US State Department in September 2012 but shilling for the MKO has not stopped since then. The warmongers of the Congress view the Cult of Rajavi as “the main Iranian opposition” and an “alternative” for the Islamic Republic.

Daniel Larison of the American Conservative website criticizes Western supporters of the MKO who argue about the Iranian “deceit”. “Leaving aside how crazy it is to spurn diplomacy because governments sometimes lie and break their promises, there is something especially weird about an argument that simultaneously promotes the cause of the MEK while complaining about Iranian deceit,” he writes. [3]

Larison clarifies how the MKO propaganda actually deceived the West to buy its sponsorship. He states:” As it has sought to rehabilitate itself in the West, the MEK has claimed all sorts of spurious, self-serving things about what it represents. Despite being a bizarre authoritarian cult with Marxist and quasi-Islamist views, it now pretends to be exactly what Westerners want an Iranian exile group to be.” About the group’s skillful propaganda he writes,” It doesn’t matter to the MEK’s American fans that it is lying about its political views, and they are obviously not worried about reciting those lies for Western audiences. Indeed, it has so completely hoodwinked them that they think it should be rewarded with American support.” [4]

“The MKO Since 2003, the US has been funding the MEK,” Nazemroaya also warns about the US support for the MKO. “Washington has been protecting the MEK, because it wants to keep them on a leash as either leverage against Tehran or to have the option of one day installing the MEK into power in Tehran as part of a regime change operation against Iran.” He confirms that the MKO “has literally become incorporated into the Pentagon and CIA toolboxes against Tehran.”[5]

The Iranian-American analyst declares that the MKO’s money is circulated among its sponsors and the group’s propaganda arm. “The irony is that the money for the event most probably came from the US government itself. US allies probably contributed too,” he writes. “This money has gone to the MEK’s lobbying initiatives with the US Congress and US Department of State, which in effect is recycling US funding.” [6]

The fraudulent policy of the West to run its empire in the Middle East is very clearly seen in recent Henry Kissinger’s comment about ISIS which MKO propaganda website proudly republishes it. The former US Secretary of State who is famous for his warmonger policies, expressed in an interview with NPR that he considers ”Iran a bigger problem than ISIS”. He sounds to be making this audience ready for another war in the region—which is a dream for Maryam Rajavi. [7]

Daniel Larison announces to his country fellow politicians that the MKO is not “the main Iranian opposition” or “anything like it”. He suggests, ”The shilling for this group by many prominent American former officials and politicians is one of the more disgraceful displays of the last decade, and as long as it continues it should be held up for derision.” [8]

However, as Nasemroaya proposes, the West’s imperialism policy is not indeed based on truth but it is based on its in benefits and interests. “When it comes down to it, the US is not concerned about fighting the ISIL, which has been serving Washington’s interests in the Middle East,” he concludes. ”America’s main concern is about preserving its crumbling empire and preventing Eurasian integration.” [9]

Mazda Parsi

Sources:

[1] Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius, The March to War: Fighting ISIL is a Smokescreen for US Mobilization against Syria, Iran, Global Research, September 26, 2014

[2] ibid

[3] Larison, Daniel, The Disgraceful Shilling for the MEK Continues, The American Conservative, August 9, 2014

[4] ibid

[5] Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius, The March to War: Fighting ISIL is a Smokescreen for US Mobilization against Syria, Iran, Global Research, September 26, 2014

[6] ibid

[7] NPR Staff, Henry Kissinger’s Thoughts On The Islamic State, Ukraine And ‘World Order’, NPR , September 6, 2014

[8] Larison, Daniel, The Disgraceful Shilling for the MEK Continues, The American Conservative, August 9, 2014

[9] Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius, The March to War: Fighting ISIL is a Smokescreen for US Mobilization against Syria, Iran, Global Research, September 26, 2014

October 6, 2014 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The War Party never takes a holiday

Hoaxes, Hype, and Hysteria

While Americans were barbecuing over the Labor Day weekend, the Usual Suspects were busy cooking up new wars, from Iraq to Ukraine. While this is nothing new – after all, evil never sleeps – one thing I did notice: the stunning lack of imagination on their part. It was, in effect, the equivalent of a bunch of summer reruns: tired formulaic retreads that weren’t all that convincing in the first place.

Take the latest war propaganda centered on the alleged "threat" to our precious bodily fluids supposedly posed by ISIS, the War Party’s latest bogeyman. As polls showed a stubborn reluctance on the part of the American people to re-invade Iraq, the neocons came up with a not-so-new one: they claim a laptop computer ostensibly captured from ISIS by the "good" jihadists – the so-called Free Syrian Army, which is armed and trained by the US – contains plans for constructing "weapons of mass destruction," i.e. biological weapons. They’re even calling it the "laptop of death" – a phrase that ought to ring a bell for those who follow these sorts of things.

That’s the same phrase used to describe yet another purloined laptop, this one supplied by the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, an Iranian terrorist group that, for years, has been feeding the War Party bogus "intelligence" about Tehran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program. That tall tale was debunked in 2011 – yet another case of MEK cobbling together old outdated data, adding a dash of forgery, and shaking well enough to fool the credulous.

You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but what if the dog can pass off an old hoax as a new one? And that’s why I’m here: to remind you.

Speaking of America’s Good Jihadists, a.k.a. the Syrian Free Army, I was struck by this nugget from an account of the killing of Douglas McAuthur McCain, an American fighting for ISIS in Syria, in the New York Times:

"The rebels who killed him were fighting for the Free Syrian Army, a rival group backed by the United States, and they went on to behead six ISIS fighters – but not Mr. McCain – and then posted the photographs on Facebook."

Yes, these are the "moderate" Syrian rebels, backed by your tax dollars and the prestige of the United States government. Oh, but don’t worry, kids: they’re our barbarians – so beheading is okay, even praiseworthy, since they’re doing it on behalf of spreading "freedom" and "democracy."

And speaking of hoaxes, here’s a biggie: they’re telling us that the long-awaited Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine has finally arrived! Yay! You can almost hear the sigh of relief all the way from Washington. The War Party’s journalistic camarilla – which has been telling us for the past six months or so that Putin’s move was "imminent" – yelped "we told you so!" in unison. Neocon hysteric Anne Applebaum screeched that this proved that we have to prepare for "total war" with nuclear-armed Russia – which, she claims, is planning to "use nuclear weapons to bomb Poland and the Baltic countries."

There’s just one problem with this alleged "invasion" – there’s zero evidence for it. Normally when one country invades another, troops pour over the border, missiles strike their targets, and the invaders proclaim their victory. So where are the Russian tanks, the missiles raining down death, the tens of thousands of troops marching in to take possession of their newly-conquered territory?

They’re nowhere to be seen. The best NATO could come up with was a series of murky satellite photos showing a column of military vehicles going somewhere from some place else – and that’s it. Apparently the Ukrainian army is so under-equipped that the poor things don’t even have a single cell phone camera to take a quick shot of the invading hordes. (This just proves they need more American aid!) Washington avers that one thousand Russian troops are now in Ukraine – but why would Putin send in such a paltry "army" and risk defeat? Why not just send in the troops, as he did in Crimea, and be done with it?

Oh, but the new cold warriors have a ready answer for the absence of solid evidence: this, we’re told, is no regular old-fashioned conquest. In this case, it’s a "new" kind of invasion – a "stealth invasion." Which just goes to show that words can be twisted to mean their exact opposite.

Yet this "stealth" angle elides an important element of any invasion plan: the political benefits to be had at home. These are, by the way, the only benefits to be had if Putin decided to annex ramshackle east Ukraine, with its profitless Soviet-era industries and desperately poor populace. So why isn’t he up there beating his chest and scoring points by telling the Russian people he’s the kind of strong leader who can stand up to the West?

The War Party has sunk to a new low: they’re stealing from Hollywood! If this isn’t outright plagiarism of the plot of "Wag the Dog," then it’s damned close. If I were the producers of that movie, I’d sue – but that’s just me.

While our war propagandists lack originality, you have to give them credit for persistence: these guys never give up. When one lie is exposed, another quickly takes center stage – and if the War Party does this in the belief that the memory of the American people is lamentably short, then who can fault their logic?

That’s why Antiwar.com is a vitally important resource for those of us who want to put an end to our foreign policy of global intervention. Our online archives are a detailed record of the War Party’s now-debunked fabrications, a charge sheet stretching all the way back to the mid-1990s.

And our readers apparently realize the value of this resource – because, unlike the War Party’s bought-and-paid-for "journalists," we depend on a growing base of grassroots supporters to keep this operation afloat and expanding.

Amid all the navel-gazing discussion by "mainstream" scribes about how to sustain a news operation in the face of a technology that has changed the face of journalism, Antiwar.com’s success in building a new model has gone largely unremarked. As mainline journalists bemoan the decline of their industry, Antiwar.com has pointed the way forward for new media by building a news organization that abandons the old subscriber-advertiser-dependent revenue stream and bases itself, instead, on reader donations.

Of course, bloggers have been doing this, with the by-now-traditional "tip jar," for years, but I believe we were among the first to apply it to a broader-based news-and-opinion site – and make it work.

It has worked for over fifteen years. Every time we pass the goal in our quarterly fundraising drives I feel an immense satisfaction in the fact that our readers have given us yet another vote of confidence.

From where I sit, it looks as though our late summer fundraising drive is very close to the goalpost. My thanks to all who gave: I can’t even begin to express the depth of my gratitude. And I want to point out that none of us here at Antiwar.com take your support for granted: we work overtime to earn your support by reporting the facts as we understand them and never failing to question the "conventional wisdom" – no matter where it takes us.

Antiwar

September 11, 2014 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Pro-Israeli American Billionaires Helped by the White House “Make War on Iran”

Pro-Israeli American Billionaires Helped by the White House “Make War on Iran”, Law Suit Reveals

There is a group of Jewish American billionaires who are apparently doing their best to make sure than negotiations with Iran go nowhere in the mistaken belief that they are doing what is best for Israel. And they would also appear to be assisted in their efforts by the White House, which is at the same time claiming that it wants the talks to be successful. The odd relationship is currently playing out in a Manhattan courtroom where the Justice Department is seeking to squash a lawsuit that it fears might expose the extent to which the government has hypocritically played fast and loose with classified information while simultaneously sending journalists and whistleblowers to jail over allegations that they have done the same.

The power and wealth of the anti-Iran groups as well as their unrivalled access to the United States government means that a policy of détente with Iran, which would be a no brainer based on both American and Iranian interests, only proceeds by fits and starts with the US Congress and much of the media lined up solidly to stop the effort. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliated educational foundation, which have focused on the “Iranian threat” over the past three years, have a combined budget of more than $90 million while AIPAC’s spin-off the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) has $8.7 million.

The American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) efforts are more diversified but uniformly hawkish when it comes to the Middle East. It has a budget of $45 million. Identified multi-million dollar donor/supporters of AIPAC, AEI, and WINEP include Sheldon Adelson of Las Vegas Sands, Paul Singer of Elliot Management hedge fund and Bernard Marcus of Home Depot.

Other right wing think tanks including Heritage and Hudson in Washington also support unrelenting pressure directed against Iran. Even the more centrist Brookings Institute is hard core when it comes to Middle Eastern politics by virtue of its Saban Institute funded by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban. And then there are the mainstream Jewish organizations to include the Anti Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and the American Jewish Congress, all of which have vast resources and unparalleled access to the White House, Congress and the media.

All the pro-Israel anti-Iran groups engage in pressure tactics on Capitol Hill and have been effective in dominating the political debate. Of thirty-six outside witnesses brought in to testify at seven Senate hearings on Iran since 2012 only one might be characterized as sensitive to Iranian concerns. The enormous lobbying effort enables the anti-Iran groups to define the actual policies, move their drafts of legislation through congress, and eventually see their bills pass with overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate. It is democracy in action if one accepts that popular rule ought to be guided by money and pressure groups rather than by national interests.

Less well known is United Against Nuclear Iran, which has a budget just shy of $2 million. UANI is involved in the New York lawsuit. The group, which has somehow obtained a 501[c]3 “educational” tax status that inter alia allows it to conceal its donors, has offices in Rockefeller Center in New York City. It is active on Capitol Hill providing “expert testimony” on Iran for congressional committees, to include “help” in drafting legislation. At a July Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iran all three outside witnesses were from UANI. It is also active in the media but is perhaps best known for its “name and shame” initiatives in which it exposes companies that it claims are doing business with Tehran in violation of US sanctions.

UANI is being sued by a Greek billionaire Victor Restis whom it had outed in 2013. Restis, claiming the exposure was fraudulent and carried out to damage his business, has filed suit demanding that UANI and billionaire Thomas Kaplan turn over documents and details of relationships regarding UANI donors who it is claimed are linked to the case. Kaplan, a New York City resident, made his initial fortune on energy exploration and development. More recently he has been involved in commodities trading in precious metals. His wife Daphne is Israeli and his involvement in various Jewish philanthropies both in the US and in Israel have invited comparison with controversial deceased commodities trader Marc Rich, who reportedly worked closely with the Israeli government on a number of projects.

The Justice department would like to the see the UANI lawsuit go away as it is aware that what is being described as “law enforcement” documents would include both privileged and classified Treasury Department work product relating to individuals and companies that it has investigated for sanctions busting. Passing either intelligence related or law enforcement documents to a private organization is illegal but the Justice Department’s only apparent concern is that the activity might be exposed. There is no indication that it would go after UANI for having acquired the information and it perhaps should be presumed that the source of the leak is the Treasury Department itself.

Who or what provided the documents to a private advocacy group that is also a tax exempt foundation supported by prominent businessmen with interests in the Middle East is consequently not completely clear but Restis is assuming that the truth will out if he can get hold of the evidence. The lawsuit claims that UANI intimidates its targets by defaming their business practices as well as by demanding both examination of their books and an audit carried out by one of its own accountants followed by review from an “independent counsel.”

Kaplan is named in the suit as he appears to be the gray eminence behind UANI. He once boasted “we’ve (UANI) done more to bring Iran to heel than any other private sector initiative.” Kaplan also employs as a director or officer in six of his companies the Executive Director of UANI Mark Wallace and reportedly arranged the awarding of the Executive Director position at Harvard’s Belfer Center to its President Gary Samore.

Kaplan is a business competitor to Restis, whose lawyers are apparently seeking to demonstrate two things: first, that the US government has been feeding sometimes only partially vetted information to UANI to help in its “name and shame” program and second, that UANI is itself supported by partisan business interests like Kaplan as well as by foreign sources, which apparently is meant to imply Israel. Or even the Israeli intelligence service Mossad. Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, is on the UANI advisory board, which also includes ex-Senator Joseph Lieberman and former Senior Diplomat Dennis Ross, both of whom have frequently been accused of favoring Israeli interests and both of whom might well have easy access to US government generated information.

And then there is the Muhadedin-e-Khalq, the Iranian terrorist group that has assassinated at least six Americans and is now assisting the Israeli government in killing Iranian scientists, a prima facie definition of what constitutes terrorism. The group was on the State Department terrorist list from 1997 until 2012, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton de-listed it in response to demands coming from friends of Israel in Congress as well as from a large group of ex government officials, many of whom were paid large honoraria by the group to serve as advocates. The paid American shills included former CIA Directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. The promoters of MEK in congress and elsewhere claimed to be primarily motivated by MEK’s being an enemy of the current regime in Tehran, though its virulent anti-Americanism and terrorist history make it a somewhat unlikely poster child for the “Iranian resistance.”

Supporters of MEK also ignore the fact that the group is run like a cult, routinely executes internal dissidents, and has virtually no political support within Iran. But such are the ways of the corrupt Washington punditocracy, lionizing an organization that it should be shunning. MEK’s political arm is located in Paris and it has long been assumed that it is funded by the Israeli government and by at least some of the same gaggle of billionaires, possibly including their Israeli counterparts, who support the anti-Iranian agenda in the United States.

Iranian negotiators have accepted that their country should have only limited uranium enrichment capabilities coupled with a rigorous inspection regime but the talks in Geneva drag on and on as the United States continues to hesitate, raising new objections regularly in spite of claims that it operates in good faith and seeks a settlement. That an agreement is within reach is undoubtedly true and it would even be good for Israel as it would remove the regional nuclear option while making much less likely another pointless and devastating war. But the men who write the checks do not see it that way and, unfortunately, they are the ones who all too often both pay the piper and call the tune.

Philip Giraldi,

September 1, 2014 0 comment

Terrorist groups and the MEK

The MKO and its associates back more crisis in Iraq

While the current crisis in Iraq is in the spotlight of the International Community, the issue of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) seems trivial. However, authentically the MKO plays the part of an old buzzard who feed on dispute and conflict. If there is no conflict in the region and/or between Iran and the West its existence will come to an end.

There also seems to be layers upon layers of various groups who don’t want an accord between the West and Iran, each for his own interest. In order to reach their goals, they do not care who to side with.

As the MKO calls the terrorist extremists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as "Iraqi revolutionary forces and tribes", their sponsors in the European Parliament claimed the violent acts were not carried out by ISIS, but were “part of a popular uprising” against Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. [1]

Eldar Mamedov who is a political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the delegation for inter-parliamentary relations between the EP and Iran, criticized the controversial act of three major MKO sponsors in the EP Alejo Vidal Quadras, Paul Casaca and Struan Stevenson who recently created the European Iraqi Freedom Association (EIFA), a “new NGO with the mission of improving the political and human rights situation in Iraq.”[2]

Just as one evidence to make sure that the Iraqi crisis is never a “popular uprising”, it is clear in the terrified faces of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who fled Mosul. So what benefits the MKO and its supporters in EP to make alliance with ISIS terrorists?

Eldar Mamedov seems to have found the answer," There is no shortage of people arguing that Iran holds excessive influence over Iraq and that Maliki has aggravated many of Iraq’s problems, so why did these MEPs resort to downplaying the horrors of ISIS’ actions in calling for an end to Tehran’s hold on Baghdad?

"A clue appears in the EIFA’s emphasis on the security situations of Camps Ashraf and Liberty."

Mamedov criticizes the delegation that has "devoted disproportionate attention to the security of Camp Ashraf while almost completely neglecting the more relevant economic, social, security and human rights challenges facing Iraq."[3]

The anti Iranian stance of the MKO as well as ISIS is a key factor to motivate American and European warmongers to back any force in the region that might destabilize Islamic Republic and the IRI-backed government of Nouri AlMaliki –although the role of the MKO dollars should not be disregarded." In addition to the leftist groups who uncritically support the MEK because it claims to have Marxist beliefs (along with Islamic ones!), right-wing MEPs seem taken in by its fervent anti-Iranian government stance," states Mamedov." It is therefore not surprising that the individuals endorsing the EIFA have also endorsed the MEK." [4]

Mamedov truthfully suggests that all warmongers and crisis makers in the region base their entire policy on the famous quote "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". However, supporters of terrorist extremists include a small number of the EP members.

Chairman of the EP Committee on Foreign Affairs Elmar Brok who visited Tehran last week, underlined that the new European Parliament is aware of the importance of ties with Iran, reported FNA.

In reply to the remarks of Head of the Iranian legislature’s Friendship Group with the European Parliament Kazzem Jalali on the MKO’s fraudulent propaganda among EP members, Brok said, "The majority of the European Parliament do not like cooperation with groups such as MKO and only a minority group in the Parliament support the MKO."[5]

The above mentioned fact had been also noticed by Mamedov himself. "Even with the extravagant funds the MEK has spent on endorsements by political elites, the group’s prominence in the EU is confined only to one part of the EP," he wrote in his earlier piece on the MKO’s propaganda efforts in UE. [6]

However, Mamedov does not neglect the risk of giving the Cult of Rajavi "the opportunity to parasite on the legitimate concerns of the international community over Iran’s nuclear program and its civil and human rights policies."[7]

He warns MEPs who might be approached by the MKO well-funded lobbyists to "be wise to think twice about associating with an organization that attempts to minimize the acts of a group so murderous and fanatical that even al-Qaeda has declared it too extreme."[8]

“They represent a threat to every country in the region,” Secretary of State John Kerry described ISIS in an interview with TODAY. “They’re more extreme even than al Qaeda. And they are threatening the United States and Western interests.”[9]

As a matter of fact the MKO terrorist cult does not recognize the interests and benefits of any side and neither the interests of its own members. Their only strategy is always focused on violence, the more extreme the more favorable for the MKO.

By Mazda Parsi

References:

[1] Mamedov, Eldar, European MEK Supporters Downplay ISIS Role in Iraq, loblog, June 17, 2014

[2]ibid

[3]ibid

[4]ibid

[5]FNA, Brok: Majority of Eu Parliament do not like MKO, June 17, 2014,

[6] Mamedov, Eldar ,The MEK’s Influence in EU Politics Matters, loblog, May 18, 2014

[7]ibid

[8] Mamedov, Eldar, European MEK Supporters Downplay ISIS Role in Iraq, loblog, June 17, 2014

[9] Kim, Eun Kyung , Kerry on Iraq crisis: We will honor our veterans’ sacrifice, TODAY , June 19, 2014

June 24, 2014 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Rajavi’s drums of war silenced by trade envoy Baroness Nicholson

The Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) is busy preparing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an annual ‘June 21st’ rally which celebrates its failed coup d’état in 1981. This year, as every year, the MEK will be paying for both audience and speakers alike to attend. The show convinces nobody. For years the MEK has survived solely on a hollow propaganda campaign which tracks and mirrors Neoconservative and Israeli interests. To please its Western backers the MEK has, over the years, supported Saddam Hussein and more recently Saddamists and insurgents in Iraq, played a part in manufacturing a nuclear crisis for Israel, acted as a loudspeaker for the Israeli/Neoconservative ‘bomb Iran’ narrative and, when all these failed, most recently postured as human rights advocates.

After thirty years, the MEK’s promise of regime change and the establishment of a pro-West Iranian government has come to nothing. Even during the 2009 post-election unrest, the Iranian people showed no inclination to start another revolution or to overthrow their government and especially didn’t resort to violence; such designs exist only in Massoud Rajavi’s personal grandiose delusions. Clearly the Iranian people, assessing the Rajavi cult as an alternative, overwhelmingly prefer the governance they currently have, even with all its faults to that of a mind control cult.

But worse for the defunct MEK is that since President Rouhani’s election a seemingly irreversible and fundamental shift in approach has taken hold on both sides of the Iran-West confrontation and the MEK is being firmly shoved off the bandwagon. The MEK are rapidly losing what specious ground they held in the world of Iran bashing. Significantly, since the beginning of nuclear negotiations last Autumn, a wave of government representatives and businesses have visited Iran from all over the globe, not just Western countries, keen to do business. These changes are characterised in the opening paragraph of an article in the Washington Post on May 28: “For the first time in decades, businesspeople from the United States are visiting Iran in significant numbers, exploring the possibility of future partnerships as Iranian and American entrepreneurs begin to envision a reopening of long-closed commercial channels.”

Nothing could be more toxic to the MEK’s role as purveyors of chaos and violence than the establishment of trade and economic ties. But it is not only on the issue of Iran that the MEK has lost. Since 2003, the group had made itself indispensable to the Saddamists and pro-war and pro-Israel elements who tried to claw back power in Iraq through exactly that continuation of chaos and violence. Now the successful elections in Iraq at the end of April have turned the tide irrevocably against them in that country too. Nor did the MEK fare any better from the European Parliament elections either, losing its two key lobbyists Struan Stevenson and Alejo Vidal Quadras from the Iraq Delegation of the European Parliament.

So the British Prime Minister’s personal appointment of Baroness Emma Nicholson of Winterbourne as his Trade Envoy to Iraq with the mandate to ”increase trade and economic co-operation between the UK and Iraq”, was certain to provoke a fierce reaction from the MEK. Baroness Nicholson is an old adversary of the MEK, as she was of the entire Saddam Hussein regime. In a MEK-fed blog, Samuel Westrop questions her appointment because of “Her pattern of support for the Iranian regime” before asking “Exactly whose interests will Baroness Nicholson be serving?” For a group which operates on the basis of corruption, deception and exploitation, naturally this would be their primary question. But the naïve answer to their own rhetoric, ‘Iran’, shows total lack of comprehension about the real world and politics. Emma Nicholson, whose ‘British Establishment’ credentials run through her veins, will work for the interests of Britain of course, and not even party political agendas or partisan groups.

This is not the real issue though. The precursors to economic and trade links are stability and security.

Mindful of its urgent need to establish security in the country, the Iraqi government formally asked the United Nations to fulfil its obligations to expel members of the MEK and transfer them to other countries to protect Iraq’s national security and that of its neighbours. The Iraqi Cabinet goes further, however, and suggests scrapping the 2009 agreement between the US, the GOI and UNAMI because of the inordinate delays and stalling by the UN in fulfilling its obligations. This would allow Iraqi security forces to close Camp Liberty and scatter its occupants as well as bringing some of the MEK to justice for crimes committed in Iraq in the same judicial manner that other elements of the Saddam regime were brought to justice.

It is no wonder then that the MEK is panicking as it faces the dissolution of rank and file members on which it bases its claim to be the “main opposition” or “only alternative” to the IRI. The group is rapidly losing its unique position as a proponent of regime change and war because the world has moved on. It is occupying an increasingly isolated position, one which has fewer and fewer customers. Even so, grooming the MEK for use in the armoury of tactics to attack the IRI began some years before the current impasse was reached. After the MEK was removed from the US terrorism list in 2012, Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen began her promotion of the group, introducing Maryam Rajavi as a human rights advocate. Toward the end of 2013, as the manufactured nuclear crisis began to lose its potency as a platform for more sanctions and threats of war and bombs, the MEK tried hard to re-fashion itself to suit the anti-Iran agenda pursued by Ros-Lehtinen and Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu – that of attacking Iran’s human rights record.

But the debacle in the Canadian Parliament revealed that inclusion of the MEK in a human rights forum only exposes the politicised nature of this platform and the anti-humanitarian agenda of its proponents. Maryam Rajavi, a woman who personally dispatched thousands of untrained, badly armed civilian MEK supporters to fight the battle hardened Iranian army and IRG in the 1988 Eternal Light operation resulting in around 2000 futile deaths, and who stands accused by tens of hundreds of former MEK members of violating their rights and abusing them, cannot ever be held up as an advocate of human rights.

In Israel itself there is a backlash against Prime Minister Netanyahu over this use of the MEK in an increasingly desperate attempt to derail the nuclear negotiations. It seems that Netanyahu and the MEK stand alone while the rest of the world has moved on.

The fresh economic vision for the Middle East which is increasingly beginning to take hold in the imagination of Western governments depends on peace and security. When these conditions are established not only do trade links improve and economic prosperity grow, but when a country is thereby able to open itself up to greater engagement with the international community this helps improve the human rights situation for its citizens too. In direct contrast to Maryam Rajavi and the MEK’s destructive role, Baroness Nicholson’s involvement in Iraq as Britain’s Trade Envoy will not only be helpful for the British economy but will also help in improving human rights in Iraq.

June 9, 2014 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Was the Iranian threat fabricated by Israel and the U.S.?

In a new book and in a conversation with Haaretz, U.S. historian Gareth Porter charges that U.S. and Israeli policies on Iran have been based on fabricated evidence.

A narrative is a story that we tell ourselves, and not necessarily what happened in reality. For example, the “Iranian threat” narrative, which has become the common wisdom in Israeli public discourse. A new book by Gareth Porter, an American historian and researcher specializing in U.S. national security, shows how the actual state of the Iranian nuclear program does not match the Iranian threat narrative.

The book’s title, “Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Nuclear Scare” (Just World Books), already tells us that it is going against the current. Porter appears to be the only researcher who has read with an unprejudiced eye all the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency from the past decade. He also had access to American intelligence reports on the Iranian issue from recent decades. In addition, Porter interviewed generations of American officials and analyzed the testimony of senior officials before Congress.

The result is a highly detailed and well-documented book for all interested in understanding how we arrived at the Iranian nuclear crisis, and the “attack scenarios,” and invented facts and intelligence reports whose purpose was to support the preconceptions. At the same time, the book is invaluable for those wishing to understand what is being discussed in the intensive nuclear talks that have been taking place Iran and the superpowers (or, more accurately, Iran and the U.S.) since the signing of last November’s interim agreement, which surprised many Israelis.

According to Porter, it was a hidden political agenda of U.S. decision makers (from long before Israel entered the picture) that gave rise to the Iranian nuclear crisis. This is one of the book’s main subjects, and the starting point for a discussion with which we in Israel are unfamiliar.

The story begins with U.S. support for the Iraqis during the 1980s Iraq-Iran war. The critical point comes with the collapse of the Soviet empire. According to Porter, that event and the end of the Cold War pulled out the rug from under the CIA’s raison d’être. The solution the Americans found to continue providing the organization with a tremendous budget was the invention of a new threat – the merging of weapons of mass destruction (an ambiguous term in itself) and terror. Iran, which rose to the top of the list, provided the threat that “saved” the CIA.

The empowering of the CIA’s organizational interests was reinforced by the gallant neoconservatives, led by ideologues Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton, who had in the meantime reached senior positions in the government. They launched a campaign to delegitimize the Islamic Republic with the aim of toppling the regime (using the sanitized term “regime change”).

Running through Porter’s book is the well-substantiated claim that U.S. and Israeli policies on Iran derived from their political and organizational interests, and not necessarily from careful factual analysis of the Iranian nuclear program, which was subject to IAEA monitoring, or of the intentions of the Iranian leadership.

According to Porter, no systematic analysis was made of the goals of the Iranian nuclear program, and neither U.S. nor Israzeli policy makers devoted any thought to why all of Iran’s official declarations on the subject were in line with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Furthermore, in U.S. discussions until 2007, and in Israel until today, hovering overhead is the nuclear “axiom” that Iran is dashing toward a bomb via the route of uranium-enrichment centrifuges. Porter and the IAEA found no proof of the dash to the bomb.

Following is Haaretz’s interview with Porter, conducted via email.

You have spent years of research analyzing IAEA reports, intelligence reports and interviewing officials about the Iran nuclear issue. What motivated you to write your latest book?

“It was the realization that a narrative about the Iranian nuclear issue had gained unchallenged credence, but that I had discovered over the years a number of major ‘anomalies’ – important facts that could not be reconciled with the narrative. I also came to realize that I was the only journalist who was closely tracking the evidence surrounding the issue. And finally – and perhaps most importantly – I realized that it was impossible to convey the truth … in an article or series of articles; I had to write a book.”

Is it fair to say that your book shows us that the whole nuclear crisis as it has unfolded over the past 10 years is about U.S. and Israeli attempts to prevent Iran from developing a non-militarized nuclear program, even though such a program is permitted under the NPT, and that this obscured the fact that Iran never intended to develop nuclear weapons?

“Yes, I put considerable emphasis on the early history of the interaction between Iran’s nuclear program and policy, and the policies of the United States and Israel toward the program. I show how the Reagan administration’s intervention, beginning as early as 1983, to pressure Germany and France to refuse to cooperate with Iran in completing the Bushehr reactor, and to refuse to provide the enriched uranium reactor fuel for Bushehr, meant that Iran had to either give up its nuclear rights under the NPT altogether or go to the black market, in defiance of U.S. policy, to get its own independent enrichment capability. And despite subsequent U.S. and Israeli charges that Iran was interested in enrichment for nuclear weapons, there was and is no evidence whatever to support that charge.”

In my Haaretz blog, I emphasize the paradigm change of the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, and still valid today, which concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The Israeli public is unaware of this halt. Furthermore, many commentators believe that U.S. intelligence “corrected” itself and that the 2007 estimate has been annulled. Could you enlighten our readers about the important 2007 NIE?

“The 2007 NIE broke with previous NIEs [in 2001 and 2005], which had concluded that Iran was then running a nuclear weapons program. It concluded instead, with ‘high confidence,’ that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons. That conclusion was of course opposed by the Bush administration and Israel, because it had been the charge that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons that justified the threat of military force against Iran. And it did indeed make the ‘military option’ irrelevant to U.S. policy for the rest of the Bush administration and for much of the Obama administration.”

According to the 2007 NIE, however, some nuclear weapons research was carried out in Iran until 2003. Could you elaborate on what kind of research was undertaken; when, where and by whom, and what its scope was?

“Precisely who was carrying out research and what kind of research is still completely unclear, despite my effort to get any additional information on the subject from Thomas Fingar, who was in charge of the estimate. What was said by U.S. intelligence officials to be ‘snippets of conversation’ intercepted by U.S. intelligence in 2007 appears to indicate that some research related to nuclear weapons was being undertaken. But how many people were involved remains entirely unclear. And the testimony of the French ambassador to Tehran, as well as other evidence presented in my book, strongly suggests that the Supreme National Security Council had not authorized it and was not happy that it was going on.

“Not only did [Iran’s then-president] Hassan Rouhani order it halted in October 2003, when he was named the first coordinator of Iran’s nuclear policy, but Rouhani prevailed on the Supreme Leader to declare any work on nuclear weapons illicit under Islam in order to compel the researchers to give up their work on weapons. Understanding that episode correctly is clearly necessary to comprehending Iran’s nuclear policy accurately.

“Unfortunately, as I argue in my book, the evidence indicates that the team of intelligence analysts, who had been wrong about the existence of a nuclear weapons program in 2005 and again in an early draft of the 2007 estimate, got it wrong in their conclusion that the Iranian government had an actual nuclear weapons program [before] late 2003.”

In your book, you explain in great detail the sought-after “smoking gun,” i.e. the mysterious “laptop studies” and the Parchin “bomb test chamber.” The Israeli public is unfamiliar with the details of these “cases.” Could you explain the “possible military dimensions” and comment on the credibility of the “evidence”?

“I devote an entire chapter to the ‘mysterious laptop documents’ and show that they were actually fabricated by Israeli intelligence and given to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq [a militant Iranian opposition group] to pass on to German intelligence in mid-2004. The ‘giveaway’ that they were fabrications is the fundamental error in a series of studies depicting efforts to integrate a nuclear weapon into the Iranian intermediate-range missile, which shows the Shahab-3 that Iran had abandoned in 2000 in favor of a much-improved model that was first tested in August 2004 – too late to correct the mistake before the papers were passed to the MEK.

“Among the indicators that the documents originated in Israel is the fact that the MEK is not sophisticated enough to have fabricated such a large number of documents, and the well-known history of the terrorist organization’s close working relations with Israeli intelligence. Equally important is the fact that former IAEA director general ElBaradei revealed in his memoirs that Israel had passed on documents and intelligence reports to the IAEA directly in 2008 and 2009, which depicted Iran work on nuclear weapons even after 2003 – obviously prompted by the 2007 NIE.

“Those documents included information alleging that Iran had built a large metal cylinder to carry out tests of nuclear weapons designs at its Parchin military base. The IAEA made that allegation a major news theme by publishing it in its November 2011 report. But no other evidence except the Israeli intelligence report has ever been produced to support that highly dubious charge. “

The emphasis in your book is on the centrifuges and the “enrichment track to the bomb.” Can you comment on the Arak heavy water reactor that is linked in Israel to the “plutonium track” and is behind the preemptive scenarios that have been developed in the Israeli press.

“The main weakness of the argument that Arak is an Iranian scheme for a ‘plutonium track’ to a nuclear weapon is simple: Iran has already agreed to arrangements under which it would be prevented from maintaining control of the plutonium produced by the reactor. In other words, all of the plutonium would be exported to another country. But there is a second major reason that it is not the threat that is being claimed: To build a plutonium reprocessing plant requires extensive construction as well as time, and it cannot be concealed.”

What is your assessment of the current negotiations between Iran and the P5+1? Is a final agreement to close the Iranian file on the table?

“I am pessimistic about the outcome of these talks, in the coming months at least, because the Obama administration – influenced by the false narrative surrounding the issue and overconfident about its ability to pressure an Iran it assumes has been significantly weakened by the sanctions – is planning to demand that Iran give up all but a very few thousand of its 19,000 centrifuges for many, many years. That demand, based on a notion of Iranian ‘breakout’ that is quite divorced from reality, is an obvious deal-breaker. Iran cannot and will not agree to give up its ability to provide nuclear fuel for more nuclear plants, for which it is planning. In my view, this demand will lead to a much higher level of tensions unless and until it is substantially altered.”

In your view, what is behind the Israeli-Iranian rivalry? Is there a chance for Israeli-Iranian détente following the achievement of a final agreement in the Vienna talks and the possibility of new openings in U.S.-Iran relations?

“In my view there have been political considerations on both sides of the Iran-Israel relationship that have stood in the way of a detente over the past 15 years: On the Israeli side, the first Netanyahu government in 1996 was actually willing to give detente a try, so there is no inherent reason why it could not happen again. It was the opportunity to use the U.S. to put intense pressure on Iran, if not to use force for regime change, that swayed successive Israeli governments to take the ‘existential threat’ approach to Iran. If and when the U.S. pursues a truly independent policy toward Iran, that Israeli motive will disappear.

“On the Iranian side, the main obstacle to softening of its attitude toward Israel, in my view, has been the degree to which taking a hard line toward Israel makes Iran popular in the Sunni Arab street and counterbalances, at least to some extent, the anti-Iran policy of the Sunni regimes. So Iran-Israel detente has become hostage, to a great extent, to both the pro-Israel stance of the U.S. and the Sunni-Shi’a cold war.”

A final question: Is there a possibility that you are wrong, that you have been misled by some optimistic and naïve theories?

“My operational principle as an investigative journalist is that if there is a single verifiable fact that conflicts with my general understanding of an issue, I need to look more closely to understand why that anomaly exists. In the case of Iran’s nuclear program, I have found an unbroken string of anomalies that undermine the credibility of official U.S.-Israeli narrative, but I have yet to find a single fact that would invalidate my reconstruction of the history of the issue.”

By Shemuel Meir

The writer, a former IDF analyst and associate researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, is an independent researcher on nuclear and strategic issues, and author of Haaretz’s “Strategic Discourse” blog (in Hebrew).

June 1, 2014 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts