Home » USA » Page 14

USA

USA

US Presidential election and PMOI’s vague future

The US presidential election ended with the victory of Barak Obama. The case was largely reflected in the world due to its crucial value.

 

The change in the ruling party in the US will absolutely influence the US foreign politics but the fate of other countries won’t undergo large changes because they will try to adjust their new relations.

 

Here, only the dependent movements including MEK/PMOI might undergo unexpected changes. MKO’s vain hope on warmongers of the US and its propaganda show that this reliant movement plays no independent part in its own fate.

 

According to Masud Rajavi’s analysis, the warmonger party of the US administration should have prepared the preliminaries for military invasion to Iran so as after the overthrow of the Islamic Regime Masud Rajavi and his wife Maryam could achieve the power in Iran. This bad-omen dream shows the dependence of the cult on foreign countries rather than seeming unrealistic. 

 

In fact, the dependent political movements of Iran have two main characteristics:

 

First, the reliance on foreign support has an old history (MKO/PMOI has been supported by Saddam Hussein for three decades)

 

Second; the fate of these dependent movements is unexpected. Their fate depends on decisions made by the supporters and their agreements with the group’s enemies.

 

Today the same dangers threaten Mujahidin’s Cult, Today that the US forces in Iraq are facing a lot of problems of which one is the MKO/PMOI that was supposed to serve CIA as a “ good terrorist “ organization but the cases in Iraq make MKO’s fate ambiguous.

 

MKO’s baseless propaganda and its dramatic activities including the support of millions of Iraqi people for MKO/PMOI, or the support of Iraqi tribal leaders who are still loyal to Saddam, will not have any influence on MKO’s future.

Translation: Nejat Society

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

How Obama Could Tame Iran

(Would Obama end CIA use of Terrorist Mojahedin Khalq – Rajavi cult in Iraq?)

Assume that Barack Obama is elected U.S. president this fall and makes good on his promise to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. How will Tehran How Obama could Tame Iranrespond? Recent interviews I’ve held with three authoritative Iranians suggest that Tehran will have preconditions of its own. Before coming to the table, these Iranians say, the United States would first have to end its “hostile policies” toward their country. The most important step pushed by all three is one already promised by Obama: setting a timetable for the complete withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. Other moves, however—like ending economic sanctions—would conflict with Obama’s campaign pledges and be even more controversial in Washington.

“Signals have come to us about negotiations before [Obama] is in the White House,” I was told by Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Subcommission of Iran’s Parliament and a close ally of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “They have sent messages through friendly ambassadors that they are willing to talk to us.” But “the ball is in [Washington’s] court,” he emphasized. “It is the United States that severed the connection with us, and the manner in which relations are restored should reflect that.”

To create a “real change in the atmosphere,” he said, Obama should halt ongoing CIA efforts to overthrow the Islamic republic, release Iranian assets frozen in U.S. banks since the 1979 hostage crisis, end banking sanctions and resume sales of civilian aircraft. That’s a long list, but Boroujerdi implied that any one of these measures, plus an Iraq timetable, would be enough to get a dialogue started.

The importance of an Iraq withdrawal plan was also emphasized by Alireza Sheikhattar, first deputy foreign minister. “Whether it’s three months or eight months or longer,” he said, the important thing is that the United States show “a serious intention” to gradually leave Iraq. Asked whether any U.S. forces could remain there, Sheikhattar replied, “Yes, some could stay to help with training Iraqi forces.” But he drew the line at any U.S. moves to make Iraq “a platform for harming the security of Iran and other neighbors.”

Sheikhattar emphasized the fact that the United States currently controls Iraq’s airspace, which he said “upsets” Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. “The Iraqis should have a real Air Force,” Sheikhattar declared. “Why are they prohibited from having more than token aircraft? They are not poor. They can purchase fighters and have their own aircraft for both internal and external security.” Wouldn’t this pose a security threat to Iran? I asked. Not if Iraq has a sovereign, democratic government, he said, “because there is an absolute majority [there] in favor of Iran.”

Asked about Obama, Hossein Shariatmadiari, editor of the hard-line newspaper Kayhan, was reticent, observing that “anyone replacing Bush will be an improvement. I won’t rule out that Obama does want a new approach to Iran. But we have to see whether he is genuine or is controlled by the same Zionist forces behind the curtain that have controlled Bush,” he said. Even if Obama wants to talk, Shariatmadiari asked, “do we want to talk to him?”

The answer suggested by our conversations is that Iran does want to work out a modus vivendi with the United States—but will play hard-to-get.

Obama will be in a strong bargaining position if he sticks to his pledge to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq over 16 months and also removes U.S. bombers from air bases there. In return, he could demand that Iran prevent the Iraqi Shiite militias it supports from harassing U.S. forces during the pullout, and help in rooting out Al Qaeda from Iraq—a goal Tehran shares with Washington.

To start a broader dialogue on the nuclear issue, Obama would have to take one crucial step sought by Iran: end CIA and Special Forces support for insurgents seeking to overthrow the Islamic republic, especially Kurdish separatists and the Iraq-based Mujahedin-e Khalq. This move wouldn’t need to be publicly announced, however, and would thus have a low domestic political cost for Obama.

Boroujerdi, the parliamentary foreign-policy chief, said that if Washington accepted Iran’s right to continue uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes, the rest of the nuclear issue would be “negotiable.” “We understand and accept that the red line would be the development of a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Ending the Bush administration’s regime-change policy toward Iran is probably key to holding productive nuclear negotiations and would be an acceptable price to pay. But will a President Obama stand up to entrenched forces in the Pentagon, the CIA and allied intelligence services that are already engaged in covert action against Iran? That won’t be easy; the next U.S. president will face tough adversaries in Washington as well as Tehran.

By Selig S. Harrison; Harrison is director of the Iran Program at the Center for International Policy.

Newsweek International

August 4, 2008; International Edition

Harrison is director of the Iran Program at the Center for International Policy.

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

US forces relocate MKO cargo to Balad

US forces transfer truckloads of cargo from the Ashraf base in Iraq where members of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization have been stationed.

American forces transfer truckloads of unknown cargo by night, as the deadline for handing over the base to Iraqi forces approaches, the Iraqi Aljewar website reported Tuesday.

According to Aljewar, US troops are reallocating the unspecified cargo to a US military base in the city of Balad in the Salahuddin province.

Recognized as a terrorist group by Iran, Iraq, Canada, the United States, and the European Union, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) is responsible for bombings, assassinations, and attacks in Iran and Iraq over the past 25 years.

Up until now MKO members, who were closely allied with the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, have been stationed at Camp Ashraf, which is situated in the city of al-Khalis in the eastern province of Diyala.

After the fall of Saddam, the Iraqi government demanded that the MKO leave the country. It recently set a six-month deadline for the group’s departure, threatening to expel them if they refuse to leave of their own free will.

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

The US policy rejects contacts with Mojahedin Khalq

On Saturday, they gathered to call on the European Union and the United States to remove what they called unjust terrorist label from MKO immediately. Yes, they want it, or rather order, to be soon and immediately. It is typical of Mojahedin-e Khalq that they become bolder and want more if being granted, not gaining as it might be their right, something that changes nothing in general.

They have also some supporters in the Congress who have been calling for the US to back terror groups in Iran. There are reports that indicate that this program has already been in place for years. It was nearly two months ago that Ret. Gen. Thomas McInerney in a Fox News appearance publicly called for the US government to support groups like MKO (Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization), which is listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and carry out deadly bombings in Iran. He already knew about the true nature and terrorist potentialities of MKO as know the EU member governments, including the UK.

But, the UK government still considers MKO a terrorist group, in spite of being defeated in a long court battle, as does the US. In the State Department’s issued  Daily Press Briefing  on June 30, Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, reiterated that the US government’s policy is not to engage in any contacts with terrorist groups like MKO:

QUESTION: Just to follow up on the same story. (Inaudible) also outlines that the U.S. had – may encourage or had some contacts with some of the dissident groups, including Mujahedin-e Khalq and the PJAK. Can you formulate a comment on this?

MR. CASEY: Including, sorry, which groups?

QUESTION: The PJAK, which is an extension of the PKK and the Mujahedin-e Khalq.

MR. CASEY: Yeah. Well, you know, our policy is not to engage or have discussions or contacts with terrorist groups. The MEK is a terrorist group, and certainly we don’t – aren’t engaged in any kinds of conversations or discussions with them.

July 2, 2008

http://www.mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=1730

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

The Cult of Mojahedin; Fit to Be an Alternative?

The anatomy of the contemporary political build indicates that the U.S has been always using oppositions as an internal tool in order to maintain its presence in other countries. Following a new doctrine named neocolonialism as a modern colonization, this policy has even encouraged some expansionist countries to use the oppositions as the tool in some cases. Adopting this policy mostly contributes to the abolition of various systems such as direct interference, military revolts, conducting campaigns based on true or false pretexts, and changes in military and political equilibriums and relations. InThe Cult of Mojahedin;Fit to be an Alternative? contrast to the past when the U.S replaced Alende and the Chile’s legitimate government with Pinochet using direct military coup d’etat, today they replace seemingly democratic alternatives with governments and dictators under the pretext of the development of democracy or by using similar tools that are likely to be even more appealing to the public. Considering whether the U.S is in all honesty and what is lying behind, is not the subject of this article, but is to consider the various aspects of how much the U.S can count on the oppositions such as Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) in order to subvert the Islamic Republic.

There are many instances of the US’s neo-colonialism meddling the last of which is the Iraq’s crisis; it would not be wrong to say that the existing crises in Iraq rocketed as a result of Ahmad Chalabi’s providing the US with disinformation. Not taking this case into consideration, yet there are discords within the U.S administration disputing whether to use the oppositions as a tool. In the present article it has been tried to evaluate the contingencies and hypotheses about the subject based upon the opposition’s current conditions and the U.S strategic aims in the region. Before any further discussion, it has to be pointed out that there are some factors and criterions that each opposition group should met to be appraised as an instrumental opposition by the US in the accomplishment of the objectives.

Now it has to be investigated that does MKO meet these standards to become a liable alternative to aid the US achieve its aims concerning Iran? These factors and criteria can be enumerated as the follow:

1. Having a sense of affinity with American political idealism

2. Holding a minimum of internal legitimacy

3. Being a reliable and trustful group

4. Having records of preceding collaboration with the US

5. Benefiting an international legitimacy

6. A minimum obligation of respecting the principles of human rights

7. Holding democratic capacity

8. Taking unambiguous position toward the left and Marxism

9. Standing by moral and ethical obligations

It is certain that these factors are contemplated outwardly whereas there are probably some other factors and unwritten parameters lying behind. For the present we just want to see to what degree MKO meet each of the mentioned criteria.

Having a sense of affinity with American political idealism

Considering the prolongation of the U.S interests as the first proviso of choosing an alternative, the most important proviso for the U.S or any other state is its affinity with that alternative in both politics and thoughts. In the past (dividing camps into Eastern and Western or capitalism and communism), The US was always seeking the choices which were inclined to be perceptible close in politics and thoughts with capitalism. This attitude was being adopted as opposed to leftist and radical tendencies regarding capitalism. It is worth mentioning that MKO from the very beginning recognized the US as the symbol of the capitalist camp and an imperialist. Besides, MKO ideologically considered imperialism opposing to its eclectic ideology and believed imperialism was historically doomed to annihilation.

In their early pamphlet and leader’s speeches Mojahein-e Khalq strongly denounced imperialism and capitalism. Being tried in Pahlavi’s court after his arrest, Massoud Rajavi in his testimonies stated that:

… most of the world’s problems had been created by imperialism; that the developing countries were exploited by Western banks and multinational corporations; and that the United States was propping up reactionary regimes in Vietnam, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. He continued by arguing that US imperialism was undoubtedly the main enemy of Iran, in part because it had overthrown Mosaddeq, and in part because it had armed the bloodthirsty regime that had perpetrated the crimes of June 1963. ‘Thus’, Rajavi insisted, ‘the main goal now is to free Iran of US imperialism.’ [1]

The state department of the U.S. in its first report on The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran in 1994 openly discussed the group’s ideology:

The MKO’s embrace of armed struggle flows from the group’s ideology. Its conceptual framework was painstakingly developed through years of study and discourse and aggressively disseminated throughout Tehran. A renowned scholar of the Mojahedin defines the group’s ideology as:”a combination of Muslim themes: Shi’a notions of martyrdom: classical Marxist theories of class struggle and historical determinism: and neo-Marxist concepts of armed struggle, guerrilla warfare and revolutionary heroism.”8 The adoption of Marxist tenets distinguished the Mojahedin from other Iranian opposition movements: the Mojahedin argued that the struggle against the Shah was part of a larger struggle against imperialism led by the,”world-devouring”United States. [2]

In fact, both the U.S. and Mojahedin are well aware of each other’s political and ideological orientation, that is, Imperialism and anti-Imperialism respectively. Therefore, it is self-evident that the U.S. never submits to the selection of its antithesis as an alternative and MKO hardly meets the first criterion.

Holding a minimum of internal legitimacy

In today’s international political relations, no legitimate alternative can lead on unless winning a minimum of public support. That is just the case with Iraq’s today situation. Therefore the U.S has to rely on an opposition that is in a relatively good position among the public. In addition it would be much more appreciated if the opposition is having a good position among intelligentsias and the educated class. In Iran, for sure, MKO is not the least supported by people in spite of falsely made claims. Based on the U.S. State Department’s report of 30 April,2007, Mojahedin suffer the loss of social support among Iranian people as well as other political opposition parties in Iran and abroad:

Following its participation in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the group rapidly fell out of favor with the Iranian people. The new Iranian government under Supreme Leader Khomeini systematically arrested and targeted many MEK members, causing most MEK leadership to flee to Europe. [3]

In addition, Yan Richard, an Islamic scholar in I.F.R.I centre of France, expounds on the position of Mojahedin in Iran and writes:

Very much a fringe movement on the Iranian political scene, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran have always demonstrated their incapacity to take power by classical democratic means (votes, electoral campaigns, etc,). In their political logic, there is no other way to achieve their goal but by revolution, just as Mao foresaw. [4]

Exactly under the eyes of many westerners, MKO started a bloody chapter in Iran’s contemporary history following declaration of an armed struggle since it could not tolerate a widespread public rejection. It is still under illusion to gain what has long lost:

In their frenzied rejection of what they were politically and of the things they did in the context of their fight, the Mojahedin are trying to recreate a long lost virginity. They want to appear to public opinion as acceptable and legitimate. It is precisely this legitimacy that they lack in Iran. So they do everything to find it, especially in Europe. Yet they still have to jettison a heavy past. It betrays them in the present and echoes down the future. [5]

A variety of Investigations have been done on the position of MKO among Iranian intelligentsias and technocrats; there is a consensus that for sure would not be the alternative. A casual glance at the opposition-run media outside the country reveals that in case there would be any change in Iran, the Iranian demands would be far above the capacity of MKO to fulfil. Besides, there is a general belief that the life of ideological regimes like that of MKO has ended in Iran forever As a result, it is evident that the US will never turn to such an illegitimate and cultist opposition as a capable alternative.

References:

1. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN; The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press New Haven and London, p. 134.

2. The US State Department Report on The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, by Kenneth Katzman. Washington, Nov 1992. 6 p.

(Doc. call no.: M-U 42953-1 no.92-824F)

3. The U.S. state department report on 30 April.

4. Gessler, Antoine; the autopsy of an ideological drift, p. 116.

5. Ibid, p. 62.

 

Research Bureau – Mojahedin.ws – May 3, 2008

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

Nazi Biglari’s interview with Rayan Crocker

An extract of Nazi Biglari’s interview with Rayan Crocker American Ambassador in Bagdad, Nazi Biglari: there are two Iranian dissident groups in Iraq: Mujahedin-e-Khalq and the Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan. Do the Americans have any links with these two?  Rayan Crocker ;American Ambassador in BagdadRayan Crocker: we consider MKO as a terrorist group. They killed American military officials in Tehran and were a part of Saddam’s intelligence service. Everything is clear. We oppose all terrorist organizations whoever and wherever they are.  Nazi Biglari: what will you do with the Mujahedin Khalq in Camp Ashraf? Jalal Talebani has called them terrorist group and said that their presence in Iraq is illegal.  Rayan Crocker: this is a crucial question and we are negotiating the case with Iraqi administration. If they are supposed to leave Iraq, they should have a destination that should be designated.   March 4th,2008  Translation: Nejat Society

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

Bush,Iran and Bomb

  Research on a Programmed War –  Chapter 13 

To fight the Iranian Regime, the Bush administration decided to not only sit at a table with the evil but also to invite itself to evil ‘s table, allying with a group that has been designated as a foreign terror organization by the State Department since 1997. In fact the position taken by the group and its ideology are perfectly opposite to those of the United Stated as well as the Islamic Republics ideas, but its leaders impudent manipulators, animated by a logic of existence ,are making alliance with the worst enemies of the Islamic Regime to prolong their existence. Michael Rubin qualifies the MEK (Mujahedin-e-Kalq) as “monsters of the left”, a lable that perfectly characterizes this cult-like group which has mixed terrorism, autocracy, Islamism and Marxism since its creation.   Born on the vestige of a reformist movement formed in 1960’s by Mehdi Bazargan, MEK was created by a group of students of whom Masud Rajavi supposes that God not only created the world but he leads it to a historical evolution that ends to a society without classes, omitting the capitalistic inequalities. Their theory is a strange “syncretism” where Marxism and Islam coexist and reject the conservative clerics. According to them, the Shiite clerics as well as the Sunnites failed to understand the real essence of Quran and its dynamism. Masud Rajavi who affirms himself as the only leader, interpret religion to justify terrorism. In his opinion, a person who dies while a terror operation is equal to martyr and in his interpretation of Shiite, he  has the glorification of a martyr. 

A dictator who never had power MEK, engaged in armed struggle without kindness against Shah multiply the assassination and attempts against American interests in Iran.   In 1979, the movement was one of the elements who supported the hostage taking of American diplomats in Tehran. Meanwhile, the group supported the Soviet invasion to Afqanistan and opposed the resistance of Afghan Mujahedin. Reorganized by Rajavi, MEK functioned as a communist party inspired by Trotskyite, with its central committee and political office and youth and propaganda organizations to recruit new members.  Rajavi, with his Stalinist mustache, has not invented a democratic system but a tyranny and rigorous hierarchy that put him on the head with the absolute power. For Muajhedin’s leader, Khomeini’s reaching power, means the victory of conservative clerics to which he has always opposed. On the other hand, the revolution’s leader views the mix of Marxism and Islam as intolerable. At the head of a delegation, on the early days after the revolution, Rajavi was received by Ayatollah Khomeini in Qom but the leader of the revolution refuses his offers frigidly presenting a lesson on what the true Islam is. The gap between the two sides deepened everyday so as Khomeini’s supporters call Mujahedin “hypocrites” or “infidels”, the verbal oppression increased and reached a physical phase that is forgotten today. The MKO’s partisans who were called,” God’s enemies “ were executed in large numbers. And of course MKO respond by the assassinations and attempts which mounted to 10000 victims during 1981 to 1982.  On July 29th, 1981, Rajavi accompanied by Bani Sadr, the ex-president of Islamic Republic, fled Iran on a military aircraft that landed on military base of Evreux. Rajavi found refugee in Auver-sur-Oise where his medicine brother resided, a few meters from Ravoux motel in which Vincent van Gohg died, Rajavi installed his general base and changed it to a camp which still exists there.  In order to continue his existence, this dictator who has never had power, rules a weakened group, serves the worst enemy of his country: Saddam Hussein.  Mujahedin became the supplementary army for Iraqis in the bloody war between Iran and Iraq. Today all Iranians with any opinion share one idea: the betrayal and hatred towards Mujahedin as a group of “traitors” and” terrorists”.   Murder with Tanks In 1991, following the defeat of Saddam Hussein, the future of Iraq is the subject of discussions among a small group of advisors of Bush father. Robert Gates has already prepared a lot of scenarios. One of them considers the creation of a mini-state in Southern Iraq dominated by Shiites. Gates was supposed to create an army similar to that of South of Lebanon which is Israelis’ agent. Washington repeatedly calls the Shiites and Kurds for uprising. These calculations were due to the Americans’ assurance of Saddam’s heavy failure. They were sure that he could not oppress the internal uprisings.  On the first occasion, a message of support was sent to Iranian Kurds, however it was so vague that the Kurds couldn’t confirm or deny it. At the same time, the American military experts crossed Turkey borders and arrived in Kurdistan.  Bush and his partisans were shocked when Saddam Hussein oppressed Kurdish and Shiites uprisings violently. “They had no plan any more” told me a collaborator of Dick Cheney at that time. “I remember that we asked our intelligence Service: how could the Revolutionary Guard of President oppress the uprisings. They were not able to give any answer.” And the reason: “ the soldiers who were wearing the uniforms of revolutionary Guard , Saddam’s favorite force, and assassinated Kurdish civilians and Shiites opponents in Basra were all MEK members. The son of Jalal Talibani, Iraqi Kurds’ leader, says: “Until the fall of Saddam’s Regime, it (MKO) was a part of Iraqi army that played an important role in oppressing Kurdish uprisings in 1991.”  New York Times published the testimony, on these events, of a former member of MEK who was the body guard of Masud Rajavi and his second wife Maryam. He says:” they told us that if these rebels succeed to overthrow saddam Hussien, it would be the end to our movement too”¦ Maryam Rajavi advised us to take them under the tanks and keep our bullets for the other  operations.”

Unique Manipulators There are evil states” out there but some allegedly “Revolutionary” movements are also evil, including FARC in Colombia and MEK.  Masud Rajavi and his second wife Maryam control their movement with despotism: the members are not allowed to read anything except that of MEK, living collectively ,they must remain single ,deprived of any sexual relations, attend regular meetings of auto-criticizing.   In 1985, Maryam and Masud got married, believing that their marriage is the beginner of an ideological revolution in the organization, forced the few married couples of MKO to divorce in order to devote themselves  physically and mentally to the cult  of personality that they created. These qualified manipulators know well how naive and oblivious the democratic governments of the world are. Therefore, in 1986 they set out for lobbying in European parliaments especially in that of France they succeed to collect the signatures and 3000 parliamentarians on a petition. In 1992 they repeated the same operation in the United States and could collect the signatures of 1500 of members and collaborators of American congress to “support National Council of Resistance of Iran as a democratic alternative to Khomeini’s regime in Iran.” They also sent some delegations to meet British Workers Party, communist Party of Italy and Greece, attracting the welcome of several human rights organization and famous scholars. They all had forgotten that enemy of an enemy is not necessarily their friend. Michael Rubin, the specialist of Iran in American Enterprise Institute who is however close to neo-conservatives, speaks of a real aversion for the movement: “Within the United States, MKO members tell Congressmen, their staffs, and other policymakers what they want to hear: That the MKO is the only opposition movement capable of ousting the unpopular and repressive Islamic Republic. They are slick. Friendly lawmakers and commentators get Christmas baskets full of nuts and sweets. Well-dressed and well-spoken representatives of MKO front organizations approach American writers, politicians, and pundits who are critical of the regime.’’

Four points that are not negotiable. Tehran has repeatedly asked Paris for the extradition of MKO leaders and the halt of their activities in French soil. According to the research on relations between Iran and France, published in 2006: “”¦ Iran has decided to put pressure on France to accept the expulsion of MKO’s chief and organize the content of Eurodif.” For the cause, the hostage takings in Lebanon and several attempts were organized by Iran. “At beginning of December 1985” write Dominique Lorentz “the Iranians awaken President Mitterrand with two operations. On December 7th two bombs exploded simultaneously in Galeries Lafayette and Printemp.” I visited Ronald Dumas in his house in Paris, he told me of his first visit in Iran:” it was 1951, I was working for a small newspaper and I had a skin problem that made me have beard. Mossadeqh was on power at that time and had sympathy for me.” Having finished his nostalgic memories, Duma talked of four points that are not negotiable according to Mitterrand, in Iran-France relations: Refusing to pay ransom for the release of detained hostages, to discuss the military contracts with Iraq or to deliver arms to Iran. The last point: he refused the expulsion of Iranian political refugees including Masud Rajavi and former president Bani Sadr.”

The Queen of Bees

A few months later Masud Rajavi was extradited to Iraq by Jacque Chirac who had just come to the head of federal government. The Iranian authorities pleased of such decision were definitely wrong. Rajavi became the ally of their worst enemy and the executor of Saddam’s dirtiest deals. Rajavi possessed an army included of 7000 to 8000 men, heavily armed that  its main mission was the oppression of internal uprisings for Baath regime in Iraqi territory and launching sabotage operations and assassinations in Iran.  In 1987, the Interior Minister, Charles  Pasqua, announced the expulsion of Iranian opponents, especially the Mujahedin. The decision causes a wave of protests. High Commissioner for Refugees declares its concern and Human Rights League protests.  Jack Lang claims:” Shame on Pasqua. Shame on Chirac’s government for  this inappropriate act means the denial of  refugees’ rights and alliance with Khomeini’s dictatorship .” Lionel Jospin names it “brutal expulsion.” Charles Pasqua’ s response is  both ironic and exact:” you are free to have sympathy for Muajhedin-e-Khalq that today, fight the regime of Khomeini as well as yesterday that they helped him to reach the power. You will fail to represent them as democratic and you can not imagine what kind of regime will they establish in Iran if they take the power.” The only problem was that a few months later, Pasqua signed a text of support for MEK” The movement which has a little interest in democracy starts a large campaign of protestation all over Europe and America in July 1985, with the blind help of Western newspapers. The pressures succeed finally. Paris accepts the return of seven of the extradited people.  On June 17th, 2003, 1300 policemen raided the organization’s headquarter in Auver-Sur-Oise . One hundred sixty-five members and responsible were arrested including their president Maryam Rajavi. In a protest gesture, ten of Mujahedin self- immolated; two of them died. Maryam Rajavi, wearing her Chanel jacket and the scarf always on her head, was released.   According to the study made by “ journal of study on eastern Mediterranean and the  Turkish-Iranian world” , “ this operation can mark a new step in Iran-European relations, characterized, on one hand, by the pressure Europe put on Iran due to its nuclear program, not to give a pretext to the Americans who are seeking a regime change in Iran if the later refuses to cooperate with AIEA; from the other hand, European union, following its approaches on Iran including the support for “ reformists” , wants to omit the  options that  could lead to the destabilization of the political scene in Iran. In this perspective, considering that People’s Muajhedin as a well-organized organization can play a role in destabilization of Islamic Republic French government launched the operation to limit MKO’s action on French soil [“¦]. In order to justify the operation, the interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy explains:” Mujahedin wanted to make a protection base of France and we can not accept it.”

The explanation was a little short. The movement has used France as a support base for years. And, in Auver-Sur-Oise, behind the walls and towers that protect her headquarter, Maryam Rajavi continue to control her organization like a queen of bees in her beehive. 2003 was an excellent year for MEK. The fall of Saddam served them with another supporter: The United Stated. 

Chapter14 In March 2003,the American troops surrounded camp Ashraf ,the principal military base of Mujahedin in Iraqi territory ,located on the West of Iranian border at a hundred kilometers North of  Bagdad. It contained 3850 men, armed with heavy arms including tanks and artilleries. They are disarmed and detained in the camp.  Tehran sent a message to White House, by its intermediate Javad Zarif, its ambassador in United Nations. Iran proposed to exchange the Al-Qiada high-ranking members who had been detained in Iran, following the September 11th, for the 3850 men of MEK. “Your terrorists instead of ours” mentioned Zarif.  The suggestion that was made in the middle of March became the subject of a meeting between Bush and his top advisors. As always, Cheney was sitting on the right side of the president ,in the Situation Room. This conference room , especially decorated ,is located in the basement of the White House. A lot of rooms surround it, with large maps of different regions of the world on the walls. The information that is transmitted every morning to the White House by the secret services are reproduced on these maps. The Situation Room is also equipped with extra ordinarily sophisticated computers that let the authorities in the room contact instantly with any part of the world.  Bush, who had had the war on terror and particularly the elimination of terrorists, should have been satisfied with this suggestion. Besides, the deal was good to Iran because if they could have reached the [MKO] leaders, they could have used their intelligence to prohibit the emergence of possible attacks.  But, finally the Americans refused the suggestion that Cheney resumed declaring:”we preserve all the options.” 

“This group loves the United States”  For Washington, MEK is not only an “option”, but also a reality; it has an office in the very official building of National Press, a high place of the whole American Press in American Capital.  On April 8th, 2003, Ileana Rose-Lehtinen, republican from Florida, president  of the sub-committee on international relations for Near-East  and Central Asia declared about Mujahedin:” this group loves the United States. They are assisting us in war on terrorism they’re pro-US . This group has not fought  against the US. It’s simply not true. .”  In Washington, numerous figures including Paul Wolfowitz and Dauglas Feith are reviewing MEK as an ideal instrument for the politics they would like to take against Iran. The grouplet also tries to seem credible. Its spokesman in Washington, AliReza Jaafar zade, who took distance from the MKO in 2003, fed the Americans with the revelations on Iranian nuclear program.  On May 10th,2003 general Ray Odierno, commandant of the forth infantry division installed in Iraq. declared:”I would say that any organization that has given up its equipment to the coalition clearly is cooperating with us, and I believe that it  should be reviewed whether  they are  still a terrorist organization or not.”  A declaration that is a little thought of, shows the spiritual status of many military officials. Michael Ledeen has well said:” I’m not the man to get closer that 300 kilometers to MEK, these men are not supported, they have no legality.” He knows well that it is a lie. Mujahidin were received at least by the United States that became their really political sponsor.

“A terrorist group is not necessarily illegal” Just after the reelection of George W.Bush, the Vice-president Cheney declared on January 20th, 2005 on CBS:” if you provide a list of potential zones of problem, Iran is on the top.“ At the same time, he asked the director of CIA to think of using MKO forces for sabotage operations inside Iran.  Maryam Rajavi and her movement who assassinated in the past several Americans and served Saddam Hussein as supplemetary force, became an arm in the hands of American president and his advisors. The only obstacle against an open cooperation between MEK and the American administration: the organization has figured on the list of foreign terrorist organizations of the State Department since 1997. A designation that curiously didn’t forbid it from having an office and activities in American capital. John Ashcroft, the ultra-conservative minister of Justice, supports the group actively and one of his collaborators explains this juridical ambiguity:”the simple designation of a group as a foreign terrorist organization doesn’t make it necessarily illegal.” The organization is recorded by the Justice Department as a lobbyist foundation, an activity that they are skilled in.  In January 2005, a former collaborator of Ronald Reagan, Raymond Tanter, created Iran Policy Committee, composed of “former officials of White House, State Department and Pentagon, The Intelligence Agencies, the research centers and universities.” And, he fails to mention the several important representatives of arm industries. According to members of IPC “Iran poses the main treat against the United States and its allies.” Since its creation, the committee put pressure on the Administration to remove MEK from the terrorist list and “to put these freedom fighters on the top of the strategy for regime change in Iran.” During a conference, on November 21st 2005, Taner declared :” one of the military options is the ‘ Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator [ a nuclear bomb tactic in large measure] that could have the capacity to destruct the tunnels profoundly undergrounded and sub terrain installations.” After, this radical introduction, he adds: “the international community should realize that there is only one group that can terrify the regime of Tehran: the People’s Mujahedin and National Council Resistance of Iran, the political coalition that MEK belongs to. [..] They are not only the best sources of Intelligence on the potential violation of the rules of non-proliferation, by Iran; but also they are possible allies of the West to bring regime change in Tehran.”  

“The Increasing quarrel of  the civilizations” Tanter’s innovation was supported by Tom Tancerdo, the Representative of Colorado in house of Representatives. The man whose reputation is due to his plan for the deport of clandestine workers on American territory, the construction of a wall throughout the borders of the country and the necessity for the United States to engage in the “The Increasing quarrel of  the civilizations’’. “ I think” he says, “we are not fighting only a small group who took religion as hostage, but a civilization that is determined to destruct us: radical Islam. Radical Islam has been the enemy of Christians since centuries ago. ‘’ In 2005, he also founded “the Assembly for Democracy and the League for Human Rights in Iran.” He described Maryam Rajavi as “very charismatic; she believes in the women’s rights, she believes in democracy in Iran. I support her efforts. I know that the US has qualified it as a terrorist organization, but you have to know that they were designated after the Clinton Administration was seeking to achieve a relation with Iran and with Mullahs; these ones wanted to formulate an only exigency: that the Mujahedin be listed as a terrorist organization and the designation was made due to political reasons and it doesn’t mean that they pose a threat to the United States. “ 

“Thanks, sister Maryam”  On the early days of May 2005, MEK organized a large demonstration in Washington, at Constitution Hall, to represent itself as the legitimate representative of resistance .A lot of members of Congress were present. A number of lecturer were there too. One of them was Captain Vivian Gembara of the fourth infantry division, a jurist who negotiated the disarmement of Mujahedin in Iraq. She is the daughter of an officer of special forces that was a really legend during the Vietnam War:”It’s just simply imprudent” she said “ to continue the exclusion of MEK, since we have to  face a much more important threat in Iran.”  On October 20th,2005, Maryam Rajavi addressed the congress. The self-proclaimed President of Iran attended the Capitol by video satellite directly from Auver-Sur-d’Oise . The 51 year-old woman received the cheers of the audience with a humble smile. At the end of her speeches, the democrat representative of Texas, Sheila Jackson said emotionally:” thanks, sister Maryam.”  The title “Freedom Fighter” is an appropriate title for any political rebel … At their eras, Jonas Savimbi in Angola and Masud in Afghanistan practiced it successfully, having received financial and military support.  Maryam Rajavi promises exactly what her sympathizers like to hear. In January 2005, she engaged in organizing the free elections in six months following the regime change and to form a constituent assembly in order to lead the affairs by the representatives elected by people.” The admirable declarations that were contradicted by the report published Human Rights Watch at the same time. Twenty–eight onerous pages with the appropriate title:” No Exit: Human Rights abuses inside the MEK Camp.” According to Joe Stork the director of Middle East branch of HRW, in Washington: ”The Iranian government  has a shameful record on human rights, but it will be a big mistake to support a dissident group that is responsible of a lot of cases of human rights violations.”  The reports are based on the evidences of twelve former Mujahedin who were interviewed from February to May, 2005. They explained the use of torture, maltreatment and solidarity confinement after they had criticized the undemocratic methods of the movement and declared their willingness to leave the organization.  Two of them declared that they had witnessed the death of two prisoners during the interrogations. “The MEK” they said “ has installed special prisons in its Iraqi Camps where the dissidents are detained.” One of the eyewitnesses explained that he had been imprisoned for eight and a half years, the other one,  for five years.The four other defectors, accused of having opinions, affirmed of having been severely tortured and forced to sign false confessions in which they are recognized of having links with the agents of Iranians Intelligence Service.  Three former Mujahedin witnessed the death of Parviz Ahmadi, the commander of a unit. He died in February 1995 after he was beaten violently. It lasted three years for the MEK to announce his death, in the organization journal, Mojahed, as a “martyr” assassinated by the Iranian Intelligence Service.  All these testimonies, finally describe the very evidence that ” People’s Mujahedin is not a political movement but a cult devoted to the personality of the couple leaders.’’ The report was not considered as important by the media.  It should be said that nowadays in Washington the tensions are on the rise as well as 2002-2003 while the American invasion to Iraq.

” CIA attracts too much lightening”  In the fall 2004,while George Bush was campaigning for his reelection , declared in an interview by Fox NEWS network that feeds him with a pleasant support:” Iran will never be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons”  In February 2005, in his annual lecture on state of Union , he spoke a long speech on Iran that “ is the principal state sponsor of terrorism that seeks the program of the development of nuclear weapons, depriving its own people of liberty […]” . A few days before that, in January 2005 , “ Iran  Freedom Support Act” , intended to support a transition toward democracy in Iran, was introduced in the Chamber of Representatives. A month later it would be adopted by Senate. The act permits financing the opposition groups. At the head is the MEK which the only one that has an operational structure.  In the unrevealed scene of American politics, including the State Department and the Pentagon, MEK is a source of confrontations.  A testimony of this iron arm summarizes the situation:” the militarists consider them as their comrades and the diplomats consider them as terrorists” Condi Rice reproaches Rumsfeld for using MEK secretly for the clandestine operations. The information of the State Secretary is exact. They have become the “counter Iranian”, used in a totally illegal way, by the pentagon and DIA, the secret military services for the guerilla’s activity inside Iran. CIA is totally put away,” because it attracts too much complaints against the administration“ said to me, one of the officials of CIA. 

“Our policy has not changed”  There is not any presidential directive to permit such operations. The thing that, allows, at least in theory, to short-circuit  the eventual investigations of Senate and home of Representatives. The camps, controlled by the Special Forces and located in the deserts around Iran – Iraq border, have been used for the formation and military training of Mujahedin for their sabotage operations inside Iran.   An only man who knows everything on these clandestine operations is the sub-secretary of Defense, Stephen Combone, and a neo-conservative that a lot of people consider him as the real arm of Rumsfeld. A man “in shadow”, according to one of his collaborators, he is literally fascinated by the potentiality of MEK: about the intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program, but also because it is the only group that has the power to launch terrorist operations to   make  the Iranian leaders anxious. Cambone has also negotiated with the Pakistani authorities and gained the agreement of President Parvis Musharaf so as the Mujahedin could use the Baluchistan Province to launch their operations.  Interviewed by a reporter, the spokesman of the White House, Scott Mc Clellan, denies the intervention of the Administration.  “ – a lot of reports” asks a journalist,” reveal the operations launched in Iran, from three different areas. PKK on Iraqi border, MEK on the Southern border and also some operations from Baluchistan. Does the United- States have any policy? There are also some reports on the possible operations launched by the Special Forces in Iran.”  “- our policies towards these organization haven’t changed” replied the spokesman of White house. […] “We still consider them as terrorist organizations.”  “ – and we have never cooperated with them, I mean ….?”  “Our policies haven’t changed” repeated Mc Clellan. Auver-Sur-Oise, April 2007. The man who joins us in the garden of this property, located at 200 meters from Mairie Place, is a close collaborator of Maryam Rajavi … in his forties, fine moustache, imposing glasses, he oppose my questions as well as the spokesman of the White House :’ we have no contact with the United States and we don’t launch ,with their help , any operation inside Iran.” To any question he gives the same smile. “No, we don’t receive any financial aid from Washington.” an American military operation against Iran? His fingers touch the edge of the cup of coffee: “our position is very clear. We oppose any foreign intervention.”

Translation: Nejat Society   

     

Download”Bush,Iran and Bomb”
Download”Bush,Iran and Bomb”

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

POLITICS: Iran Nuke Laptop Data Came from Terror Group

WASHINGTON, Feb 29 (IPS) – The George W. Bush administration has long pushed the "laptop documents" — 1,000 pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian laptop — as hard evidence of Iranian intentions to build a nuclear weapon. Now charges based on those documents pose the only remaining obstacles to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declaring that Iran has resolved all unanswered questions about its nuclear programme.

Iran Nuke Laptop Data Came from Terror Group

But those documents have long been regarded with great suspicion by U.S. and foreign analysts. German officials have identified the source of the laptop documents in November 2004 as the Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK), which along with its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organisation.

There are some indications, moreover, that the MEK obtained the documents not from an Iranian source but from Israel’s Mossad.

In its latest report on Iran, circulated Feb. 22, the IAEA, under strong pressure from the Bush administration, included descriptions of plans for a facility to produce "green salt", technical specifications for high explosives testing and the schematic layout of a missile reentry vehicle that appears capable of holding a nuclear weapon. Iran has been asked to provide full explanations for these alleged activities.

Tehran has denounced the documents on which the charges are based as fabrications provided by the MEK, and has demanded copies of the documents to analyse, but the United States had refused to do so.

The Iranian assertion is supported by statements by German officials. A few days after then Secretary of State Colin Powell announced the laptop documents, Karsten Voight, the coordinator for German-American relations in the German Foreign Ministry, was reported by the Wall Street Journal Nov. 22, 2004 as saying that the information had been provided by "an Iranian dissident group".

A German official familiar with the issue confirmed to this writer that the NCRI had been the source of the laptop documents. "I can assure you that the documents came from the Iranian resistance organisation," the source said.

The Germans have been deeply involved in intelligence collection and analysis regarding the Iranian nuclear programme. According to a story by Washington Post reporter Dafna Linzer soon after the laptop documents were first mentioned publicly by Powell in late 2004, U.S. officials said they had been stolen from an Iranian whom German intelligence had been trying to recruit, and had been given to intelligence officials of an unnamed country in Turkey.

The German account of the origins of the laptop documents contradicts the insistence by unnamed U.S. intelligence officials who insisted to journalists William J. Broad and David Sanger in November 2005 that the laptop documents did not come from any Iranian resistance groups.

Despite the fact that it was listed as a terrorist organisation, the MEK was a favourite of neoconservatives in the Pentagon, who were proposing in 2003-2004 to use it as part of a policy to destabilise Iran. The United States is known to have used intelligence from the MEK on Iranian military questions for years. It was considered a credible source of intelligence on the Iranian nuclear programme after 2002, mainly because of its identification of the facility in Natanz as a nuclear site.

The German source said he did not know whether the documents were authentic or not. However, CIA analysts, and European and IAEA officials who were given access to the laptop documents in 2005 were very sceptical about their authenticity.

The Guardian’s Julian Borger last February quoted an IAEA official as saying there is "doubt over the provenance of the computer".

A senior European diplomat who had examined the documents was quoted by the New York Times in November 2005 as saying, "I can fabricate that data. It looks beautiful, but is open to doubt."

Scott Ritter, the former U.S. military intelligence officer who was chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, noted in an interview that the CIA has the capability test the authenticity of laptop documents through forensic tests that would reveal when different versions of different documents were created.

The fact that the agency could not rule out the possibility of fabrication, according to Ritter, indicates that it had either chosen not to do such tests or that the tests had revealed fraud.

Despite its having been credited with the Natanz intelligence coup in 2002, the overall record of the MEK on the Iranian nuclear programme has been very poor. The CIA continued to submit intelligence from the Iranian group about alleged Iranian nuclear weapons-related work to the IAEA over the next five years, without identifying the source.

But that intelligence turned out to be unreliable. A senior IAEA official told the Los Angeles Times in February 2007 that, since 2002, "pretty much all the intelligence that has come to us has proved to be wrong."

Former State Department deputy intelligence director for the Near East and South Asia Wayne White doubts that the MEK has actually had the contacts within the Iranian bureaucracy and scientific community necessary to come up with intelligence such as Natanz and the laptop documents. "I find it very hard to believe that supporters of the MEK haven’t been thoroughly rooted out of the Iranian bureaucracy," says White. "I think they are without key sources in the Iranian government."

In her February 2006 report on the laptop documents, the Post’s Linzer said CIA analysts had originally speculated that a "third country, such as Israel, had fabricated the evidence". They eventually "discounted that theory", she wrote, without explaining why.

Since 2002, new information has emerged indicating that the MEK did not obtain the 2002 data on Natanz itself but received it from the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. Yossi Melman and Meier Javadanfar, who co-authored a book on the Iranian nuclear programme last year, write that they were told by "very senior Israeli Intelligence officials" in late 2006 that Israeli intelligence had known about Natanz for a full year before the Iranian group’s press conference. They explained that they had chosen not to reveal it to the public "because of safety concerns for the sources that provided the information".

Shahriar Ahy, an adviser to monarchist leader Reza Pahlavi, told journalist Connie Bruck that the detailed information on Natanz had not come from MEK but from "a friendly government, and it had come to more than one opposition group, not only the mujahideen."

Bruck wrote in the New Yorker on Mar, 16, 2006 that when he was asked if the "friendly government" was Israel, Ahy smiled and said, "The friendly government did not want to be the source of it, publicly. If the friendly government gives it to the U.S. publicly, then it would be received differently. Better to come from an opposition group."

srael has maintained a relationship with the MEK since the late 1990s, according to Bruck, including assistance to the organisation in beaming broadcasts by the NCRI from Paris into Iran. An Israeli diplomat confirmed that Israel had found the MEK "useful", Bruck reported, but the official declined to elaborate.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

By Gareth Porter-IPS-Feb 29

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

CIA budget to supply and train MKO(Proscribed as a terrorist organisation in US!) in Iraq

The United States is clandestinely funding militant groups within Iran’s borders to destabilize the country, The Daily Telegraph says.

According to the daily, CIA officials are secretly funding militias among the numerous ethnic minorities clustered in Iran’s border regions in order to mount pressure on the country to give up its nuclear program.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA’s classified budget but is now”no great secret”, according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington speaking anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

“The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilize the Iranian regime,”said Fred Burton, a former US State Department counter-terrorism agent.

Some of the groups have resorted to terrorist methods. These include the notorious Mujahedin Khalq Organization [MKO] which has a long and bloody history of targeting Iranian civilians and government officials alike.

Another group claimed to be supported by the CIA is the Jundullah organization known for attacking high-profile Iranian targets, especially government and security officials.

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Tehran has long maintained that it has detected the hand of both US and Britain in guerrilla attacks on internal security forces.

Daily Telegraph, reported by Press TV, February 24, 2008 -http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=44463&sectionid=351020101

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

The Irony of ‘Appeasement’

Abetting Terrorism and Treason, Promoting Aggression on Iran

There is no irony in appeasement, according to major media who, on February 20 and 21, reported on a press conference held in Brussels by the National Council of Resistance of Iran. From an Associated Press account:

in exiled Iranian opposition group claimed Wednesday that Tehran was speeding up a program to develop nuclear weapons.”The Iran regime entered a new phase in its nuclear project,”said Mohammad Mohaddessin of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran.

The NCRI is the political wing of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, which advocates the overthrow of government in Tehran. The Mujahedeen has been designated a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union as well as Iran. [1]

The PMOI”a.k.a., the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MeK)”made the same claim in December 2002. The allegation then”that the Iranian regime was enriching uranium at weapons-grade level within secret facilities”turned out to be only partially (and irrelevantly) true: the facilities existed (not a violation in itself), but contrary to the group’s claims, were not weapons-production sites. Still, the information from the MeK”contrived in conjunction with Israeli entities”was used by U.S. hawks to pass sanctions against Iran. But their case has been so weak; the neocons have had to use blatant coercion to persuade UNSC nations to vote in favor.

The most notable and dangerous in all this is that the unproven MeK-Israeli, nuclear weapons claim is the basis for the main finding of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate: that Iran had”halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.”Iran never had a weapons program”at least not one that has been confirmed by U.S. intelligence, the IAEA, or anyone else but Iranian”dissidents”and Israelis and neocons, i.e., the ones who have been wrong all along.

Further deconstruction of the Iranian nukes fraud and the neocons’ nuclear shakedown of Iran:

Iran was late in reporting which is a Safeguard issue. . . . Tehran voluntarily stopped the process of enriched uranium; it also allowed the IAEA to carry out intrusive, spot inspections. No country has allowed as many inspection hours as Iran. [Tehran] proposed to operate Iran’s enrichment program as joint ventures with private and public sector firms from other countries; this would ensure that the program remained transparent and could not be secretly diverted for military purposes, at the same time it would maintain Iran’s sovereignty by having an indigenously enriched uranium cycle . . . Although this was rejected, Iran continued to cooperate.

Iran suspended its enrichment activities for two and half years, but each time under pressure from the U.S., the burden of proof was transferred to Iran knowing the negative could not be proved. [2]

‘Coverage’

All this occurs, when in fact no evidence has ever been verified that supports the weapons charge, as AP surprisingly points out (albeit in the last two sentences of the story and about a year late on the timeline). What media always fail to mention, however, is that the lack of damning proof of an Iranian weapons program, then and now, undercuts the misleading NIE conclusion and the nuclear leg of the neocons’ aggressive campaign.

by omitting such vital facts, major media are perpetuating the prevailing U.S.-Israeli-NCRI conjecture, asserting that Tehran had a viable nuclear weapons program at one time, has resumed it, and is now accelerating the manufacturing process.

In that regard, news media are lying and abetting terrorism and treason. Terrorism, because all individuals who harbor, fund, arm, train, feed, or employ terrorists are terrorists (George Bush’s words not mine). Treason, because the Mek and their handlers in and around the U.S. government are violating U.S. and international law and constantly lying to the people of the United States and the world in an effort to drum up support for further violent insurrection and aggressive war in the Middle East.

Nothing dubious here

Major news media conceal the U.S. government’s dubious relations with the MeK. It is of no consequence that the United States has been harboring, funding, training, and employing U.S.-designated terrorist groups in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East. [3] [4] [5]

Some news media provide extra”coverage”by inserting a misleading historical context in an effort to soften the image of the Iranian”opposition group.”From the EU Observer’s report on the NCRI press conference:

[T]he PMOI was persecuted by the Iranian government, with thousands of their members killed. They were subsequently sheltered by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. [6]

The insinuation that the”persecut[ion]”was unprovoked is absurd. Prosecuted is more like it, according to the U.S. State Department:

According to a 2003 report by the State Department,”During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran.¦ The MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials.¦ In 1991, it assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia and Kurdish uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north.”In other words, the MEK was a terrorist group”one that took its orders from Saddam Hussein. [7]

But to”mainstream”news media, it doesn’t matter that the same Iranian opposition group with a history of committing terrorism on U.S. and Iranian civilians is relied upon as the means to justify and accomplish the neocons and the Mek’s mutual ends of regime-change and resource procurement in Iran.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, spokesman for the MeK, has appeared intermittently over the past few years as a”Middle East Expert,”or”Terror Expert,”on CNN and Fox. Of course there’s never a hint as to his affiliation with the MeK, much less its terrorist designation. But hey, how can he be a terrorist when he heads his own D.C.-based think-tank!

Nothing illicit here

The most thoroughly unreported facts about U.S.-Iranian affairs are the most incriminating ones.

The Algiers Accords, signed by Iran and the United States on January 19, 1981, clearly states,”The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”[8 (.pdf)]

Yet, from the Iraq-Iran War, during which the United States funded Saddam Hussein and supplied him with WMDs which he then used against Iran—to the current war build-up against Iran, whereby groups like the MeK and Jundallah are being harbored, funded, and employed”the laundry list of Algiers Accords violations by the United States is long and ugly. And every violation is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which states that such contracts are to be treated as law of the land.

Move along, folks

One of the most irony-deficient (and shamelessly self-effacing) examples of U.S.-Iran media coverage came in the Observer’s uncritical account of the NCRI’s use of fallacious war propaganda to emotionally blackmail and upbraid the EU into taking a more aggressive stance toward Iran:

Referring to the”huge trade”between Europe and Iran, Mr Mohaddessin said:”The EU is trying to achieve security through appeasing the Iranian regime. The EU is appeasing the Iranian regime and it is a disaster for the Iranian people. You remember what happened in the 1930s? They carried out exactly the same policy with Hitler that the EU is doing now with the Iranian regime.”[9]

This reality-inversion of a comparison is trumpeted almost exclusively by fringe pro-war elements within and around U.S. and Israeli governments and in”pro-western”think-tanks; the other 99.7% of the world laughs it off, knowing that the only Middle Eastern regime with a modern history of aggressive war and secret nuclear weapons production is the one in Israel.

In 1986, former Israeli nuclear facility worker, Mordechai Vanunu, revealed to a foreign news news reporter that Israel was developing nuclear weapons in secret facilities—a confirmation of what the rest of the world had already hypothesized. He was kidnapped by Mossad agents in Italy, charged with treason, and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Unlike the MeK and others, he didn’t confide in or collaborate with a foreign government, and wasn’t revealing information that wasn’t already known outside of Israel. Nevertheless, he has been a political prisoner for the last 21 years. Even his 2004 release gave him little freedom: he is not allowed to leave the country and is under, among other restrictions, curfew and gag order, not allowed to talk to foreigners. [10]

Although Vanunu’s claims about Israel’s illicit nuclear weapons program were true and were made on moral and legal grounds”and the treatment he has received is unlawful and at times barbaric his story is still ignored by mainstream media.

the other hand, the NCRI-MeK is a U.S.-designated terror organization with a verified history of terrorism against Iranian and U.S. targets and treason against their people; yet they are treated by the U.S. government and major news media as trustworthy allies, and their flawed, Israeli-assisted intelligence is considered more credible than that of any U.S. intelligence agency.

And to top it all: By not giving in to U.S.-Israel-MeK demands for aggression toward Iran”the demands of U.S. and EU-branded terrorists”the EU is”appeasing the Iranian regime.”Such is the criminal hypocrisy of deceptive and aggressive war, and the irony of appeasement.

[1] Raf Casert (AP):”Group Claims Iran Speeding Up Nuke Plans”: Associated Press: February 20, 2008 http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080221/D8UUE8RG0.html

[2] Soraya Sepaphour-Ulrich:”Iran Intelligence Report: Another Psychological Warfare?”: CounterCurrents: December 5, 2007 http://www.countercurrents.org/ulrich051207.htm

[3] Rostam Pourzal:”Who Among Iranians Fears the NIE?”: ZNet: December 19, 2007

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14540§i..15

[4] Ardeshir Ommani:”U.S. Support for Terror in Iran”: CASMII: April 10, 2007

www.campaigniran.org

[5] Larisa Alexandrovna:”On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say”: The Raw Story: April 13, 2006

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_

intelligence_gathering_0413.html

[6] Leigh Phillips (euobserver.com):”Iran opposition group accuses EU of ‘appeasement'”: EU Observer: February 20, 2008 http://euobserver.com/9/25698

[7] Craig Unger:”From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq”: Vanity Fair: March 2007 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703?printable=true¤tPage=all

[8] Algiera, the United States & Iran:”The Algiers Accords”: Pars Times: Accessed on February 22, 2008 http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf

More on the 1981 Algiers Accords and the neocons:”US Wants to Have It Both Ways on Iranian Nonintervention Pact,”by Reese Erlich http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/29/5503/

[9] Phillips/EU Observer

[10] Eileen Fleming:”The Vanunu Saga: 2008″: We Are Wide Awake: February 2008

by Dan Alba, wearewideawake.org

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts