I’m very excited and pleased to introduce today’s guest poster, Danny Postel,
who comes to us with some absolutely chilling revelations about the bad faith of the neoconservatives’ supposed dedication to”freedom”(I know, I know: you’re shocked). Danny is the author of Reading “Legitimation Crisis” in Tehran: Iran and the Future of Liberalism and is co-coordinator of the Committee for Academic and Intellectual Freedom of the International Society for Iranian Studies. —Rick Perlstein By Danny Postel During the week of October 22-26, an official announcement effuses, “The nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever – Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses.” Ringmastered by David Horowitz, this circus will be performing under the tent of something called the”Terrorism Awareness Project.” The purpose of this ballyhoolooza, we are told, is to confront the “Big Lies” of the Left regarding terrorism and militant Islam. Worthy subjects, to be sure. Indeed I would like to help the sponsors of the “wake-up call” promote awareness of them. Toward this end, let’s consider the American Right’s “special relationship” with one group of terrorists. The U.S. State Department officially considers the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) a Foreign Terrorist Organization. While those honors date back to 1994, they’ve been renewed during the Bush years. Indeed in 2003 Foggy Bottom went further, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran — an MEK alias — under the terrorist designation. (The MEK is also known as the People’s Mujahedeen.) To make a long and bizarre story short, the MEK got its start in early 1960s Iran, helped overthrow the Shah in 1979, but quickly turned on the revolutionary government it helped bring to power. Employing an ideological blend of Stalinism and Islamism, the tactics of a paramilitary guerilla faction, and the organizational structure of a cult, the group went into exile, eventually making their home in Iraq in the mid-1980s. Not only did Saddam give the organization cover: he armed, funded, and utilized them for a variety of ends over two decades. The group’s wicked political brew was on spectacular display on the old MEK flag (see below; since abandoned) [editor, Iran-Interlink – this is still the official MEK logo], with its sickle and Kalashnikov positioned atop ofbeneath a Koranic verse. (Not — to state the obvious — that the mere presence of a Koranic verse in and of itself implies Islamist political commitments, but in this case the shoe very much fits.) Here you have virtually everything the Right claims to oppose all rolled into one: Islamism, Marxism, terrorism, and Saddam. Naturally, then, neoconservatives would utterly deplore the MEK and everything it stands for, right? The MEK would in fact make an ideal target for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week and Terrorism Awareness efforts, no? Well, no. At least one of the carnival’s acts, it turns out, is rather fond of the Islamo-Stalinist-terrorist cult group, and has repeatedly argued for the removal of the MEK from the State Department’s list of terrorist groups and indeed urged the U.S. government to embrace it. Daniel Pipes, who will be speaking at Tufts on October 24th as part of the Horowitz high jinks, has made the MEK a recurring theme in his writings going back several years. Pipes has also gone to bat for the MEK right in the pages of Horowitz’s house organ. But Pipes is far from alone on the Right in championing the MEK. He co-authored the first piece linked to above with Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Right-wing commentator Max Boot has argued not merely for the removal of the MEK from the terrorist list but for funding and unleashing it to do battle with Iranian forces — this while casually acknowledging that it is a “political cult.” (More on Boot’s disfigured views .) In some cases the MEK plays a stealth role in the media machinery of the American Right. What the FOX News Channel tells viewers about Alireza Jafarzadeh when he appears on its airwaves is that he is an “FNC Foreign Affairs Analyst.” What you have to go to the FOX News website to discover, however, is that Jafarzadeh served “for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.” But it is scarcely known that the sonorous-sounding National Council of Resistance of Iran is in fact a front name for the MEK. Now, it’s true that Jafarzadeh discontinued his post with the National Council of Resistance of Iran—but only when (and only because) its Washington office was forced to close in 2003 as a result of the State Department decision about it being a front for the MEK. It’s not like he had a change of heart. If you attend an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” event, you might want to ask the speakers about this terrorist cult and whether they condemn it. Some of them might — not all neoconservatives agree on the MEK. But the fact that several prominent American conservatives have cozied up to an Islamist-Stalinist cult that was on Saddam’s payroll and the State Department considers a terrorist organization — this raises serious questions (to put it mildly) about the Right’s bedfellows and the calculus that determines them. It suggests the need for a little more terrorism awareness. CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS –infowars.net
USA
The Libertarian Party seems to know how to get its own message out to a politically sensitized electorate who are really fed up with Bush’s irrationality and seek for something better. Bush is said to deliver his annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress next week and Libertarian Steve Kubby delivered his own version directly to the American people via Internet video in advance.
In part of his speech that he referred to as offering “an assessment of our nation’s situation and answers to the question, Steve Kubby said he had a pretty good idea of what Bush was going to say and leave many things untold. In respect to Iran and financing terrorist groups like MKO he said:
President Bush is going to tell you that IRAN represents yet another military challenge to US power and that “all options remain on the table” for dealing with that threat. What he’s not going to tell you is that neither the International Atomic Energy Agency nor our government’s very own intelligence services agree with his claim that Iran is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Nor is he going to tell you that enmity between Iran and the US is and always has been almost entirely a function of US intervention in the Middle East, including financing the bombing and murder campaigns of terror groups like the MEK within Iran’s borders.
President Bush will tell you none of these things, because telling you those things might lead you to ask yourself what the hell you were thinking when you consented to allow him, his party, and those who pretend to be his opponents in Congress, to exercise power over yourself, your family, your friends and your neighbors in the first place.
January 26, 2008
For the reasons discussed, relocation of MKO to France, and also other European countries, after its expulsion from Iraq is out of the question. The next option, then, might be the United State of America. In spite of telltales that the organization benefits from a number of supporters inside the Congress and other lobbying bodies, for many reasons, including ideological and strategic challenges, MKO is barred to inter the US territories, let alone to be accepted as political settlers.
It is a well proven fact that MKO ideologically antagonizes the capitalist camp characterized as deterring man’s evolution. In MKO ‘s early ideological texts, the group’s anti-capitalist ideas and its ambition to implement a radical redistribution of wealth as well as to inaugurate a classless society are fundamentally sanctioned principles. In contrast to their strongly claimed pro-democratic conducts especially in the past few years, there is no close affinity between MKO’s ideology and liberalism. In many critical situations that the organization has considered as turning-points, and particularly in the course of its ideological revolution, MKO has reiterated the significance of its ideology, even compared with those of Marxist groups, as extremely antagonizing capitalism and especially that of the America’s. Unlike terrorist groups like al-Qaeda whose antagonism with America is rooted in their reactionary and historical positions, MKO’s contradiction is generated out of a scientific comprehension and socio-historical dynamism. Giving further clarification about MKO’s ideological revolution, Mehdi Abrishamch has stated:
Mojahedin’s ideological grasp, in contrast to others, has distinctively and quantitatively historical and social inclinations. Nowhere else can you possibly find the world explained as in MKO and chiefly by Rajavi. [1]
That is MKO’s last achievement revealed particularly following the ideological revolution, which is exactly concurrent with the publication of the State Department’s genuine report on MKO. Although some five months after the publication of the State Department’s report, and in a hasty response to the report, the organization published a book entitled The Democracy Betrayed, the report itself and the later registration of MKO as a FTO proved that the US has developed a deep understanding of MKO and its dual nature and that, it would no longer be duped by the group’s fallacious mottos and claims. The latest report of the State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism released on April 30 discloses even a deeper appreciation of the organization by stating that the group’s leader has established a”cult of personality”. Thus, the US is well aware of the group’s left ideological drift that in circumstances shifts tactics in pro-democratic disguise.
The support MKO claims is receiving from a number of neocons, by the means of which it might practice the proposed “third option”, proves to be nothing above a political ploy regarding the group as cost-effective instrument against Iran. Even in some instances MKO is looked upon as a worthless implement since Americans have no doubt that advertised publicity of MKO among Iranians ends to the gates of a castle in the air.
It seems that the existing US-Iran tensions can be an alibi to grant MKO a temporal settlement in the US soil. However, MKO’s terrorist tag and the US determination to combat terrorism on the one hand and MKO’s insistence on preserving its militarist structure that indicates its tenacity of resorting to armed struggle strategy on the other hand disillusions Americans to trust and endure presence of the organization on their soil. The capacity of MKO as a terrorist organization to conduct terrorist operation anywhere in the world is a truth Americans fail to come to terms with as stated in the State Department’s latest report:
MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United State, Canada, and beyond. [2]
Americans believe that MKO has the capacity to conduct its terrorist feats under an idealistic cult structure throughout the world. The self-immolation and suicide operations are known to be the most practical stratagem and revolutionary deeds advocated by the leaders:
Many members and sympathizers of Mojahedin, residing in military camps as combatants against the regime or scattered in different countries, are urging to commit self-immolation or other self-sacrifice deeds to advance Iranian modern revolution. [3]
Of course, Americans admit that in spite of MKO’s open manipulation of propaganda and terrorist approaches to achieve its objective in its campaign against the Iranian government, it has never been tried for its crimes:
The group’s worldwide campaign against the Iranian government uses propaganda and terrorism to achieve its objectives and has been supported by reprehensible regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein. During the 1970s, the MEK assassinated several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the violent takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Despite U.S. efforts, MEK members have never been brought to justice for the group’s role in these illegal acts. [4]
The cause is not malfunctioning of judiciary systems but MKO’s capacity of adaptation strengthened through other complicated ideological and cultist teachings. MKO’s inherent tendency toward Machiavellianism frustrates having any trust in its promises and Americans are well aware of the fact that even the group’s surrendering of weapons following the invasion of the coalition forces to Iraq was a tactic to prevent its complete demise. Stated in the State Department’s report:
Following an initial Coalition bombardment of the MEK’s facilities in Iraq at the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, MEK leadership negotiated a cease-fire with Coalition Forces and voluntarily surrendered their heavy-arms to Coalition control. [5]
MKO has the potentiality of perpetrating terrorist operations in the US far beyond the menaces of al-Qaeda. Even much above the terrorist threats, MKO’s cultist deeds, like self-immolations in some European countries, are perpetration of unspeakable cultist prejudice and violence which Americans can never tolerate because they have had enough of these deeds by destructive cults that have shaken the country only in the past few years. Thus, MKO’s presence in the US will impose irreparable damages both on the country’s policy making and the nation. The American citizens never consent to live next-door with the terrorists and the cultists.
References:
[1]. Lecture delivered by Mehdi Abrishamchi on the ideological revolution within MKO.
[2]. The State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, the report released on April 30.
[3]. Mojahed, No. 253: Massoud Rajavi’s speech made in the first open session of the ideological revolution in Paris.
[4]. The State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, the report released on April 30.
[5]. Ibid.
Editor’s note: The recently released National Intelligence Estimate says Iran had “suspended its nuclear weapon program.” But Iran’s purported nuclear weapons program never existed, writes NAM contributing editor William O. Beeman. Beeman is professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota and author of “The ‘Great Satan’ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.”
Iran has never had a proven nuclear weapons program. Ever. This inconvenient fact stands as an indictment of the Bush administration’s stance on Iran.
The recently released 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran “suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003” caught the Bush administration flat-footed. In his panic, Bush grasped desperately at the idea that the weapons program may have once existed. However, the report does not offer a scintilla of evidence that the weapons program was ever an established fact.
Designating 2003 as the date that Iran “stopped” its program is telling:
this is the year the Bush administration first decided to create a case for attacking Iran based on the purported danger of its nuclear program.
In February 2003, the U.S. government-designated terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq, better known as the MEK (or MKO) “revealed” the existence of Iran’s nuclear facilities to Washington. The MEK, which had been purged from Iran during the period following the 1979 revolution, took up residence in Iraq under the protection of Saddam Hussein. The MEK, sometimes identified as an “Islamic Marxist” organization, is dedicated to the overthrow of the current Iranian government. It has been assiduous in courting American lawmakers to recruit U.S. support for its cause. Legislators such as Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Florida Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have championed this cause, and neoconservatives Patrick Clawson and Daniel Pipes lobbied for its removal from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations in order to use the MEK in the Bush White House drive for regime change in Iran.
Subsequently, the Bush administration claimed that Iran had “concealed” its weapons program for decades, and began a campaign to shut down all nuclear development.
In fact, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) grants all nations the “inalienable right” to peaceful nuclear development. Further, it does not require any nation to report its facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until fissile material, such as uranium, is actually introduced into the facility.
Iran did indeed have a brief reporting lapse. It revealed the start of its nuclear enrichment experiments at the time they began, rather than announcing this to the IAEA 180 days before experimentation as was required. This was in 2003, and it was the only serious breech of protocol.
The National Intelligence Estimate now identifies 2003 as the date when the weapons program stopped — literally at the point when the Bush administration first became aware of it.
2003 was two years before the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was more than a year before the United States began to lobby for U.N. economic sanctions against Iran. Claiming that “international pressure” had caused Iran to modify its behavior, the Bush administration tried desperately to justify its exaggerated characterizations of the danger Iran posed to the world. The only event that the Bush administration can now claim as constituting “international pressure” is the May 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
If the international community understands that Iran never had a weapons program, President George W. Bush’s statement that Iran could start the program up “again” is clearly absurd.
It is now clear that the Bush administration’s campaign to convince the world of the danger of Iran’s purported immanent nuclear weapons was a sham. The campaign was one in a series of public pretexts to effect regime change in the Islamic Republic. No amount of equivocation, or bluster about Iran’s “continuing” danger can mask the fact that American credibility on this issue has been irrevocably damaged.
The only positive outcome of this debacle may be that the Bush administration may finally accept that differences with Iran can only be solved by actually talking to the leaders of the Islamic Republic. Restoration of diplomatic relations, even at a low level, will begin the process of reducing the hostile atmosphere that has been created, and will start the long, slow process toward the restoration of productive and peaceful relations.
New America Media, News Analysis, William O. Beeman
Many of us remember the Iraqi exile groups whose tall tales the Administration used to justify the invasion of their country in 2003. Fewer people are aware that similar groups from other Middle Eastern countries frequent the halls of Congress and editorial board rooms carrying their frightening ghost-written books with guidance from pro-war think tanks. The organized challenge against the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) summary on Iran this month included such a group, which for years cried wolf about Iran.
The NIE’s critics are complaining that it falsely weakens the Bush administration’s campaign against Iran. Trusting that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons is suicidal, warn the neoconservatives who prompted the invasion of Iraq in search of imaginary banned weapons. As in the period that preceded the Iraq War, the hawks are now validated by an exile entity dedicated to violent regime change. The Iranian enabler group that has replaced the old Iraqi National Congress is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). In cooperation with leading neoconservative figures, NCRI has for over a decade spared no effort to destroy any chance of a U.S.-Iranian détente.
Eight days after the NIE summary assured the world that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons at this time international media reported that NCRI dismissed the report’s findings. No other Iranian opposition group has actively challenged the new NIE’s credibility.
Going even farther, NCRI’s Washington spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, claimed that Iran’s nuclear program is managed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s (IRGC) scientists during a Fox News interview. As the most trusted branch of Iran’s armed forces, the IRGC was late this year designated by the White House as a sponsor of international terrorism. The exile group has also echoed the Washington war party’s claims that Iran is arming Iraqi resistance groups with advanced weapons resulting in U.S. casualties.
NCRI’s scare campaign against Iran is an attempt to overcome its own infamy. The”Council”is a front group based in Paris for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (known also as MEK, MKO, or PMOI), according to the U.S. State Department, which bans both as a single terrorist organization. MEK’s pariah status makes it entirely dependent on the goodwill of the U.S. military, which has since the spring of 2003 sheltered its 3,500-plus fighters in northern Iraq after they disarmed.
The militia has for a quarter-century topped Tehran’s”most wanted”terrorist list and is now sought by Iraq’s government for atrocities it allegedly committed in Saddam’s service. It fled Iran in the mid 1980s and fought on the Iraqi side during the Iran-Iraq war, hoping to overthrow the young Islamic Republic. Its campaign to deepen Western distrust of Iran is motivated primarily by the real possibility that its key figures will face capital crimes charges in Iraq and Iran if a U.S. accommodation with Iran ends the militia’s utility to U.S. strategists as a bargaining chip. The latest sign of MEK’s vulnerability emerged December 16 when Iran asked that the next round of U.S.-Iran negotiations in Baghdad address MEK’s status.
Like the old Iraqi National Congress headed by Ahmad Chalabi, the MEK has powerful conservative backers in Western capitals that promote it as a democratic alternative. In Washington, these have included John Ashcroft, Dick Armey, Richard Perle, and members of Congress Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Tom Tancredo, all of whom were and remain advocates of the Iraq invasion. Among officially designated foreign terrorist organizations, MEK is the only one that can obtain street demonstration permits in Washington through its thinly disguised front operations. Poster-size portraits of the husband and wife team that have headed MEK for a generation are in abundance at such rallies, including one held on the grounds of U.S. Congress in 2004.
The surest way for the MEK to stay in business appears to be just the path they are following. They need to make themselves indispensable to the warmongers in the United States by helping subvert accommodation with Iran. (In this, they share the predicament of their neocon masters, who will be out of a job if peace prevails for too long.)
If Washington decides against an all out war on Iran and opts instead for a”low intensity conflict,”as Ronald Reagan’s wars of attrition in Central America came to be known, the MEK can well be the core of a Contra-style mercenary force. Claiming the mantle of the”Reagan Revolution,”the neoconservatives would certainly welcome that as the next best thing to the war that they want badly even after the NIE largely vindicated Iran. There have been persistent rumors over the past year that American military or intelligence agencies have trained selected MEK operatives for clandestine missions in Iran, after having them renounce terrorism and swear allegiance to”democracy.”
If, on the other hand, the Bush administration or its successor chooses sustained dialog instead of confrontation with Iran, the future of the MEK will never be far from the minds of Iranian negotiators. The White House has stressed its twin objectives of strengthening the government of”liberated”Iraq and limiting Tehran’s influence there. Iranian leaders see an inherent contradiction in that policy. They are anxious to find out whether the U.S. will continue to shelter the MEK as an irritant to Iran or will transfer custody of the militia to Iran’s trusted Iraqi authorities as an affirmation of Iraqi sovereignty. As Washington prepares for its next round of talks on Iraqi security with Iran in January, a sure way it can build confidence would be to agree to discuss this sensitive matter.
Rostam Pourzal, Alternet.org, December 28, 2007
QUESTION: Today an Iranian dissident said that the military program — the military nuclear program was suspended in 2003, but it — that it restarted in 2004. So that actually it was alive. It was still working — it’s working. Do you have any information about that? MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t, Sylvie. I can only just refer you back to the consensus intelligence estimate that we released last week from our intelligence community.
QUESTION: But this guy is the one who actually made revelation in 2002 about (inaudible). MR. MCCORMACK: Sylvie, I can’t — you know, can’t offer any comment beyond the fact that our intelligence community — 16 intelligence agencies in that community — came up with a consensus assessment. This was what it was. And I can’t speak to this. And you know, they had access to a whole variety of different information. They actually went back and carefully went through all the information that they had and came up with this assessment. QUESTION: Okay. I have a small question. This guy is the former spokesman from the National Council of Islamic Resistance. MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: Is it a group that you consider as a terrorist? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the MEK, the Mujahedin-e Khalq is considered a terrorist organization. QUESTION: But not the National — MR. MCCORMACK: Sylvie, I can’t tell you — QUESTION: You don’t know. MR. MCCORMACK: — off the top of my head, you know, where they fall. I think this is a group that was in some way constituted in the United States. I can’t tell you exactly how we view them. You’d probably get a better read on that from the Department of Justice or the FBI.
Daily Press Briefing Sean McCormack, Spokesman Washington, DC. December 11, 2007
“Iran: Fact & Fiction”
On December 8, 2007, CNN’s Special Investigations Unit started televising “Iran: Fact & Fiction” with Campbell Brown and Frank Sesno. Currently, the scheduled showings are 7 and 11 P.M. (Eastern Time) on December 8 and 9, 2007.
The major theme of the program is missed opportunities by political leaders in America and in Iran for peace. After years of television programs on the Fox News Channel and elsewhere promoting America’s worst enemies, the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) who want to bomb Iran, this CNN program provides some attempts to learn from past missed opportunities for peace.
Iran helped America fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, Fall 2001
Following September 11, 2001, the Islamic Republic of Iran helped America fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. CNN provided only a few of the examples of Iran’s help, such as providing safe passage for humanitarian supplies going to Afghanistan and offering to work with the American military in providing military training for a new government in Afghanistan. How did President George W. Bush thank Iran for Iran’s sacrifices and help? In his January 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said that Iran is a member of the axis of evil. James Dobbins, a former State Department official, reported the extent of Iran’s help.
Iran’s Unsigned 2003 Memorandum
Switzerland passed to the American government an unsigned 2003 memorandum from the Iranian government suggesting in detail ways to resolve differences between Iran and America. This television program showed only a portion of the 2003 memorandum. That portion included a discussion of the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists. Brown and Sesno did not explain that President George W. Bush had used the MEK as a pretext for the Iraq War in 2002 and then protected America’s terrorist enemies at Camp Ashraf, Iraq in 2003.
Nicholas Burns, responsible for Iran at the State Department now (but not in 2003), appeared to lack knowledge of, and interest in, the 2003 memorandum.
Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), expressed her satisfaction that the Swiss official who passed the Iranian memorandum to American officials lost his job. She noted that America’s ambassadors to Iraq and to the United Nations meet with Iranian officials but nothing results from the meetings.
Brown and Sesno should have interviewed Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), author of “The Guldimann Memorandum: The Iranian ‘roadmap’ wasn’t a roadmap and wasn’t Iranian” (Weekly Standard, October 22, 2007).
Trita Parsi, National Iranian American Council (NIAC), regarded the Bush Administration’s failure to respond to the 2003 memorandum a missed opportunity.
Mohammad Khatami’s Election as President of Iran, 1997
This program included details of the efforts of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who served in the Clinton administration, to respond to the opportunity provided by the election of Mohammad Khatami as President of Iran in 1997:
1. Albright gave speeches responding favorably to themes expressed in Khatami’s speeches.
2. America relaxed visa restrictions on Iranians.
3. Iranian scholars were permitted to visit America.
4. America wrestlers competed in Iran.
5. Albright gave a speech admitting American errors to a meeting of Professor Hooshang Amirahmadi’s American Iranian Council (AIC).
This program included an appearance by Kenneth Pollack, formerly with the National Security Council, who noted that Iran’s Supreme Leader responded unfavorably to America’s friendly overtures. Brown and Sesno failed to disclose relevant details about Pollack, such as:
1. Pollack is the author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Pollack has admitted that he understands very little Arabic.
2. Pollack is the author of The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America. At the end of this book, Pollack admitted that he has never been to Iran and does not know Persian (Farsi).
Trita Parsi explained correctly that it was a mistake for America’s political leaders to reach out to only one person or one faction in the Iranian government.
Frank Sesno explained correctly that many Iranians do not trust America’s political leaders because of American support for the Shah of Iran and of American support for Saddam Hussein against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.
Unfortunately, Brown and Sesno did not mention that President Bill Clinton had given a speech to the World Jewish Congress (WJC) on April 30, 1995 pleasing Zionists with trade sanctions against Iran.
Nuclear Inspections
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei noted that Iran’s work with centrifuges is a political act. He reported that Iran does not allow surprise inspections or as complete access to its nuclear facilities as it did in the past. His advice for America was to “cool it”. While some American political leaders want a pressure cooker to explode, a cooler approach could result in being able to trust Iran in the future.
Former United Nations inspector David Kay regarded current Iranian leaders as dangerous but expressed the view that America has a 6 to 8 year opportunity to achieve a secure basis for peace.
Unfortunately, no one made comparisons with Israel, India, Pakistan, and with North Korea. America’s current political leaders have rewarded countries who did not even sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea is an evil communist, totalitarian regime guilty of torturing and of murdering Christians and persons who attempt to flee from North Korea. Many nuclear analysts that North Korea will never comply with agreements to end its nuclear weapons program.
2008 Presidential Candidates
Joe Klein, author of “Iran’s Nukes: Now They Tell Us” (Time magazine, December 6, 2007) noted that there is a real opportunity now for an opening with Iran, but President George W. Bush will fail to seize the opportunity. Klein predicted that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) will hurt the saber rattling Republican presidential candidates. Rudy Giuliani, with a staff of neoconservative advisers, might be hurt the most. Among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton could be hurt because of her vote on a Senate resolution. Iranian leaders are hurting the opportunity by enriching uranium and by supporting Hezbollah. However, Iran is not building nuclear weapons.
David Gergen agreed that Republican presidential candidates who have supported President George W. Bush’s excessive war rhetoric will be hurt.
Saturday December 8, 2007 – 09:13pm (PST) Permanent Link
—————————
London Meetings with Members of Parliament, November 22, 2007
Paul Sheldon Foote,November 23, 2007
On Thursday, November 22, 2007 (Thanksgiving Day in America), some Members of Parliament experienced separate talks with questions and answers by Professor Raymond Tanter [President, Iran Policy Committee; promoting the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists] and Professor Paul Sheldon Foote [opposing the MEK terrorists and neoconservatives].
The Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) arranged for my meeting with Members of Parliament.
http://www.cmec.org.uk
The following is my PowerPoint outline submitted to the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) following the meeting. My talk covered many, but not all, of the topics in this outline during the time period available for the meeting with some Members of Parliament.
US Division of Foreign Policy Towards Iran
Paul Sheldon Foote
Academic Credentials
• Professor of Accounting, California State University, Fullerton
• BBA, University of Michigan—Ann Arbor; MBA, Harvard Business School; Ph.D., Michigan State University
Marriage in Iran
• Married an Iranian khanam in Tehran, Iran, 1968
• Met my wife in London, 1967, when we worked at the Chief Foreign Branch of Barclays Bank (Fenchurch at Lombard streets)
Military Service
• Army lieutenant, Vietnam War
• Volunteered and served in Vietnam, 1968-1969, to fight communists
• Real veteran and conservative, not a neoconservative chickenhawk
Irandoost
• Lover of Iran
• Persian language studies, Harvard University, 1971-1972
• Professor Richard Frye, Greater Iran
• Sir Roger Stevens, The Land of the Great Sophy
International Work Experience
• Government of Norway, Oslo, 1967
• Barclays Bank, London, 1967
• U.S. Army, Vietnam, 1968 – 1969
• American Embassy, Tehran, Iran, 1970
International Work Experience 2
• Citibank, Lebanon and India, 1972-1973
• Singer Sewing Machine Company, Greece, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, 1974 – 1975
International Work Experience 3
• Sultan Qaboos University, Oman, 1994 – 1996.
• English language teaching, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1995, 1996.
• Fraud consulting, Oman, 1998.
Republican Party Credentials
• Lifelong registered Republican, never a neoconservative admirer of Trotsky or of communism
• Elected: Los Angeles Republican County Central Committee, 1990
Republican Party Credentials 2
• Republican candidate for California State Assembly, 1992
Ron Paul
Republican Congressman: I support for President in 2008
• Libertarian Party presidential candidate, 1988
• “Neo-CONNED” speech to Congress, 2003
Patrick J. Buchanan
• Right From The Beginning, 1988 political autobiography
• Neoconservatives, claiming to be former communists, cannot dupe real conservatives.
Patrick J. Buchanan 2
• A Republic, Not an Empire (2002)
• Real American conservatives support setting an example of how to have a great republic at home, not how to invade other countries to steal resources.
Patrick J. Buchanan 3
• Where the Right Went Wrong (2005)
• Neoconservatives (Neo-Trotskyites) are not anti-communist because they opposed the Soviet Union after Stalin’s murder of Trotsky.
Patrick J. Buchanan 4
• “Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.”
Justin Raimondo
• Director, Antiwar.com
• Former public office candidate: Libertarian and Republican parties
• Articles critical of neoconservatives (Trotskycons) and of MEK
Justin Raimondo 2
• Book: Reclaiming The American Right
Claes Ryn
• Professor, Catholic University of America
• Book: America the Virtuous
• Parallels between neoconservatives (neo-Jacobins) and the Reign of Terror of French Revolution
Lew Rockwell
• Libertarian articles critical of neoconservatives and of MEK posted at LewRockwell.com
Renew Diplomatic Relations
• Bruce Laingen, Republican and highest ranking diplomatic hostage in Iran, has supported talks and diplomatic relations with Iran
• Example: March 6, 1998 PBS News Hour
End Western Support of Terrorists
• There are no good terrorists.
• Western countries need to stop all operations of Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists.
Close Camp Ashraf, Iraq
• September 2002: President Bush used MEK as pretext for Iraq War.
• 2003: American and coalition forces attacked Camp Ashraf.
• 2007: America protects its communist enemies.
End Trade Sanctions
• President Clinton, a Democrat, at the World Jewish Congress Dinner (New York City, April 30, 1995) announced he would sign executive orders stopping investment in Iran.
End Trade Sanctions 2
• Clinton thanked Edgar Bronfman, a major shareholder in Conoco, for stopping Conoco from investing $1 billion in Iran’s petroleum industry.
• Clinton noted Bronfman’s Zionist ties.
End Trade Sanctions 3
• “I know he was the President of the World Jewish Congress, the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.” –Clinton, April 30, 1995
End Trade Sanctions 4
• The West has promoted trade and investment involving tens of thousands of factories in Communist China.
• China has millions of political prisoners and executes many for religious or political beliefs.
End Trade Sanctions 5
• Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has a policy of nonintervention
• Contrary to neoconservative lies, real conservatives are not isolationists. We support world trade, not endless wars.
Condemn Zionist Racism
• “A million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail.” –Rabbi Yaacov Perrin at 1994 funeral for Baruch Goldstein, charter member of Jewish Defense League who murdered 29 Muslims.
Stop Strangling Iran
• Neoconservatives lie about exporting democracy.
• European powers crushed Persia’s 1906 Constitutional Revolution.
• Iranians struggled for democracy a century ago.
Reject Zionist Claims to Palestine
• For an honest history of the 7th Century conversion of King Bulan and of the Khazars to Judaism, read Chagall’s Target.
• Ashkenazics were descendents of Noah’s son Japhet, not Shem.
-Finns, not Semites and not “Chosen”.
Do not reward NPT non-signers
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty non-signers:
• India
• Israel
• North Korea
• Pakistan
Stop Stealing Resources
• The 1872 Reuter’s Concession (or Reuter Concession) described by Lord Curzon as ‘the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign [i.e. British] hands’
• Newspapers published editorials and articles expressing shock at Baron de Reuter’s concession from Persia’s Shah.
Stop Stealing Resources 2
• The Shah of Iran squandered the wealth of the Iranian people for the benefit of American interests.
• The Shah of Iran abolished political parties and created a one-party totalitarian state.
• Interlock: The untold story of American banks, oil interests, the Shah’s money, debts, and the astounding connections between them
book by Mark Hulbert
Stop Stealing Resources 3
• Stop using the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other international organizations to control and impoverish countries.
Stop Stealing Resources 4
• Neoconservatives lied about exporting democracy and fighting terrorism in Iraq.
• Be honest about petrodollar warfare: “It is the crude, dude.”
Contact Information
• Professor Paul Sheldon Foote
• Department of Accounting
• California State University, Fullerton
• PO Box 6848
• Fullerton, CA 92834-6848 USA
• (714) 278-2682
• Email: pfoote@fullerton.edu
• Skype Name: paulsheldonfoote
Blog and Political Forum
•http://360.yahoo.com/paulsheldonfoote
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/
Professor Paul shedon Foote, December 08, 2007
The November 15 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran’s nuclear program indicates that Tehran is still violating existing United Nations Security Council resolutions by continuing the construction of a heavy reactor and installing a total of 2,952 centrifuges needed for uranium enrichment.
International pressure on the Iranian government to cease such work is likely to increase in the following months. The present stalemate on the nuclear negotiations coincides with a tougher
US strategy toward Iran, which includes designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization and implementing a new round of unilateral sanctions.
While military action is still not seen as a viable option by the Department of Defense, there are certainly many within and without the White House who are growing increasingly restless about the seeming futility of sanctions. The most vocal advocate and perpetrator of violent regime change in Iran is the Mujahideen-e-Khalq organization (MEK), an Iranian opposition group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States (Executive Order 13224, Department of State, 2003) and the European Union.
A 2007 German intelligence report from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution called the MEK a”repressive, sect-like and Stalinist authoritarian organization which centers around the personality cult of Maryam and Mas’ud Rajavi”.
During the initial phase of the Iranian Revolution, the MEK was significantly influenced by Marxist theories and concepts of exploitation and class struggle, and particular emphasis was placed on Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara and their ideas of guerrilla warfare. Besides these foreign Marxist influences, the MEK’s ideology was also heavily informed by Islamist/Marxist scholar Ali Shariati (1933-1977), who wrote many treatises on the idea of suffering and eternal struggle in Shi’ite doctrine, combining it with socialist ideas of class emancipation vis-a-vis secular tyranny.
When the Peoples’ Mujahideen were excluded from power sharing after 1979 and thousands of its members were executed under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s orders, their struggle turned against what was to become the Islamic Republic. To date, the MEK’s structure is heavily dominated by a socialist outlook coupled with an Islamist veneer, highlighting the concepts of justice in reference to Shi’ite doctrines. The latter serves to legitimize the MEK in the eyes of Iranians at home and helps foster full commitment to the cause.
In October, the 4,000 residents of the MEK’s”Camp Ashraf”in Iraq staged a spectacular large-scale festival that included extensive military style parades, martial arts performances and a display of unarmed combat units. Video excerpts of the festivities were posted on YouTube. The festival was as much a display of military strength and the MEK’s ongoing commitment to fight the regime in Iran as it was a homage to the two leaders of the MEK.
One of the lingering questions surrounding the group’s continued existence is why it has not been disbanded.
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the group was disarmed and many of its members were questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Soon after, US Major General John D Gardner confirmed the status of the residents of Camp Ashraf as”protected persons”under the 4th Geneva Convention, stating that”the coalition remains deeply committed to the security and rights of the protected people of Ashraf”.
Evidently, one of Iran’s key demands to the US government is the closure of Camp Ashraf and the subsequent expulsion of all MEK members. Despite demands by the International Committee of the Red Cross that residents of Camp Ashraf”must not be deported, expelled or repatriated”, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said in April that the Iraqi government intended to resettle MEK members in European countries and set a deadline of six months for the move. The resettlement is unlikely to materialize given the EU’s tough stance toward the group and its umbrella organization, the National Resistance Council for Iran, but it still indicates that the MEK’s host country is becoming increasingly restless over its presence.
By and large it seems that the Iranian government is following a two-track strategy with regards to the MEK base in Iraq. Iranian diplomats in Iraq are putting increasing pressure on Baghdad to expel the group from Iraqi territory and to actively prosecute leading MEK operatives. At the same time, Iranian authorities continue to offer amnesties for members who cut their ties with the group and return to Iran. The MEK still creates serious security problems for Iran; according to a recent speech by Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, the group has killed over 16,000 people in and outside Iran, including one president, one prime minister, four ministers and dozens of members of parliament.
Most recently, Iranian authorities arrested a group of MEK operatives for the assassination of Sheikh Hashem Samiri, a Friday prayer leader in the city of Ahwaz. The crime was linked to the earlier September shooting of Sheikh Samir Durak, Friday prayer leader in the Koy-e Alavi district.
Following numerous consultations with Iraqi authorities, Tehran’s lobbying efforts seem to be paying off. Citing evidence of MEK involvement in the current insurgency as well as atrocities committed against Iraqi citizens, Ja’afar al-Musawi, chief prosecutor of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, issued arrest warrants for 150 MEK members, including the group’s leaders Maryam and Mas’ud Rajavi. Though insisting that all of them would be tried under the criminal jurisdiction of Iraq and not be handed over to Iran, Musawi indicated that extradition agreements with Iran will be concluded in the near future.
At the same time, authorities in Iran are wooing residents of Camp Ashraf to come back by offering amnesty and re-socialization programs. Since 2003, over 500 MEK members have returned to Iran, been officially pardoned by Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and extensively debriefed by Iranian intelligence. Iran’s judiciary officials continue to emphasize that defectors from Camp Ashraf will not be prosecuted on their return to Iran.
Though such amnesty initiatives prove to be useful incentives for disaffected members and their families, they fall short of genuinely addressing Iranian security concerns over the group’s ongoing activities in Iraq. The most urgent issue for Tehran is what Mohammad Jafari of the Iranian National Security Council described as intelligence cooperation between US forces in Iraq and MEK operatives sent across the border to spy in Iranian territory.
Though such accusations are difficult to verify, demands by the Iraqi government to dismantle Camp Ashraf and prosecute those charged with crimes have not yet been met. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, claims these efforts are actively prevented by the United States. The recent propaganda festival staged in Camp Ashraf has only fueled Iranian suspicions that the MEK is still considered by the United States as an effective ally against Iran.
there is no evidence that the MEK enjoy any high-profile support in the State Department or Pentagon, there are certainly some on Capitol Hill who consider any enemies of Iran as friends of the United States. Most notably, congressmen Michael McCaul, Nick Lampson and Brad Sherman have repeatedly asked the US government to remove the MEK from the terrorist list.
Echoing such demands, the White Paper published by the US pressure group Iran Policy Committee in 2007 perceives the MEK in Iraq as”very useful for providing intelligence for border controls and operations”and, because of their”extensive network within Iran”and their”excellent record of revealing key intelligence about the IRGC proxies’ infiltration routes into Iraq”, the MEK is seen as a viable”interlocutor”between Washington and Sunni groups to quell Iraqi sectarian violence.
Given Camp Ashraf residents’ legal limbo under the 4th Geneva Convention, the United States is faced with the highly complex decision of whether to hand over MEK militants to Iraq or Iran, or arrange asylum in a third country. Each choice carries consequences for US-Iranian relations. Although denied by US authorities, keeping the MEK in Iraq may still be seen by some policymakers as providing an effective bargaining chip in the nuclear weapons negotiations.
Dr Bernd Kaussler holds a MA and PhD from the University of St. Andrews and is currently assistant professor in political science at James Madison University. As associate fellow at the Institute for Iranian Studies at St Andrews, he is involved in various research projects on contemporary Iranian politics and foreign policy.
By Bernd Kaussler,
Adm Gregory Smith: US military does not support terrorist Mojahedin Khalq (MKO) Interview with MEHR News, November 25, 2007 BBC Monitoring Middle East Text of report by Iranian conservative news agency Mehr
Tehran, 25 Nov: Rear Adm Gregory Smith, Communication Division Chief for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, who has repeatedly – and without proof – accused the Islamic Republic of Iran of engaging in negative activities in Iraq responded to questions form Mehr news agency concerning US military support to the Monafeghin terrorist group [pejorative meaning hypocrites used by the Iranian government to refer to the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MKO)]. The group has been placed on the list of terrorist groups. He claimed that the US military does not support any terrorist group including the MKO. He admitted: The American government considers the MKO group to be a terrorist group and once again claimed that the US military was not supporting them. Responding to a question from Mehr asking if the US government and the American military would assist the Iraqi government should it expel these individuals – or at the very not interfere with the expulsions, he answered in generalities, saying: We don’t respond to questions that are based on conjecture. This question is speculative, we don’t work on speculations.
Gregory Smith said he had no knowledge of plans for a new round of Iran-US talks on Iraq, saying: Issues relating to these talks are handled by the US embassy in Iraq.
The official spokesperson for the American forces in Iraq commented on the fate of Iranian diplomats who have been held captive by the occupiers since they were taken in Dey last year [Iranian month starts on 22 December], saying: As far as US officials are concerned these individuals are not diplomats. They shall remain in detention for as long as US official believe them to be a threat to Iraq.
Smith went on to say: A committee made up of representatives form the coalition [forces] and the Iraqi government is reviewing this issue.
Iraqi MP Ali al-Adib contradicts claims by this American military official that his country does not support the MKO group, saying: Even though the Iraqi constitution has banned the activities of opposition groups and organization form neighbouring countries, the US military supports the presence of mko terrorist group
In a recent interview with Mehr, Iraq’s Prosecutor General Ja’far al-Musavi confirmed that the file of the mojahedin terrorist group was under review and would not rule out the possibility of an agreement between Tehran and Baghdad that would include provisions for the extradition of the criminals.
He said that members of the mko terrorist group were guilty of participating in the massacre of innocent Iraqis, adding: The judicial process for the prosecution of these this group has started.
During the early days of the revolution, the mojahedin terrorist group acted to the great determent of our nation. They based themselves in camp Ashraf in the Iraqi province of Diala east of Bagdad. The former Ba’th government under the leadership of the executed dictator Saddam cooperated with this group during the imposed war against Iran in the early eighties [Iran-Iraq war 1980-88] and supported them extensively.
The current elected government of Iraq is attempting to remove traces of this terrorist group from its territorial borders because of their role in the massacre of Iraqi dissidents and the genocide against the shi’i uprising in 1991.
Claims made by this American official about Iranian diplomats that were abducted in Arbil this past Dey are being made while the Iraqi government and officials of the Kurdish Regional Government stress that these individuals were engaged in legal activities the Iranian consulate in Arbil. The Americans have only released two of the diplomats.
To Readers of the Washington Post…
(LPAC)–Today’s Washington Post features a story claiming that more than 300,000 Shi’ites in southern Iraq have signed a petition denouncing Iran for fomenting violence in Iraq, and claiming that Iran has taken over all of southern Iraq.
Only after puffing the petition, does the Post admit that the petition drive is being backed by the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, an Iranian exile group which is listed by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, but which nonetheless is harbored by the U.S. in northern Iraq for its potential use against Iran.
In other words, what the vote of a mere 300,000 reflects, is that the MEK is controlled by Cheney, or by the same people who control Cheney, who desire a war with Iran.
300,000? The growing number of MySpace and Facebook users should remind us that large groups of people can be influenced to do stupid things by evil fascists. The question for readers of the Washington Post, is why the Post uses the same tactics to fool people with big numbers, rather than present the principle of Westphalia, the benefit of the other?
larouchepac.com,November 22, 2007