Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
Nejat Society
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
© 2003 - 2024 NEJAT Society. nejatngo.org
Nejat News Letter - No 60
Nejat Publications

Nejat Newsletter – No 60

Inside This Issue:

  • What do Iranians think of the MEK?
  • IT’S A MISTAKE TO TREAT THE MEK AS A NORMAL OPPOSITION GROUP
  • Female Defectors Of The MKO (MEK) In EU Parliament. March 8th
  • INTERNATIONAL LIBERTY ASSOCIATION, MEK’S SO-CALLED CHARITY BREACHES RULES OF THE UK CHARITY COMMISSION
  • THE MOJAHEDIN-E KHALQ AREN’T AMERICA’S FRIENDS. EVEN IRANIANS WHO HATE THE REGIME DON’T WANT MEK
  • THE SPECIAL MOMENT TO SAY NO TO THE CULT OF RAJAVI (MEK, NCRI, …)
  • Mothers, the Forgotten Victims
April 13, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Hasan Heyrani
Former members of the MEK

Mojahedin Khalq in Albania – Inside view

One of the MEK formers in Germany called me to say that he had heard some news about the members of the cult in Albania.

He said firstly that the cult has taken the decision to remove all those who have separated from the cult in Albania from the country. This is because the cult wants to empty the ‘border’ (or no man’s land) between MEK members and those people who take a salary from the sect and say that they still support the organization. This is because when these separated people come face to face with MEK members in the streets of Tirana street, they create a kind of bad influence on them. This influence makes some of the members who are under pressure in the cult decide to get out.

The cult wants to empty Tirana of every person who it calls so-called mercenaries who are critical of the cult (basically anyone who has left).

I confirmed to this friend in Germany that we in Tirana have also heard that there is currently a register of 35 people who admit that all their costs are paid by the cult, but who do not make this public because the cult doesn’t want it to became public knowledge that it would be willing to transfer these people (because it’s illegal people trafficking by a smuggler). It would also encourage more people to leave if they think the MEK will pay to smuggle them to Europe.

The cost for a smuggler to transfer one person is between 3 and 4 thousand euros or more. So, the cult made indirect contact with a smuggler and told him ‘we have a lot of people to move so reduce the price to 2.5 thousand euros each’. A group of these people have now arrived.

Behrooz Ghorbani, an Iranian priest in Norway, is behind this project and is one of the cult’s mercenaries (in the MEK’s pay). I should mention that I previously spoke to this priest from the International Church in Tirana before I found out who he really is. Ghorbani is trying to raise money to smuggle people out of Albania. He contacted my friend in Germany to ask him for 2,500 euros. But my friend found out this was a deception and Ghorbani was working for the cult because the cost of this project for each person from the beginning to the end is 5000 euros. This includes the cost a trafficker to Greece and secret residence in Greece for a while. Even though this is for around 50 people and costs around 250,000 euros, the cult is willing to pay for it. My friend in Germany also warned me ‘be careful, after this project is done, they will make trouble for you who remain in Albania’.

Hassan Heyrani, Tirana, Albania

April 13, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
weekly digest
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 256

++ Most Farsi commentary around MEK this week concerned the listing of Sepah (IRGC) as a terrorist entity. MEK’s reaction was condemned as selling your country (MEK being paid for anti-Iran work). But you won’t gain anything but the hatred of Iranians say critics.

++ Joke of the week is that Maryam Rajavi took credit for Trump’s designating Sepah as a terrorist entity, claiming (without irony) that she had been demanding this “for years”.

++ In response to the devastating floods in Iran, Maryam Rajavi gathered her followers in the half-built back yard of the closed camp in Albania and put on a performance. Rajavi spoke a bit, looked sad a bit, stood by a flag a bit and posed a bit. Really helpful.

++ In response to Maryam Rajavi’s response to the floods, Farsi commentators ask, ‘Why are you not helping in any way? Why don’t you send money? Why, when you claimed that MEK “Resistance Units” are operating all over Iran, do you not have even a single person on the ground? The country is in chaos, there is nobody to stop you from sending at least one person to take a photograph to show that MEK is helping – someone holding a photo of Rajavi for example. This has exposed to the full that everything you say is simply lies. You claim to have support in Iran. You don’t even have a single person.

In English:

++ Emile Nakhleh’s article ‘Hawks Clamoring to Attack Iran’ in Lobelog is well worth careful reading. Not because it is difficult, but because it exposes the really dangerous beliefs and behaviours of those close to Donald Trump who are doing everything in their power to bring about a war against Iran in total disregard to damage to human life and society. So, “Instead of relying on calm, expert-based analysis, Secretary of State Pompeo has made a series of trips to the region that have involved bullying, threats, and hilarious, if not tragic, mischaracterizations.” And “Bolton and Giuliani are as susceptible to MEK’s claims as Cheney and Rumsfeld were to Chalabi’s.” Nakhleh points to the path forward: “Fifty-plus retired American generals and diplomats, in a statement published earlier this month, urged the Trump administration to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and work on resolving outstanding concerns with Iran diplomatically. They advised against a war because they saw no good outcome.”

++ Similarly, Stephen M Walt warns in Foreign Policy that ‘America is Wide Open for Foreign Influence’. Walt argues that although the US may have the most expensive defences in the world, its political system is uniquely open to abuse by foreign agency. Among the examples is the MEK which pays speakers fees to gain influence as well as hiring public relations and lobbyists to promote them (as well as clean up their image). Walt concludes: “Foreign policy is not a philanthropic activity, and even close allies think first and foremost about self-interest, which sometimes means trying to bamboozle the United States into doing what they want, even at some cost to Americans. If the United States is spending all this money securing the borders, leaving the national mind unlocked and ripe for manipulation is a tad short-sighted.”

++ Kim Sengupta in The Independent mentions MEK in an analysis of the tit for tat terror branding between Iran and the US. Sengupta argues that this bolsters the hardliners in Iran at the expense of the reformists. But the focus is on Trump who “is now very much in confrontation with his security and diplomatic establishment” encouraged by Bolton, Pompeo, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Bolton notorious for supporting MEK of course. By forensically linking Trump through his daughter’s business dealings with a corrupt Azerbaijani businessman to a family “ three of whose members were directly associated with the IRGC”, Sengupta concludes that if there is regime change in Iran, “the likelihood is that it will be the hardliners taking over, not a pleasant scenario for the Iranian people or the outside world”.

++ Former MEK member Hassan Heyrani, who lives in Tirana, wrote a short blog piece about the MEK. He says the cult is trying to empty Albania of those who left MEK because their continued presence has a bad effect on the members. It encourages them to leave as well. MEK is prepared to spend 5000 euros per person to illegally smuggle them out of Albania to Greece where they are kept secretly until they can further be taken to western Europe.

++ Nejat Bloggers reported that Nejat Society members visited the Atabay family home in Gilan Province on the occasion of Nouruz. The family are active members of Nejat Society. The mother wants to know why Rajavi does not allow her son Hamid Mohammad to contact his family. They have petitioned international human rights bodies on several occasions to help them visit their beloved son.
April 12, 2019

April 13, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA double standards on terrorists
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

America Is Wide Open for Foreign Influence

If you’re an outsider with a political agenda, there’s no better country to target than the United States.

Ever since the Treaty of Westphalia, the idea of territorial sovereignty has been central to how most of us think about international politics and foreign policy. Although a huge amount of activity occurs across state borders, one of the chief tasks of any government is to defend the nation’s territory and make sure—to the extent it can—that outsiders are not in position to interfere in harmful ways. But for all the effort and expense devoted to keeping harmful influences out, sometimes countries wind up locking and bolting the windows while leaving the front door wide open.
Take the mighty United States, for example. It has a vast Department of Homeland Security, whose job is to defend its borders from international terrorism, illegal migration, drug smuggling, customs violations, and other dangers. The United States has intelligence agencies monitoring dangerous developments all over the world to keep them from harming Americans at home. It has spent trillions of dollars on a sophisticated nuclear arsenal designed to deter a hostile country from attacking the U.S. homeland directly, and it’s spent additional hundreds of billions of dollars pursuing the holy grail of missile defense. Americans now worry about cyberthreats of various kinds, including the possibility that foreign powers like Russia might be interfering in U.S. elections or sowing division and false information via social media. And then there’s President Donald Trump’s obsession with that southern wall, which he declares is necessary to keep the Republican base riled up—oops, sorry, I meant to say “is necessary to protect us from impoverished refugees or other undesirables.”
Given all the time, effort, and money the United States devotes to defending the realm against outside intrusions, it is ironic that the United States may also be the most permeable political system in modern history. More than any great power’s that I can think of, America’s political system is wide open to foreign interference in a variety of legitimate and illegitimate ways. I’m not talking about foreign bots infecting the national mind via social media—though that is a worrisome possibility. I’m talking about foreign governments or other interests that use a variety of familiar avenues to shape U.S. perceptions and persuade the U.S. government to do things that these outsiders want it to do, even when it might not be in America’s broader interest.
Suppose you were a foreign government, or perhaps an opposition movement challenging a foreign regime. Suppose further that you wanted to get America on your side, or maybe you just wanted to make sure that the United States didn’t use its considerable power against you. What avenues of influence are available to achieve your goal?
Obviously, you can use traditional diplomatic channels. You can tell your official representatives (ministers, ambassadors, consular officers, envoys, etc.) to meet with the relevant U.S. counterparts and plead your case. While they’re at it, your official representatives could also shmooz with other members of the executive branch and try to win them over too. There’s nothing remotely dodgy here; it’s just the usual workings of the normal diplomatic machinery. And sometimes that’s all you’ll need, especially when your interests and America’s interests really do coincide.
But you don’t have to stop there. For example, you could also take your case up to Capitol Hill. There are 435 representatives and 100 senators, and that’s an awful lot of potential points of access. Most of them don’t care a fig about foreign policy (and know even less), but some of them do care and a few of them have real clout. If you can win over a respected and well-placed representative or senator—or even just persuade one of their top aides—there’s a good chance a lot of the other lawmakers will follow their lead. Back in the 1950s, for example, Sen. William Knowland (R-Calif.) was often derided as the “Senator from Formosa” because of his consistent opposition to communist China and ardent support for Taiwan. More recently, Beltway denizen Randy Scheunemann was both a paid lobbyist for the government of Georgia and a top foreign-policy aide to the late Republican Sen. John McCain during his 2008 presidential campaign, which may help explain why the latter was such an ardent defender of Georgia during its 2008 war with Russia.
On top of that, there are plenty of politicians outside Congress who might be enlisted to your cause as well. Over the past decade or more, for example, Democrats including former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean and Republicans such as former New York mayor (and Trump apologist) Rudy Giuliani or current National Security Advisor John Bolton have spoken at rallies sponsored by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) an Iranian exile group that was listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department from 1997 to 2012. The MEK is despised within Iran for its past collaboration with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, but that didn’t prevent it from recruiting a wide array of prominent Americans to its side, many of whom received lucrative speakers’ fees. See how easy this is?
But wait, there’s more! Foreign governments, corporations, and opposition movements can also hire public relations firms and professional lobbyists to clean up their public image, lobby politicians directly, and try to get influential Americans to see them as valuable partners. In his amusing but disturbing book Turkmeniscam: How Washington Lobbyists Fought to Flack for a Stalinist Dictatorship, the journalist Ken Silverstein showed how eager D.C. PR firms were to serve as the paid agents of a ruthless Central Asian dictator, along with the various ways that savvy spin doctors can scrub a despot’s reputation and get them access to influential people in Washington. The sad news is that Silverstein’s saga is far from atypical.
And don’t forget the rest of the Blob. In recent years, for example, we’ve learned that several prominent D.C. think tanks took millions of dollars from foreign governments eager to enhance their visibility, presence, and influence in Washington. The receiving organizations predictably denied that the money had the slightest influence on what they did, said, wrote, or believed, but former employees tell a different story. And yes, I know: Universities are not immune to temptation either.
The influence of self-interested foreigners increases even more when they can partner with domestic groups that share their objectives, and that will use their testimony to sell whatever course of action they are trying to promote. The most notorious recent example of this phenomenon was the infamous Iraqi schemer Ahmed Chalabi, who joined forces with American neoconservatives to help sell the Iraq War in 2003. Foreign voices like Chalabi’s often exercise disproportionate influence because they are (falsely) perceived as objective experts with extensive local knowledge, making uninformed, gullible, or mendacious Americans more likely to heed their advice. It is usually a good idea to listen to what foreign witnesses have to say about conditions far away provided that one never forgets that they may be telling Americans what they think they want to hear or feeding Americans false information designed to advance their interests at America’s expense.

Notice I haven’t said a word about espionage, bribery, or more ordinary forms of corruption, though each can be another way for foreign powers to advance their aims inside America’s borders. After all, when the U.S. president continues to defy the emoluments clause of the Constitution, and when his son-in-law and White House advisor is still financially connected to a real estate firm that recently got bailed out by a Qatari-backed investment company, one may legitimately wonder whether key foreign-policy decisions are being influenced by the personal financial interests of the president or his entourage. Trademarks in China, anyone?

By Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy

April 11, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Netanyahu and Maryam Rajavi thank Trump for accepting their request

On the Eve of Israel’s Election, Netanyahu Thanks Trump for Sanctioning Iran at His Request

ON THE EVE of Israel’s election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took credit for President Donald Trump’s decision to impose sanctions on Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, by designating it a foreign terrorist organization.
“Thank you, my dear friend, President Donald Trump,” Netanyahu tweeted in Hebrew, “for answering another one of my important requests.”
As the Telegraph correspondent Raf Sanchez noted, Netanyahu’s choice of words seemed to imply that Trump’s earlier decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, Syrian territory Israel seized by force in 1967, was also a gift given at the request of the embattled Israeli prime minister.
Netanyahu is taking credit for Trump’s decision to designate the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. “Thank you for responding to another important request of mine,” Bibi says.
He got the Golan 2 weeks ago and now this 1 day before Israel’s election. https://t.co/PAvX22o4Y5
— Raf Sanchez (@rafsanchez) April 8, 2019
One day before Israelis go to the polls, Netanyahu is pulling out all the stops, since he faces both an immediate electoral challenge from Israel’s former military Chief of Staff, Benny Gantz, and the prospect of a post-election indictment on corruption charges.
Joe Dyke, an Agence France-Presse correspondent, pointed out that Netanyahu omitted the claim that Trump’s move was made at his request in a subsequent tweet in English. That left the prime minister open to the charge often leveled at Palestinian leaders by Israelis, that they placate the international community in English and then say something quite different for domestic consumption in their native tongue.
File this one away for the next time an Israeli official says “The Palestinians say one thing in English and another in Arabic” https://t.co/1OjAtWKGCH
— Joe (@joedyke) April 8, 2019
Trump is popular with Israel’s right-leaning, nationalist electorate for a string of concessions to Israeli claims, including the de facto recognition of Israel’s illegal annexation of occupied East Jerusalem as well as the Golan Heights. Netanyahu’s warm relations with the American president have featured heavily in his re-election campaign.
נתניהו – ימין. חזק. pic.twitter.com/Yqj1qkYKHH
— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) March 6, 2019
On Sunday, Netanyahu also shared a segment from Fox News in which Sean Hannity called Gantz “his crazy opponent,” for suggesting that Trump was meddling in Israel’s election.
צפו בקטע מתוך תוכנית החדשות הנצפית ביותר בארה״ב.
יועצו הקרוב של נשיא ארה״ב דונלד טראמפ, רודי ג׳וליאני, תוקף את גנץ על כך שתקף את הנשיא טראמפ על שהכיר בריבונות ישראל ברמת הגולן. pic.twitter.com/q1lTu7oPjB
— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) April 7, 2019
Soon after Trump’s decision to sanction the Revolutionary Guard Corps was announced, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, tweetedthat Trump’s action was the result of lobbying by “Netanyahu Firsters,” including John Bolton, who made paid speeches advocating regime change in Iran before he became the national security adviser, and Sheldon Adelson, a financial supporter of both the American president and the Israeli prime minister who once suggested a nuclear strike on Iran would be the best way to start negotiations.

It was, Zarif added, another “misguided election-eve gift to Netanyahu.”
A(nother) misguided election-eve gift to Netanyahu. A(nother) dangerous U.S. misadventure in the region.
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) April 8, 2019

After Netanyahu’s Hebrew-language tweet taking credit for the decision, Zarif tweeted a screenshot of a report from the Israeli press with the letters “Q.E.D.” a Latin phrase used at the end of a mathematical proof, indicating that the truth of a proposition has been demonstrated.
#NetanyahuFirsters who have long agitated for FTO designation of the IRGC fully understand its consequences for US forces in the region. In fact, they seek to drag US into a quagmire on his behalf.@realDonaldTrump should know better than to be conned into another US disaster. pic.twitter.com/i4bcfgxybT
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) April 7, 2019
Senior Pentagon and C.I.A. officials opposed Trump’s decision to impose sanctions on the military unit and affiliated companies and individuals, arguing that it would “allow hard-line Iranian officials to justify deadly operations against Americans overseas,” The New York Times reported. Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council, offered this as proof that Netanyahu now seems to have more sway over the president’s decisions than his own military and intelligence officials.

Once again, Trump dismisses American military and intelligence officials, and instead listens to Netanyahu and Saudi crown Prince MBS. #IRGC https://t.co/6jwPPCfjF8
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) April 8, 2019

Maryam Rajavi, the leader of an Iranian exile group known as the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or People’s Mujahedeen — which successfully lobbied to be removed from the official State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations with the help of paid supporters like Bolton — also took credit for the new sanctions against the Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The terrorist designation of the repressive Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been the enduring and the righteous demand of the Iranian people and Resistance and an imperative for regional and global peace and security. #Iran #BlackListIRGC
— Maryam Rajavi (@Maryam_Rajavi) April 8, 2019
Iran retaliated, as the BBC Persian correspondent Bahman Kalbasi noted, by designating The United States Central Command a terrorist organization and naming the U.S. government a supporter of terrorism.
Iran Supreme National Security Council has issued a statement saying it now considers CENTCOM and all the groups affiliated with it as a “terrorist organization” and US Gov. as a supporter of terrorism….good day for warmongers in DC, Tehran, Tel Aviv, as well as UAE/Saudi. https://t.co/vxtWVlZtW7
— Bahman Kalbasi (@BahmanKalbasi) April 8, 2019

Robert Mackey, The Intercept,

April 10, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Hamid Mohamamd Atabay family
Mujahedin Khalq Organization members' families

Help me to see my dear son once more

Nejat Society members who went to Atabay home on the occasion of Nowruz were warmly welcomed by the family.

Hamd Mohammad Atabay family

Atabay family are among active families of Nejat Society, Gilan branch.
The ailing, aged mother of the family whose son is captivated by the cult of Rajavis for long years asked about her dear Hamid Mohammad whereabouts. She asked why the cult leaders doesn’t allow her dear son to contact his family?!

Hamid Mohamamd Atabay family

Atabay family has several times petitioned to the international human rights bodies to help them visit their beloved son.

April 9, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Former members of the MEK

Well done Mr Prime Minister for holding an MEK grandfather hostage!

Mr Manoucher Abdi is an Iranian citizen, who many years ago became a part of the MEK (Mojahedin-e Khalq), a revolutionary, formerly terrorist, organization currently characterised as a cult. After many vicious conflicts with various powers in Iran (the Pahalvi monarchy and later the Islamic Republic of Iran) this organization was removed from the list of terrorist organizations. In 2013, in the last months of Berisha’s government, several hundred fighters from this organization came from Iraq, where they were accommodated as allies of the dictator Saddam Hussein in Albania with the official status of UN-protected persons. During the years of Prime Minister Rama several thousand members of this organization (from 2000 to 4000) came to Albania from Iraq, but also from other countries such as Bulgaria. The organization claims that from its Albanian base called Camp Ashraf 3 it continues to carry out a fierce fight against the legitimate government of Iran, which the MEK calls the mullah’s regime of Tehran. Several dozen MEK members have deserted the ranks of the organization citing the case that Rama’s government supports MEK, the cult of Madam Rajavi which supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq. These frustrated, disenchanted MEK survivors continue to live in Albania and the UNCHR pays some money for their survival. Some of them, often financially supported by the MEK itself, have managed to leave Albania and illegally enter various EU countries.
One of the MEK defectors is Mr Abdi Manoucher, born in 1963. For Manoucher the ideals and aspirations of the MEK cult belong to the past. He simply wants to spend the remaining years of his life with his daughter, whom he has not seen for 15 years.
Despite Manoucher’s past, the Iranian authorities have officially stated that they will not hinder his return to his family home in Iran. We remind readers that in September 2013 PM Berisha in a meeting with the then Iranian ambassador in Tirana, Majid Mozafari, emphasized the fact that the Albanian government guarantees that any of them (Mojahedin), who have the full guarantee of the Iranian authorities and wants to return to his country, will face no obstacle from the Albanian authorities. (more can be consulted link: http://arkiva.km.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=neës&lid=18617).
Berisha’s successor, the current Prime Minister Edwin Rama, is doing exactly the opposite. The Albanian authorities are hindering Manoucher’s return to the bosom of his family in Iran. Despite his repeated requests, Manoucher is prevented from returning to his homeland just to fulfil a whim of Maryam Rajavi, leader of the MEK cult organization. To this arbitrariness of the Albanian government, Manoucher has responded with the only tool that he has: a hunger strike. With a letter to the UNHCR, the Foreign Ministry of Albania, the Albanian Interior Ministry and Prime Minister Rama on 1 April 2019 he has informed them of his decision to start a hunger strike in order to persuade the Albanian government to allow him to return to his family home in Iran.
Such a servile attitude of the Rama Government towards Madam Rajavi goes well beyond the servile positions of the Libohiva quisling government versus Jacomoni, the Emperor King Vittorio Emanuele III. Albania was then a country occupied by fascism, and today it is a free, sovereign country, a NATO member and an aspirant for EU membership, but unfortunately with a prime minister, both myopic and servile.

Counterproductive action of Rama Government
Holding the grandfather Abdi (Manoucher) hostage in Albania is not only a cowardly and disgusting act by Rama’s government against a stateless man on behalf of Madam Rajavi, but is also completely counterproductive and with negative consequences for the Rama Government.
I hope that Mrs Fu-Fu, who covers public relations for the prime minister, will explain to Prime Minister Edvin what a “debacle” regarding public relations it will be for the Albanian Government as Abdi’s hunger strike, among other things, is reflected in foreign and world media, starting with the Danish Dagens Naeringsliv, France’s Le Monde, Italy’s RAI and the US’s Wall Street Journal.
Prime Minister Edwin must also be aware that unlimited servility towards Madam Rajavi will not be enough for the well-paid lobbyists of these stateless people’s efforts to get Mr Rama a 3-4 minute meeting with President Trump at the Oval Office. Such a “coup de main” at the height of the electoral campaign will simply remain a pipe dream which does not even have the slightest chance of becoming reality.
In my article I am not appealing to the human feelings of my country’s prime minister, but merely his sound judgment. Keeping an Iranian grandfather hostage in Albania will not bring any benefit to the prime minister but will be a source of endless trouble in the field of public relations. I humbly remind Mr Edvin that the words of MP Majko or ex-professor Klosi, Grida, Salianji & Co, that do not even go down the toilet, make his own cruel decisions for grandfather Abdi bad news for Prime Minister Edvin!
Gjergji Thanasi, Gazeta Impact, Translated by Iran Interlink

April 7, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
weekly digest
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 255

++ There was a lot written about the devastating floods in Iran this week and how the MEK are misusing the crisis. Sara Zahiri of the Farsi NITV News site (Canadian/American-Iranians) quotes some of this commentary, including Massoud Khodabandeh, which is saying that Maryam Rajavi is effectively asking people to take up arms and fight their rescuers. This, say some, is probably the biggest gaffe she has given in recent years as she is asking flood victims to fight to repel the armoured vehicles come to rescue them. Zahiri compares this to their behaviour when they worked for Saddam Hussein. For the MEK, everything has to come back to violence and terrorism, they can’t do without it.

++ On the anniversary of the attack on Camp Ashraf in 2011, former members have written their memories of how Rajavi tried to get people killed; sending them against the Iraqi police and soldiers with false pretences – without arms etc. Those people were killed only because Rajavi wanted more money from the Americans. It was already clear by then they would have to evacuate the camp and go to a third country.

++ Hassan Raahi, an MEK veteran from the time of the shah, had an interview with Cheshmandaz-e Iran publication belonging to the famous Lotfollah Maysami (also a former MEK veteran). Raahi talked about Massoud Rajavi’s mentality. He mentioned every detail about him. For example, how when he was in prison, Rajavi tried a few times to become the MEK leader, but those still alive then knew him very well and prevented it. How Rajavi managed, after the Revolution, to exploit the chaos and take over and destroy the original MEK. How he went to France then Iraq etc and derailed the organization.

In English:

++ A blog by Ali Alavi examined some of Maryam Rajavi’s stances – along with that of other ‘instant experts’ – over the floods. Interestingly according to Alavi, Rajavi didn’t know what to do and had to take instruction from Massoud Khodabandeh’s criticisms to finally make some pretence at helping. But even this was ‘churning out breath-taking lies’ rather than real help. Rajavi advised flood victims to resist their rescuers. She claimed that MEK ‘Resistance Units’ were helping, but all they could do was print and hand out leaflets “instructing people to come to their own aid!”

++ Stephanie Baker in Bloomberg examines ‘Where Rudi Giuliani’s money comes from – While he represents the president for free, he travels the world consulting, giving speeches, and building his brand’. In a long and detailed article, Baker reveals that from Ukrainians, Chechens, the Polish, Brazilians, Columbians and of course the MEK, Giuliani doesn’t hesitate to take money for consultation and speeches advocating foreign interests while wielding unchecked influence with the POTUS.

++ Albanian investigative journalist Gjergji Thanasi writes in Gazeta Impakt to advise PM Rama against servility and myopia in relation to Maryam Rajavi. Thanasi speaks about former MEK member Manoucher Abdi who is a grandfather and wants to return to his family in Iran. The Albanian government is hindering his efforts so that Abdi has started a hunger strike in protest. This will reflect badly in foreign and world media, says Thanasi, starting with the Danish Dagens Naeringsliv, France’s Le Monde, Italy’s RAI and the US’s Wall Street Journal. He concludes “In my article I am not appealing to the human feelings of my country’s prime minister, but merely his sound judgment. Keeping an Iranian grandfather hostage in Albania will not bring any benefit to the prime minister but will be a source of endless trouble in the field of public relations.”
April 05, 2019

April 7, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Rudy Giuliani
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Where Rudy Giuliani’s Money Comes From

While he represents the president for free, he travels the world consulting, giving speeches, and building his brand.
When Rudy Giuliani traveled to Ukraine’s second-biggest city, Kharkiv, in November 2017 to advise the mayor, an unconventional scene awaited him. In an anteroom outside the mayor’s office, his pet parrot, Johnny, perched in a large metal cage. Giuliani doesn’t speak Russian, so Johnny’s standard squawk to visitors—“Privet!” (Russian for “hello”)—was perhaps lost on him. But the mayor’s security precautions certainly were not.
An armed policeman in a bulletproof vest guarded the anteroom, where a motley collection of visitors waited with Johnny to see the mayor, Hennadiy Kernes, who’s ruled over this city less than an hour from the Russian border for the past nine years. Beyond the bird lay another waiting area with bodyguards, all with the blunt, ex-mixed-martial-artist look common to the profession in the former Soviet Union. Inside the mayor’s office were a large lion and a small lynx, stuffed.
“I’m not surprised by heavy-duty security anywhere,” Giuliani said when I asked him recently what he thought of the bodyguards around Kernes. “I do a lot of work in dangerous places.” Giuliani said he was in the country, for his second visit in less than a year, as a private citizen to advise Kharkiv on security. But he was also serving at the time as President Trump’s cybersecurity adviser, and Ukrainian TV headlined it as a “visit by Trump’s adviser.” On both visits, Giuliani met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who’s now fighting an uphill battle for reelection.
On a freezing January day, I visited Mayor Kernes, 59, in his office while a Russian soap opera played on a large TV. He’s been in a wheelchair since April 2014, when an unknown hit man shot him while he was jogging near the forest on the city’s outskirts. Before the assassination attempt, the mayor maintained an active Instagram account on which he posted photos of himself flashing his expensive watches, traveling on private jets, and meeting with Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin who was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2017 for “extrajudicial killing, torture, and other gross violations” of human rights. Kernes himself was a close ally of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was forced from the country by the Maidan Revolution in February 2014 and fled to Russia.
Speaking in a gravelly voice, Kernes explained that he’d wanted to tap Giuliani’s vast experience. Giuliani advised him to create an emergency service akin to 911. “Giuliani met with President Poroshenko, and with the support of the president we decided to go ahead,” he said, sipping tea.
The story of how Giuliani ended up advising a mayor in eastern Ukraine is a tangled one. Kernes wasn’t paying Giuliani; instead, his one-year contract, the value of which no one involved will discuss, was funded mostly by a Ukrainian-Russian minigarch named Pavel Fuks, who moved back to Ukraine in 2015 after about 20 years in Moscow, where he made a fortune in real estate and banking. In the mid-2000s, Fuks had held talks with Trump about building a Trump Tower Moscow, but they couldn’t agree on a deal.
I visited Fuks in Kiev, where he, too, had armed bodyguards outside his office door. A 47-year-old Kharkiv native who’s been friends with Kernes for 30 years, Fuks said he’d hired Giuliani to give back to his hometown. “Giuliani’s company provides lobbying services, and they are very strong in security,” he said. “He’s a star.”
The Ukrainian gig is one slice of a globe-trotting consulting business Giuliani has continued to pursue while serving first as a key campaign surrogate for Trump, then as his cybersecurity adviser, and finally as his personal lawyerduring special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Now that Attorney General William Barr has reported that Mueller didn’t find Trump’s campaign to have knowingly conspired with the Russian government and didn’t draw a conclusion on whether the president had obstructed justice, Giuliani is taking a victory lap. His success in shielding Trump from an in-person interview with Mueller may have helped the president steer clear of an obstruction charge, an accomplishment that could make Giuliani’s currency as a consultant even more valuable around the world.
Long lauded as the prosecutor who skewered the New York Mafia and once known as “America’s mayor” for leading New York after Sept. 11, Giuliani is still courting clients for security contracts such as the one in Kharkiv. He’s made millions of dollars while acting as Trump’s unpaid consigliere—$9.5 million in 2017 and $5 million in 2018, according to disclosures from his ongoing divorce proceedings with his third wife, Judith Nathan. At the age of 74, Giuliani has eschewed a quiet retirement in favor of life in the limelight. “If I retired, I would shrivel up,” he said. “What I do is enormously exciting.” In addition to Ukraine, in the past two years he’s given speeches and done consulting and legal work in Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Colombia, Turkey, and Uruguay, among other countries.
Much about the Trump presidency is unprecedented, but Giuliani’s role is particularly unusual. His work abroad led seven Democratic senators in September to request that the U.S. Department of Justice review whether he should be disclosing his activities under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires registration by individuals and organizations acting as agents of foreign principals “in a political or quasi political capacity.” FARA was rarely a hot topic until 2017, when Mueller indicted former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates for failing to register as foreign agents as required.
“As President Trump’s personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani communicates in private with the president and his senior staff on a regular basis,” the senators wrote to the Justice Department. “Without further review, it is impossible to know whether Mr. Giuliani is lobbying U.S. government officials on behalf of foreign clients.”
Giuliani has consistently denied lobbying U.S. officials on behalf of Ukraine or any other foreign government. He told me that most of his work has been in the form of consulting within foreign countries, which FARA experts say typically wouldn’t trigger an obligation to file as a foreign agent. “Most of our contracts involve giving a state within the national government a security plan to reduce crime, investigate terrorism, secure critical infrastructure,” he said. In Ukraine, he said, he advised only on security issues, not on how to promote Kharkiv’s interests in the U.S.
“If I retired, I would shrivel up. What I do is enormously exciting”
When I first called Giuliani in mid-February, he said over a crackling line that he was at a Warsaw conference on Iran, a U.S. government-led summit at which Trump administration officials urged European allies to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. It was the first of two phone calls; in both, Giuliani said he had five minutes, then spoke for almost 45. His still-sharp mind and natural argumentativeness were evident, but he also misstated the dates of his many recent foreign trips.
Giuliani said he’d come to Poland to give a speech about Iran, and he defended his dual roles working closely for Trump and foreign clients, noting that he spells out in his contracts with those clients that he doesn’t lobby the U.S. government. “There’s no conflict. What’s the conflict?” he said. “I don’t ask the president for anything for them ever. I’ve never represented them in front of the U.S. government. I don’t peddle influence. I don’t have to. I make a good deal of money as a lawyer and as a security consultant.”
The question of conflict arises, in part, because Giuliani keeps popping up in world capitals to make pronouncements that dovetail with Trump’s foreign policy positions. While in Warsaw, just outside the official Iran conference, he spoke at a rally organized by the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a political front controlled by the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, which has agitated for regime change in Tehran. It was a cold and gray day when Giuliani, his trademark U.S.-flag pin affixed to his lapel, stood at a podium in front of hundreds of people waving Iranian flags. “In order to have peace and stability in the Middle East, there has to be a major change in the theocratic dictatorship in Iran,” he said. “It must end and end quickly.”

Giuliani told me he’s worked with the MEK since 2008. At the time, the U.S. Department of State designated the group a foreign terrorist organization, describing it as “cultlike” and saying members were forced to take a vow of “eternal divorce” and participate in weekly “ideological cleansings.” When the State Department revoked the designation in 2012, it nevertheless expressed serious concerns about the organization, “particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its members.”

Giuliani isn’t alone in stumping for the organization. The MEK has a history of enlisting prominent American politicians on both sides of the aisle, including national security adviser John Bolton—and paying $20,000 or much more for a brief appearance. Giuliani’s advocacy has been quite open. In January 2017 he joined almost two dozen other former U.S. officials in writing a letter to the president urging him to open “dialogue” with the NCRI. After he became Trump’s personal lawyer in April 2018, Giuliani gave speeches at several MEK events, including a Paris rally during which the French security services foiled a bomb plot they blamed on Iranian intelligence. Giuliani appears to revel in his rock-star status at the group’s events. At the 2018 Iran Uprising Summit at a hotel in Manhattan’s Times Square in September, MEK supporters greeted Giuliani with a standing ovation and whoops and whistles. “I hope I say enough offensive things so they put me on that list to kill me, if I’m not already there,” he said to laughter. His speeches railing against Iran echo Trump’s hard-line stance on Tehran but go further by explicitly calling for the regime’s ouster.

“It’s wildly inappropriate for Giuliani to continue to openly associate with” the MEK, says Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution. “Those who have any association with them really can’t claim ignorance of how bizarre and cultlike the group is. This is one of those cases that in any other administration, Republican or Democrat, it would be a front-page scandal.”

His anti-Iran rhetoric didn’t stop him from working for Reza Zarrab, the man accused of orchestrating a $1 billion money laundering scheme to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions
Dan Pickard, a partner and FARA specialist at the Washington law firm Wiley Rein LLP, declines to discuss Giuliani specifically, but he says that if someone is paid by a foreign political group to give a speech in the U.S. to influence policy, he should file as a foreign agent. “FARA is so much broader than just lobbying,” he says. Giuliani told me he’s getting paid not by the MEK but rather by an American organization of Iranian dissidents. Is it the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, which is allied with the MEK, I asked? “I can’t remember the exact name,” Giuliani said. He dismissed concerns about FARA, saying, “It’s no different than if you did work for an American Jewish group that has strong views on Israel.”
His anti-Iran rhetoric didn’t stop him from working for Reza Zarrab, the man accused of orchestrating a $1 billion money laundering scheme to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions. In February 2017, while acting as Trump’s cybersecurity adviser, Giuliani traveled to Turkey to meet President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in hopes of resolving Zarrab’s case. A Turkish-Iranian gold trader, Zarrab had been arrested in the U.S. and accused of helping Iran dodge U.S. sanctions by processing hundreds of millions of dollars through his network of companies. At the time, there was dismay in Turkey over Trump’s Muslim travel ban, and Giuliani had recently told Fox News he’d advised on the policy during the president’s campaign. Giuliani said he tried to negotiate a deal for Zarrab to return to Turkey as part of a prisoner swap. It didn’t work. Instead, Zarrab pleaded guilty to money laundering, bribery, and sanctions violations and became a U.S. government witness against a banker in the case. He hasn’t been sentenced, and it’s unclear if he remains in federal custody.
Giuliani’s role shocked many, including U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, who oversaw the Zarrab case. “I knew the old Rudy,” says Berman, who was appointed by Giuliani as a family court judge in 1995. “There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect between the old Rudy and the new Rudy.” In an interview with Courthouse News in June, Berman went further: “I am still stunned by the fact that Rudy was hired to be—and he very actively pursued being—the ‘go-between’ between President Trump and Turkey’s President Erdogan in an unprecedented effort to terminate this federal criminal case.”
Lawyers are usually exempt from requirements to file as a foreign agent, but that exemption may not apply in this case, according to Ben Freeman, who studies influence operations at the Center for International Policy in Washington. “There’s an exemption for lawyers, but none of their activities can go outside of the courtroom,” he says. “Once you do something FARA would constitute as a political activity, just one thing, that would prevent you from being able to claim that exemption.” Berman says Giuliani never stepped foot into the courtroom during the sanctions case.
Sounding like an annoyed prosecutor, Giuliani disputed that interpretation of the law. “I didn’t represent the Turkish government,” he said. “I represented a single individual who was in jail, and he wanted to see if he could get a prisoner exchange with the Turkish government.”
Giuliani markets himself globally as the supercop who reduced crime in New York City using the “broken windows” strategy, which pursued crackdowns on minor offenses to prevent bigger ones. Crime rates did drop dramatically in the city while he was mayor, though the cause remains hotly debated; some experts attribute it as much to the economic boom of the 1990s and to a fall in unemployment. During his time as mayor, Giuliani was also heavily criticized for police brutality and the shootings of unarmed black men, a record that was largely forgotten when he emerged from the wreckage of the Twin Towers to speak for the city and was applauded worldwide for his composure and courage.
Once his second term as mayor ended, Giuliani sought to quickly capitalize on his fame. Early in 2001, during divorce proceedings with his second wife, Donna Hanover, Giuliani’s lawyer claimed his client had just $7,000 to his name. Giuliani did, however, have a $3 million book deal. He went on to set up a series of companies: Giuliani Partners LLC, a management consulting firm for governments and businesses; Giuliani Security & Safety LLC, another consulting business, this one focused on law and order; and Giuliani Capital Advisors LLC, an investment bank (which he sold to Macquarie Group Ltd. in 2007). As private firms, they don’t have to disclose how much they earn.
Within a few years, Giuliani had made many more millions. In 2002, Mexico City agreed to pay him $4.3 million for his advice on fighting crime. In 2004 he traveled for the first time to Ukraine. He also visited Russia, where he met with Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov; it’s unclear if Giuliani was paid for the visit or who financed the trip. He was also on the speaking circuit, routinely pulling in $100,000 to $200,000 per speech. When he made a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2007, he reported earning more than $11 million in speaking fees alone in the preceding year and a half, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Giuliani lost the nomination and returned to his peripatetic life as a consultant and after-dinner speaker. “Since the day I left being mayor, I’ve given over 1,000 speeches,” he told me. “I’ve been in at least 80 countries. Giuliani Security & Safety has worked in 30 different countries, probably three, four different ones per year.”
He’s convinced dozens of clients around the world, from small-town mayors to presidents, that what worked in New York can work anywhere. In Brazil, for example, the state of Amazonas signed a $1.6 million contract with Giuliani Security & Safety in February 2018 to improve border security and policing. (The arrangement is now under investigation by local prosecutors. John Huvane, chief executive officer of Giuliani Security & Safety, says the probe isn’t targeting the firm: “They’re investigating the Brazilian process for picking us.”) In Colombia, where Giuliani said he’s probably done the most consulting on security, his firm signed a five-month, $295,000 contract in 2015 to help police design a crime-reduction strategy in Medellín called puntos calientes (“hot spots”). Huvane says the plan reduced crime in Medellín by 42 percent while the company was on the job, though the homicide rate has worsened since it left. Luis Felipe Davila, a security researcher based in Medellín, says Giuliani Security & Safety didn’t address the structural issues behind the city’s crime.
Giuliani’s consulting has given him access to a unique network of global politicians, some of whom sought his advice when Trump won the presidency. He’s kept close ties with Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s president when Trump was elected, which may have come in handy when the Colombian government was looking for guidance on what to expect from the new administration. In November 2016, two days after the presidential election, Giuliani spoke with Santos and assured him that Trump was committed to maintaining aid levels set by President Obama, according to a person familiar with the conversation. On Nov. 11, Santos tweeted, “I spoke with President-elect Donald Trump. We agreed to strengthen the special and strategic relationship between Colombia and the United States.” Giuliani has returned to Colombia at least once since Trump became president, delivering the keynote address at a security conference in Medellín in December 2017.
Giuliani said he doesn’t recall talking about Trump with Santos, who stepped down in August. “I probably have assured them at various times that our government is supportive,” he said. “I have never done anything to help Colombia with the U.S. government formally or informally.”
Giuliani’s foreign clients may be more necessary than ever. When he started working as Trump’s lawyer in April 2018, he agreed to do so for free. Within weeks he’d resigned from the law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, which he joined in 2016 as global chair of its cybersecurity and crisis-management practice—a position that provided him from $4 million to $6 million in annual income, according to his divorce proceedings. And Giuliani lives well. At a court hearing in November, a divorce lawyer for Nathan said the former mayor spent $12,000 on cigars and $7,000 on fountain pens over five months. Giuliani and his future ex-wife calculated their personal monthly expenses at about $230,000 each. Their bitterness erupted into the open during a March hearing at which they squabbled over how to share a house they own in the Hamptons, and the judge told them to stay away from each other at a Florida golf club where both are members.
As Trump’s personal lawyer, Giuliani has sometimes given cable-TV interviews sprinkled with contradictions that have often left viewers baffled. When he was asked on NBC’s Meet the Press in August why Trump shouldn’t agree to be interviewed by Mueller, Giuliani said the president risked falling into a perjury trap even if he told the truth. In an exchange that may go down as one of the Trump era’s most memorable, Chuck Todd, the host, responded, “Truth is truth.” To which Giuliani replied: “Truth isn’t truth.”
To Giuliani’s admirers, Barr’s summaryof the Mueller report makes any missteps immaterial. “He’s as smart and quick as he was 25 years ago,” says Jon Sale, a former assistant special Watergate prosecutor who went to law school with Giuliani. “Most of the time you judge a lawyer’s performance by the result. In this case the result was a home run.”
Giuliani and Trump have known each other since the late 1980s. Trump supported him during his various political campaigns, and they were close enough that in 2000, as part of an annual parody show, Giuliani dressed in drag in a skit with the future president. A video clip shows Trump nuzzling Giuliani’s bosom as the mayor exclaims, “Oh, you dirty boy, you!” After Giuliani endorsed Trump in April 2016, he became a frequent campaign surrogate and one of the few people to defend the candidate after the leak of a recording in which Trump bragged about grabbing women by the genitals. Giuliani’s son, Andrew, who now works in the White House office of public liaison, “considers Trump an uncle,” Giuliani told me. Many people expected Giuliani to take a plum post in the administration, but he said he bowed out early from any cabinet positions. He denied that his foreign work had complicated his prospects of becoming secretary of state. “My soon-to-be ex-wife didn’t want me to do it, because of the significant reduction in pay,” he said.
As it is, Giuliani’s consulting work has often left him sounding like a wannabe secretary, sometimes creating headaches for the State Department. Just a few days after his “truth isn’t truth” declaration, Giuliani penned a letter to Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, warning that the country’s battle against corruption had gone too far. Giuliani said he was paid to write the letter at the request of Louis Freeh, a former director of the FBI. Freeh represents Gabriel Popoviciu, a Romanian American real estate investor convicted in 2016 over a land deal and sentenced to seven years in prison. Giuliani’s letter didn’t mention Popoviciu by name, but Freeh issued a statement in 2017 saying the conviction wasn’t supported by “either the facts or the law.”
“I got paid by Louis Freeh, not by anybody else,” Giuliani said. “It was all directed to the Romanian government, not the U.S. government. Therefore, it doesn’t require any foreign agent representation. I was working as a subcontractor.”
Was he concerned his letter might be perceived as a message from the White House, given his other hat as Trump’s lawyer? “Of course it wasn’t,” Giuliani said. “I am not his White House counsel.” The State Department distanced itselffrom Giuliani’s actions: The U.S. Embassy in Bucharest issued a statement saying it “doesn’t comment on the opinions or conclusions of an individual American citizen” and reaffirmed its support for Romania’s fight against corruption. Freeh declined to comment for this story.
In October, while representing Trump in the Russia probe, Giuliani gave a speech at a conference in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, organized with the support of the Armenian government and the Eurasian Economic Commission, which brings together Russia and four other former Soviet countries and is broadly seen as Putin’s attempt to reassert Moscow’s influence. Giuliani spoke about cybersecurity right after speeches by Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Anton Siluanov and Sergei Glazyev, a Kremlin adviser the U.S. sanctioned for his role in Russia’s annexation of Crimea and subsequent conflict with Ukraine.
Giuliani said he never met Glazyev at the conference and wasn’t concerned about attending the event alongside a sanctioned Russian official. “I didn’t know who he was. I found out afterwards,” he said, declining to say how much he was paid for the speech or who paid him. “I got up, gave my speech, and walked out.”
Giuliani’s ties to Ukraine go back more than a decade. In 2008 he advised Vitali Klitschko, a former boxing champion who was campaigning for mayor of Kiev, on what lessons the city could draw from New York. Giuliani described Klitschko, who won the office on his third try, in 2014, as a friend. In June 2017, Giuliani was paid by another prominent Ukrainian, billionaire Victor Pinchuk, to speak at a conference in Kiev, much to the annoyance of fellow oligarch Fuks, who thought his deal with Giuliani was exclusive. For his lecture, titled “Global Challenges, the Role of the U.S., and the Place of Ukraine,” Giuliani argued before more than 600 people that U.S. foreign policy should be focused on making sure the Ukrainian government regains control over the east from Russian separatists. On the same trip he met with the Ukrainian president, prime minister, foreign minister, and prosecutor general. “I didn’t advise them” on anything, Giuliani told me, declining to comment on his lecture fee. “It was nothing to do with President Trump.”
Less than two weeks later, Poroshenko traveled to Washington and sat down in the Oval Office for what the White House described as a brief “drop-in” ahead of Trump’s meeting with Putin the next month at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg. A White House transcript said the two discussed “support for the peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine.” (Giuliani said he had nothing to do with setting up the encounter.)
At the time, Trump’s views on Ukraine and its war with Russia were unclear. He’d spent much of the campaign and early months in office sounding conciliatory toward the Kremlin, a prospect that had many Ukrainian politicians worried Trump might side with Russia—and especially that he might lift sanctions on their adversary, mindful of Poroshenko’s perceived support for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton leading up to the election. These fears had prompted outreach by Ukrainian politicians and businessmen; just prior to the inauguration, the Ukrainian government signed a $600,000 contract with the BGR Group, a Washington lobbying firm founded by prominent Republicans.
Fuks also traveled to D.C. to attend events around the inauguration. He didn’t meet the president. A few months later, Fuks signed the contract with Giuliani to advise Kernes. Giuliani said he’d met Fuks twice in New York before seeing him again in Kharkiv, but he expressed surprise when I told him Fuks had met with Trump several times in the mid-2000s to discuss a Trump Tower Moscow deal.
When I met Fuks at his dark-panneled office in central Kiev, he talked expansively about his work with Giuliani but wouldn’t say how much he’d paid him. He dismissed a local press report that Giuliani received $400,000 just to give a speech during the trip. Everyone involved has a different understanding of Giuliani’s role. Fuks recalled talking to Giuliani about relations between the U.S. and Ukraine: “He said, ‘Ukraine is our partner, we will help.’ He has a very positive attitude toward Ukraine, so he undertook to lobby for us.”
“I got clients before I represented President Trump, and I’m gonna get clients afterwards”
Giuliani is adamant he doesn’t lobby. He explained that Fuks and Kernes wanted his advice because “they had been invaded by allegedly Russians and were afraid they’d be invaded again.” Fuks and Kernes said nothing to me about the Russia threat prompting their interest in bringing Giuliani to Kharkiv, and in fact Kernes faced allegations of siding with pro-Russia separatists during the Maidan Revolution—Ukrainian prosecutors questioned him about reports that he kidnapped and beat up anti-Russian activists. Kernes said his political enemies had cooked up the allegations, and criminal proceedings were dropped in 2018 after local prosecutors failed to pursue the case. After the questioning, he stopped supporting Yanukovych and backed Poroshenko, who won the presidency later that year.
Kernes is a wealthy man. He earns an official salary of about $32,000 a year as mayor, a position he’s held since 2010. Before then, he was president of a local refinery and a member of the city council for eight years. In recent mandatory filings he declared that he had almost $2 million in cash and had received $674,000 in dividends from an asset management company. He also reported owning shares in a local energy distributor and a bank. Despite his substantial influence in Kharkiv, and despite a lengthy report from Giuliani Security & Safety, the Kharkiv emergency service center remains unbuilt.
Transparency International calls Ukraine the most corrupt country in Europe after Russia, but Giuliani brushes off concerns about taking on clients there. “I do business honestly,” he said. “I’m doing the same things today as I was five years ago. They haven’t changed as a result of my representing the president.” Whatever he does next, whether it’s continuing as Trump’s personal lawyer or going back to full-time consulting, Giuliani is confident the business will continue to flow. “I got clients before I represented President Trump, and I’m gonna get clients afterwards,” he said. “After I stop representing him, I’ll be doing more work overseas, because I’ll have more time.” —With Daryna Krasnolutska, Ezra Fieser, Luiza Ferraz, Erik Larson, and Andrew Martin
Bloomberg, By Stephanie Baker

April 6, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
US Warmonger Hawks
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Hawks Clamoring to Attack Iran

As Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Saudi crown prince and de facto ruler Mohammad bin Salman clamor for a war against Iran, they seem to have conveniently forgotten the destruction and mayhem wrought by the American invasion of Iraq 16 years ago.
These war drummers are underestimating the potential negative consequences of the war and overestimating the Iranian people’s dislike of their theocratic regime. They, like the advocates of the Iraqi invasion in the winter of 2002 and early spring 2003, are confusing Iranians’ dislike of the ayatollahs with their potential embrace of a foreign invader.
On the eve of the Iraq war, former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the Vice President Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President David Addington all claimed that the Iraqi invasion aimed at liberating the country from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Removing Saddam from power, they maintained, would eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and bring stability, security, and democracy to Iraq.
As developments unfolded over the past 16 years, the “liberation” claims proved to be bogus. The invasion and the decision to de-Ba’athify Iraq and dissolve the Iraqi military created an environment conducive to sectarianism, insurgency, and terrorism. The vacuum that followed the regime collapse, the incompetence of the American administration in the “Green Zone,” and the pervasive corruption of the new Iraqi governing councils was quickly filled by pro-Iranian militias, al-Qaeda, and later the Islamic State. The promise of stability and security was replaced by chaos, bloodshed, and mayhem.
The massive destruction of Iraq and the horrendous human and material cost the American “liberation” caused for the country will be child’s play compared to what could happen if Trump and his Israeli and Saudi allies decide to attack Iran. Unlike Iraq—which the British cobbled together after World War One out of the Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds under a minority Sunni rule— Iran has been in existence for centuries with a vast territory and a huge population. If attacked, Iran has the capability to retaliate against its neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia. Its air and missile forces could quickly destroy the oil and gas facilities and the water and power grids on the Arab side of the Gulf. A war against Iran could easily spread to the Gulf and the Levant. The entire region could go up in flames.

Hubris and Ignorance
The Bush administration was not willing or interested in answering the “morning after” questions regarding the post-Saddam future of Iraq. Whenever I and others urged policy makers to consider the law of unintended consequences and what could go wrong in Iraq following the invasion, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld dismissed our concerns and arrogantly claimed that the U.S. military and civilian administration following the invasion would be able to control the situation in Iraq. Their hubris regarding America’s power and ignorance of Iraqi realities on the ground led to a total breakdown of Iraqi society following the demise of the Saddam regime.
The Trump administration seems to be equally arrogant and ignorant about Iran. It has displayed a similar disregard for strategic thinking about the future of Iran beyond the clerical regime. The Iranophobes within the administration seem to be more obsessed with Iran than the Bush administration was ever with Iraq.
Instead of relying on calm, expert-based analysis, Secretary of State Pompeo has made a series of trips to the region that have involved bullying, threats, and hilarious, if not tragic, mischaracterizations. In a recent conversation with Christian broadcasters in Jerusalem, Pompeo waxed eloquent about God’s presumed divine plan designating Trump as a possible savior of the “Jewish people,” Sunni Islam, Maronite Lebanon, Alawite Syria, and the rest of the world from the perceived modern-day Persian “Hamans.”
The American foreign policy process is in serious trouble if Pompeo truly believes that Trump could be the twenty-first-century version of Queen Esther or Hadassah and that this religious vision could chart the path to a grand strategy in the Middle East. When warped religious interpretations are offered as a substitute for rationally debated policy, whether by a radical Wahhabi Salafist, an evangelical Christian, or an ultra-Orthodox Jew, democratic governments should fear for their future. Invoking the divine as an inspiration or a justification for violence against another country, much as Osama bin Laden did on the eve of 9/11, is a rejection of rational discourse and a return to the barbarism of previous epochs.
Pompeo’s imagined “shuttle diplomacy” in the Middle East has been reduced to supporting Netanyahu’s upcoming election bid, threatening Hezbollah in Lebanon, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and lambasting any state that does business with Iran. His ambassador-designee to Saudi Arabia, John Abizaid, told Congress that the threat from Iran supersedes concerns for human rights in Arab autocracies.
Furthermore, Trump administration policy operatives, including John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani, have treated an Iranian group called the Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK as a legitimate alternative to the clerical regime in Iran. The MEK, however, is a terrorist cult that has received funding from all sorts of dubious sources and is often used as a tool by outside groups, states, and organizations, including intelligence services of regional and international state actors, to further an anti-Iran agenda.
Similarly, the Bush administration viewed Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi émigré, and the organization he founded, the Iraqi National Congress, as the legitimate alternative to the Saddam regime in Iraq. Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld fully bought into Chalabi’s snake-oil sales. Chalabi was instrumental in instigating America’s invasion of Iraq at the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of American and Iraqi lives. Iraq has never recovered from that ill-fated, unnecessary war. Bolton and Giuliani are as susceptible to MEK’s claims as Cheney and Rumsfeld were to Chalabi’s.
For the sake of whipping up regional animus toward Iran and preparing the ground for a war against the “Persian menace,” Pompeo in effect has told Arab autocrats that so long as they keep mouthing anti-Iran rhetoric, Washington will ignore their despicable human rights record and the continued repression of their people. The thousands of political prisoners in Egyptian, Saudi, and Bahraini jails will have to wait for another day.
Arab regimes have become masters in the art of communicating with their American benefactors. During the Cold War, they received American aid as long as they brandished anti-Communist slogans. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and with the rise of terrorism, these same strongmen were happy to adopt an anti-terrorism rhetoric in order to continue receiving American military and economic aid. Their current anti-Iran public posture is the latest phase in their communication with Washington and is as equally profitable as the previous two phases.
When some regional politicians demurred about getting tough with Iran, as happened during Pompeo’s recent visit to Lebanon, he did not hesitate to threaten them with a panoply of economic sanctions. Vice President Mike Pence used similar language at the recent meeting in Warsaw to berate and even threaten America’s European allies if they dared to take a conciliatory posture toward Iran. The European reaction to Pence’s speech showed that his pathetic performance backfired. Pompeo’s Warsaw meeting ended in utter failure.

Iran Nuclear Deal
Managing Iran’s malign behavior through the Iran nuclear deal or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a stroke of diplomatic genius, which former Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz negotiated. The Obama administration placed Iran’s objectionable behavior in two baskets—a nuclear basket, which they addressed through the Iran deal, and a non-nuclear one, which the Obama administration was to address once the nuclear inspection became operational and Iran fully compliant. That approach would have worked: most experts judged Iran to be in compliance with the conditions of the nuclear deal. Unfortunately, President Trump decided not to recertify the agreement.
Trump’s decision contradicted the judgment of most nuclear and intelligence experts about Iran’s compliance. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for example, affirmed Iran’s compliance in more than a dozen of its successive quarterly reports and as recently as earlier this month.
In his open testimony to Congress in January, the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats stated that Iran continued to comply with the deal even after Trump announced his intention to scuttle it. Coats said, “We do not believe Iran is currently undertaking activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device.” Iran was of course cheating in other areas, according to the DNI’s testimony, but not on the nuclear agreement.
In a statement issued April 25 of last year, over two dozen Israeli senior military and intelligence officials judged that it was “in Israel’s best interest that the United States maintains the nuclear agreement with Iran.” The Israeli statement went on to say that “The current deal is better than no deal” and that “Iran’s destructive regional policies and actions, its support for acts of terrorism, its presence in Syria, and its ballistic missiles program should be dealt with outside the framework of the agreement.” This was precisely the position of the Obama administration when it negotiated the deal in the first place.

The Path Forward
Fifty-plus retired American generals and diplomats, in a statement published earlier this month, urged the Trump administration to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and work on resolving outstanding concerns with Iran diplomatically. They advised against a war because they saw no good outcome. The statement did not seek to exonerate Iran’s destabilizing behavior and its involvement in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, or Lebanon. Nor did the retired senior leaders ignore Iran’s link to terrorism. The statement, however, pointed out, among other things, that the 2015 nuclear deal “put limitations on Iran’s nuclear program that provided assurances that it would not be used to develop weapons, improved American intelligence about potential future development and significantly improved the security of the United States and our allies.”
Additionally, the retired generals and diplomats emphasized that Iran is complying with the agreement and that, under the JCPOA, Iran is barred from engaging in nuclear weapons development program, which prevents it from producing a nuclear device. “Reentering the agreement and lifting the sanctions will greatly enhance United States’ ability to negotiate improvements and enable us to address concerns with the existing agreement.”
Coming from these military and policy realists, who are dedicated to the security of this country, Israel, and America’s allies, this advice is grounded in sane strategic analysis, not in theological whimsy.

by Emile Nakhleh,

April 6, 2019 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Recent Posts

  • Pregnancy was taboo in the MEK

    December 22, 2025
  • MEPs who lack awareness about the MEK’s nature

    December 20, 2025
  • Why did Massoud Rajavi enforce divorces in the MEK?

    December 15, 2025
  • Massoud Rajavi and widespread sexual abuse of female members

    December 10, 2025
  • Farman Shafabin, MEK member who committed suicide

    December 3, 2025
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Youtube

© 2003 - 2025 NEJAT Society . All Rights Reserved. NejatNGO.org


Back To Top
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip