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
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult

On July 22, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is scheduled to address an Iranian-American audience at the Reagan Presidential Library in California. The speech is part of a deliberate policy of escalating tensions with Iran, targeting its economy and supporting Iranian opposition groups—all for the purpose of pressuring and destabilizing Iran. At least one member of an Iranian terrorist group that has killed American citizens will also be in attendance. But it won’t be to disrupt Pompeo’s speech; rather, to support it. In fact, the member is on the invitation list.

Last month, the same terrorist group held an event in Paris, busing in thousands of young people from Eastern Europe to hear Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani call for regime change in Tehran. A similar event in Paris last year was addressed by John Bolton, who recently became President Trump’s national security adviser.

How an organization that was only delisted by the US Department of State as a terrorist group in 2012 could so soon after win influential friends at the heart of America’s current administration is the strange and sinister story of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, better known by its initials, MEK. Commonly called a cult by most observers, the MEK systematically abuses its members, most of whom are effectively captives of the organization, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). Regardless of its delisting by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—a political calculation on her part since many senior Democrats, as well as Republicans, had been persuaded by the MEK’s lavish lobbying efforts—the group has never ceased terrorizing its members and has continued to conduct assassinations inside Iran.

In the 1980s, the MEK served as a private militia fighting for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Today, it has a different paymaster: the group is believed to be funded, in the millions of dollars, by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In Washington, D.C., as in Paris, France, the MEK pays tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees to US officials. Bolton, in particular, is a long-time paid supporter of the MEK, reportedly receiving as much as $180,000 for his appearances at the group’s events.

The group is so awash with cash that it doesn’t just pay the speakers; it buys the audience, too. Those young Poles and Czechs who traveled to hear Giuliani’s speech on June 30 came not out of fascination with Trump’s lawyer but for the free weekend in Paris they were offered. The only thing the MEK’s money can’t buy is popular support among Iranians.

The MEK goes back a long way. Founded in the early 1960s, it was the first opposition group to take up arms against the repressive regime of the Shah. Its ideology was based on a blend of Marxism and Islamism, and the group enjoyed widespread support inside Iran in the 1970s. But a series of missteps saw its popularity dramatically dwindle. After the Shah was deposed, the group’s rivalry with Ayatollah Khomeini came to a head not long after the MEK opposed Khomeini’s decision to release the fifty-two American embassy staff held hostage by Iran, and instead, called for their execution. In fact, only a few years earlier, as part of a campaign targeting the Shah’s regime, the MEK assassinated three US Army colonels and three US contractors, in addition to bombing the facilities of several US companies.

Many of the MEK’s members fled to Iraq and established military bases with the blessing of Saddam Hussein. Siding with Saddam in that long and devastating war, which was estimated to have killed more than 300,000 Iranians, turned the MEK into traitors in the eyes of the Iranian public. Nothing has happened since then to change this view of the MEK inside Iran. But the more politically irrelevant the MEK became, the more extreme and cultish it got. After suffering a military defeat in 1988 in which it lost around 4,500 of its 7,000 fighters in a disastrous incursion into Iran, the MEK was in crisis. To prevent the organization’s collapse, its leader, Massoud Rajavi, intensified the cult-like character of the organization in order to prevent its members from defecting.

In 1990, all members of the organization were ordered to divorce and remain celibate. Their love and devotion should be directed only toward the leaders of the organization, Rajavi determined. To reinforce the leadership’s control, some eight hundred children of MEK members were sent abroad from their camp in Iraq to be adopted by exiled members of the group in Europe or North America. If the adult members tried to leave the MEK, they would completely lose touch with their children. To this day, there are scores of MEK members who dare not leave the terrorist group for this very reason. And there are countless children of MEK members who dream of one day being reunited with their parents. I know several of them.

The MEK’s human rights abuses have been well documented by human rights organizations. The MEK leadership has reportedly forced members to make taped confessions of sexual fantasies that are later used against them. In Iraq, disobedient members were routinely put in solitary confinement—in at least one case, for as long as eight years, according to HRW. Other members were tortured to death in front of their kin. As one US official quipped to me in 2011 when the organization was running its ultimately successful multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign to be removed from the State Department’s terrorist list: “Al-Qaeda actually treats its members better than the MEK treats its.”

The MEK, of course, rejects all accusations of terrorism and abuse. The group is not a cult, its advocates insist, but Iran’s strongest democratic opposition group in exile, which seeks a free and democratic Iran. Its members were not forced to divorce, a senior MEK official told the BBC in 2010. Rather, they all divorced their spouses voluntarily. En masse. And anyone who raises these accusations against the group is immediately branded a partisan for the theocratic regime in Tehran.

Given the MEK’s long record of terrorism, human rights abuses, and murder of US citizens, one would think that senior American officials like Giuliani, Pompeo, and Bolton wouldn’t go near the MEK, let alone fraternize with its members or take its fees. But when it comes to Iran, the usual rules don’t apply.

Even when the MEK was on the terrorist list, the group operated freely in Washington. Its office was in the National Press Club building, its Norooz receptions on Capitol Hill were well attended by lawmakers and Hill staff alike, and plenty of congressmen and women from both parties spoke up regularly in the MEK’s favor. In the early 2000s, in a move that defied both logic and irony, Fox News even hired a senior MEK lobbyist as an on-air terrorism commentator.

Al-Qaeda may treat its members better, but rest assured, neither al-Qaeda nor ISIS has ever rented office space in Washington, held fundraisers with lawmakers, or offered US officials speaking fees to appear at their gatherings. But the MEK did this openly for years, despite being on the US government’s terrorist list. The money that Maryam Rajavi (Massoud Rajavi’s wife, who has taken over leadership of the organization since Massoud’s mysterious disappearance in Iraq in 2003) offers to American politicians and the organization’s aggressive advocacy and lobbying only partly explain the group’s freedom of action at the heart of America’s political capital. Certainly, some politicians have likely been duped by the MEK’s shiny image, but Washington’s better-informed hawks are not duped; they simply like what they see, even at the risk of running afoul of federal ethics laws.

At the heart of this improbable-seeming affinity lies a sense of common interest between these anti-Iran fundamentalist, pro-war elements in Washington and Rajavi’s terrorist militia. The US hawks have no problem with the MEK’s terrorist capacities because the group’s utility is beyond dispute—after all, NBC reported that Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad, relied on MEK operatives to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists during Iran and Israel’s secret dirty war between 2010 and 2012.

American officials, including the national security adviser, can have no illusions about the MEK’s disingenuous propaganda lines about seeking democracy or enjoying support inside Iran. They know very well how despised the MEK is in that country. Unlike other Iranian opposition groups, however, the MEK can mount military operations. Its members are experienced in sabotage, assassinations, and terrorism, as well as in guerrilla and conventional warfare. These are not qualities that lend themselves to any project of democratization, but are extremely useful if the strategic objective is to cause either regime change (by invasion) or regime collapse (by destabilization). In other words, for Washington’s anti-Iran hawks, the MEK doesn’t have to replace the theocracy in Tehran; it just needs to assist its collapse. The ensuing chaos would weaken Iran and shift the regional balance of power toward US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

When my organization, the National Iranian American Council, campaigned against the delisting of the MEK in 2012, I gathered that some in Washington were uncomfortable with our position even though they had no sympathy for the group. They viewed the MEK as irrelevant and felt that resources should not be spent on fighting to keep the group on the list. Others feared the harassment that inevitably follows speaking up against the MEK. But we remained firm in our opposition and pointed out that if the MEK was taken off the list, the warmongers in Washington would be able to throw their full support behind the organization and use it to advance its policy of confrontation against Iran.

In 2012, my organization warned that the MEK was an Iranian version of the Iraqi National Congress, the opposition-in-exile to Saddam Hussein led by Ahmed Chalabi, which the neoconservatives in Washington tirelessly promoted in the early 2000s to provide grounds for going to war in Iraq. Sadly, it is now clear that our worries were warranted: the MEK’s greatest friends and allies in Washington—its paid advocates, in fact—now have the ear of a president who already tore up the multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran.

On May 5, just two weeks after he joined Trump’s legal team, Giuliani told an audience at a D.C. convention organized by an MEK front group that Trump was “committed to regime change.” The war party in Washington has its Iranian version of Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.

nybooks.com

July 21, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Jamal Abdi
Missions of Nejat Society

Pompeo and Trump Plan to Exploit and Silence Iranian Americans

Washington, D.C. – Jamal Abdi, the Vice President for Policy of the National Iranian American Council, issued the following statement in response to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement that he will address Iranian Americans in Simi Valley later this month:

Jamal Abdi

“The quest for human rights and democracy in Iran can only be owned by the Iranian people. It cannot be owned by the U.S., Israel, or Saudi Arabia. It cannot be decided by Iran’s government or even Iranian exiles.

“What President Trump and Secretary Pompeo want is to exploit Iranian Americans and co-opt the Iranian people to provide legitimacy for the Trump Administration’s Iraq War redux for Iran. Just as the Bush Administration cultivated a few Iraqi exiles and talked about human rights to provide legitimacy for a disastrous invasion of Iraq, the Trump Administration appears intent on using Iranian exiles to advance dangerous policies that will leave the Iranian people as its primary victims.

“If Sec. Pompeo really wants the Iranian-American community to embrace the Trump agenda, he must start with a sincere apology and rescind Trump’s ban that is dividing Iranian Americans from their friends and loved ones in Iran. He should apologize for the Administration’s move to banish the most prominent Iranian-American national security official from policymaking decisions due to her heritage. Moreover, he should apologize for the decision to strip the Iranian people of their hope for relief from sanctions and greater connections with the outside world, instead ensuring they will be crushed between U.S. sanctions and resurgent hardline forces in Iran’s government that have benefited from Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear accord.

“It should be abundantly clear that Secretary Pompeo, who called for bombing Iran instead of negotiations, is no friend of the Iranian people. Similarly, Trump – whose national security advisor and lawyer have elevated the voices of an undemocratic, human rights abusing cult, the MEK, to become the next leadership of Iran – does not have the Iranian people’s best interests at heart. The Trump Administration’s close coordination with Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammad Bin Salman, who are motivated by their own political gain and regional power dynamics rather than any love for democracy or the Iranian people, should dispel any notion this campaign is about helping ordinary Iranians.

“As Americans, we have a vital role to play in ensuring our democratically elected government does not start wars on false pretenses or destroy lives in our names. As Iranian Americans, our voices are particularly vital when it comes to the U.S. government’s efforts regarding our ancestral homeland. We will not be exploited or silenced at this critical moment in history.”

July 19, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
US advicated of MEK Terrorists
Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

Poll: Mojahedin Khalq Organisation, MKO Doesn’t Represent Iranian Diaspora in Canada

A new survey reveals that nearly 100 percent of Iranian diaspora in Canada maintain that Ottawa officials shouldn’t have taken part in the annual gathering of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), an anti-Iran terrorist group, which was recently held in Paris.

According to the survey conducted by the Iranian-Canadian Congress, 98.90 percent of 1,551 Iranian diaspora in Canada who took part in the online survey said they were against the presence of Ottawa officials in the Paris annual gathering.

In response to a question whether or not the MKO represent you when it comes to Iran-related issues and Canada’s policies towards the country, 99.48 percent said the terrorist group doesn’t represent them at all, a report by Alef news website said.

Meanwhile, 94.13 percent said they are against a decision by the former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to remove the MKO from the list of terrorist organizations in 2012. They also described Harper’s decision as a mistake.

As the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada, Harper came from the modern Conservative Party of Canada. During his premiership, he was among the staunch supporters of the Zionist regime and showed deep animosity towards the Islamic Republic. Meanwhile, he never supported the talks between Iran and the six world powers which finally led to the Iran nuclear deal in 2015.

In his latest move against Iran, Harper attended the recent MKO gathering in Paris.

MKO is designated a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq. Washington and the European Union removed MKO from their lists of terrorist organizations in 2012 and 2009, respectively. The group is based in Paris, with a compound for its militiamen located in Albania.

The MKO held its annual meeting in Paris on Saturday with a number of American hawks such as Rudy Giuliani – Donald Trump’s personal lawyer – and other former US officials as well as former Canadian PM Harper in attendance.

Founded in the 1960s, the terror group fled to Iraq in 1986, where it joined Saddam’s army during the war Iraq imposed on Iran (1980-1988) and helped Saddam kill thousands of Iranian civilians and soldiers during the US-backed war imposed on Iran.

Iran Front Page

July 19, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
US Rajavi lobby
Missions of Nejat Society

The Baffling Relationship between American Politicians and the MEK

It’s no secret that most American politicians want political change in Iran. Whether it be President Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or George W. Bush, regime change (or a significant change in the regime’s behavior) has been a goal of U.S. administrations since the dawn of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Nor have U.S. politicians attempted to hide this: Congressmen across the aisle, for example, have met with Reza Pahlavi, the former Iranian prince whose father was ousted from power during the Islamic Revolution, to discuss regime change. Pahlavi, among many others in the Iranian diaspora, has called on all American politicians to support a democratic, liberal Iran.

American calls for regime change have certainly focused on this idea of a democratic, liberal Iran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Senator Ted Cruz, and National Security Advisor John Bolton (among many others) have openly advocated for such change. But it’s not just Republicans: both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have also called for Iranians to be freed from the chains of the Islamic Republic. These politicians have decried the lack of human rights in Iran, the lack of democracy, and the suffering of the Iranian people.

Given this context, the relationship between some American politicians and the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, is baffling. The MEK, guided by an undemocratic fusion of Marxism and Islamism, has conducted terrorist attacks against Americans and Iranians alike yet has support from a plethora of U.S. conservative and liberal politicians (including many who advocate for the democratization of Iran), such as Rudy Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo, Pelosi, and Edward Rendell. Given the MEK’s inability to meaningfully change Iran, the support of U.S. politicians for the Mujahedin will only have negative effects for the United States, namely that it will alienate the Iranian people and give hardliners in the Islamic Republic a chance to capitalize on this support.

What is the MEK?

The MEK was established in 1965 as a leftist organization staunchly opposed to the American-backed Shah of Iran. Until the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the MEK, originally founded upon the ideals of Marxism and Islamism, engaged in a plethora of terrorist attacks, targeting Americans civilians and government workers. Many of its members were either imprisoned or executed while the Shah was in power.

During the Revolution, the MEK helped supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini overthrow the Shah. Yet after a few years of rule by the Islamic Republic, [Ayatollah ]Khomeini saw that the MEK’s ideology was at odds with his vision for the country, and he ordered his forces to arrest and execute Mujahedin members. The Mujahedin responded by assassinating members of the Islamic government, including the Prime Minister in a 1981 bombing.

In 1980, Saddam Hussein, sensing instability in Iran, decided to invade. The MEK, seeing an opportunity to destabilize the Islamic government joined him in fighting their own countrymen. Saddam’s use of chemical weapons, and his bombing of Iranian cities, did not deter the MEK in their support of him, which continued throughout the war. Saddam even helped arm the MEK, allowing them to conduct suicide attacks in Iran. The MEK’s support of Saddam, along with the earlier attacks against American officials, led the U.S. government to designate it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

After the war, the MEK largely focused on assassinations: the Mujahedin have targeted senior officials of the Revolutionary Guard, clerics, and even former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. Further, they continue to call for regime change in Iran, hosting an annual “Free Iran” rally, at which many Western politicians speak. In the most recent years, however, the MEK, which now calls itself the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has shifted its focus from bombing campaigns to lobbying Western politicians for support.

American Support

In spite of the MEK’s recent history of terrorism, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 removed the organization from of the FTO list, unfreezing its assets and allowing it to engage in financial interactions with those in the United States. The organization, however, in spite of its claim to want democracy in Iran, remains internally undemocratic and is monumentally unpopular among those living in Iran. One can go so far as to say that it is a personality-based cult: Iran scholar Ervand Abrahamian stated that if “[MEK leader] Massoud Rajavi got up tomorrow and said the world was flat, his members would accept it.”

That hasn’t stopped American politicians—the same ones who claim to support a liberal, democratic Iran—from backing the MEK. And while this is not to say that supporting the MEK is enshrined in U.S. policy, the high level of support that it maintains among many American politicians is alarming. Rudy Giuliani is a regular at the MEK’s Free Iran conference. John Bolton gave a jarring speech at last year’s conference, claiming that the group would be celebrating the downfall of the Islamic Republic in Tehran the next year (which didn’t happen). Even Pelosi, a Democrat who supported the Nuclear Deal, put out a statement in support of the group. This does not seem to be a partisan issue: influential American politicians, whether in Congress or in the administration, have supported a group that has conducted terrorist attacks, not only against Iranian government officials but also against American civilians.

There seems to be one of two implications for this support: either the politicians supporting the MEK do not understand that it remains a domestically unpopular and undemocratic terrorist organization, or they acknowledge this but believe that regime change in Iran should be encouraged at any cost.

Though it is true that there has been a change in the MEK’s behavior since the early 2000s, the first possibility is nonetheless laughable. There have been no significant leadership changes since the MEK’s support of Saddam Hussein: Maryam Rajavi is still the leader of the organization and has been (along with her husband who disappeared in 2003) since 1985. Further, there have been no ideological changes in the group since Rajavi took leadership.

Their change in behavior is not due to a change in ideology; rather, it is due to circumstances. During the American invasion of Iraq, the MEK was forcibly disarmed, and its camps were destroyed. Since then, the MEK has simply not had the ability to conduct bombing campaigns in Iran as it did during the Shah’s reign, the Islamic Revolution, and the Iran-Iraq war. Thus, they have shifted their focus to lobbying western politicians for change in Iran, which seems thus far to be working: speakers at this year’s conference, who have given rousing addresses in support of the MEK’s mission, include Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kushner. As a result of this lobbying, they’ve probably also realized that bombing campaigns will not help their case with the West.

It would thus be irresponsible to suggest that the MEK has changed. It remains an undemocratic organization under the leadership of the same people who ordered terrorist attacks against Iranians and Iraqis alike: there is a reason that Massoud Rajavi has been wanted in Iraq since 2010 for Crimes Against Humanity. The only change is the method that they use to gain power—they’ve shifted from violence to intense lobbying.

Thus, even if regime change is the ultimate goal, given that the MEK has not undergone significant ideological changes, why would U.S. politicians support a group that has conducted terrorist attacks against its own government officials and civilians?

The first reason is money. The Mujahedin pays a lot of money to secure Western politicians’ attendance at their annual conference. Giuliani, for example, has received tens of thousands of dollars from the group to speak and advocate for the group.

Secondly, it’s entirely possible that these politicians support the MEK, not with the ultimate goal of seeing them take over Iran, but rather, with the goal of instigating instability. Domestic instability and upheaval in Iran would force the government to address its own internal problems at the expense of other concerns, such as maintaining a strong presence in Syria or arming proxies in the region (e.g. Hizbollah, Houthi rebels). This would allow the United States, and its Middle Eastern allies in Saudi Arabia and Israel, to lessen the Islamic Republic’s influence in the region. Perhaps they view the Mujahedin as the group most able to and most willing to sow these seeds of unrest.

Implications of American Support

Despite its talk of freeing Iran and the friends that it has made in the West, the Mujahedin is hated among the Iranian people. For many Iranians, the MEK’s decision to fight alongside Saddam, and its indiscriminate attacks on Iranian civilians, destroyed any possible sympathetic feelings. Further, according to a poll taken by George Mason University, less than one percent of Iranian-Americans—the largest group in the Iranian diaspora—support the MEK.

Thus, wide American support comes at an extremely high cost. Firstly, the MEK does not have nearly enough support to foment a revolution in Iran. As of 2011, the State Department estimated that the MEK has between five thousand and 13,500 members, scattered across Iraq, Europe, and the United States—hardly a group numerous or unified enough to stand up to the Islamic Republic of Iran or meaningfully change the country in any way.[..]

Perhaps more importantly, however, U.S. support of the MEK will only alienate the people of Iran, the very people to whom Western politicians, from Trump to Pelosi to the conference’s speakers, have tried to appeal. Any American call for freedom in Iran—any message in support of the Iranian people—will be marred by this widespread support of a terrorist organization. The only people who will be strengthened by this support are Iranian hardliners, whose ultimate message is that the United States despises Iran, wants the country to fail, and is not a reliable partner. Supporting the MEK will only strengthen that narrative.

Although supporting the MEK provides a way for American politicians to ostensibly advocate for a democratic revolution in Iran, the costs of supporting a terrorist group far outweigh any benefits. To weaken the Iranian government and gain the support of the Iranian people, the United States should attempt to act as a friend to the Iranian people, instead of supporting a terrorist organization, banning Iranians from entering the country, and putting crippling sanctions on Iran, which hurt civilians more than the government. But given the immense amount of lobbying from anti-Iran groups—from America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)—it is highly unlikely that such a change in the mindset of American politicians will occur.

By Ashton Hashemipour, uchicagogate.com

Ashton Hashemipour is a second-year Political Science major interested in international relations and foreign policy. This summer, he interned at Congresswoman Robin Kelly’s district office here in Chicago. On campus, he’s the Director of Publication at EUChicago, a Chair for the Model UN Conference the university hosts, and on the International Policy Program at the Institute of Politics.

July 18, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
MEK Terrorists
Albania

Albanians angry that America dumps its terrorists on them

Iran-Interlink – The following article is a critique by Samet Vata of a summer school organized by the Albanian Institute for International Studies (AIIS) as part of the NATO Summit in London. The article is Google translated into English.

In relation to MEK, Vata criticises statements by interim American ambassador in Albania, David Muniz. Muniz first says that Iran was in breach of the JCPOA, which it wasn’t. He then blames Iran for ‘exporting radicalism which scares Europe and the Balkans’. Vata explains that US foreign policy “forced” Albania to host 3000 Mojahedin Khalq terrorist extremists, thus imposing a direct security risk on Albania. Thus, Albania should accept that MEK is a problem for Albania’s relations with Iran because MEK threatens the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Based on an announcement by National Coordinator of the Office for Violent Extremism, Agron Sojati, Vata believes this risk would be extended by the arrival in Albania of 6,000 ISIS terrorists from Syria. Participants in the summer school were confused when Sojati said the numbers were exaggerated but that Albania ‘should be prepared to shelter terrorists who come from the war in Syria’. Vata questions how they will be dealt with, asking ‘will they be left alone and given a camp as we have done with MEK?’

Gazeta Impakt

The Albanian Institute for International Studies is unilateral in the issue of radicalism

from Gazeta Impakt – By: Samet Vata – July 14, 2018

 

Within the NATO Summit in London, a summer school was organized by the Albanian Institute for International Studies, AIIS, regarding the security environment in the Western Balkans, part of which I was also. The purpose of the school was to inform the strategy that the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) has in the Balkans region, especially Albania, and to build a tense reality of the “danger” of violent extremism.

So things are fine. But when you look at the articulations of the referral characters in this summer school, two ideas are built on the head. First, because of the internal problems the Atlantic Alliance does not have a unified policy for dealing with the Western Balkans. Second, these internal issues require to motivate them with extreme radicalism, which is attempting to undermine the order in the Balkans. This is like dictatorship, which sometimes failed in its ideology, blame for capitalism, but in this case the danger comes from the “dictators” and “imperialists” of the Near, Middle, and Far East. Briefly, Albania and NATO are facing three concrete dangers: Russian economic expansion, Turkish neo-Ottomanism, and “radicalism” in the breeding countries.

At the opening session of the school was the former Defense Minister, Mimi Kodheli, who in her opinion stated that Russia was a real danger for Albania, as her offensive geo-politics also enabled the election result to be changed in favor of the current president Trump. So, if the US that is superpower is vulnerable to Russia, this should make us more alert and cautious to the Albanians in the reports that we are building on the state level, but also in the ideological framework with such countries. Being vigilant and caring will serve to preserve the current stability in the Balkans, she said. Kodheli. We can do this by talking to one another, sharing our thoughts, treating these things together. So united to withstand the risk. She closed her conversation with an expression of John Lennon “Give Peace a Chance”. But I have the impression that such a risk is more cluttered than real and all this story is nothing more than an excuse to justify the sanctions against Russia. The head of Russian diplomacy Lavrov recently said that Russia is not an enemy, but a friend of Europe, and the latter must leave the spirit that has remained since the Cold War. It is true that peace should be given an opportunity, but objectively treated who is hindering this.

Of particular importance in the summer school was the speech of the interim American ambassador in Albania, David Muniz, who replaces the ambassador to fleeing LU until the appointment of the new ambassador. Muniz said Trump’s coming to power has caused little fear because of statements and controversial behavior that the latter had on his domestic and foreign policies. He said that despite these strong statements that Trump has given about withdrawing US from NATO, it is certain that the role of the United States in the alliance is definitely unchanged and there is no discussion of a second case in Brex. Alongside this, the ambassador said that two of the factors that, apart from Russia, are extending their influence on the Balkans, are Turkey and Iran. Turkey, Muniz said, is pursuing a controversial policy with regard to the Alliance and its heart seems to be no longer beheaded by NATO. It has never happened that a NATO member country has bought sophisticated weapons from a non-member country and this has caused a major debate within member states that Turkey does not have to sell more NATO armaments. The case is about buying the Russian S-400 anti-tank system. But I think the ambassador’s word is somewhere else. The US finds it hard to accept Turkey as a self-determining factor in domestic politics and the region as Turkey has been knocking on EU gates for a long time and has been inferior to US supremacy in the region. I say this because another member of the alliance, Greece, has its anti-missile S-300 system in its arsenal, which is an older version of these weapons that Turkey wants to buy. Western powers find it difficult to admit that Turkey, which has always been used as a flesh in the Middle East conflicts, is fleeing from your hands and pursuing a policy that is in line with its domestic interests in the first place, but on the other hand increases the influence and dominance of the Muslim factor in the region.

With regard to Iran, Mr. Muniz said that the withdrawal of the Trump administration from the nuclear pact with Iran was a move to a certain extent, though the deal was very good. That is because Iran has repeatedly violated certain points of the deal by expanding its nuclear activity and producing dangerous weapons for the stability of the region. He also said that Iran is a country that is exporting radicalism and this scares much Europe, but also the Balkans, which are below its range of action. For this reason, Albanian politics and citizens must also give up relations with such dangerous places.

The ambassador is right when he says Iran is exporting radicalism, but not by his will. The ambassador must know very well that his country’s foreign policy “forced” the Albanian state to import over 3000 Iranian mujahideen of the terrorist organization MEK. So, Albania is really endangered by Iranian radicalism, but this is not to blame for the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Balkans, but as a consequence of the US mid-term interests and as a consequence of the government of Albania’s handling of security issues. Perhaps we should be given a fair share of our country’s interest in the Islamic Republic of Iran, because this Albanian-dominated military group (MEK) directly risks the security of their country.

Seminars were also discussed about the Syrian refugee crisis. National Coordinator of the Office for Violent Extremism Agron Sojati launched his announcement saying that “a rumor is circulating as if 600,000 terrorists are expected to come alive in Albania” and immediately after that made the interpretation of this rumor saying that the numbers are in fact little hyperbolized, though their number will be reduced. According to Agron Soyati, we should be prepared to shelter terrorists who come from the war in Syria in our country that may be the cause of destabilization in the country. But this sentence of Mr. Sojate in some ways confused the participants in the summer school. On one side, Albania seeks to fight the violent radicalism, but on the other hand do we radical shelter? How will Albania behave with the radicals of ISIS going to Albania? Will we leave it in the camp as if we have left the MEK radicals?

Another element I would like to mention from the summer school discussions is the conversation of the executive director of the Albanian Media Institute, Remzi Lani. Among other things Lani said Russia is one of the third factors that are seeking influence in the Balkans not for geo-strategic purposes, but with the sole purpose of alerting and breaking the tranquility of the EU and NATO, while China has only economic intent on its part. He said that the EU’s last EU summit noted a weak will for further enlargement of the Union and that the Berlin process is nearing the end. Regarding Turkey, Lani used tougher and extremist tones. He said Turkey is not a country from which we should take the example of democracy or state leadership, as democracy has died in Turkey. Erdogan with his policy carries a dangerous Islamic agenda that affects the security of our country. However, Turkish investment and their success in the economy should welcome and take the lead – he says. In short, Mr. Lani says that the bread we eat is turkey, and the duet we have. I do not know why Mr. Lani says Turkey has no democracy when in the last election the turnout was much higher than in many EU countries or even the US. In addition, it has not been seen in any dictatorial country to become a democratic election, and the opposition mayor accepts the defeat and welts the winner, as Muharrem Ince did a month ago. In addition, Mr. Lani should be well aware that in the Western ambience there is a great debate about liberal democracy as a model of governance, as it has shown a lack of stability and security of its citizens. This is also noted in the electoral elections of EU countries, which are seeing an increase in left and right extremist electorates. Hungary and Austria are increasingly applying strong politics, the first refusing refugees because they are Muslims, and the second is closing the mosque with the justification that they endanger stability in the country. On the other hand, Trump raises walls with neighboring countries and forbids the entry of citizens of some Muslim countries and this is not seen as a violation of democratic principles, but as security issues. Also, Mr. Lani must bear in mind that we Albanians are a Muslim majority, and the stability that Turkey has shown in its model of regulating religious life should be taken as an example of us, which was also highlighted by Ergys Muzhaqi- expert on security in the country. The Albanian government and civil society must understand that religion (in this case Islam) is auxiliary and contributory to the secularity of the country and to give up once and for all from an atheistic mindset that sees religion as a danger.

Lastly, I would like to conclude with a critique linked to an AIIS study on religious radicalism. In the study that was presented at the seminar, it was noted that although the topic was related to the problems brought by extremist and religiously rooted radicalism, the study represented only “Islamic radicalism” and methods to prevent or cure it. After a replica made with the preparers of the study where I suggested that here the risks of Catholic extremists or other missionaries of the other religions are of a higher degree, I realized that the studies made a portion of their information hold confidential and only specific sections of the studies are presented.

I have also felt this problem in seminars organized by other institutes who are willing to present the risk of “Islamic radicalism” at all costs and present it as a present fact among our society. Europeans should have a standard of extremism and radicalism if they want to establish stability. When speaking of anti-extremism measures, all kinds of extremism must be taken into account, starting with the mass-propagating Catholic in Europe and all other types. When Turkey as a NATO member states that terrorist organizations like FETO operate in Albania, or when our government hosts the MEK, this should be looked at with seriousness and work to resolve these issues, unlike the way in which the word of the Turkish state has fallen into the deaf ears, believe that we have double standards. When Catholic radicalism violates the public sphere, serious measures must be taken to cure this problem. If double policies are to continue, balances will break down in the region and credibility with the international factor will come down.

I think that this policy will have a boomerang effect, which instead of solving it will create unresolved problems in our public sphere. Building a tense environment that feeds fear, xenophobia, Islamophobia and religious radicalism makes society feel less secure and more in panic. Albania is a European country with Ottoman culture and heritage and this should be taken into account in order to maintain the balance and the current fragile peace.

Iran Interlink reporting from Gazeta Impakt, Tirana Albania,

 

July 17, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Meet the Organization Pushing Regime Change in Iran—and Its Willing American Accomplices

Will the U.S. media learn from when they supported the invasion of Iraq?

It is customary for pundits to lament how partisanship is destroying U.S. policy making, but one area remains curiously bipartisan: Democrats and Republicans alike are quick to show their support for an organization publicly dedicated to regime change in Iran.

Late last month in Paris, for example, thirty-three senior U.S. officials and military officers, including Rudy Giuliani and former United Nations Ambassador Bill Richardson, attended a meeting convened by the National Council for Resistance in Iran (NCRI), an offshoot of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) .

The MEK was founded in 1965 as a hard-left opponent of the secular Shah of Iran. They gained attention in the early 1970s for several acts of terrorism, including attacks against the Shah’s primary patron, the United States. Civilians working for American companies operating in Iran in the 1970s, including Pepsi, PanAm, General Motors and Rockwell International, were all among the MEK’s victims. Unsurprisingly, the MEK was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department in 1997.

But, in recent years, the MEK has managed to rehabilitate its image. It switched sides after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow in Iraq, hoping that the United States would perform a similar service in neighboring Iran. The MEK also successfully lobbied the Obama administration to be removed from the terrorist list. Today, the organization routinely feeds information to build support for regime change in Tehran.

This state of affairs is eerily reminiscent of a period in the late 1990s when a bipartisan coalition in Congress—responding to a concerted pressure campaign by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan’s Project for a New American Century—passed legislation calling for regime change in Iraq. The Iraq Liberation Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998, also provided Iraqi exile groups direct financial assistance from the U.S. government. One of the leading beneficiaries of U.S. taxpayers’ largesse was the Iraqi National Congress (INC). In 2004, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayers concluded that the U.S. government steered more than $100 million to the group over a twelve-year period, with the Bush administration responsible for at least $39 million.

The INC and its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, proved to be one of the leading sources of false information that hawks deployed via a too-credulous media to build support for war with Iraq.

What America Wants from Iran Can’t Be Achieved by Regime Change

Years later, after U.S. troops had dislodged Saddam Hussein from power, and Chalabi and his cadre of followers were back in the country he had fled as a teenager, he famously boasted “we are heroes in error…What was said before is not important.”

But Chalabi and the INC were more popular in Washington, DC than in Baghdad—or anywhere else in Iraq, for that matter. When Iraqis went to the polls in December 2005, his party secured only 0.5 percent of the vote.

So, to recap, U.S. taxpayers funded the organization whose primary objective was to feed misleading information about the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. The resulting war claimed over 4,400 American lives and has cost, so far, $2 trillion , with some estimates of the eventual costs approaching $6 trillion. And Chalabi and his INC weren’t able to implement the pleasing, pluralist, vision for Iraq, that they promised. Instead, many tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and millions driven from their homes.

That doesn’t seem like a very good return on investment.

The source of the MEK’s funding is murkier, but the organization is flush with cash. MSNBC’s Richard Engel determined that Bolton was paid $40,000 for one speech in 2017. Others report that speakers at MEK gatherings receive up to $50,000 per speech.

At last year’s gathering in Paris, Bolton stated categorically “There is a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs, and that opposition is centered in this room today.” “The declared policy of the United States of America,” he continued, “should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran.”

Bolton skipped the meeting this year, but Giuliani’s work on behalf of the organization has caught people’s attention—and not for the first time. Daniel Benjamin, who coordinated counterterrorism efforts for the Obama administration explained to The Washington Post, “Plenty of us…found just the appearance of support for [an] organization that had American blood on its hands to be outrageous.”

There is a tendency to dismiss the MEK as a fringe group. Ervand Abrahamian, a professor of Iranian history and politics at Baruch College, described it as “a cult organization.” “It’s like the Moonies,” he said to McClatchy.

Except that the Moonies aren’t trying to get the U.S. government to overthrow a foreign government, and John Bolton sits a few doors down from the President of the United States. Ahmed Chalabi would have lusted after the level of access that the MEK’s Maryam Rajavi now has.

That means that Americans might have to rely on the news media to do its job. It could begin by questioning information provided by expatriate advocates of regime change in Iran.

When the New York Times reviewed its coverage of the Iraq War in 2004, the editors called out Chalabi by name as a source for many inaccurate or misleading articles. They noted that”information”in their stories”that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged.”The worst instances”shared a common feature,”the Times editors continued. “They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on ‘regime change’ in Iraq.”

Rob Reiner’s feature film, “Shock and Awe, ” tells the story of the Knight Ridder DC news bureau, one of the few outfits who, when presented with similar information from Iraqi exiles, and Bush administration officials, had the good sense to ask”Is it true?”Equally important, Knight Ridder reporters and editors dared to stand by their reporting when post-9/11 bloodlust cast full-throated support for the war as synonymous with patriotism—and skepticism as akin to treason.

Americans must wait to see which direction the U.S. news media will go in 2018, but I hope that they will be more like John Walcott, Jonathan Landay, Warren Strobel, and Joe Galloway, and less like Judith Miller.

Christopher Preble is the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and blogs for The Skeptics at The National Interest.

Image: The national flag of Iran is seen on top of the Austrian Chancellery during the visit of President Hassan Rouhani in Vienna, Austria July 4, 2018. REUTERS/Lisi Niesner​

by Christopher A. Preble , National Interest

July 17, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Liberty Report: MEK are US ‘Terrorists of Choice’ for Regime Change in Iran

This week we learned how US national security establishment and its neocon conclave have anointed a shady terrorist organization, the notorious MEK, to assume the reigns of power in Iran after the CIA overthrows its current government. What could possibly go wrong…?

https://dlb.nejatngo.org/Media/Interview/21WireTV_Ron_Paul.mp4

Liberty Report hosts Dr Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams are joined by guest Patrick Henningsen to discuss Washington’s renewed effort to destabilize Iran.

As the Neocons and national security establishment set their sights on regime change in Iran, they see a group once recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK), as their best shot.

By : 21WIRE.TV

July 16, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Who Are Washington’s “Revolutionaries” in Iran?

The US backed Iranian opposition are neither “revolutionary,” nor even “in” Iran. Yet they have been designated as Washington’s proxies of choice, and an alternative government they seek to place into power in Tehran.

As the US-led proxy war in Syria reaches a relative stalemate and with time on Damascus and its allies’ side, Washington’s wider agenda of using the conflict as a stepping stone toward regime change in Iran is leading into a much larger conflict.

Geopolitical expert F. William Engdahl has pointed out the means through which Western oil corporations have orchestrated global schemes to raise oil prices to make American shale oil production profitable. At the same time, the US has for years now used sanctions against Iran, political subversion in Venezuela, war in Libya, and proxy war in Ukraine to prevent Tehran, Caracas, Libya’s opposition, and Moscow from benefiting long-term from higher oil prices.

For Iran, undermining its oil revenues and reintroducing sanctions and secondary sanctions on nations that refuse to recognize America’s withdrawal from the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal, is done in tandem with direct, covert subversion inside Iran itself.

Together, these efforts seek to cripple Iran as a functional nation state, as well as reduce its influence through the Middle Eastern and Central Asian regions.

US Portrays Terrorist Cult as “Iranian Opposition”

Just as the US has done in Libya and Syria, it is using terrorist organizations to attack and undermine the Iranian state.

With Iranian-backed militias already fighting Al Qaeda and its multitude of affiliates including the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, the likelihood of these militant forces being exported into Iran itself – should Iranian-backed militias be pushed out of Syria and Iraq and destabilization inside of Iran itself reach that threshold – is high.

But there is another, lesser known group the US is portraying as the voice of Iran’s opposition, a group that is – by its own US sponsors’ admission – undemocratic, terroristic, and cult-like.

It is the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, also known as the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

Until 2012, MEK was listed by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization. Only through immense lobbying was MEK delisted. Since being delisted, no evidence suggests the fundamental aspects of MEK that make it a terrorist organization have changed. In fact, US-based corporate-financier policy think tanks that have advocated MEK’s use as a proxy against Iran have admitted as much.

The Brookings Institution in a 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF), would openly admit (emphasis added):

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

Brookings would elaborate regarding its terrorist background, stating (emphasis added):

    Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MeK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main  political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed  credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on  Iranian civilian and  military targets between 1998 and 2001.

    American-Killing Terror Cult: US Delists Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK)

Brookings also mentions MEK’s attacks on US servicemen and American civilian contractors, noting:

    In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran.

Brookings would also emphasize (emphasis added):

    The group itself also appears to be undemocratic and enjoys little popularity in Iran itself. It has no  political base in the country, although it appears to have an operational presence. In particular, its  active participation on Saddam Husayn’s side during the bitter Iran-Iraq War made the group widely  loathed. In addition, many aspects of the group are cultish, and its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, are revered to the point of obsession.

Brookings would note that despite the obvious reality of MEK, the US could indeed use the terrorist organization as a proxy against Iran, but notes that:

    …at the very least, to work more closely with the  group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign  terrorist organizations.

And in 2012, after years of lobbying, that is precisely what the US did. Regarding that decision, the US State Department’s 2012 statement titled, “Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq” would claim:

    With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members.

The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.

Nothing in the US State Department’s statement indicates that MEK is no longer a terrorist organization. It simply notes that it has publicly – as a means of political expediency – renounced violence. It should be noted that the Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy paper’s mention of MEK is under a chapter titled, “Inspiring an Insurgency,” inferring armed violence all but guaranteeing MEK militants will indeed be one of several fronts carrying out that violence in their capacity as US proxies.

It would be the “cultish” MEK leader, Maryam Rajavi, whom prominent American politicians and political lobbying groups would work with for years before MEK was removed from the US list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 2012. This includes prominent pro-war advocates – particularly war with Iran – now current National Security Adviser John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, and current legal adviser for US President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani.

This year at the annual “Free Iran” conference held in Paris, US State Department-funded and directed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty would report in its article titled, “Trump Allies Tell Paris Rally ‘End Of Regime’ Near In Iran,” that:

    Close allies of U.S. President Donald Trump have told a “Free Iran” rally in Paris that the end of the Iranian regime is near and that sanctions against the country will be “greater, greater, and greater.”

“We are now realistically being able to see an end to the regime in Iran,” legal adviser Rudy Giuliani said on June 30 at the rally, organized by exiled opponents including the former rebel People’s Mujahedin, which is banned in Iran.

Giuliani pointed to recent protests that have erupted in Iran amid continued financial hardships following Trump’s decision to pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions on Tehran.

Thus, virtually every aspect of the 2009 Brookings paper is being openly pursued as a matter of US foreign policy, including US support for MEK – an organization that has previously killed US servicemen and American civilian contractors, and by its own supporters’ admissions, is still involved in terrorism.

The ultimate irony is that these same US MEK supporters claiming the MEK and its political NCRI wing will overthrow the “dictatorial ayatollahs,” admit the MEK itself is “undemocratic” and “cultish,” everything Iran’s government is accused of by US politicians and pundits.

The MEK May Help Destroy Iran, But Will Never Rule It

Just as other “pro-democracy” groups have been promoted by Washington amid previous regime change efforts, “Iranian” MEK terrorists will be used to destabilize, pressure, and possibly even overthrow the Iranian government, but Iran will be left in fractured ruins.

MEK and its NCRI political wing will never rule a functional and unified Iranian nation-state, just as US-backed terrorists in Libya preside – and only tenuously so – over fractions of Libya’s territory and resources.

This further exposes what the US intends to do regarding Iran, and that it has nothing to do with improving the lives or prospects of the Iranian people – especially considering Iran’s collective plight is owed not to Iran’s current leadership, but to America’s decades-long policy to encircle, contain, undermine, and overthrow Iran’s institutions.

America’s foreign policy in regards to Iran must be understood in this context – that it is merely a continuation of Washington’s use of violent, terrorist fronts to divide and destroy targeted nations to eliminate competitors and their influence from regions of the globe US special interests seek to reassert themselves in – and nothing more.

The high costs continued conflict with Iran will represent will be paid by the American taxpayers, and should this conflict be allowed to escalate, by the blood of American service members. The result – should this foreign policy continue forward, will not be in the interests of either Americans or Iranians – who will collectively suffer the consequences of future conflict, just as the American people and nations invaded by the US have suffered in the past.

Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.

Tony Cartalucci, New Eastern Outlook

July 16, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US Is Helping ‘Bloodthirsty Cult’ – the MEK – to Overthrow Iran’s Government

In pursuit of regime change in Iran, the Trump administration and prominent Republicans and Democrats alike are supporting the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which former top US official Larry Wilkerson says is a “bloodthirsty cult.” Ben Norton reports

https://dlb.nejatngo.org/Media/Report/RealNews_US_MEK.mp4

Story Transcript

BEN NORTON: The Donald Trump administration has made regime change in Iran one of its top foreign policy priorities, and some of the extreme warhawks Trump has willingly surrounded himself with are supporting a fanatical cult in hopes of toppling Iran’s government. The president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has been a keynote speaker at multiple conferences held by the Iranian opposition group the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known popularly as the MEK. At a summit in Washington, D.C. in May, Giuliani declared that Trump is committed to regime change. Weeks later in June, Giuliani again spoke as a keynote speaker at the MEK’s conference in Paris.

RUDY GIULIANI: We are now, I believe, very realistic in being able to see an end of the regime in Iran. We can see it.

BEN NORTON: The MEK was considered a terrorist organization by the United States government until 2012. Larry Wilkerson, a former top George Bush administration official, told The Real News Network that the MEK is a bloodthirsty cult that is widely considered by Iranians to be full of traitors.

LARRY WILKERSON: I mean, this is a group that, when I was chief of staff of the State Department, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell actually worked together, one of the few times they did, to keep them out of our hair in Iraq. And that was primarily because, number one, they were on the top of our list of terrorist organizations. Number two, they were a bloodthirsty cult, and we knew that. All of us knew that. The intelligence people knew that. The diplomats knew that. Everyone who ever had any dealing with Mujahideen-e-Khalq knew that they were a cult, first and foremost, and a brutal, bloody, ruthless cult all together.

I have never met in all my time and dealing in track two diplomacy and other diplomacy with Iran, and with dealing with the Iranian people in general, and Iranians in this country, for that matter, other than those around the royal group in this country, or in Iran, who thought they were anything other than traitors. Traitors and terrorists. Because they joined Saddam Hussein in what to most Iranians was the most seminal period in their lifetime, and that was the brutal eight years of war between Iraq and Iran, started, of course, by Iraq. So they see these people as traitors.

BEN NORTON: The MEK is one of several terrorist organizations that the U.S. government has allied with on and off, supporting it when it is politically convenient. Trump’s hyper-hawkish neoconservative national security adviser John Bolton is a staunch supporter of the MEK, and has previously spoken at its annual conferences. President Trump’s lawyer even took credit for helping to lead a global campaign to get the group unlisted as a terrorist organization.

RUDY GIULIANI: We fought a worldwide battle to shed the unfair label of terrorism in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union. That label is now gone, and you are seen as defenders of human rights.

BEN NORTON: Larry Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army colonel who previously served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, says the MEK has spent large sums of money and carefully undergone a rebranding to portray itself as democratic, secular, and moderate. Wilkerson argues that the U.S. has helped to facilitate this rebranding to push for regime change in Iran.

LARRY WILKERSON: This is the group that has become for the neoconservatives, and for some of those associated with Trump, the Iraqi National Congress. The Ahmad Chalabi/Iraqi National Congress. But it was, for the war with Iraq, fomenting that war, leading the United States to that war. The MEK is now serving as that entity for the coming war with Iran.

And I think what you see, in order to use them, to employ them as a Chalabi-like tool in this march to war with Iran, they have been refurbished. I think Saudi money’s been in there. I think U.S. money has been in there. I think big-time money has been spent with largely U.S. European marketing entities that refurbished their name to make them look good. And I’ve even been told, I assume- this is coming from some of my intelligence community contacts- I’ve been told that they are keeping what was the more radical leadership in the shadows. They’re not letting them be exposed so much, because they realize they still are the same people they were before.

But they’ve got new people to interface with the public, as it were. And they’ve got a new image, as you pointed out. And that image is being marketed by these very good marketers who are being paid enormous sums of money in order to do this. So it’s not quite as easy as it was with Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. I mean, we had all kinds of reports about their wasting money and being useless. Secretary Powell even turned them over the Pentagon because he was fed up with them. But I think this group is even worse. But at the same time, they have better marketers. They have people who are really good at advertising them and making them look good.

BEN NORTON: Rudy Giuliani, in fact, bolstered this explanation when he boasted at the MEK’s conference in Paris that the U.S.-backed cult is allegedly coordinating the protests that are rocking Iran.

RUDY GIULIANI: Those protests were not happening accidentally. Those protests are happening because they’re being coordinated now, unlike in 2009, they’re being coordinated by many of our people in Albania, and many of our people here, and all throughout the world.

BEN NORTON: Although the MEK has become largely associated with ultraconservative hawks from the Republican Party, it also has increasing support among corporate Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, also issued a statement of warm greetings to the MEK conference, which she described as a gathering of the, quote, friends and supporters of a free Iran.

Wilkerson argues that the growing bipartisan U.S. support for this Iranian opposition called is the result of the dangerous idea that the enemy of the enemy is your friend. And he warns that the Trump administration’s belligerent aggression against Iran eerily reminds him of the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq.

LARRY WILKERSON: Well, you’ve got people like Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, and certainly people like you’ve named, and others in the Republican Party, who subscribe to the very simplistic proposition that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if that enemy has been my enemy for a long time.

And that’s the case for the MEK. And as I said before, this is a very very similar situation to Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress in 2002, a situation with which I’m very familiar, because what’s been happening is there’s been this desperate search by everyone from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, which is really the replacement for Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon, which manufactured the intelligence for the war with Iraq, including connections with Al-Qaida and 9/11, and the weapons of mass destruction, which were nonexistent. This is the group FDD, now, that outside the Pentagon, outside the formal government structures doing the same thing that Doug Feith’s group was doing, manufacturing intelligence.

Now, I think, I’ve sensed of late that what the administration really wants, and what it would prefer- and this is probably, I have to say this, it’s probably because of Donald Trump’s influence on this situation, if he has any at all. They’re trying to bring so much pressure to bear on the Ayatollah, on Rouhani, and Zarif, and others that the regime collapses of its own weight. And they’ve interpreted the recent disturbances in Tehran, in particular. And I think this is a misinterpretation of those disturbances. But nonetheless, they’ve interpret them as an indication that it’s working.

So they think tightening the sanctions, making everything effective by November, getting Iran’s oil off the market, ceasing that method of their making any money in the world and so forth, is going to topple the regime. So I think Donald Trump thinks he’s going to do all this without war, that we’re going to wind up with the regime crashing of its own weight. I think that’s rather naive. I don’t think that’s going to happen. And I think in that not happening, John Bolton’s going to try others, and we’re going to wind up on a war track with Iran.

RUDY GIULIANI: Will it happen? Yes. When will it happen? Now. And I want next year at this time, I want us to have this convention in Tehran.

BEN NORTON: Reporting for The Real News I’m Ben Norton.

The real News

July 14, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Bahram Qassemi
Iran

Iran Foreign Ministry dismisses US implicating of Iranian embassies in terror acts

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi has dismissed as ludicrous a recent US allegation that Iranian embassies are involved in terror attacks in Europe.

Qassemi on Wednesday rejected the allegation by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as baseless, preposterous and part of a targeted propaganda campaign and psychological warfare against the activities of the Iranian embassies, which he said were in line with international conventions and aimed at promoting bilateral friendly relations with other countries.

Qassemi said that bringing up such allegations was “another attempt by the United States to destroy our country’s foreign relations.”

Pompeo on Tuesday accused Iran of using its embassies to plot terrorist attacks in Europe.

“Just this past week there were Iranians arrested in Europe who were preparing to conduct a terror plot in Paris, France. We have seen this malign behavior in Europe,” Pompeo said in an interview with Sky News Arabia during a short trip to the United Arab Emirates.

“Pompeo levels such groundless claims against our country while different types of evidence of spying and acts of sabotage by the American embassies with hundreds of military and security personnel [involved]… have been published in various sources, and contemporary history is full of such types of illegitimate activities which are in contravention of international regulations,” Qassemi said.

This came after Belgian authorities claimed earlier this month that an Iranian diplomat had been arrested along with a 38-year-old man and a 33-year-old woman, suspected of plotting a bomb attack on a meeting of the notorious anti-Iran terrorist group the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) in the French capital Paris. The meeting was attended by US President Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and several former European and Arab ministers.

The authorities added that Belgian police had intercepted the two suspects in Belgium on June 30 with 500 grams of the homemade explosive TATP and a detonation device found in their car.

The diplomat, 46-year-old Assadollah A, was arrested in Germany, suspected of having been in contact with the two arrested in Belgium.

Three other people were also arrested in France in connection with the case, two of whom were released.

Iranian officials have denied any involvement in any plot to blow up the MKO meeting and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has condemned the arrests as a “sinister false flag ploy.”

The allegations about the involvement of the Iranian diplomat in the suspected bomb attack on the MKO meeting were designed as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani paid a visit to Switzerland and Vienna and held talks with senior officials of the two European countries.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry said the allegations aimed to damage Iran-Europe relations during the visit.

July 14, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Recent Posts

  • Soraya Abdollahi’s Letter to International Human Rights Bodies

    September 28, 2026
  • How Did Maryam Rajavi Become All-Powerful in the MEK?

    September 27, 2026
  • Yazdan Teimorian’s Family:  We Are so Heart-Broken!

    September 23, 2026
  • Blackman’s relationship with the MEK should be investigated

    September 19, 2026
  • Democracy Cannot Be Built with Fake Voices

    September 14, 2026
  • 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