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 Organization as a terrorist group

MEK’s violent past looms over US lobby for regime change in Iran

On June 28, 1981, a huge explosion ripped through the headquarters of Iran’s ruling Islamic Republic Party, killing at least 74 government officials, including the country’s chief justice, Ayatollah Mohammed Beheshti and more than 20 parliament members, gathered that Sunday evening in southern Tehran.

Iran blamed the attack on the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), a left-wing political group, which also killed Americans before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The suspect reportedly placed the bomb in a rubbish bin near where party leader Beheshti, 52, was addressing the group.

The incident, one of the deadliest political killings in Iran’s history, is still remembered as the Haft-e-Tir bombing, so named after the date when it took place on the Persian calendar.

HAS THE MEK CHANGEDHAS THE MEK CHANGED

A busy square and a subway station in central Tehran were similarly named in honour of the victims.

Two months later, President Mohammad Ali Rajaei, Prime Minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar, and three other people were also killed when an explosive hidden in a briefcase detonated inside the prime minister’s office.

The new president had barely escaped the June bombing.

The effect of the explosion reverberated through the parliament building nearby, and it took more than two hours to put out the fire that followed the blast, according to witness accounts.

A Harvard International Review article described the device as”very sophisticated”.

Bahonar’s secretary turned out to be an undercover MEK operative, and was identified by investigators as the person who planted the bomb. He and the Haft-e-Tir bombing suspect were never arrested.

‘No love lost for MEK’

The MEK’s history of violence has resurfaced in recent days, after US President Donald Trump appointed John Bolton as his national security adviser. The former US ambassador to the UN is a lobbyist for the group and its”government-in-exile”, the Iran National Council of Resistance.

Bolton and the MEK support Trump’s threat to undo the Iran nuclear deal and advocate for”regime change”in Iran. But critics warned the group’s proximity to the levers of American power and the policy they espouse could be a recipe for more bloodshed in the Middle East.

The MEK said it has long renounced violence to advance its goals in Iran. It said it supports”a democratic Iran based on the popular vote”, and the separation of church and state. In September 2012, it was removed from the US”terror list”.

But when Bolton spoke before the group in July 2017 in Paris, members cheered loudly as he said it should be a US policy goal that the Iranian regime”will not last until its 40th birthday”on April 1, 2019.

MEK in Iraq

“I have said for over 10 years since coming to these events, that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullah’s regime in Tehran.”

A year before that, Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, a former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia, also spoke before the group, denouncing the”Khomeini cancer”, in reference to the Islamic Republic’s founder and first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Declarations such as those, however, only make the MEK more unpopular in Tehran, diminishing the likelihood that it could play a role in the country’s political future, observers said.

“There is no sympathy towards the group in Iran,”said Marzieh Javadi, a Tehran-based foreign policy expert who closely follows Iran and US relations.

Among the Iranian public, there is a negative view towards the MEK not only because of its policy of regime change, but more so because of its role in the post-revolution political assassinations and the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, she said.

At the height of the war between Iran and Iraq, the MEK sided with Baghdad, sending as many as 7,000 of its members to Iraq’s Camp Ashraf near the border with Iran.

According to the RAND Corporation think-tank, the MEK launched numerous raids across the border into Iran.

In exchange for its support of Saddam Hussein, MEK received”protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use of land”.

That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said.

“That was a very dark point in the history of Iran, and that is why there is hostility towards these people,”Javadi said.

‘Socialist ideology’

Saeed Jalili, a Tehran-based journalist and expert on the Iranian economy, said with the group’s chequered past, it is doubtful the MEK has any significant following inside Iran now.

“I have not heard anyone asking them [MEK] to make a comeback [in Iran] or anything like that,”he said.

Majority of Iranians”can’t stand the idea of having a socialist regime”, Jalili said referring to”cruel”single-party ruling system in communist countries.

“The fact that they are believed to be promoting a strict communist ideology makes them less likable here,”he told Al Jazeera.

“Iranians believe it’s no different than the one we already have.”

Al Jazeera contacted former US senator Robert Torricelli, a lawyer of MEK, for comment. He did not reply as of the publishing of this story.

But in an article published in Politico in 2016, Torricelli said he has seen”no evidence”that the MEK”took part in terrorist activities against Iranians or Americans”.

Torricelli said the group saved American lives following the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, by identifying locations of improvised explosive devices.

Founded in 1965 by a group of students from Tehran University, the MEK embraced a combination of Marxist philosophy and Islamic values, and supported an armed revolt against Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last royal ruler of the country.

Before the revolution, the MEK carried out attacks on the Shah’s government and his American allies, including the killing of the Tehran police chief in 1972, and two US air force officers in 1975.

Right after the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, MEK members were also believed to have participated in the hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran, which lasted for 444 days, according to the United States Institute of Peace and The National Interest foreign policy magazine.

But they later split with the dominant sectarian ruling party, and began targeting Muslim leaders and government officials. In retaliation, the government executed socialist figures and MEK members.

MEK’s rift with Iran worsened when its leader, Masoud Rajavi, aligned with Saddam in the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.

‘Cult-like’

The organisation is now based in Paris and is led by Rajavi’s wife, Maryam Rajavi, an engineer and native of Tehran. It is unknown whether Masoud is still alive.

In her speeches as head of the MEK, Maryman has repeatedly highlighted her policy on gender equality, saying the rights of women are”linked to the struggle against … fundamentalism”.

Her organisation has also vowed to abolish the death penalty and promote freedom of assembly in a”free Iran”.

Torricelli praised MEK as”the most organised and disciplined of the Iranian opposition groups”.

Al Jazeera also requested comment, but received no response, from the office of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who spoke at the Persian New Year event of MEK in Albania on March 20.

At the celebration, Giuliani told thousands of cheering MEK members that the appointment of Bolton as President Trump’s national security adviser is”very exciting”, while reminding them of Bolton’s 2017 promise of regime change in Iran by 2019.

“You remember John Bolton? You think he changed his mind? No. In fact, if anything, John Bolton has become more determined that there needs to be regime change in Iran, that the nuclear agreement needs to be burned, and that you need to be in charge of that country.”

Iranians, however,”fundamentally don’t trust MEK’s narrative of history and their actions”, said Amir Havasi, an independent journalist in Iran.

Not counting its history of violence, the MEK’s link to the Trump administration”makes them a total pariah in Iran”now, Havasi said, adding the organisation is even more unpopular than the monarchists – those who supported Iran’s overthrown royal ruler.

How the Rajavis run the MEK is also a mystery, according to Kayvan Hosseini, editor of Radio Farda, the Persian-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

He said former members accused the MEK of acting”like a cult”, and no one is allowed to criticise the Rajavis. There have also been reports of”forced divorces”and”group confessions”of members.

Hosseini said Maryam Rajavi has refused to speak to journalists and answer questions about her organisation.

“As long as they keep their door closed to independent journalists and their leaders refuse to answer to the media, it is not possible to know the truth about MEK.”

Meanwhile, Hosseini said it is not only the MEK but also other opposition groups who”actively seek”regime change in Iran.

But he said it is not up to any particular individual or organisation to decide who should be the”alternative”to the current government in Iran.

“That is a question for the Iranian nation. They should decide whether to keep their current government, or change it to any other form of government they desire.”

April 3, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
weekly digest
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 226

 

++ The MEK leadership’s only mission this week has been to pump up the members by promising that ‘John Bolton will save us, and we will go to Iran’, a message entirely for internal consumption. The reaction – mostly from ex-members – has been to try to wake people inside the MEK up. For example, some point out that Rudi Giuliani sat with Maryam Rajavi in the Nowruz show and asked members to clap for one minute for the martyrs of MEK. He knows they were anti-Imperialism martyrs, but that doesn’t matter to him or Rajavi. Some commentators talk about the Haftsin table for Nowruz. Some years the MEK have a table of items beginning with ‘S’ which symbolise Sarneguni [overthrow], some years they don’t. This year they didn’t. It’s just a game they are playing. Mainly, commentators say that Maryam Rajavi has simply gone over the top. One day she presents a list of MEK martyrs to John McCain. This time, ridiculously, she awarded Giuliani with a ‘medal of Free Iran’. Even more ridiculous is that he accepted it; anything for money. Others say that this organisation, after the deaths of benefactor Saddam and leader Massoud Rajavi, is being used for anything and everything by everyone. One day it is in the hands of the Saudis, the next day Giuliani. Even Iran uses it to claim that the uprising in Iran is their fault. This is the true meaning of ‘mercenary’ force.

In English:

++ Fax Web in Albania reported that 124 former MEK who are resident in the country made a formal asylum request to the Albanian police. The police say there is credible evidence that the MEK’s death threats and other intimidation are real and could end in murder as happened in Iraq. Since 21st February the police have implemented measures to protect and guarantee their lives. Former Military Intelligence Director Ylli Zyla told Fax Web that “a good number of the Mojahedin that are in our country are elderly and do not pose a high risk”. Zyla said further that the security services in our country are keeping these people under surveillance. “The security services have the ability to control this mass of people and the work of their ranks. They have no way of influencing Iranian politics and they have a rule that they cannot get married”, said Zyla.

++ Gazeta Impakt of Tirana published in full the Albanian Information Service report mentioned by Fax Web. “The report highlights the violent attacks and threats of murder that the MEK is making against the defectors who have decided to abandon jihad and deradicalize in Albania, and who the MEK accuse of acting as agents of Iran. Albanian police and SHISH are taking the threats that MEK is making against these deradicalized jihadists in Albania seriously and has placed them under protection from the possibility of assassination by Maryam Rajavi’s extremists.” Pointing out that the MEK’s calls for violent regime change are illegal in Albania, the report continues, “Since the MEK was brought to Albania by the US Intelligence services and used as a diversionary and terrorist organization against Iran and is protected by US-based Senators such as John Bolton and John McCain, the MEK’s violations of Albanian laws are ignored by the Albanian authorities.”

++ Masses of outraged articles appeared from every side in response to Trump’s proposed appointment of John Bolton as his National Security Advisor. Many linked Bolton to the MEK:

+ Jason Rezaian, Washington Post, ‘John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that paid him’

+ Washington Post (AP), (quoting Iran’s Fars News), ‘Iran: Naming John Bolton national security adviser shameful’

+ Daniel Larison, The American Conservative, ‘Why Bolton’s MEK Connection Matters’

+ Daniel Larison, The American Conservative, ‘Bolton and the Noxious U.S.-Saudi Relationship’

+ Gareth Porter, The American Conservative, ‘The Untold Story of John Bolton’s Campaign for War With Iran’

++ Olsi Jazexhi, Global Research, asks ‘Is Albania a Partner of the US in Supporting International Terrorism?’ Jazexhi charts how Albanian politicians, are being co-opted by the MEK and Americans such as Rudi Giuliani, for promoting their regime change agenda. The MEK’s insistence that Iran is an active threat in the Balkans has artificially skewed Intelligence and security behaviour in the region, something Israel is particularly interested in. The Albanian government which is ordered by people like John Bolton, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani to do all they can to support the Mojahedin, have finally started to attack even Shia and Sufi religious institutions in Albania. The UNHCR, instead of helping MEK who have escaped the group, support the MEK and tell dissociates to go back to the MEK for financial support. Media which dare to show how the defectors have been abused, enslaved and radicalized by the MEK, are attacked for being “bought by Iran”.

The writer concludes: “The attacks that the Mojahedin are launching against local Muslim communities, academics and intellectuals, journalists and media are shocking the Albanian public. Until now they have seen the Mojahedin as some foreign terrorist leftovers that the USA wanted to dump in Albania after they were expelled from Iraq. However, the recent media and police attacks are showing to the Albanian public that the Mojahedin are a threat not only to Iran, but to Albania too. On the other hand, the calls from US senators like Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton and John McCain on the Mojahedin who are based in Albania to go and wage jihad in Iran, make many Albanians worried and upset. Many ask: if the USA wants to use the Mojahedin to fight Iran, why don’t they host them in the USA instead of Albania? … Mr. Rudy Giuliani! Mr. John Bolton! Can you please take your Mojahedin to the USA and from there do anything you want! We do not want to fight another Middle Eastern war for you. Leave us alone, please!”

March 30, 2018

April 3, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Untold Story of John Bolton’s Campaign for War With Iran

Everyone knows Bolton is a hawk. Less understood is how he labored in secret to drive Washington and Tehran apart.

In my reporting on U.S.-Israeli policy, I have tracked numerous episodes in which the United States and/or Israel made moves that seemed to indicate preparations for war against Iran. Each time—in 2007, in 2008, and again in 2011—those moves, presented in corporate media as presaging attacks on Tehran, were actually bluffs aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government.

Gareth Porter

But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neoconservative hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of such a policy.

His is not merely a rhetorical stance: Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as the Bush administration’s policymaker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for the administration to carry out military action.

More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself—the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson—to get Trump’s ear last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after meeting with Adelson.

It was Bolton who persuaded Trump to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if Congress and America’s European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to ensure the deal would fall apart.

Although Bolton was passed over for the job of secretary of state, he now appears to have had the inside track for national security advisor. Trump met with Bolton on March 6 and told him, “We need you here, John,” according to a Bolton associate. Bolton said he would only take secretary of state or national security advisor, whereupon Trump promised, “I’ll call you really soon.” Trump then replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with former CIA director Mike Pompeo, after which White House sources leaked to the media Trump’s intention to replace H.R. McMaster within a matter of weeks.

The only other possible candidate for the position mentioned in media accounts is Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who was acting national security advisor after General Michael Flynn was ousted in February 2017.

Bolton’s high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence.

Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration’s main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney’s backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department’s Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs.

Thus, at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a February 2003 visit, Bolton assured Israeli officials in private meetings that he had no doubt the United States would attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran, too, as well as Syria.

During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran.

Mossad played a very aggressive role in influencing world opinion on the Iranian nuclear program. In the summer of 2003, according to journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins in their book The Nuclear Jihadist, Meir Dagan created a new Mossad office tasked with briefing the world’s press on alleged Iranian efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The new unit’s responsibilities included circulating documents from inside Iran as well from outside, according to Frantz and Collins.

Bolton’s role in a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy, as he outlines in his own 2007 memoir, was to ensure that the Iran nuclear issue would be moved out of the International Atomic Energy Agency and into the United Nations Security Council. He was determined to prevent IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei from reaching an agreement with Iran that would make it more difficult for the Bush administration to demonize Tehran as posing a nuclear weapons threat. Bolton began accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program in mid-2003, but encountered resistance not only from ElBaradei and non-aligned states, but from Britain, France, and Germany as well.

Bolton’s strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear program from the IAEA, and in early 2004, he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy: he sent a set of satellite images to the IAEA showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites and leaked his demand to the Associated Press in September 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for conventional explosives testing.

Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran’s “intransigence” in refusing to answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005 Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.

The U.S.-Israeli strategy would later hit the jackpot, however, when a large cache of documents supposedly from a covert source within Iran’s nuclear weapons program surfaced in autumn 2004. The documents, allegedly found on the laptop computer of one of the participants, included technical drawings of a series of efforts to redesign Iran’s Shahab-3 missile to carry what appeared to be a nuclear weapon.

But the whole story of the so-called “laptop documents” was a fabrication. In 2013, a former senior German official revealed the true story to this writer: the documents had been given to German intelligence by the Mujahedin E Khalq, the anti-Iran armed group that was well known to have been used by Mossad to “launder” information the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves. Furthermore, the drawings showing the redesign that were cited as proof of a nuclear weapons program were clearly done by someone who didn’t know that Iran had already abandoned the Shahab-3’s nose cone for an entirely different design.

Mossad had clearly been working on those documents in 2003 and 2004 when Bolton was meeting with Meir Dagan. Whether Bolton knew the Israelis were preparing fake documents or not, it was the Israeli contribution towards establishing the political basis for an American attack on Iran for which he was the point man. Bolton reveals in his memoirs that this Cheney-directed strategy took its cues from the Israelis, who told Bolton that the Iranians were getting close to “the point of no return.” That was point, Bolton wrote, at which “we could not stop their progress without using force.”

Cheney and Bolton based their war strategy on the premise that the U.S. military would be able to consolidate control over Iraq quickly. Instead the U.S. occupation bogged down and never fully recovered. Cheney proposed taking advantage of a high-casualty event in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran to attack an IRGC base in Iran in the summer of 2007. But the risk that pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq would retaliate against U.S. troops was a key argument against the proposal.

The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also well aware that Iran had the capability to retaliate directly against U.S. forces in the region, including against warships in the Strait of Hormuz. They had no patience for Cheney’s wild ideas about more war.

That Pentagon caution remains unchanged. But two minds in the White House unhinged from reality could challenge that wariness—and push the United States closer towards a dangerous war with Iran.

By Gareth Porter

Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to TAC. He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter.

April 3, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Bill Kristol
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Even Bill Kristol is Worried About Bolton

Bill Kristol was not altogether pleased with with last week’s announcement of the appointment of John Bolton as Donald Trump’s next national security advisor. Indeed, Kristol, who remains probably the single most influential figure in the increasingly fractious neoconservative movement, expressed some serious discomfort about the appointment in a Weekly Standard Interview with Charlie Sykes last Friday.

    I like the idea that John Bolton was in the George H.W. Bush and the George W. Bush administrations. They had a lot of establishment people. I think he was a useful spur to rethinking some things, being a little more aggressive, being a little more challenging.

I agree with you. With Donald Trump as president, it makes me nervous. I like John Bolton, I respect John Bolton, but I’ve got to say that John Bolton as national security advisor is a little nervous-making.

Bill Kristol

In the interview, Kristol argues correctly that Bolton is not a true neoconservative and is much more of “a national interest, America-First kind of guy,” adding that he ”will be a little more of a reinforcer of Trump and a little less of a restrainer of Trump.” This prospect clearly chills him given what Sykes described as the president’s “darker, more impulsive tendencies.”

Kristol also noted, significantly, that, with respect to the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA), “he’s much more of a get-rid-of-the-deal, rather than a fix-the-deal kinda guy.” Kristol is thus following the lead of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the most generously funded and active of the anti-Iran groups, which is worried that an abrupt, unilateral U.S. withdrawal—as opposed to its gradual, hollowing out—from the deal would backfire and isolate Washington from its European allies in particular.

Kristol, along with his ideological confreres, campaigned hard against the JCPOA and has always taken an extremely hawkish line toward Tehran. That he is now worried about Bolton should send a strong message to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Congress who will not have the chance to vote on his appointment.

(Of course, senators will have the opportunity to vote next month on Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo, whose opposition to the nuclear deal has been just as fervent as Bolton’s. Indeed, the two men appear to hold nearly identical views on foreign policy generally with the exception that, unlike Pompeo, Bolton doesn’t claim divine sanction for his preferred policies and, unlike Bolton, Pompeo avoids going out of his way to alienate or humiliate people. I believe that a vote for Pompeo equals a vote for Bolton equals a vote for war, because I think some form of aggressive military action under this team is highly likely unless Pentagon chief Jim Mattis and the Joint Chiefs can somehow prevail against the duo and Trump’s “darker, more impulsive tendencies.”)

Other NeverTrumpers

Kristol’s concern about Bolton is clearly shared by at least some of the “NeverTrumpers,” including many national-security neoconservatives who strongly opposed Trump’s rise within the Republican Party. Many of them signed a letter way back in March 2016 that called Bolton “utterly unfitted [sic] to the office” of the president due to, among other things, his temperament, his Islamophobic and anti-immigration positions, and his isolationist, “America First” rhetoric and tendencies. They were also never wild about former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, whose ties to Arab monarchies and Russia were always a source of suspicion.

NeverTrump pundits have mostly maintained their opposition to the administration despite the appointments of both Pompeo and Bolton, with whom they have long been closely allied in their hostility to Iran and the JCPOA, as well as their fervent support for the right-wing Likud-led government in Israel. Besides Kristol, those who have spoken out against Bolton have included The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, who wrote that Bolton’s appointment “should be a wake-up call to Republicans who always assumed wise, calm advisers would be there to constrain Trump” and who urged Republican and Democratic lawmakers to start “reclaiming Congress’s power, for example, by declaring that congressional authorization is required for a first strike on either Iran or North Korea.” Max Boot described Bolton as a “wild man” characterized by “ideological extremism.” Even David Frum, whose co-authorship with Richard Perle of the 2003 Islamophobic, anti-State Department/CIA screed, An End to Evil, was very much an endorsement of Bolton’s worldview, displayed a distinct lack of enthusiasm. As he wrote in The Atlantic:

    The Bolton appointment, however, could be seen as the strangest Trump surprise yet. Remember, Trump campaigned as the candidate of anti-interventionism. He sneered at the foreign-policy views of rivals like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz: “I don’t even call them hawks,” he told three reporters from The Washington Post in September 2015. “I call them fools.” But of course, those were John Bolton’s views, too.

At the same time, however, some NeverTrumpers show signs of reconsidering their position in light of Bolton’s nomination despite their distaste for the president himself. After all, like them, Bolton disdains the United Nations, hates the Russians, and loves Likud.

Thus, Bret Stephens, perhaps the most eloquent NeverTrumper, praised Bolton’s contempt for Turtle Bay in a column last week and more recently depicted Bolton as a welcome antidote to Trump’s America First tendencies. “I think someone like Bolton is going to restrain the isolationist impulses that have been really at the heart of Trump’s foreign policy thinking,” he told The Hill. Another neoconservative and NeverTrumper, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (where Bolton has been perched when not in government), insisted that, “In terms of organization, intellect, fairness, commitment to process, and a desire to get the best possible outcome for the United States with whatever cards he is dealt, Bolton could be the best national security adviser in a generation.” This is truly remarkable given Rubin’s past denunciations of U.S. supporters of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK), the cult-like Iranian opposition movement of which Bolton has been one of the most prominent (and presumably well-paid) promoters.

Abrams Redux

One key neocon, Elliott Abrams, who was never formally part of the NeverTrump movement but who Trump vetoed for the post of deputy secretary of state early last year, has offered fulsome praise for Bolton’s appointment. “I’m delighted. John is a friend and former colleague,” he emailed Haaretz last week. “He’s extremely smart and he is an excellent and forceful bureaucrat. I think the combination of Pompeo and Bolton will serve the president and the country very well.”

Abrams has been anglingfor a senior position in this administration for more than a year now, and the ascendance of both Bolton and Pompeo could very give him the opening for which he’s been waiting. Although he avoided signing letters identified with the NeverTrump movement, Abrams is very close to many of the individuals who did. Indeed, his entrée into the administration would no doubt persuade some NeverTrumpers, particularly those who have been most appreciative of Trump’s virtually unconditional support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing government, to not only tone down or cease their complaining, but to actually join his administration. After all, the new foreign policy team has a very weak bench. An influx of neoconservative veterans of the George W. Bush administration could deepen it in ways that Trump sorely needs.

If Abrams manages to join the team, it would resurrect the tripartite coalition that drove the U.S. to invade Iraq in 2003: aggressive nationalists led by Bolton, neoconservatives led by Abrams, and the Christian Right led by Pompeo.

Thirteen months ago, Kristol himself tweeted about Abrams and Bolton amid speculation about who would get the deputy secretary of state post:

    For what it’s worth, I’d say what’s needed [for deputy secretary of state] is broad government experience. They won’t (presumably) take Abrams. How about John Bolton?

If Abrams is soon brought in, Kristol might feel better about Bolton.

by Jim Lobe, lobelog

April 3, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US National Security Advisor John Bolton Backs Terrorists

Talk surrounding US President Donald Trump’s move to appoint John Bolton as his new National Security Advisor has focused on Bolton’s role in promoting the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the profound contrast his appointment signifies in light of President Trump’s 2016 campaign promises to “drain the swamp.”

However, Bolton’s appointment carries with it greater implications both to those apparently criticizing him as well as those attempting to promote him. Bolton has – for years – lobbied for a terrorist organization guilty of kidnapping and killing both US service members as well as US civilian contractors, along with an untold number of Iranian civilians and politicians in a campaign of terror that has stretched over several decades and continues today.

Worst of all, the terrorist organization Bolton lobbied for was literally listed on the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list during his lobbying activities – in direct violation of US counter-terrorism laws.

That organization – Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and its political front, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – has since been delisted as of 2012. However, the organization was delisted not because it has fully given up armed terrorism, but because the US has planned since at least as early as 2009 – according to Washington’s own policy papers – to use MEK as armed proxies against the nation of Iran.

MEK are Terrorists, Even According to Their US Sponsors

Despite claims by a growing army of MEK advocates spanning various social media platforms, MEK is without doubt a dangerous terrorist organization. Even those seeking to sponsor MEK as a militant proxy against Iran have admitted as much.

In the 2009 Brookings Institution policy paper, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” US policymakers openly admitted MEK’s candidacy as a US proxy (emphasis added):

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

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

Brookings policymakers also openly acknowledged that MEK was without doubt a terrorist organization (emphasis added):

    Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread. Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.”

It should be noted that Brookings’ mention of MEK was made under a chapter titled, “INSPIRING AN INSURGENCY Supporting Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups,” indicating that groups being considered for US sponsorship would undoubtedly be armed and carry out a campaign of violence – if not terrorism, then the full-scale military operations similar US-sponsored militant groups have been carrying out in Syria.

Brookings recommendation that MEK be removed “from the list of foreign terrorist organizations” would eventually be fully realized by 2012 – spear

headed by lobbyists led by prominent US politicians and policymakers including US National Security Advisor John Bolton.

MEK’s Decades of Terrorism and its Future Terrorism

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

Admissions to the deaths of the Rockwell International employees can be found within a 2011 report written by former US State Department and Department of Defense official Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. on behalf of another lobbying firm – Akin Gump – in an attempt to dismiss concerns over MEK’s violent past and how it connects to its current campaign of armed terror.

The report would state:

    The State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 document says that the MEK killed the deputy chief of the US Military Mission in Tehran in 1973, two members of the US Military Assistance Advisory Group in 1975, and two employees of Rockwell International in 1976, and that it claimed responsibility for killing an American Texaco executive in 1979.

MEK’s violent past of armed terrorism, coupled with admissions by the US that it seeks to use MEK as an armed proxy against Iran calls into question the US State Department’s decision

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.

The US State Department admits that the organization carried out terrorism in the past and continues today with abuses toward its own members. And as US policymakers within the pages of Brookings papers admit, the entire campaign aimed at delisting MEK in the first place was to legitimize the organization’s use as a militant proxy against Iran – a role that will most certainly violate MEK’s supposed “renunciation of violence” and contravene the grounds upon which MEK was delisted as a terrorist organization by the US State Department in the first place.

John Bolton’s Advocacy of Terrorists

Considering the undeniable terrorist nature of MEK past, present, and Washington’s own admitted plans for its terrorist future, the troubling nature of John Bolton’s advocacy for the group comes into full focus. This is particularly so within the context of Bolton’s new role as National Security Advisor.

Bolton’s role in lobbying for MEK and NCIR has been promoted most prominently by his own supporters among the US media. Right-leaning CNS – for example – in an article titled, “Senior US, Saudi Figures Call for Tehran Regime to be Overthrown,” would admit:

    Bolton, who has attended the annual NCRI event for a decade, cited Iran’s military intervention in Syria, in maneuvering in Iraq, and its support for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and for Houthi militia in Yemen.

The same article would note however, that:

    Supporters view the NCRI and affiliated People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran (MEK) as a viable opposition to the clerical rulers in Tehran, and praise it for exposing the regime’s covert nuclear programs.

Detractors view with suspicion its history of support for the regime of Saddam Hussein, and what critics have described as cult-like behavior.

The MEK was designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. until 2012, when the Obama administration delisted it, citing a renunciation of violence and “the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade.”

Foreign Policy would also expose Bolton’s lobbying efforts. In FP’s 2011 article titled, “MEK rally planned for Friday at State Department,” it would include mention of a full-paged ad taken out in the Washington Post. The ad included a letter to then US President Barack Obama which stated:

    We are writing to you with urgency to underline the need for an immediate decision to remove Iran’s opposition group the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO).

The 2011 ad was signed by John Bolton along with other prominent US politicians including Howard Dean, Rudy Guiliani, and Tom Ridge.

Since MEK has only been removed from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list since 2012, CNS, Foreign Policy, and the lobbying efforts of Bolton himself serves as evidence that Bolton provided support and lobbying services to what was a listed terrorist organization in blatant violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2339A – providing material support to terrorists.

Bolton’s speeches openly supporting MEK prior to 2012 are easily found online. One published in 2010 features Bolton speaking in Paris openly advocating not only the US removing MEK from its Foreign Terrorist Organizations list, but also lobbying for US support to be provided to MEK and others in what he called the “Iranian opposition.” Since the 2012 delisting, Bolton has continued attending MEK events and advocating both support for MEK and openly calling for the US-led overthrow of the Iranian government.

While some have attempted to defend Bolton and others lobbying for MEK claiming that MEK could not have been removed from the State Department’s list even if it was no longer a threat to the US without the aid of lobbying – it should be remembered that the job of adding or removing terrorist organizations from the State Department’s list is the responsibility of the Bureau of Counterterrorism in the State Department – not political lobbyists.

The State Department itself notes on its website that:

    The Bureau of Counterterrorism in the State Department (CT) continually monitors the activities of terrorist groups active around the world to identify potential targets for designation. When reviewing potential targets, CT looks not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts.

Clearly – however – the presence of immense lobbying campaigns like those led by Bolton on behalf of MEK indicates that the State Department’s list is dictated by political motivations, money, and lobbying, not independent analysis provided by US security and intelligence professionals either in the US State Department or elsewhere within the US government.

Furthermore, it is clear by the US State Department’s own criteria that MEK is still very much a foreign terrorist organization. According to its own criteria, any organization that is even planning or preparing for possible future acts of terrorism, must be included on the list. US policymakers and even John Bolton himself have openly stated that MEK will be used as an armed proxy against Iran.

A Terrorist Collaborator Advising on US National Security

A National Security Advisor openly guilty of violating US anti-terrorism laws having provided material support to a US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization for years illustrates just how profoundly compromised US institutions are and reflects an agenda that not only exclusively serves special interests – but does so at the cost of the American people’s actual security.

The position of National Security Advisor – officially known as “the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs” – is described by the US White House’s official website as part of the National Security Council as follows:

    The National Security Council (NSC) is the President’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. Since its inception under President Truman, the Council’s function has been to advise and assist the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the President’s principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.

A National Security Council that includes lobbyists representing terrorist organizations with American blood on their hands constitutes not only a dire threat to actual US national security, but global security as well.

MEK terrorists backed by a nation possessing nuclear weapons and a history of provoking wars through fabricated evidence and staged incidents ensures that America’s foreign policy will continue to pursue destructive wars abroad at the cost of US treasure and blood and the resources and lives of nations the US sets its industrialized military aggression upon.

John Bolton – however – is not the architect of the policy he has advocated for well over a decade. He is simply fulfilling what US policymakers themselves have meted out in the pages of US policy papers for just as long. These policymakers – in turn – are funded by American arms manufacturers, energy conglomerates, financial institutions, and other immense corporate-financier special interests.

The Brookings Institution whose 2009 paper, “Which Path to Persia?” spelled out verbatim the steps Bolton has since undertaken with his lobbying efforts, has a long list of such corporate-financier interests underwriting and directing its work.

While exposing John Bolton’s complicity in the material support of egregious terrorists and his efforts to use them as armed proxies against Iran in a war he has attempted to promote and instigate for years is important, it is equally important to expose, confront, isolate, and extinguish the influence of the corporate-financier interests that have underwritten and directed Bolton’s efforts and the efforts of countless others working to drag the United States, its allies, and the rest of the planet into another destructive conflict.Understanding that efforts to remove MEK from the US State Department’s  Foreign Terrorist Organizations list and prepare them for their role as armed proxies against Iran transcended the administrations of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump exposes the continuity of agenda – regardless of who occupies the White House or US Congress – advanced by these unelected corporate-financier interests.

Tony Cartalucci , Journal-neo

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

April 3, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Albania
Missions of Nejat Society

Is Albania a Partner of the US In Supporting International Terrorism?

The gathering of the Mojahedin was also attended by three Albanian politicians. They were Pandeli Majko, Minister for the Diaspora in the present Albanian government. Majko served as Minister of the Interior during the era of secret CIA renditions in Eastern Europe when Albania was used by the CIA to rendition and torture people. Majko who has never denied his cooperation with the CIA or the existence of secret prisons in Albania, has defended the illegal renditions and torture and has criticized those who spoke against the torture chambers of the CIA.

The second politician was Fatmir Mediu, a former disgraced Minister of Defense, who is blamed in Albania for weapon trafficking to Afghanistan and the Gerdec explosion and killings. The Gerdec explosion which killed 26 Albanians, injured hundreds, and damaged or destroyed over two thousand homes was part of an operation by Fatmir Mediu and American contractors to fake old Albanian ammunition and sell them as new to Afghanistan.

The third politician was Elona Gjebrea, who served as deputy Minister of the Interior for Albania’s infamous Minister of Interior Saimir Tahiri (2013-2017) and is now under investigation for possible links with a notorious Albanian mafia gang known as the Habilaj brothers.

Giuliani told to the Mojahedin that the US and the Albanian government see them as the only future for Iran, and the necessary thing to do at this moment is regime change. Pandeli Majko, the Minister of Diaspora in the Edi Rama’s government supported Giuliani’s claim and told the Mojahedin that his dream is to return to Tehran with the Mojahedin. Elona Gjebrea and Fatmir Mediu did the same. They supported the Mojahedin in their violent mission for regime change in Iran. Rudi Giuliani emboldened the Mojahedin by telling them that changes are coming to Washington. John Bolton, their fierce supporter is going to become President Trump’s National Security Advisor and he wants a regime change in Iran.

The threats of Giuliani against Iran have been instrumentalized in recent months with mass surveillance and attacks on Iranian and Shiia Muslim institutions in Albania and Kosovo. The Israelis are very vigilant against the Iranian influence in the Balkans too. They instruct their Albanian partners to target Iran and its institutions, even though Iran has never had any problem with any Balkan country. With the arrival of the Mojahedin in Albania, the anti-Iran and anti-Shiia hysteria is becoming more and more public. The Mojahedin, who act as a proxy army for the US and Israel, claim that Iran is very influential in Albania and is working with its agents to discredit their fight for regime change. In recent months they have launched a number of smear attacks against Iranian institutions and the embassy in Tirana. On March 15 they attacked a group of Albanian intellectuals headed by the ex-president of Albania, Rexhep Mejdani who participated in a scientific conference in Tehran, claiming that they were part of a plot by Tehran to discredit them. The Mojahedin, who are having many of their members abandon the organization in Albania, attack the defectors by insulting them as Iranian agents and threaten to assassinate them. The UNHCR which is supposed to help all war refugees has sided with the Mojahedin and refuses to support the defectors financially and asks them to go back to their Mojahedin camp if they want to get financial support. When local Albanian TV stations dare to present the claims of the defectors who show how they are abused, enslaved and radicalized by MEK, the Mojahedin attack the Albanian media claiming that they have been bought by Iran.

In face of the threats that MEK makes against Albanian intellectuals, media and its defectors, the Albanian government keeps silent, even though a recent police report claims that the Mojahedin might assassinate some of the defectors who have abandoned the organization. While the Albanian government and its courts are very vigilant to jail any Albanian Salafi as a terrorist if they make calls for regime change in Syria or praise ISIS, so far no actions have been taken against the Iranian Mojahedin, Albanian or US politicians who support the MEK jihad and make calls for regime change in Iran, even though the Albanian the criminal code punishes such calls with imprisonment from four up to ten years. The Albanian government and its courts have not taken any action even against those Mojahedin who have threatened to assassinate their defectors in Albania.

The Albanian government who is ordered by people like John Bolton, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani to do all they can to support the Mojahedin, have finally started to attack even Shiia and Sufi religious institutions in Albania. On March 22, 2018 the anti-terror police disrupted the ceremony of Novruz that the World Headquarters of Bektashism organized in Tirana. The ceremony of the liberal Muslim Sufi sect was disrupted when anti-terrorism police detained two retired Iranian journalists and an Iraqi-German citizen who were celebrating the Novruz in the Grand Sufi Teqe. The invitees were officially invited to the ceremony by Baba Mondi, the Grand Dervish of the Bektashis. However the Albanian anti-terror units who take note of complains by MEK about Iranian influence and conspiracy against them, detained and interrogated as terrorists for 7 hours the two retired Iranian journalists who were covering the Bektashi festival. Even though the journalists were later released, this event shocked the Bektashi community and the Iranian cultural NGO-s who operate in Albania.

The attacks that the Mojahedin are launching against local Muslim communities, academics and intellectuals, journalists and media are shocking the Albanian public. Until now they have seen the Mojahedin as some foreign terrorist leftovers that the USA wanted to dump in Albania after they were expelled from Iraq. However, the recent media and police attacks are showing to the Albanian public that the Mojahedin are a threat not only to Iran, but to Albania too. On the other hand, the calls from US senators like Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton and John McCain on the Mojahedin who are based in Albania to go and wage jihad in Iran, make many Albanians worried and upset. Many ask: if the USA wants to use the Mojahedin to fight Iran, why don’t they host them in the USA instead of Albania? The Albanian public has not and has never had any problem with Iran. Why is the American government blackmailing Albania and using it as a launchpad for its next terrorist war against another Middle Eastern country? Was it not enough for the US administration to allow the Saudis to radicalize the Muslim youths in the Balkans and send them to Syria for jihad, but now they are creating another jihad and the Muslims of the Balkans are again to pay the price?

Mr. Rudy Giuliani! Mr. John Bolton! Can you please take your Mojahedin to the USA and from there do anything you want! We do not want to fight another Middle Eastern war for you. Leave us alone, please!

Olsi Jazexhi, Global research

March 28, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Missions of Nejat Society

Why Bolton’s MEK Connection Matters

Jason Rezaian comments on Bolton’s enthusiasm for the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) and what it means for U.S. Iran policy:

The MEK is the type of fringe group that sets up camp across the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and hands out fliers filled with unsubstantiated claims. This is America — we let crazy people talk. That’s their right, and I would never suggest that they be prohibited from doing that. But giving the MEK a voice in the White House is a terrible idea.

In John Bolton they have someone who will do it for them.

Now that Bolton is in such an influential position in the Trump administration, his connection with and support for the MEK pose some real dangers for the U.S. He could use his position to funnel misinformation from the MEK to the president to distort U.S. policy in their favor. He might use his position to advocate publicly on behalf of the MEK, and that would give them a de facto endorsement from the administration. Worse still, he could persuade the president that this totalitarian cult is the “real” Iranian opposition, which would simultaneously harm Iranian dissidents and saddle the U.S. with a discredited, deranged cult as its preferred alternative to the Iranian government.

Bolton’s connection with the MEK is not the only disqualifying thing in his record, but it is one of the more egregious red flags that should have prevented the president from ever offering him the job in the first place. If any other group had been removed from the list of foreign terrorist organizations a few years earlier, anyone publicly advocating on their behalf while they were still on the list would have tremendous difficulty getting work with the U.S. government, much less serving as one of the most important officials in the White House. Because the MEK hates the Iranian government, shilling for them is probably considered a plus in this administration. It is a measure of how warped the debate over Iran policy is that Bolton and others like him could openly shill for such a group without becoming pariahs.

Rezaian reminds us just what the MEK is:

But it is the group’s activities in the decades since that have cemented its reputation as a deranged cult. For decades its command center was a compound in Iraq’s Diyala province, where more than 3,000 members lived in virtual captivity. The few who were able to escape told of being cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused and tortured.

All this was carried out under the supervision of the group’s leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, the husband and wife at the top of the organization’s pyramid. He has been missing since the U.S. invasion in 2003 and is presumed dead. She now runs the group and makes regular public appearances with her powerful friends from the West — such as Bolton.

There has been a shameful parade of former U.S. officials, retired military officers, and has-been politicians making their annual pilgrimage to pay tribute to Maryam Rajavi in Paris every year. Bolton has been a faithful devotee for the last decade, and when he was just a former Bush administration official few people cared that he was disgracing himself with his appearances there. Now that he is going to be the next National Security Advisor, his horrible judgment and sketchy ties to awful groups should receive extensive scrutiny and they should make us extremely skeptical about everything he says and does in that position.

By Daniel Larison

March 28, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Bolton and Rajavis
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

John Bolton, Cheerleader for the MEK

Robin Wright reviews Bolton’s awful record, including his enthusiasm for the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK):

Bolton has also long backed a cultlike Iranian opposition group, the Mujahideen-e Khalq, or M.E.K., which has been held responsible for the murder of multiple American military personnel, a kidnapping attempt of a U.S. Ambassador, and other violent attacks in Iran before the 1979 revolution. The M.E.K. was based in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein, who provided arms, financial assistance, and political support. In 1997, it was among the first groups cited on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations. It wasn’t removed until 2012. Bolton spoke at an M.E.K. rally last year—for the eighth time—in Paris. Other speakers at M.E.K. rallies have reportedly been paid tens of thousands of dollars for their appearances.

There have been quite a few former officials, politicians, and retired military officers that have been cheerleading for the MEK over the last few years, but Bolton is one of their oldest and most consistent American supporters. It is a measure of how terrible his judgment is and how fanatical his desire for regime change in Iran is that he has become a reliable booster of a group that most Iranians despise. The MEK may not be on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations any longer, but it is still a disreputable and despicable group. It is considered a totalitarian cult for good reason. Elizabeth Rubin wrote about them and their American fan club back in 2011:

As a senior State Department official told me, “They are the best financed and organized, but they are so despised inside Iran that they have no traction.” Iranian democracy activists say the group, if it had had the chance, could have become the Khmer Rouge of Iran.

“They are considered traitors and killers of Iranian kids,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the Mujahedeen Khalq’s status on the terrorist list is under review. “They are so unpopular that we think any gesture of support to them would disqualify and discredit us as being interested in democratic reform.”

Trump’s rhetoric about supporting the Iranian people was always empty, but promoting someone with Bolton’s views and connections to the highest level of government shows just how disingenuous that rhetoric is. Whenever Bolton talks about supporting “the Iranian opposition,” these cultists are the people he’s talking about. When he talks about regime change in Iran, he thinks that these are the people that should take over. To date, no American MEK booster has risen as high in the government, but now the group will have an admirer advising the president on a daily basis.

By Daniel Larison

March 28, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
John Bolton and Saudis
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Bolton and the Noxious U.S.-Saudi Relationship

The reaction to Bolton’s appointment abroad has been mostly negative, but Bruce Riedel reports that the Saudis are very pleased:

The Saudis are very bullish on Bolton. The media has hailed his calls for “well ordered” regime change in Tehran and his promise at an opposition rally a year ago that he will “celebrate” with them in Tehran by 2019 [bold mine-DL]. The Saudi press is encouraging the Trump “war cabinet” to take on Iran, Turkey and Qatar to evict them from Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

John Bolton and Saudis

It is a measure of how warped the U.S.-Saudi relationship is and how bad it is for the U.S. that the Saudis are excited by Bolton’s appointment because they assume it means that Americans will fight more wars for them. The “opposition” rally that Riedel refers to was the annual meeting where Bolton and other embarrassments go to bend the knee before the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) leader, Maryam Rajavi. The Saudis have publicly embraced the MEK since one of their former ambassadors to the U.S. spoke at the 2016 rally, and now there is an MEK cheerleader advising the president. They are all united by reflexive hostility to Iran, and all of them are eager for regime change.

The MEK has no support in Iran, where it is widely loathed for fighting against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and it has nothing to do with the actual Iranian opposition inside Iran. Bolton and other American MEK boosters want to erase that distinction to make it seem as if their support for regime change has something to do with supporting the people of Iran, but that’s a lie. Most Iranians don’t want regime change and they certainly don’t want the MEK to take over. The fact that the Saudis and American hard-liners promote the MEK as the alternative to the Iranian regime just confirms Iranians in their distrust and loathing of the group.

Saudi enthusiasm for Bolton is unsurprising, but their government’s obvious desire to bog the U.S. down in more conflicts should cause Americans to rethink the entire relationship with Riyadh. The Saudi government is only too happy to volunteer Americans for wars that have nothing to do with our security, and Bolton has never seen an unnecessary war that he didn’t want to send Americans to fight. Between them there is a real danger that they will be able to persuade Trump to do what they want.

By Daniel Larison

March 28, 2018 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that paid him

President Trump’s appointment of John Bolton as his new national security adviser has created a stir among foreign policy experts. He is known for expressing extreme skepticism about international institutions (including the United Nations, where he served as U.S. ambassador in the George W. Bush administration). He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. And he has also repeatedly proposed “regime change” (meaning “war”) in Tehran.

John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that paid him

Since the latter issue is one of the trickiest facing the Trump administration, it’s worth taking a closer look.

Bolton’s hawkish views on Iran mirror those of Israel, Saudi Arabia and one of his key ideological partners, the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK).

Today the MEK bears little resemblance to the highly organized, influential and militant opposition force that it was in Iran while seeking to topple the shah during the 1979 revolution. Initially it worked in cooperation with the clerical government. In fact, children of several top officials in the Islamic Republic joined the MEK.

When it became clear that the MEK could no longer coexist with the ruling Islamic Republic Party, some MEK members withdrew from the group, while others were imprisoned. They either recanted and returned to society or were executed.

Those who were left fled to Iraq, where Saddam Hussein, who invaded Iran in 1980, gave them a haven. Many took up arms and fought against their Iranian countrymen, earning the group the unofficial nickname monafegheen, or the “hypocrites.” That title has stuck, and most Iranians inside the country, regardless of their political tendencies, refer to them as such.

The group is loathed by most Iranians, mainly for the traitorous act of fighting alongside the enemy.

But it is the group’s activities in the decades since that have cemented its reputation as a deranged cult. For decades its command center was a compound in Iraq’s Diyala province, where more than 3,000 members lived in virtual captivity. The few who were able to escape told of being cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused and tortured.

All this was carried out under the supervision of the group’s leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, the husband and wife at the top of the organization’s pyramid. He has been missing since the U.S. invasion in 2003 and is presumed dead. She now runs the group and makes regular public appearances with her powerful friends from the West — such as Bolton.

The group was long a fixture on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations for having killed American citizens. Bolton and others successfully lobbied to have the designation removed in 2012. That did little to change how average Iranians think of the organization.

In the seven years I lived in Iran, many people expressed criticism of the ruling establishment — at great potential risk to themselves. Some hoped for regime change by military force, others dreamed of a return of the monarchy and many more wanted to see a peaceful transition to a secular alternative to clerical rule. In all that time, though, I never met a person who thought the MEK should, or could, present a viable alternative.

But apparently that doesn’t matter to its supporters in Washington.

Of course they were paid for their loyalty. “Very few former U.S. government officials shilled pro bono for the MEK,” said a former State Department official who worked on Iran. Among the long bipartisan list of people who have taken money from the group in exchange for speaking at its events are former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean. Bolton, the former official told me, was also paid.

Their many efforts failed to the block the nuclear deal with Iran. Despite the long list of nefarious acts still carried out by Tehran, the biggest threat that Iran posed to international security — the issue that our allies and other world powers all agreed needed to be resolved — has been resolved.

Based on U.S. assessments and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran appears to be complying with the nuclear deal.

To those who claim that the nuclear deal isn’t working, regime change remains the only solution. For the MEK, and Bolton, if his words are to be taken at face value, the only path to that could be war. The group has long been prepared to do whatever it takes to see that happen, including presenting fake intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program.

A dividend of our protracted negotiations with Iran is the increased knowledge we now have about the Islamic Republic and the population it rules over. It’s a luxury we didn’t enjoy in 2003, when exiled figures like Ahmad Chalabi were able to convince the Bush administration they could help transition Iraq into a thriving democracy.

We know enough about Iran that we can’t fool ourselves into thinking that the MEK could ever provide a viable alternative to the current regime.

The MEK is the type of fringe group that sets up camp across the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and hands out fliers filled with unsubstantiated claims. This is America — we let crazy people talk. That’s their right, and I would never suggest that they be prohibited from doing that. But giving the MEK a voice in the White House is a terrible idea.

In John Bolton they have someone who will do it for them.

Jason Rezaian, Washington Post,

Jason Rezaian is a writer for Global Opinions. He served as The Post’s correspondent in Tehran from 2012 to 2016. He spent 544 days unjustly imprisoned by Iranian authorities until his release in January 2016.

 

March 27, 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