Yuram Abdullah Weiler, a Colorado-based writer and political critic, believes that the broad international 
coalition against ISIL is a massive media event to justify direct US intervention in Syria, underscoring that last year’s false-flag chemical attacks were not sufficient, but this year’s beheadings of western journalists seem to have sold intervention in Syria to the West.
“The Washington regime has a history of using covert action to attain its geo-political goals. From the Philippines to Latin America to the Middle East, the US has intervened in so many countries that it is difficult to count them. And what some would call covert action, I would call state-sponsored terrorism, so in that sense, the US is the world’s leader in its support of terrorism,” he said in an interview with Fars News Agency.
When asked about the formation of an international fact-finding commission to prosecute backers of the ISIL, he answered, “But realistically, the US is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and has a veto in the UN Security Council, making the US practically immune from criminal prosecution. Certainly, a fact-finding commission should be formed, and perhaps some way could be found to prosecute US war criminals, such as Barack Obama, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and those from other countries such as Prince Bandar Bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia. If nothing else, evidence should be gathered and documented, then stored for prosecution when the opportunity presents itself.”
Yuram Abdullah Weiler is a freelance writer and political critic who has written dozens of articles on the Middle East and US policy. A former engineer with a background in mathematics and a convert to Islam, he currently writes perspectives on Islam, social justice, economics and politics from the viewpoint of an American convert to Shiite Islam, focusing on the deleterious role played by the US in the Middle East and elsewhere. A dissenting voice from the “Belly of the Beast”, he lives in Denver, Colorado.
What follows is the full text of the interview:
Q: Many analysts believe that the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is the product of the US polices in the Middle East. What’s your take on that? Do you believe that the US and its allies have directly contributed to the creation of the ISIL?
A: Absolutely, ISIL is a joint creation of the United States, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with logistical support from the Israeli entity, Turkey, Jordan and other regional actors. While its origin can be traced to former US arch enemy Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, who formed al-Qaeda of Iraq (AQI) in response to the illegal 2003 US invasion of Iraq and later changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). It lost membership when the US bribed Sunni tribes to participate in awakening councils, but bounced back with a vengeance when the US decided to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Saudi and Qatari began pouring funding into it through Kuwait.
Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan was heavily involved with arming Takfiri terrorists both in Syria and Iraq when he was head of Saudi intelligence from July 2012 until April 2014, as was Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Emir of Qatar until June 2013 when the strategic city of al-Qusayr was repatriated by the Syrian Army. As the chief logistical supplier to Takfiri extremists in Syria, Qatar has provided over 85 planeloads of weapons and supplies compared to only 37 for Saudi Arabia and lesser amounts for other actors such as Jordan. Turkey serves as the primary logistical base through which most munitions, materials and manpower are funneled to the foreign-backed militants in Syria.
At first, ISI collaborated with other western-backed militants such as the Free Syrian Army, but in April 2013, parts of ISI split off and merged with its Syrian spinoff, Jabhat al-Nusra, to form the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, after the entry of Hezbollah into the conflict in Syria and Assad’s forces gaining the upper hand with the fall of al-Qusayr, Jabhat al-Nusra split off from ISIL in early 2014 to continue its western-endorsed mission of regime change in Syria. After repudiation by al-Qaeda, ISIL remained in Syria and, continuing to amass recruits and funding, made its move in June, capturing large swaths of Northern Iraq, and declaring a caliphate in July. The February 2014 disavowal of ISIL by CIA asset al-Qaeda may have indicated a breakdown in command and control, or perhaps it was a smoke screen.
In any event, this ISIL blitz could not have been a surprise to Washington, since at least 8 US satellites–4 Lacrosse and 4 Key Hole–crisscrossing over the Persian Gulf for surveillance. Hence, Washington must have intended for ISIL to capture those armaments in Northern Iraq and send them to Syria, thus avoiding the need for US Congress to approve lethal aid for Syrian “rebels.” But because of the barbarity displayed by ISIL with beheadings, rapes and other atrocities, Obama has been forced to put on a show of opposition to demonstrate US “sincerity” in fighting against terrorism. Meanwhile, Washington’s ISIL Takfiri proxies continue with their regime change duties in Syria, but now with the benefit of US air support.
Q: As you know NATO heads of state convened in the Welsh city of Newport on 4-5 September and US Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told foreign and defense ministers participating in the NATO summit that the US was forming a broad international coalition against ISIL. Ministers from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark met in Wales to hammer out a strategy for battling ISIL, but the policy was questioned by many regional officials and political leaders.
After the so-called US-led coalition against the ISIL declared its creation, scores of experts and a number of countries lashed out at the western states for pursuing a double-standard policy towards campaign against terrorism in various countries. What’s your perspective on that?
A: The Washington regime has a history of using covert action to attain its geo-political goals. From the Philippines to Latin America to the Middle East, the US has intervened in so many countries that it is difficult to count them. And what some would call covert action, I would call state-sponsored terrorism, so in that sense, the US is the world’s leader in its support of terrorism.
Iran has long been a target of US state-sponsored terrorism going back to the CIA-engineered 1953 coup ousting Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. A more recent example of US support of terrorism is the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), which has been taken off the list of designated terrorist organizations. Not only has this deadly extremist group claimed thousands of victims in Iran, but it has in the past killed a few Americans as well. Nevertheless, Washington took the terrorist group off its list as part of its ongoing efforts to destabilize Iran.
Regarding Syria, if the US commander-in-chief were truly serious about fighting terrorism, he would collaborate with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has been battling foreign-backed extremists since early 2011. Not only has Obama refused to do that, but he has threatened Assad with retaliation if any US warplane is shot down over Syrian territory. So it should be clear that the broad international coalition against ISIL is a massive media event to justify direct US intervention in Syria. Last year’s false-flag chemical attacks were not sufficient, but this year’s beheadings of western journalists seem to have sold intervention in Syria to the West.
Q: Many experts maintain that an international fact-finding Commission ought to be formed in order to prosecute the backers of the ISIL under international law. What do you think?
A: The US has been in clear violation of international law in a number of instances: The 2003 invasion of Iraq; drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other countries; the Guantanamo prison camp; the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan; the NATO bombing of Serbia; the use of napalm in Vietnam; support of the Zionist apartheid regime; torture of prisoners at Abu Graib; firebombing campaigns during World War II; the use of secret prisons; and we could go on and on. Supporting ISIL is just the latest outrage against international law committed by the US.
But realistically, the US is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and has a veto in the UN Security Council, making the US practically immune from criminal prosecution. Certainly, a fact-finding commission should be formed, and perhaps some way could be found to prosecute US war criminals, such as Barack Obama, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and those from other countries such as Prince Bandar Bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia. If nothing else, evidence should be gathered and documented, then stored for prosecution when the opportunity presents itself.
Interview by Javad Arab Shirazi
The 5+1 nuclear negotiations will resume in November. Although this is still some time away, analysts, policy writers and diplomats have been busy working to formulate an achievable diplomatic position which will bridge 
the gaps left at the end of the last session. Here in the UK, we think we know what our position must be. Iran must make concessions on the number of its centrifuges and in exchange sanctions will be lifted within a reasonable time scale. In this respect, the UK falls broadly in line with the American position. But with the opening of the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly next week, and the second visit to New York of Iran’s President Rohani, perhaps this is a good time for the UK to step back and consider exactly what that American position actually is. A side-meeting on September 18 in New York will test the waters on progress. Iran is not optimistic.
This time last year, western powers pinned great hopes on newly elected President Rohani after the painful and acrimonious Ahmadinejad years. President Obama’s unprecedented personal phone call to him was widely welcomed as a parting gesture of goodwill.
So, can we expect a similarly positive welcome this time around? In many ways, Iran has enjoyed a positive year on the world scene, most recently supporting Iraqi Shiite militia in ousting IS from parts of northern Iraq. Iran has also demonstrably complied with the demands on its nuclear program which were set at the end of the last round of negotiations.
But when Rohani arrives in New York this time there will certainly be no roses strewn across his path. America’s tone this time will be significantly different; if not overtly hostile, it is still, conspicuously chilly. Evidence for this comes not in words — the official America line is that diplomacy must be given a chance to succeed — but specific anti-Iran activity clearly demonstrate a truer U.S. position which still engenders ostracism and enmity rather than engagement and diplomacy.
Ratcheting up pressure on a country by raising concerns over human rights abuses is, of course, a standard diplomatic tool. Amnesty International has criticized Iran for weaknesses in the judicial process leading to the executions of a large number of criminals in recent months. But beyond this, Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, became highly critical of an American led campaign which exploited various conferences and forums to pick at the human rights issue like a scab, hoping that it would bleed enough to provoke Iran to respond in anger. Shaheed complained that such actions which deliberately involved him may have actually compromised his impartiality in the eyes of Iran and destroyed his efforts at confidence building to overcome non-cooperation.
But the main indication of bad faith on the American side came when, in spite of widespread warnings and criticism, Congress voted to impose even more sanctions on Iran in the gap between negotiating sessions without waiting for a proper assessment of Iranian compliance with its agreed obligations. Congress argued that since sanctions forced Iran to the negotiating table, this would add leverage to the U.S. position. But there was no evidence of this. Critics pointed out that Saddam Hussein’s regime survived for years under sanctions and only a disastrous war and occupation deposed him. Iran has been under American sanctions for 30 years. What did Congress hope to achieve by adding more? The only interpretation for many was that Congress acted deliberately to provoke Iran to walk away from the nuclear negotiating table.
Iran’s interpretation, which is just as valid as an American view, was that America can only engage in diplomatic relations if its intention is to make concessions as well as extract them from Iran. Iran sees no evidence of this. President Obama is unable to lift sanctions imposed by Congress and clearly a bellicose Congress will not vote to lift sanctions. Indeed one Iranian lawmaker characterized the fresh sanctions as “punishing Iran because Israel lost in Gaza” when Operation Protective Edge achieved none of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s self-imposed objectives.
Now that Iran and Russia have agreed to strengthen energy ties and are looking to create a payment system outside the hegemony of the U.S. dollar, America is slowly waking up to a shifting power balance, arguably of its own making, which signals increasing evasion of the U.S. sanctions regime by countries seeking the economic advantages attached to trading with Iran. Even apart from the problems of Ukraine, Russian and Chinese trade imperatives are unpicking the unity of the P5+1. Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice just traveled to China at his behest to strengthen relations. Germany and France are also weighing the potential economic losses and gains that are imposed on them by the sanctions regime, and may also drift further from the U.S., UK and the silent partner of both, Israel.
Iran has been under sanctions for 30 years but the economy is growing stronger. From a western perspective the Middle East is chaotic and is reaching crisis point with the advent of ISIL. But Iran now enjoys growing influence in the region through the exercise of soft power. Hamas leaders in Gaza are accepting a more political role and have agreed to work with Fatah to create a new Palestinian Authority. Hezbollah has successfully carved out a leading role in the government of Lebanon. This is where we see the hand of Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurdistan and Syria draw ever closer to Iran not only as a natural, but more importantly in the light of perceived American double-standards, as a reliable ally. Iran’s latest use of this influence was used to successfully help Iraqi Shiite militia oust ISIS from various locations in north Iraq. If America’s Iran policy was designed to weaken and isolate the country, it has failed.
Iran certainly feels itself in a much stronger position moving forward.
Ultimately, the real leverage behind a sanctions regime is that it stops short of, but still depends on the ability to follow through with the ultimate threat, war.
It is, however, now possible to state that if Israel, with or without the backing of the United States, could have launched a pre-emptive air strike to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, then it would have done so by now. The truth is, not only does Iran’s military capability render it a daunting foe, but its retaliatory capability would strike deep into American interests in the Middle East. In 2013, Iran successfully guided down an American drone which was then reverse engineered to create a home made version. Only in August, Iran claimed, controversially, that it had shot down an Israeli drone before it left Iranian airspace after it had been tracked flying near the Natanz nuclear power plant.
Also in August, Iran’s Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, announced that the supersonic Khalij-e Fars (Persian Gulf) ballistic missile has gone into production. Although Iran describes this as a defensive weapon, the Pentagon is reportedly concerned about Iran’s reach into the Persian Gulf where U.S. warships would be vulnerable.
The crisis in northern Iraq must prove a salutary lesson. That Iran can wield soft power in Iraq does not need stating, but that Iran is willing to work in military cooperation with America where they have mutual interests and benefits has been swept under the carpet by ideologues refusing to “give in” to the Iranians. Instead Senator Kerry is off to visit Jordan, whose own citizens threaten turmoil over recent events in Gaza, and Saudi Arabia, whose Wahhabi reach into Iraq amounts to at best an irritant to the majority of Shiites and Kurds, and at worst, amounts to support for IS. Excluding Iran and focusing on Syria only reinforces the perception that this will essentially be an anti-Iran coalition. But the price will be paid not by Iran but the weak Gulf states and western countries where the terrorists may turn next.
Acknowledging this doesn’t mean we have to like it and it certainly doesn’t mean that the west shouldn’t drive a hard bargain over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But it does mean that America needs to rethink its obdurate resistance to this new reality and accept that if it can’t wage war against Iran it will need to engage with the Islamic Republic as is, in the here and now. The days of war and regime change bluster have reached the end of the road.
What all this ultimately means is that when the P5+1 countries sit down together with Iran for the next round of nuclear negotiations, they will do so in a much weaker position, not only because of disunity, but because of what Iranians see as American duplicity. America can only engage honestly in diplomatic relations if its intentions are to make concessions as well as extract them from Iran. Iran sees that American diplomats still do not have a clear mandate to resolve the outstanding issues. Instead it appears more the case that the U.S. wants to try to force Iran to walk away first and claim a Pyrrhic victory.
Certainly the UK cannot formulate a negotiating policy in conjunction with the United States until America makes clear its underlying intentions toward Iran.
Huffington Post
News Analysis: Providing arms, training to rebels will exacerbate Syria crisis
DAMASCUS — Washington’s recent decision to arm and train the Syrian rebels, who will supposedly fight the Islamic State (IS) terror group, will only exacerbate and prolong the Syrian crisis in what analysts said would be 
like “casting oil on a smoldering fire.”
Unlike the situation in Iraq, where the administration of President Barack Obama is coordinating and cooperating with the Iraqi forces in their battle against the IS militants, Washington has turned a deaf ear to the calls of the Syrian government for cooperation on battling the IS in Syria, seeking instead to cooperate and deal with the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels by agreeing to arm and coach them to be able to confront the IS in Syria.
Obama, who is leading an international coalition of reportedly 50 countries to fight the IS, said that the Syrian opposition forces were fighting both the brutality of Islamic State terrorists and the “tyranny” of the administration of President Bashar al-Assad.
“We will provide training and equipment to help them (moderate rebels) grow stronger and take on IS terrorists inside Syria,” said Obama, who is a staunch critic of Assad that repeatedly called for his departure and questioned his legitimacy.
The Congress on Thursday backed Obama, authorizing the military to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels. The U.S. move, while failing to surprise the Syrian politicians given the fact that the U.S. has always been in favor of the opposition, was seen as a policy toward prolonging the crisis in Syria by attempting to replace the IS fighters with others who will remain loyal to their Western patrons and would keep fighting against the Syrian government.
Maher Murhej, a Syrian politician and head of the Youth Party, told Xinhua he wasn’t surprised by the recent U.S. move, pointing out that the training of the Syrian rebels has already started.
“My information is that the new Congress decision has sanctioned the financing of the rebels, and regarding the training, I have information that training camps have already been opened in Saudi Arabia two weeks ago, namely in the city of Ha’il in northwestern Saudi Arabia, to train Syrian rebels of the Islamic Front and Islam Army groups,” Murhej said, noting that there is no such a thing as “moderate” rebels as the vast majority of the armed militant groups are radicalized.
Saudi Arabia overtly agreed last week to host training camps for “moderate” Syrian rebels, agreeing thus on Obama’s broad strategy to combat the IS group, which has captured large chunks of territories in Syria and Iraq over the past few months.
Meanwhile, Murhej pointed out that the American strategy aims at keeping the Syrian government busy with fighting the rebels for years to come as it is seeking to replace the IS fighters with other rebel groups that would continue fighting the Syrian government troops.
Obama has recently sanctioned to strike the IS positions in Syria, akin to what his air force is doing in Iraq. However, the conundrum for Obama was that he didn’t want to make a move against the IS that could play in the hands of the Syrian regime, meaning that he wouldn’t want to weaken the IS so that the Assad troops can fill in the void.
Instead, the U.S. president decided to arm the “moderate” rebels so that they could be able to fill in the void that the IS may leave after the U.S. strikes on their positions in Syria, analysts said.
Still, the new approach may take at least a year to train the rebels and weaken the IS fighters, which means that the Syrian crisis is likely not going to see an exit or an end in the near future.
“After getting done with the IS, the West wants to leave other rebels to keep fighting the Syrian government… they want an armed insurgency that could last for years in Syria,” Murhej said, adding that “the superpowers are not only working on prolonging the crisis in Syria, actually they are drawing a new strategy for the future in the region. They are talking about camps that would be permanent so we are looking at 10 to 15 years of insurgency in Syria.”
Murhej drew a comparison between the current hosting of the armed rebels by Saudi Arabia and what happened at the times of the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussain, who had hosted on Iraq soil the Mojahedin-e-Khalq movement (MEK), an Iranian opposition movement in exile that advocated the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the group was given refuge by Saddam Hussein and mounted attacks on Iran from within Iraqi territory.
“They (superpowers) are attempting to create a similar group to the Islamic State but this time under the commandership of the West,” Murhej said.
Xinhuanet
The Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism, ADVT is an Iranian non-governmental organization. It’s members are all victims of – or have lost loved ones to terrorism. At the 27th United Nations Human rights council in Geneva they held this panel on terrorism and human rights.
Speakers from Iran, Britain and the United States are here. Shia, Sunni and Christian. Also here are Iranian victims of terrorism to tell their story. Like Mansoureh Karami, whose husband Massoud AliMohammadi was the first Iranian nuclear scientist to be assassinated in Tehran. Today, the world’s attention is on the violence and terrorism of ISIL in Syria and Iraq. A statement read on behalf of Iraqi Assyrians, warned that the entire population risks being wiped out of the Nineveh province. NGOs warn of a catastrophe, where the story of the victims are lost. The stories heard here will sadly not be the last – but they hope by sharing their experiences they can somehow help.
Also:
Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism (ADVT) Holds a Panel on: Terrorism and Human Rights
Link to the source
Panelists:
Dr. Hamid Sajadi, Chief Executive of Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism (ADVT)
Ms. Rubab Mehdi Rizvi, Chairperson of Markazi Imam Hussain Council
Dr. Mohammed Serkal, the UN Coordinator on Minorities Rights, Alkhoei Foundation
Ms. Janet McElligott, Activist, Former US White House staffer and Counterterrorism Expert
Ms. Mansoureh Karami, Wife of Assassinated Nuclear Scientist, Massoud Alimohammadi
Ms. Masoumeh Eskandari, Daughter of Terror Victim
Mr. Ali Alssarray, President of International Organization against Terror and Religious Intolerance
Mr. Nineb Lamassu, Research Assistant, Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge
Date: September 17, 2014
Time: 11:30- 13:00
Venue: Room XXIV, Palais des Nations. Geneva, Switzerland
Themes:
· Examining the reasons for the increasing ability of terrorist groups in recruiting new members from around the world;
· Analyzing the role of civil society and victims of terrorism in countering terrorism;
· Drawing the attention of the world people to a return to traditional for of slavery which is carries out by hostage-takings of terrorist groups of ISIS and Boko Haram;
· Evaluating the international responses specially the Resolution 2170 of the UN Security Council in which victims of terrorism and long-term impacts of terrorist attacks on them are not considered.
The Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism, ADVT, Geneva
Razak Abdul A’imma al-Haidari, Iraqi MP, from the Badr Parliamentary bloc said that the Mujahedin Khalq Terrorist Organization was counting on the ISIL in Iraq to collude with them to keep its members at Camp Liberty
(Temporary Transit Location) and then to take them back to Camp Ashraf.
‘The MEK is ready to cooperate with any terrorist party hostile to Iraqi government and the people’, the MP Al-Haidari told Ashraf News reporter.
He emphasized that since the MKO is considered a threat for the future of the country, the newly established government of Iraq as well as Iraqi people are serious in removing them from Iraqi soil.
The member of Iraqi National Alliance asserted: Navigating the MKO media, one could see the organization hailing the crimes and savagery committed by the ISIL in Iraq.
He also noted that the leadership of the terrorist Organization in France believed that the Prime Minister Maliki’s stepping down would pave the way for their organization’s stay in Iraq. However Mr. Haidar al-Abadi putted an end to their illusions and at his first press conference emphasized on the expulsion of all terrorist groups – including the Mujahedin Khalq Organization – from the Iraqi territory.
Translated by Nejat Society
President Obama’s short speech to the nation on September 10, addressed the urgent need to take action against the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL). The speech began with a description of ISIS and the danger it poses. Of course Obama used his own potent words to talk about ISIS, but the organisation which he described has the characteristics of a group that:
•Recruits by deception; pretends to embrace religious precepts but in reality pursues an extremist political ideology.
•Holds such simplistic and erroneous beliefs that it can only prevent its members from seeing through them by preventing them from thinking and therefore fills every minute of their day with activity, whether military training or peeling carrots or cleaning latrines.
•Indoctrinates recruits with thought stopping fears and certainties so as to create a stark, unassailable ‘us and them’ mentality, a sense of innate superiority which obliges followers to ruthlessly eliminate all enemies.
•Uses cruel, arbitrary punishments, extra-judicial killings, and example killings to warn against disobedience.
•Demonstrates its abilities through terrorising acts, then boldly advertises that it has killed tens of thousands of people.
•Has a leader who arrogates all rights and knowledge to himself, who dictates the sexual behaviour of his followers and has a hareem of women for his own use.
•A leader who dictates the minutiae of the followers’ lives and operates a strict hierarchy of control with obedience to his whims as the guiding principle for promotion or demotion.
•Is universally hated by ordinary people.
This, however, is not a description of ISIS, it is a description of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the exiled Iranian terrorist group. While ISIS claims to be Sunni, and the MEK claims to be Shiite, there are such significant similarities they can both be defined as destructive cults. The major distinguishing difference of course is the incomprehensible savagery of ISIS, which even the MEK never aspired to.
The MEK operates as a totalitistic, destructive mind control cult which harms its own members as much as its victims. Its past is littered with death and destruction; the MEK has publicly boasted of killing 12,000 during its terrorist campaign against Iran, and it also killed 25,000 Iraqis for Saddam Hussein during its 30 year sojourn in that country. But in spite of this history the MEK now has some high profile advocates in Washington. Some, like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Hillary Clinton, choose to ignore the unsavoury aspects of the group’s behaviour and embrace its vehemently anti-Iran stance instead.
This was only possible because the MEK were brought under control during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. The militant group were bombed, then disarmed and corralled into a single camp, effectively rendering it impotent as an armed force. The MEK’s means of surviving this was to focus on a new identity and present itself under the guise of a political opposition. Fronting Maryam Rajavi as a democratic, feminist leader the MEK used its apparently unlimited financial resources to court western policy makers with a vague promise of engineering regime change in Iran by acting as the vanguard of a counter revolution. The MEK’s advocates support it not because of its potential as a terrorist force or even because of its numbers which at present comprise fewer than a thousand loyal, active members. Instead, it is as a cult that it has value. The MEK’s ability to deceptively recruit and manipulate people into doing just about anything is its chief asset; an asset that could not be bombed out of them or confiscated along with their weapons. The fact too that MEK followers are not paid and are effectively enslaved, makes it even better value.
This is also why the IRI is still cautious of the group. Observers express themselves puzzled by the sensitivity shown by successive Iranian governments to this apparently toothless tiger. But Iran has a sophisticated understanding of the dangers posed by cultic terror groups born from experience. Iran also understands that simply waging war on such a group, fighting fire with fire, will not destroy it. Iran has been successful in reducing the MEK to nothing more than a lobbying group because its approach to the MEK is as a cult, not just a terrorist organisation. Inside Iran, a country wide attempt is made to educate against the dangers of such cults and controlling groups. It is their way of inoculating the population against deceptive recruitment.
There can be no doubt that ISIS at present is like a mad dog running wild. There can be no comparison between the old defunct MEK and the 30,000 young fanatics who are ISIS. It must be either destroyed completely or brought under control. Like the MEK, ISIS has made sophisticated use of the internet to create a massive cyber presence for itself, on its own terms, which then translates into mainstream media coverage becoming part of its recruiting tool. The immediate concern of western governments is that ISIS must be stopped because it poses a threat to their own populations as much as regional ones; a lesson bitterly taught by Al Qaida.
As a consequence, President Obama has gathered a coalition of forty countries willing to take on IS militarily. But, for all their bravado, the central, unspoken dilemma for all of them is that ISIS has the potential to do precisely what most of these coalition countries want – oust the Assad regime in Syria and push back Iranian influence in Iraq by strengthening the Sunni tribes in the north. This is why, behind the belligerent threats of bombing, the will to actually destroy the group completely is weak. This is why, instead of negotiating a tough pax with the Syrian government, America proposes to flout international law to launch illegal aerial bombing raids into that sovereign country.
In northern Iraq, Iran has shown itself as the US’s natural ally in any effort to contain ISIS. Iran is the one country with the greatest experience of dealing with this kind of cultic terrorist threat, and could perhaps help formulate a comprehensive plan to bring ISIS under control just as the MEK is now under control. Yet Iran remains the US’s greatest nemesis.
What is preventing cooperation on this vital issue is the continued enmity between America and Iran. But the stark fact is that an American policy of threats and sanctions have yielded nothing in the way of stopping or reducing Iran’s regional standing.
Realistically, if America and Israel together could have defeated Iran and forced the country to submit either through sanctions or war, then this would have happened by now. This has not and cannot now happen – not through pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, not through engineering civic riots and insurgency, and certainly not through proxy terrorist groups. But American policy toward Iran, based on what Gareth Porter describes as a manufactured crisis, has ensured that the US is incapable of acknowledging that after Israel, Iran is her natural strategic partner in the Middle East. This is not to say that America has to like the Islamic Republic of Iran, or to stop criticism of its policies or to not drive a hard bargain on nuclear issues. But to continue the hopeless pursuit of regime change at the expense of diplomatic engagement and potential cooperation is self-defeating to say the least.
Already as a result of this misconstrued policy, Iran will certainly enter the next round of nuclear negotiations significantly stronger, rather than weaker. American leverage will be practically null: America’s belligerence toward Russia over the Ukraine has severely, if not permanently, alienated the two countries; Congressional sanctions have forced both Russia and China to pursue separate trade deals with Iran; Germany and France are coolly weighing their economic losses against any political gains in continuing to follow America’s intransigent position toward Iran. Even the plucky, loyal little UK may keep at arms length an American negotiating team which has gone behind their backs before. Without lifting a finger itself, Iran will benefit from these fractures in the P5+1. On top of that, its popular (in the rest of the world), support for the Palestinian cause, its success in helping Iraqi Shia militia repel ISIS, and its principled insistence on Iran’s inalienable right under the terms of the NPT to a civic nuclear power program, will all lend the Iranian negotiators gravitas on the world stage. Perhaps the only option left is for the talks fail, for one side or the other to be forced to walk away from the table. In that case, everyone loses.
Clearly it is controversial to attempt even a neutral description of the Iranian position. To go further and suggest that the US needs to find a way to cooperate with Iran in order to find a way to curtail the horrors of ISIS, is perhaps beyond the pale for many. But when this overwhelming and self-defeating enmity prevents sound political analysis from understanding and acknowledging the real problem, and when this prevents the creation of real, effective solutions, then we need to question where American interests really lie, and who is prepared to serve them.
Iranian.com, About Anne Khodabandeh (Singleton):Middle East Strategy Consultants,
French prosecutors have closed an 11-year terrorism case against nine members of the anti-Iran terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO).
The Paris prosecutor’s office announced on Wednesday that judges had dropped all charges against the nine MKO members who had been arrested in 2003 on charges of embezzlement and terrorism.
The French judicial body did not elaborate on the verdict and the identities of the nine people were not released.
In 2003, over 150 MKO members were arrested in the terrorist group’s headquarters outside the French capital, Paris. The terrorist group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi, was also among those detained.
Rajavi and 16 others were accused of planning terrorist operations and terror financing. However, she was later released and some of the charges against her were dropped during the progress of the 11-year probe.
The MKO fled Iran in 1986 for Iraq, where it received the backing of Iraq’s executed dictator, Saddam Hussein, and set up a camp near the Iranian border. The terrorist group also sided with Saddam during Iraq’s eight-year war imposed on the Islamic Republic in 1980-1988.
Out of the nearly 17,000 Iranians killed in terrorist attacks since the victory of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, 12,000 have fallen victim to the acts of terror carried out by the MKO.
French Case Against Iran Opposition Group Dropped
French judges have thrown out terrorism-linked charges against nine members of an exiled Iranian opposition
group, closing the last part of a case that began 11 years ago with mass arrests that provoked several deaths by protesters setting themselves afire.
The Paris prosecutor’s office confirmed Wednesday the case against the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq was closed.
The co-leader of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, Maryam Rajavi said the decision was a "victory of justice and resistance over collaboration" between France and Iran.
Rajavi was among more than 150 detained in a sweep in 2003 around the group’s headquarters in Auvers-Sur-Oise, outside Paris. She and 16 others were charged on suspicion of planning terrorist acts and terror financing. Rajavi was later released, and charges against her dropped.
An investigation for "financial infractions" was then opened against nine group members, but those charges were thrown out due to insufficient evidence, according to a statement by seven top lawyers handling the case.
"The justice (system) was manipulated by political and commercial considerations," said William Bourdon, one of the lawyers. "This case never should have existed."
France’s counterintelligence chief at the time of the arrests, Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, said the crackdown was aimed at preventing attacks on Iranian diplomatic missions in Europe and elsewhere. He said the Mujahedeen were transforming their compound in Auvers-Sur-Oise into "an operational center for terrorism," after losing firepower in Iraq when the U.S. disarmed them. The group had mounted attacks from a camp in Iraq against neighboring Iran.
The arrest and jailing of Rajavi led to protests by Mujahedeen supporters around Europe, several of whom set themselves afire. Two died and six others were injured.
The lawyers claimed the French government mounted the charges as part of a "strategy of manipulation led by the mullahs in power in Tehran."
The Mujahedeen have been removed from both European and U.S. terror lists.
By ELAINE GANLEY
Members and representatives of Setaregan Association (Switzerland), gathered in Geneva for the 27th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The Association used leaflets and individual explanations to inform delegates to the Conference about the human rights abuses practiced by the Rajavis against members of their own organisation, the Mojahedin Khalq. Representatives of Setaregan, including Nasrin Ebrahimi, were able to relate personal testimony to inform delegates, a move which was highly effective.
The propaganda arm of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization held the alleged Paris Conference on “Middle East in Crisis Threats and Solutions”! The self-claimed president of the MKO, Maryam Rajavi gave herself credit to 
advise Western Politicians about “the situation in the entire Middle East and the policies of Europe and the U.S.”!
This is not the first time that the cult of Rajavi endeavors to show off. Their so-called grand gathering this year was another effort by the cult to get itself recognized in the regional relations despite reports on its cooperation with forces of Islamic State terrorist extremists.
In her speech Maryam Rajavi “stressed that the terrorism that has engulfed the Middle East today is the outcome of inaction by the West in face of tyrants, especially the Iranian regime” but she failed to notice that her cult-like group is part of the terrorism that has engulfed the Middle East.
As a matter of fact, the atrocities of terrorists of the Islamic State in Iraq ring the alarms for the West. For example French Foreign Ministry has recently condemned the MKO for its violent, nondemocratic activities. Because of long-time MKO’s presence in France, the government might be one of the most exposed Western countries to the threat of the cult of Rajavi. The French warning came immediately after the MKO held its so-called annual grand gathering where the group leader praised the “uprising” of what it called ”Iraqi revolutionaries”.
Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley told Press TV, “The reason why the French might be doing this now I would think has something to do with ISIS and the events in Syria and Iraq. When you see a group like ISIS which is similar in many ways to the terrorists of the MEK, obviously there is a feeling in the MEK I would guess that they have got to get involved, that they have got to contribute, they have got to make themselves heard or they are not going to get the funding that they are accustomed to getting. So, they have got to do something perhaps not against Syria but primarily against Iran which is their specialty.” []
This is Dr. Griffin’s account of the MKO: “It’s of course extremely dangerous and the thing that the French point to, I think it shows the insidious methods that MEK has. It’s a very sinister group but here is what they are expert in. They buy officials, they essentially bribed them. I guess most people would say the formula they took here in the US was they would hold conferences and they would offer speaking fees to a lot of very important intelligence community type officials and these speaking fees were astronomical. Of course, the money was coming from the US taxpayer. It was a way to recycle US taxpayer money into the pockets of some of these corrupt officials.”[]
The paid American politicians may not know that Iranians loathe the MKO and the violent substance of the MKO under the leadership of the Rajavis could be a potential ISIS under Abubakr Al Baghdadi. They seem to think it is more admirable to speak on behalf of a formerly terrorist designated group when it is motivated by a desire to help them overthrow the Islamic Republic but they do not seem to ponder the threat the region is faced by the side of cult-like terrorist groups.
US presidential candidate Mitt Romney was one of those MKO-paid speakers who confessed that he had no information on the true nature of the Cult of Rajavi. Ralph Forbes of the American Free Press Newspaper wrote in January 2012,” GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney looked like a deer caught in the headlights when he was asked if he supported an international, anti-American terrorist organization with a bloody record for killing innocent civilians thousands of times worse than al Qaeda.” Forbes ironically notices,”This “expert on international affairs” claimed he never had heard of them.” []
The MKO has always been part of Iraqi crisis. It was Saddam’s Private Army in massacring the Shiits and Kurds Uprisings in 1991. Maryam Rajavi’s famous quote approves the group’s outrages against Iraqi civilians: “Take the Kurds under your tanks. Save your bullets for Iranian soldiers.”
Besides, the group’s propaganda campaign has been very active in influencing Iraqi political relations. They try to buy the support of Sunni tribal leaders and politicians. They also try to bribe them in order to target the publically elected Shite officials.
Today, the MKO makes its utmost effort to cause more crisis in Iraq only because it has no other way to maintain its cult structure. More chaos in the region helps the group leaders to buy more time to distract the attention of the international community towards their abusive attitude against their own members and to prolong the survival of Rajavi’s cult of personality in Iraq, not so far from the Iranian border.
The international community should beware of the risk of ignoring the threat of such destructive groups in the region otherwise another Islamic State would emerge under another Abubakr Al Baghdadi. It would be no surprise if the name of the new extremist leader would be Maryam Rajavi.
Mazda Parsi