Page 423 – Nejat Society

The Obama-Al Qaeda-MEK Connection

British puppet President Barack Obama has entered into an alliance with two of the world’s leading terrorist organizations — Al Qaeda and the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) — in his zeal to overthrow the present governments in Syria and Iran. The Obama-Al Qaeda marriage of convenience is particularly deep and it centers on the drive to overthrow the Bashar Assad government in Damascus, through an armed opposition.

U.S. intelligence agencies are aware that the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) has no actual military capabilities inside Syria, and consists largely of a group of defectors from the Syrian Army who are safe-housed on military bases inside Turkey. All of the significant military actions targeted at the Syrian government have been carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists, who have infiltrated the country from Iraq. The suicide bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, the assassinations of Syrian government and military officials, and the sabotage of pipelines and other infrastructure have all been carried out by Al Qaeda. Despite widespread evidence in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies, President Obama continues to join hands with the new Al Qaeda head, Ayman al-Zawaheri, in calling for the violent removal of President Assad from power.

The idea that the President of the United States is so blatantly in bed with the terrorists who carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 should be sufficient grounds for his immediate removal from office, under the impeachment provisions of the U.S. Constitution or Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Last year, following the U.S. Navy SEAL Team killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden, President Obama did cartwheels to claim credit for the act. Now, he is allied with the very same 9/11 perpetrators in pushing for a war in the Persian Gulf that will rapidly expand into a global thermonuclear confrontation with Russia and China.

– The British role –

As well-documented in Executive Intelligence Review, the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 were carried out with the full support of the Anglo-Saudi Al Yamamah apparatus. Under the Al Yamamah oil-for-arms deal, launched in 1985 and continued through to the present, British intelligence and the Saudis created a string of offshore covert operations funds, which directly financed the 9/11 attacks. Al Yamamah funds, in excess of $2 billion, were funneled to Saudi Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, and at least $50,000 of those funds went to the San Diego-based team of 9/11 hijackers. A Joint Congressional Select Committee, probing the 9/11 attacks, established evidence of the Bandar-Al Qaeda funding, but the 28-page chapter detailing this evidence was suppressed by the George W. Bush White House. At the start of his administration, President Obama promised family members of the 9/11 victims that he would release the 28 pages, but he never kept his promise, and moved to further suppress the evidence of Al Yamamah angle on the attacks, thus protecting his British masters along with the Saudi Royals.

To this day, former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who co-chaired the Congressional probe, insists that the cover-up of the Saudi Monarchy’s complicity in the attacks must be exposed publicly.

President Obama’s embrace of the 9/11 terrorists, after the fact, constitutes a scandal of enormous proportions for this Administration, and underscores further the hypocrisy of Obama’s efforts to exploit the bin-Laden assassination, while he colludes with the remnants of Al Qaeda.

The same is true of the President’s collusion with the Mujahideen e-Khalq, an Iranian terrorist group that has been on the U.S. State Departments list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations since its inception in 1997. MEK assassinated a number of U.S. military personnel in Iran in the 1970s, actively participated in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and then fled to Iraq and allied with Saddam Hussein, after they were purged from the Islamic Republic leadership. In recent weeks, MEK has been linked to the assassinations of Iranian scientists. This week, the Bangkok Post revealed that Thai authorities believe that MEK terrorists were behind foiled attempts to attack Israeli officials. Those attacks were loudly blamed on the Iranian government, and fed the drive to launch military action against Iran.

While the Obama Administration has attempted to keep a distance from the assassinations and bombings and other acts of sabotage inside Iran over the past two years, MEK has been protected by U.S. military forces at Camp Ashraf inside Iraq, ever since the U.S. invasion of that country in March 2003.

by Jeff Steinberg – larouchepac

August 22, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US hostility to independent governments shows in support for terrorist MKO

Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Randy Short, with the Black Autonomy Network Community Organization, about the US Central Intelligence Agency publishing a document that confirms Washington’s role in the 1953 coup against the democratically-elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Dr. Short, first of all tell us what this revelation, this acknowledgement means in terms of the US position on Iran and in terms of relations between the US and Iran?

Short: Well hopefully it means it’s good, it’s a token step but I need to remind people just to assure as they are acknowledging what they did in 1953 here sixty years later they are still supporting MKO, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization as well as Jundullah which are terrorist organizations that do many things so much as CIA covert activities globally but there is always room for hope and God at least.

Press TV: We were speaking with political commentators about this here in Iran Dr. Short and they were telling us that this kind of warfare initiated by the US against Iran which we can say at least in the modern times started with that coup, has now developed into various attacks including cyber warfare, economic sanctions, etc.

So do you think that the United States is not willing to put aside this kind of animosity toward Iran that it has because it is not interested in developing relations with Iran?

Short: Well I believe that they want relations with Iran but with a government like the former Shah, Pahlavi. They do not want an independent self-determining government that doesn’t want to be a colony. It is the same way they had the coup in Egypt, they have animosity towards governments that do not want to be essentially slaves to their sociopolitical economic interests.

So I think they want relations but they do like to have it with an MKO type government versus what you have.

Press TV: And before we leave you, there is a question on the public knowledge in the United States concerning this coup that has now being acknowledged by the CIA and the US government.

A lot of people when it comes to the US and Iran relations think of the hostage crisis and how that created a crisis in the ties but how much public knowledge is there in the US about the attempts that the US has made against Iran including this coup which has led to a lot of mistrust among Iranians towards the United States?

Short: Well we need to remember that the hostage crisis was a very rational response by progressive Iranian students who did not want United States to try to have a coup against Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution.

This is one thing that the Americans do not know that the Iranians had studied the revolution or I should say the coup against Mosaddeq in 1953 and did not want a repeat in 1979. So this is something that is not understood.

I do not think that the American public is educated about Iran and that is deliberately so because Iran stands up to Zionism, for example Ayatollah Khomeini started al-Quds Day and so forth.

So I believe the Iranian society and the people have been so demonized by the media here and so people know very little or they only know what has been fed to them which is poisoned to not really understand the people there.

Let us hope that that changes. But it is ironic that you had an entire Iranian airliner shot out of the sky by the Vincennes, one of America’s ships and most Americans do not know about that but they know about the hostages, all of them were returned home alive and yet the Iranians who are the victims all the time of sanctions, terrorism, wars, so nine hundred fifty thousand died due to a proxy war that Saddam Hussein waged against Iran for the United States.

Americans don’t know that. Americans don’t know even about African-Americans people like me in their own country because we are very parochial. The education here continues to decline and in fact in many places education is in recession. They are running away, they are closing schools.

So I don’t think that they really know and that is how the American people rule through their ignorance of geopolitical and historical events and so they do not understand and this is a game to control them that they do not know, that they do not understand that they not see that perhaps people in the world who are protesting or upset it is because they want freedom.

They don’t hate Americans because we are free. They dislike America

for impeding their right to choose their own path to freedom.

August 21, 2013 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

To the supporters of Rajavi’s cult

Massoud Rajavi said: “whoever doesn’t like it can get lost”

I read in Sahar Family Foundation’s website that Massoud Rajavi, the leader of Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), has To the supporters of Rajavi’s cult said in his latest speech to his followers in Camp Liberty in Iraq: “whoever doesn’t like to stay can get lost and go away”. He then denounced as traitors all those who choose to leave him, including those who do not give him their absolute obedience.

This obscene level of language and speech towards those who spent about three decades of the best years of their lives and sacrificed whatever they had can only be expected from the leader of a destructive mind control cult who tries to play the role of God on earth for his followers. Who has ever said that a leader’s permission is needed to leave a political organization, and who allows him to call them traitors?

I recall before the revolution that the deposed Shah once said: “if someone does not like the look of the Shah there is no problem, he or she can get a passport and leave the country.” Of course the people of Iran showed in their heroic uprising who should go and who was to remain.

But the extent of Rajavi’s rudeness is beyond imagining. He used his vicious tongue to lash those who are the most loyal and supportive of his followers. The Shah at least did not call those who want to leave traitors and did not insult them and was, in any case, talking to those who were against him from the beginning, and not those who had given everything for him.

My addressee here is not Rajavi since he is a well-known character and he can never be considered a reasonable person to deal with. I am addressing the Iranians and non-Iranians who support him, who have gone along with him up to this point. The more you support Rajavi, the more you make him aggressive and damaging. If this support is withdrawn one day, the supporter would immediately be labelled a traitor and mercenary and the hostile attitude against him or her would begin. The examples are numerous.

Rajavi’s supporters should observe how he deals with his most self-sacrificing followers and how he rewards them after years of loyalty. What would have happened if Rajavi had real power, how would he have dealt with his opponents? Wouldn’t he be worse than any dictator in the world? And so I must ask: “isn’t it time for those who continue to support Rajavi to recognise their mistake and keep their distance from him?”

August 20, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Black Dream: A Documentary on the MKO

Iranian channel 3 tonight will broadcast a documentary on the MKO’s secret operations named “Black Dream”.

The documentary that will be shown in 15, thirty minute parts, reveals for the first time new facts on the MKO, according to Fars News Agency.

The film was produced by Iman Goudarzi.

About the researches to make such a documentary he told FNA:”To produce this documentary, we traveled to Iraq and visited Camp Ashraf.”

“The film reviews the MKO’s history and portrays its current situation and its defectors condition. The first part of the Black Dream will be aired tonight at 20:15.

August 18, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Bad Precedent and Bad Faith

Part I — Hedges v. Obama

Back in January of 2012 former war correspondent Christopher Hedges and others, including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and specifically the Act’s Section 1021(b)(2), which allows for indefinite detention by the U.S. military of people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States." This detention denies those held of the ability to "contest the allegations against them because they have no right to be notified of the specific charges against them."

In this suit filed by Hedges et al., the issue in question was the vagueness of the terms "substantially support" and "associated forces." For instance, could this vagueness lead to apprehension and detention of journalists who publish interviews with members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban? Could it lead to the same treatment against political activists protesting U.S. policies against these or "associated" groups?

The case, now designated Hedges v. Obama, was initially heard in New York District Court by Judge Katherine Forrest. The plaintiffs claimed that the NDAA violated the 1st (free speech), 5th (due process as well as the stipulation that people must be able to understand what actions break the law) and 14th (equal protection) Amendments to the Constitution. To address the question, Judge Forrest asked the government lawyers if they could assure the court that the activities of the plaintiffs would not result in indefinite detention under the act. If they could give such assurances it would, as far as the judge was concerned, eliminate the plaintiff’s "standing" to challenge the law.

The government lawyers refused to give those assurances, and as a result, the judge concluded, "The definitions of ‘substantially supported’ and ‘associated forces’ were so vague that a reporter or activist could not be sure they would not be covered under the provision." This, in turn, would result in what the plaintiffs considered a "chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press." Therefore, in September 2012, the Judge granted a permanent injunction against the practice of indefinite detention as put forth in NDAA.

There is no evidence that the U.S. government ever complied with this injunction, and its lawyers immediately appealed the ruling to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. When the case was heard in this court, the U.S. Justice Department suddenly came up with the assurances it refused to give only weeks before. In part it was because of these assurances that the appeals court decided to overturn Forrest’s ruling and grant a permanent stay of her injunction. In one of its interim rulings, the appeals court observed, "Since the U.S. government has promised that citizens, journalists, and activists were not in danger of being detained as a result of NDAA, it was unnecessary to block the enforcement of 102 (b)(2) of the NDAA."

However, as Carl Mayer, the lawyer for Christopher Hedges, had noted earlier, "The government has not put in any evidence. They just keep making these broad assurances. It’s all a ‘trust us’ proceeding." And trust them is exactly what the appellate judges did. The appeals court’s final ruling in favor of the government was given on 17 July 2013.

Part II — Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

One can seriously ask, is any government that trustworthy? Particularly those governments that see themselves at endless war with shadowy enemies and which claim the need for "broad executive war powers" to wage the struggle. One of the reasons that the rule of law is so important is just because there must be limits to behavior for everyone, including the rule makers. Usually the rules that hold governments in check are set forth in constitutions. Laws formulated by branches of U.S. government should explicitly comply with the U.S. Constitution, not just promise to do so.

Despite the naive faith of the Second Circuit judges in the verbal assurances of government lawyers that the NDAA will be enforced in a constitutional manner, there is evidence that such assurances cannot be trusted. Government personnel seem not to have enough objectivity and simple common sense for trust to be placed in them. For example, consider the 2010 case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.

This case was argued before the Supreme Court in January 2010 and challenged that part of the USA Patriot Act, which prohibits "material support" to groups designated terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. Just as "substantially support" and "associated forces" are too vague for Hedges and his fellow plaintiffs, so was "material support" too vague for the Humanitarian Law Project.

The HLP was seeking to interact with alleged terrorist groups such as the Kurdistan Workers Party of Turkey so as to "help the group enter into peace negotiations and United Nations processes." In other words, the HLP wanted to help lead such organizations away from violence and toward nonviolent strategies. Could this be construed as giving "material support" to terrorists? The Obama Justice Department, in striking disregard of common sense, argued that it was indeed material support and thus a criminal venture. And, as it turned out, in its June 2010 decision, the Supreme Court agreed.

This was not just an intellectual exercise in front of the highest court of the land. The resulting Supreme Court decision quickly assumed real-life significance. Within three months of its decision, the FBI was raiding homes in Chicago and Minneapolis, confiscating computers and files, because they suspected some undefined connection between the residents and various alleged Colombian and Palestinian terrorist groups. The FBI cited Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project as legal justification for their actions.

In addition, enforcement of this law turned out to be blatantly selective. In January 2011 civil rights lawyer David Cole, who represented the HLP before the Supreme Court, noted that well-known political figures, such as former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former head of homeland security Tom Ridge, had committed felonies when they publicly spoke in support of the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian designated terrorist group that happened also to be in opposition to the current Islamic government of Iran. The FBI has not, nor will it, raid their homes.

Part III — Conclusion

Under these circumstances, anyone who accepts at face value the assurance of government lawyers that laws such as the Patriot Act and NDAA will conform to the Constitution and not walk all over one’s civil rights should, as the old saying goes, have their head examined.

What we have in the Hedges v. Obama case is yet another very bad precedent. As Judge Forrest had pointed out, "Courts must safeguard core constitutional rights." The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court, clearly not applying the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) to this situation, has sold out that obligation for a handful of dubious promises. Recent history provides no confidence that such promises are given in good faith. No, it is bad faith we are witnessing here. The government lawyers should hang their heads in shame for obviously undermining the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. It just goes to show there are always those, be they soldiers, police, or lawyers who will simply follow orders no matter what the consequences.

Toward the end of this whole unseemly process someone pointed out that President Obama has consistently asserted that he is against the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens even though his Justice Department has always supported keeping the detention clause of NDAA in place and operative. Maybe the president is simply playing a double game and lying to the voters. Lying is certainly part of the politician’s toolbox.

On the other hand, maybe Obama is conflicted but dwells in an environment where it is politically "necessary" to be seen as a tough guy, lest the Republican warmongers gain an edge. How much difference does it really make? As it stands now, in terms of civil liberties there is not much "daylight" between Obama’s practice and the past behavior of neoconservative vulgarians such as George W. Bush. "If it swims like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

By Lawrence Davidson ,

August 18, 2013 0 comments

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 17

Wondering at those Americans who stand under the flag of Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, NCRI, Rajavi cult) only to LOBBY for the murderers of their servicemen

++ This week it has been revealed that Massoud Rajavi released an audio message during the month of Ramezan addressing his 3000+ followers. Rajavi tells them ‘anyone who wants to leave can go to Hell, as I have no use for you. If I have one thousand loyal devotees I can do anything’. According to this proclamation, ‘the MEK will not pay a penny for anyone if they choose to leave Iraq’, (even though they worked for tens of years for him for nothing). This speech comes in the context that Rajavi has made it almost impossible to get out of the camp and also that the MEK has shown itself desperate to hold on to the 100+ residents who the UN have already transferred to Albania. The MEK have sent commanders from Iraq and Paris to offer them material help and other forms of support in order to keep control of them. It is clear from the reports of the refugees that the MEK is trying to recreate Camp Ashraf/Liberty in Albania.

++ Many write in Farsi about Rajavi’s message and point out that he is responsible for misusing and destroying thousands of people, people who gave up everything to do some good. And now, after destroying the whole organization Rajavi can only tell them to get lost. The conclusion of most is that Rajavi must be bought to justice for all this suffering and destruction. One article in particular talks about ‘shame’ and how at various times Rajavi has shown himself totally without shame and that this is his character.

++ Mahmoud Sepahi analyses what Rajavi says in the Ramezan audio address. His view is that knowing Rajavi and they way he talks, clearly behind all the shouting we can see he is begging the members not to leave him naked and alone. He is begging for protection; especially because Rajavi specifically criticises the people in Albania and asks ‘why have they distanced themselves from me’.

++ In English, Akbar Montaser, Professor of Chemistry (1981-2012) The George Washington University has written an Open Letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry. He points out the contradiction between the spectacle of prominent American politicians and former officials supporting a group despised by Iranians as traitors and until very recently on the US terrorism list, and potential efforts to embark on serious diplomacy and dialogue with the rulers in Iran. He says, “Importantly, such reckless actions by the US government, coupled with new sanctions passed in the House, effectively help the Supreme Leader to convince Iranians that America does not intend to bring the long-lasting disputes to a reasonable conclusion in a peaceful manner. Aside from the Iranian regime, the highly intelligent people of Iran will undoubtedly infer that the delisting of MEK was accomplished to allow America to use MEK as a puppet, to attack Iran, similar to Saddam. Certainly, this type of diplomacy reduces or eliminates any chance of peace.”

++ An article by Nejat bloggers in English also focuses on the huge fees paid by the MEK to American speakers and reminds us that when the MEK was removed from the US terrorism list Congressman Ted Poe claimed that the MEK “has been actively working with US intelligence agencies”. The article is titled, ‘People’s Mojahedin or Intel’s Mojahedin?’ and says the MEK has not been on the side of the Iranian people for 35 years. Instead, “the MKO has to answer many questions over its cooperation with the Israeli and American Intelligence Service and over the 25 years of Massoud Rajavi’s obedience to Iraqi Intelligence chief under Saddam Hussein, General Taher Al Jalil Haboush”.

++ In parts 7 and 8 of his series looking at Forough Javidan after 25 years, Heydar Hanifnejad talks about what happened when he disagreed with the MEK after the failed operation which led to his move to Germany. He talks about how the MEK treated him after he arrived in Germany.

++ Karim Ghassim held a lengthy interview with Radio Payam in Canada, detailing his opinions and explaining why he left the NCRI and why the MEK attacks him and calls him an agent of the Iranian regime. He emphasised that his separation didn’t happen in one day and says, “I tried for a long time to get them to listen to my opposition. Me and others asked to talk about the ridiculous name of ‘Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran’ which was supposed to replace the ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’, which even the Muslim opposition to the current regime don’t understand. But Rajavi never allowed anyone to discuss the matter never mind give any opinion on it.”

++ Nejat Association in Kermanshah (Kurdistan) has published an article titled, ‘Consequences of the MEK’s mercenary activity’. It says no matter how the Americans try to use this mercenary force in various scenarios, the Kurdish population clearly know and have not forgotten how Rajavi joined with Saddam to massacre their people. It concludes, ‘the indictment of Massoud Rajavi in Iraq remains valid in this part of the world whether they are friends with America or not’.

++ The MEK have embarked on another wave of money collection. Many people have written about this tactic which the MEK uses for money laundry. One is Ghorban Ali Hossein Nejad, Rajavi’s former translator who now lives in Paris. He remembers how the MEK have been ‘collecting money’ for years and years and reminds us how the MEK exploited the UN Oil for Food programme by selling oil for Saddam Hussein and taking a percentage. And how the MEK received money from various other sources and had phases of so-called money collections and a few weeks later would announce they had collected several million dollars! He says no one is in any doubt that these have never been legitimate collections, rather it is a way of whitewashing [laundering] payments for mercenary work, this time presumably Israel related.

++ Julie Ershadi, writing for America’s Future, investigates where the MEK gets its money from. “According to a form submitted in compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act in May, the NCRI is registered as a foreign principal under Rosemont Associates, LLC. That company is owned by Robert G. Torricelli, a former Democratic U.S. senator from New Jersey. A man who picked up the company phone on Thursday morning wasn’t keen on chatting, and a receptionist who answered another call later that afternoon said Torricelli wasn’t in.”

“According to his company’s FARA filing, the NCRI pays Torricelli $420,000 per year for his services, which include lobbying executive and legislative branch officials. They also gave him $34,975 in March for speeches he gave in Europe.”

++ Mehdi Khoshal published the final part of his article about ‘the horse and the rider’. Last time he addressed Rajavi saying ‘sure, they won’t ask how you won but they don’t give the prize to the horse’. This time he uses the same metaphor to claim that the story of the horse and his rider is not just about the finishing line but about what they go through to get there. He expands on various scenarios concerning the MEK, including Forough Javidan and says it was not Rajavi but Iraqi intelligence who ordered him to go to war. It was Saddam in charge, not Rajavi.

++ Mohammad Karami has published another article in his series on suspicious deaths inside the MEK. This time he talks about Kamran Bayati, a Kurd from Kermanshah, who the MEK claim committed suicide. Karami, who knew Kamran personally, names a few people including Afsaneh Shahrokhi, Fahimeh Mahhoozi, Mohammad Reza Mohadess, Karim Gorgon, Siamak Diamati as people who collectively were in charge of torture and explains that one of the tortures they used against Kamran was dripping water on his forehead to force him to accept that he should write to ask to attend a collective meeting to confess his sins.

++ Mohammad Alavi from Aryia Association in Paris examines Rajavi’s approach to the Islamic Republic of Iran from the time he was part of it, through the many times he has had covert and overt discussions with its various factions, to the latest incident just before election this year when Rajavi wrote to Ayatollah Rafsanjani and Ayatollah Khamenei. Alavi points out that Karim Ghassim and Mohammad Reza Rowhani both cited this as one of the reasons they left the NCRI. He then describes Rajavi’s use of cult manipulation to fool his supporters to pretend nothing is wrong. On one hand he claims he will topple regime but at same time he is writing love letters to IRI leaders.

++ Irandidban has an article titled, ‘An open letter, but not like Iraj Mesdaghi or Massoud Rajavi’. This says that at this point of time these kinds of letters are too little, too late. What is left of the MEK after Saddam, Israel and the human rights abuses, has now reached a tragicomic phase. The article suggests the only decent thing left for them is to openly announce the dissolution of the MEK. ‘We don’t say this as being defeatist, but believe this is the only remaining positive path in front of this organisation. This is the path for survival of the people in the MEK rather than a path of destruction.’

++ Many write in Farsi to ask ‘why is it banned inside the MEK to ask “where is Rajavi after ten years?”‘

++ Mohammad Reza Rowhani had an interview about his resignation from the NCRI with Pejvak Iran. He goes through his various reasons and how the MEK reacted by falsifying things to try to demonise him and his friends. In this lengthy interview Rowhani criticises some of the people in the NCRI who have submitted to swearing at him even though they have known him for years, so that it is clear they are not doing this on their own initiative but have been made to do it.

++ Bahar Irani from Mojahedin.ws writes, ‘What Alternative?’ and analyses the system of the NCRI and how it operates. He ridicules the MEK ‘particularly after being exposed by the last two non-MEK members who recently resigned and asks how can the MEK still call itself ‘the alternative’.

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – August 16 2013

August 17, 2013 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

MEK desperate to keep its members in Iraq

This week it has been revealed that Massoud Rajavi released an audio message during the month of Ramezan addressing his 3000+ followers.

Rajavi tells them ‘anyone who wants to leave can go to Hell, as I have no use for you. If I have one thousand loyal devotees I can do anything’. This week it has been revealed that Massoud Rajavi

According to this proclamation, ‘the MEK will not pay a penny for anyone if they choose to leave Iraq’, (even though they worked for tens of years for him for nothing).

This speech comes in the context that Rajavi has made it almost impossible to get out of the camp and also that the MEK has shown itself desperate to hold on to the 100+ residents who the UN have already transferred to Albania.

The MEK have sent commanders from Iraq and Paris to offer them material help and other forms of support in order to keep control of them. It is clear from the reports of the refugees that the MEK is trying to recreate Camp Ashraf/Liberty in Albania.

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

August 17, 2013 0 comments

USA

Engaging with Iran’s New President

The confirmation of Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s sixth president on August 4 will provide an opportunity for renewed engagement between Western governments and the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, the background and character of Rouhani raises pertinent questions regarding the type of engagement that his election calls for.

Educated at both the hawza ‘ilmiya in Qom and Glasgow Caledonian University, Rouhani has had a blend of classical Islamic tutelage and worldly engagement. His background is quite conventional. Many religious scholars in Iran often pursue secular educations simultaneously with their religious studies. The notion that Iran’s politicians are either radicals or moderates is based on the incorrect assumption that there is no middle-way in Iranian politics. This assumption guides the equally misplaced notion that either Rouhani’s worldview is narrowed by a ‘conservative’ religious establishment, or that his secular education and his calls for increased civil-liberties make him more ‘liberal’.

Without categorizing Rouhani politically, the West needs to engage with his government based on its actions. In 2001, then US President George W Bush listed Iran as part of an ‘axis of evil’. Paradoxically, this was shortly after the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) took part in a joint operation with US forces in Afghanistan against the Taliban. The episode illustrates how large-scale gestures can go ignored and only with hindsight be fully recognized as significant. Similarly, former Iranian presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-97) and Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) both found themselves isolated internationally at crucial points of their tenures. Only later – and during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-13) – were they reputed in the West as relatively moderate leaders.

What gestures could Rouhani realistically make in the short-term? He could offer to share more information on Al-Qaeda operatives that are detained in the country – an area where there is already a solid foundation for enhanced cooperation. ‘Secularizing’ the Supreme Leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons proliferation and possession in ordinary legislation would also be significant. In return,

The policy of engaging Iran today consists of alleviating some sanctions in the event that Iran concedes completely on the nuclear issue, or increasing economic and political pressure. Maintaining the current course would allow Rouhani very little room to manoeuvre. If the US and EU engage with the next government on the premise that Rouhani will tolerate this status-quo, or will proactively seek to challenge the Supreme Leader’s authority, then the opportunity for engagement will be lost. Enthusiasm for Iran’s new government must therefore be tempered by a realistic assessment of the nature of political change in Iran: where Rouhani might attempt to build trust and how the West can respond. This is important for it might be some time before another ‘Rouhani’ emerges.

Rouhani’s background as a cleric and as the Supreme Leader’s confidant should not be misread as obstacles to change. Western governments should instead take full advantage of these facts: they now deal with a leader who understands their perspectives and is well placed to assure Ayatollah Khamenei that a nuclear deal is in the Islamic Republic’s best interest. Political change in Iran has always been a gradual project of negotiation and renegotiation under the ruling Islamic framework, and this applies to identifying ‘national security’ priorities. Change will happen in Iran, including in its conduct of diplomacy, but not necessarily in the linear fashion some expect.

For the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic, foreign officials – including heads of states – were invited as guests to the inauguration of the president. It might be that initial small steps – and the recognition that both sides will be taking them – will lead to a more comprehensive settlement between Iran and the West.

Friday 2 August 2013

by Sasan Aghlani, Research Assistant, International Security, chathamhouse.org

August 15, 2013 0 comments

USA

An Open Letter to President Obama and Secretary Kerry

An Open Letter to President Obama and Secretary Kerry: The Contradictory Foreign Policy Of The United States

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

The Honorable John Kerry

United States Secretary of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20520

Subject: An Open Letter; The Contradictory Foreign Policy of the United States after President Truman

Dear President Obama and Secretary Kerry:

I write to you as a staunch supporter of the President during his entire tenure. Although I was a Republican until earlier this year, I campaigned for the President in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC and contributed to the campaign the maximum allowed financial support by borrowing the money. I am still paying my loan acquired in 2007. Likewise, I actively supported re-election of the President for a second term.

This letter is intended to communicate several serious concerns shared by me, many of my family members, and several friends who are Iranian-Americans and Americans, and vote as Democrats, Independent, and Republicans. Most of my family and friends persistently have supported the President at the levels similar to me.

Recently, an Iranian Terrorist organization (Mojahedin-e-Khagh or MEK), extremely despised by Iranians, held a Conference in Paris on June 22nd in Villepinte, a suburb of Paris. The conference notable for its list of attendees included several so-claimed “defenders of democracy and freedom” such as now the infamous Mayor of San Diego, former Mayor of New York Rudi Giuliani, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations John Bolton. Most speakers apparently received substantial fees for travel and/or speaking at the Conference.

A friend of mine sent to me a 30-minute video tape (available on youtube), showing the speakers and short segments of the lectures. The subjects of these lectures were not related to the sanctions against Iran! They were linked to so-called President-Elect, Maryam Rajavi (born in Tehran on December 4, 1953) who heads the MEK group (also known by various other acronyms such as the NCRI) which was recently delisted from the Foreign Terrorist Organization.

What mystifies me the most is the presence of an esteemed Kennedy family member Patrick Kennedy at the Conference? One would expect an “experienced politician“ to seek assistance from the State Department and FBI about a visit to Paris and the wisdom of presenting a lecture to a group dubbed as a “Cult” by the well-respected Human Rights Watch and until recently, branded as terrorists by our government.

Certainly, the CIA knows the history of murders committed by MEK against the citizens of Iran and America. For example, MEK worked with Saddam’s military to aid him in pinpointing civilian (yes – civilian) targets allowing for Iraqis to dose Iran with chemical weapons (in artillery and missiles)!

Inarguably, political activity is part and parcel of a healthy democracy such as what we have in the United States; however, surely it is the duty of every American to avoid actions that would lead America to war again and again. I must ask these American “amplifiers of brutality” if they truly consider themselves patriots. Frankly, I consider them turncoats. Is the Conflict of Interest concept passe or unsuitable for former government officials? Please make the judgment! I hope both the State and the Justice Departments are looking into this situation.

I am sure you realize the challenges you face in negotiating with Iranian leadership to settle deep-rooted outstanding disputes in a peaceful manner. These discussions are vital in bringing a lasting peace and durable tranquility to several counties in Middle East. Granted the Americans may exercise their freedoms of speech and travel. Yet, the American “loudspeakers” at the MEK organized and funded gathering have certainly disregarded vital interests of the United States by their war-mongering lectures and by accepting free trips and hefty speaker’s imbursements from this terrorist group. Surely, acting against America’s national interest warrants investigation and retribution.

This country cannot embark on serious diplomacy and dialogue with the rulers in Iran when such “prominent members” support a human rights violator and a terrorist organization that until September 2012 was considered a terrorist group (MEK was delisted in September 2012) by the United States. Importantly, such reckless actions by the US government, coupled with new sanctions passed in the House, effectively help the Supreme Leader to convince Iranians that America does not intend to bring the long-lasting disputes to a reasonable conclusion in a peaceful manner. Aside from the Iranian regime, the highly intelligent people of Iran will undoubtedly infer that the delisting of MEK was accomplished to allow America to use MEK as a puppet, to attack Iran, similar to Saddam. Certainly, this type of diplomacy reduces or eliminates any chance of peace.

Let us be reasonable. How can America fight and eliminate terrorism in this country or abroad by maintaining two sets of standards? Think about it. Is this not outright duplicity? Traitors and terrorists are always turncoats and assassins irrespective of their boss! Wherevers the outlaws go they bring miseries.

The lessons of times past are prized but evidently unlearned. One thing is patent. We cannot free Middle East, particularly my Jewish and Palestinian sisters and brothers, from war and destitution unless we craft a fresh foreign policy based on mutual respects, honest admirations for human rights, and a genuine interest in seeking peace.

I this respect, I recall the aspiration and prized words of a Founding Father, John Adams, to exemplify the principles of a sound policy both internally and abroad. He stated America must accept “the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings . . . Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers are. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own . . . “Clearly, this “divine concept” has not been followed by the majority of American politicians, particularly after President Truman.

We wish you success in coming to solid agreement with the regime in Iran. Doing so will ultimately lead to a free Iran. The brave people of my birth land have civilization of 17,000 years. Importantly, they have repeatedly civilized barbarians. As I wrote to the President on October 16, 2011, only Iranians know how to ultimately deal with their tormentors.

Blessings.

Respectfully,

Akbar Montaser

Professor of Chemistry (1981-2012)

Department of Chemistry

The George Washington University

Washington, DC 20052

Amestp@aol.com

From The noble 13th century Persian Sufi poet Rumi:

“I go to a synagogue, church, and mosque, and I see the same spirit and the same altar”.

Akbar Montaser, Payvan

August 14, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MKO- Israeli mutual Services

The Mujahedin Khalq Organization and its propaganda arm, National Council of Resistance resorting to all means to convince their narrow-minded audience that “moderation in Iran is a mirage”. As a matter of fact the audience for the MKO mostly includes neo-conservative warmongers especially American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that has recently pushed a bill to impose more severe sanctions against Iran’s oil exports. AIPAC actually follows Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu who calls the Iran’s newly elected President Hassan Rouhani a” wolf in sheep’s clothing”. And MKO is completely in line with its western masters in their animosity against the Iranian nation.

Less than a month after the election of Dr. Hassan Rouhani as the Iranian president the MKO propaganda claimed evidence of what he called a hidden nuclear site under mountains near Tehran. The news was nothing except some satellite photos that did not attract much attention. The images did not appear to constitute hard evidence to support the assertion that it was a planned nuclear facility, according to Reuters.[1] The group also claimed that the recently elected president Hassan Ruhani, a former nuclear negotiator, had a “key role “in the program on several occasions, reported the AFP.[2]

The MKO’s so-called revelations on the Iranian nuclear program go back to 2002, when they published information on Natanz Uranium facility. Their report was soon come out to be leaked to them by Israeli Intelligence sources. In 2004, the American prominent journalist Seymour Hersh reported that IAEA official had told him that the information on the Iranian nuclear site had come from Israeli Intelligence, Mossad.[3]

The long time cooperation between the MKO and Israel is not restricted to spying operations. The mutual advantage they grant each other also include the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Following the assassination of Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan Richard Silverstein cited from his “own confidential Israeli source” who confirmed that “the murder was the work of the Mossad and MEK – he had previously asserted that Israel was utilizing the MKO operatives for the killing of other Iranian scientists Majid Shahriari and Massoud Ali Mohammadi. [4] Also, Richard Engel and Robert Winderm of NBC Television quoted US officials that the attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.”[5]

The most recent account on MKO-Israeli connections – meanwhile the oldest link between them – was published by Gareth Porter, the investigative journalist at IPS (Inter Press Service). Porter reported last week that “Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman based his 2006 warrant for the arrest of top Iranian officials in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 on the claims of representatives of the armed Iranian opposition Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK).”[6]

Based on Porter’s investigations, "the document which is available in English for the first time shows that Nisman’s only sources to accuse Iranian officials of Argentine Israeli Mutual Association bombing were members of the MKO". He calls Nisman’s 900-page arrest warrant a “rambling”,” repetitious” report that cites statement of four members of the terrorist National Council of resistance (NCR).

While Nisman describes MKO agents’ testimonies as “completely truthful”, Porter dismisses MKO’s claims as traditionally false. “The record of MEK officials over the years, however has been of putting out one communiqué after another that contained information about alleged covert Iranian work on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons”, states Porter,” nearly all of which turned out to be false when they were investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).”

Denouncing Nisman as a pro-Israel figure who “has long been treated in pro-Israel, anti-Iran political circles as the authoritative source on the AMIA bombing case and the broader subject of Iran and terrorism” Porter concludes that he is indeed “playing a political role on behalf of certain powerful interests rather than uncovering the facts.”[7]

The above mentioned facts – that are probably a few of numerous secret ties between the MKO and Israel – demonstrate that mutual interests make mutual services. The ugly truth is that the Zionist – Mujahedin nasty alliance in spying and murdering would be called terrorism only if the targeted victims were western citizens.

By Mazda Parsi.

References:

[1] Reuters, Exiled dissidents claim Iran building new nuclear site, July11, 2013

[2] AFP, Iran exile group claims evidence of hidden nuclear site, July11, 2013

[3] Porter, Gareth, Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing relied on MEK, August7th, 2013

[4] Engel, Richard & Windrem, Robert, Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, US officials tell NBC News, February 9th, 2012

[5] Silverstein, Ricahrd, Israeli Source: Assassination of Iranian Nuclear Scientist Joint Mossad – MEK operation, Tikun Olam, January 10th, 2012

[6]Porter, Gareth, Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing relied on MEK, Inter Press Service, August 7th, 2013

[7] ibid

August 13, 2013 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts