Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MEK may conduct terror attacks in Europe

MEK may conduct terror attacks in Europe and place the blame on Tehran, says expert

An expert on U.S. foreign policy believes the Mojahedin-e Khalq terrorist organization may carry out acts of terror and sabotage in Europe and place the blame on Tehran.

“The group has had ample experience in carrying out killings and assassinations. The cult will not even allow members to defect,” said Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, in an interview with the Balkans Post.

“I would not be surprised if a group member, or several, carry out acts of terror and sabotage in Europe and place the blame on Tehran. Perhaps that is the plan for them,” she added.

Here’s the full transcript of the interview:

Balkans Post: In a piece published by the Washington Post in September, Shahin Gobadi, spokesman of the anti-Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) terrorist group, claimed that “a cursory review of the MEK’s history shows it has survived and flourished for 54 years, not because of having a voice in the White House but because of its reliance solely on the Iranian people and because it has been willing to pay the price for democracy in blood and treasure.” What could you say about these remarks?

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich: The publication of this piece in the Washington Post is not without irony. The Jeff Bezos owned Washington Post is a private enterprise with deep pockets that passes itself as a ‘news’ outlet. Regrettably, the Washington Post that lends its pages to a cult’s propaganda is a very sharp departure from the Washington Post that in the past earned dozens of Pulitzer prizes. The Post is best remembered for publishing the Pentagon Papers – a secret government study about the Vietnam War. In a sharp departure from those days, the current owner of Washington Post is making deals with the Pentagon. In the same vein, the MEK Shahin Gobadi writes of has departed sharply from the MEK that was founded in 1965.

For the first few years, the MEK was dedicated to fighting America’s friendly dictator, the Shah of Iran, capitalism, and Western imperialism. But in 1975, there was an ideological split within the group at which time the group declared that Marxism, not Islam, was the true revolutionary philosophy (expressed in a book entitled Manifesto on Ideological Issues). It was at this stage that they resorted to terrorism.

The Americans in Iran became their primary target and they wounded or killed high profile military personnel in Iran and are said to have been actively involved in the U.S. embassy takeover.

In an about-face, the group became the pet terrorists of the very “Western Empire” they had set out to fight. Their existence was necessary to America to rid Iran of the Islamic government that had overthrown their man in Tehran. Thus the terror activities and assassinations once conducted against Americans in Iran were directed at the new Islamic government in Iran. The terror group and their backers promoted the notion that the MEK was not responsible for assassinations of Americans and those acts of terror were carried by rogue elements within the group was promoted.

The lies continue to spread. The MEK has zero validity and support inside Iran. And frankly, fewer still outside of Iran. But they have a great deal of political support in America, Britain, and Israel. Not only do prominent American politicians on both side of the aisle support the group, but neoconservatives and the pro-Israeli think tanks. They also got “protection” from an online organization head by Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker through its online publication “International Analyst Network” and “Global Politician.”

So to sum up, the group has departed sharply from its origins and is the same in name only, and it would not have survived without the backing of influential politicians and organization. The only price paid in ‘blood’ was that of the people it terrorized and killed.

BP: Described by critics as “a cult”, the MEK has been lauded by top U.S. officials as alternative to Iran’s government. How has the group gained the support of such influential people?

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich: Personally, I do not believe that the U.S. sees them as an alternative to the government in Iran. They use the group to undermine Tehran while enticing them with promises. The support of ‘influential people’ is not for the group, or its ideology, but for the harm it can do to Tehran. The more sensitivity Iran shows towards this cult, the more the U.S. and Israel dangle the group in front of the Islamic Republic.

I think that is very important to understand them in this context. The United States has a stated policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but it has a habit of using terrorists to achieve its goals. If and when the objective is reached, the terrorists would become dispensable – undesirable.

BP: Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has described the organization as a fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country. Is there any evidence to show who these “mysterious benefactors” are?

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich: Some former MEK members have stated that they have witnessed Saudi Arabia giving money and gold to the group. I believe that may have been in much later years. At the onset of the Iranian Revolution, Saudi Arabia was more interested in restoring the monarchy and the deposed Shah’s son. Of course, in the 80’s, their benefactor was the “Butcher of Baghdad”, Saddam Hossein.

The political support from Israel is unquestionable and there is plenty of literature on this. However, in 2012, the NBC broke out a story that was repeated everywhere – that Israel had “financed, trained, and armed” the MEK.

Certainly, while the MEK were being protected and chauffeured around in Camp Ashraf – Iraq as ‘special status person/s’, surely the U.S. government would have been responsible for their maintenance.

BP: The MEK operates out of a compound in rural Albania. How has the group’s presence in that region impacted the Balkans in general and Albania in particular?

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich: It is beyond the scope of my research to address the impact the presence of MEK operatives has had on the Balkans. But what is very clear is that the United States had a 4-year plan (2011-2015) to give aid to Albania in order to advance U.S. objectives related to Albania’s role in moving forward U.S. foreign policy objective. The initial consequence of this ‘generosity’ was to demand Albanian house thousands of terrorists. It appears that a terrorist group that was protected by the United States in Iraq is now protected by the Unites States in the Europe.

The group has had ample experience in carrying out killings and assassinations. The cult will not even allow members to defect. I would not be surprised if a group member, or several, carry out acts of terror and sabotage in Europe and place the blame on Tehran. Perhaps that is the plan for them.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master’s in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication. She is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of the lobby. Her articles have been published by several online publications. She is a public speaker. She is balkanspost.com

November 13, 2019 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US officials and their cozy ties with the MEK cult

Washington’s Infatuation with the MEK
Inarguably, Washington has a long history of supporting terrorists. As General William Odom, President Reagan’s former National Security Agency (NSA) Director wrote in his 2007 article “American Hegemony, How to Use It, How to Lose It”:
“[T]errorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics…”.
Despite this long-standing use of tactic, there is no record of terrorists operating but a stone’s throw away from the White House. Nor has there been such brazen embrace of a terrorist group dubbed an undemocratic cult – until now.
The 1997 Patterns of Global Terrorism report issued by the State Department stated the following about the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO, NCRI and various other acronyms):

“During the 1970s, the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran to destabilize and embarrass the Shah’s regime; the group killed several US military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. The group also supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In April 1992 the MEK carried out attacks on Iranian embassies in 13 different countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas.”

Listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 1997, the offices of the group’s spokesperson, Alireza Jafarzadeh was located at 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Even after the attacks of September 11 and America’s declared “war on terror”, the spokesperson and representative of the terror group was just down the street from the White House. Later, the organization would move its offices to 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, remaining close to the residence of the President of the United States of America located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It is said that ‘familiarity breeds contempt’. This is certainly not true of Washington officials and their cozy ties with the MEK cult. It seems that they are inching ever closer and have the audacity to flaunt their ties. Washington’s actions are a long cry from Israel’s who in the 1990’s was secretly aiding the group. (The Israeli-MEK relations continue to be omitted from news headlines while the accusatory finger is pointed to Saudi Arabia for their financial support of the cult).
Connie Brock of The New Yorker writes:

“Israel had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and had supplied a satellite signal for N.C.R.I. broadcasts from Paris into Iran.

An Israeli diplomat said:

“The M.E.K is useful,”but did not elaborate.”. According to the same report, the Israelis provided the MEK with unsubstantiated ‘intelligence’ on Iran’s nuclear program. Not surprising since the aforementioned 1997 Patterns of Global Terrorism report states, “The MEK directs a worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government that stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence .”

The close relationship with Israel may help explain why it was that in spite of being listed as terrorists, the group managed to bribe prominent politicians; even as a provision of the defense authorization bill would grant the military the authority to detain and hold anyone indefinitely, or to assassinate any individual suspected of having ties to terrorists/al Qaeda. Yet, these terrorists were giving speaking fees to American politicians. (The group also has its tentacles around British politicians – see HERE).

What is even more mind-boggling is the fact that Israel was supporting a terrorist cult that had massacred the Kurds in Iraq in 1991, and only a few year later, the Israelis were training the Kurds in Iraq who has survived the massacre (obviously something that has been lost on the Kurds) while their killers, the MEK, were being chauffeured around by American soldiers a short distance away in Iraq – in America’s ‘war on terror’!

Meanwhile, back home, politicians were being bribed by the terrorists! Clearly, FATF (Financial Action Task Force) did not prevent money from being funneled to and from terrorists. Shamelessly, Washington is demanding that Iran become a member of FATF to stop terrorism financing!
Even while the terrorist group was doling out money to corrupt politicians so they could be removed from the FTO list, and Washington politicians accepted money from terrorists, the group continued with its terrorism and carried out cross-border raids inside Iran with the full knowledge and encouragement of the Bush administration (History Commons).
Concurrently, Washington was using other group members to promote propaganda against Iran with emphasis on ‘human rights’. The leader of the terrorist cult, Maryam Rajavi’s live satellite broadcast into Washington was cheered . This certainly gave new meaning to ‘human rights’ promotion by America – as well as its ‘war on terror’.

The hypocrisy reached across the aisle. Democrats and Republicans don’t agree on much, but both parties supported this terrorist cult – all the way to the top.

When Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2008, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D -Texas), co-chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign, not only shared her friendship with America’s then presidential hopeful, but she also promoted America’s pet terrorists – the MEK. Congresswoman Jackson Lee went as far as calling Maryam Rajavi “Sister Maryam,[1]. (Would this make Hillary and Maryam ‘sisters’ too?).
Certainly, Hillary’s push to remove the MEK from the FTO was a very sisterly act.
It is important to bear in mind that the group was removed from the list of FTO after U.S. officials disclosed to NBC that the MEK terrorist group was financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service and responsible for the killing of Iran’s nuclear scientists; and at a time when the United States was negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran Deal.
This year, as the Iranians mark the 38th anniversary of a horrendous attack by the MEK cult, the Trump administration is openly promoting the cult and flaunts Washington’s decades long, bipartisan infatuation with a notorious, anti-democratic cult. What makes the MEK stand out?
Israel’s support aside, they seem to be brought out in the open whenever Washington wants to play tis psychological games with Iran – its ‘stick’, the term [offensive] policy makers like to use. Washington knows full well that the group is hated in Iran. That not a single member of this group will be tolerated in Iran, and there is no future for the group. History also shows that Washington has experienced blow-back every time it has supported an unsavory group or when it has encouraged terror and terrorists. Terrorism, like pollution, does not recognize borders. Why the mad romancing of the MEK?

Perhaps Washington hopes that this cult will simply come to an end. As the Council on Foreign Relations has reported:

“Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis. Older women were reportedly required to divorce their husbands in the late 1980s, and younger girls cannot marry or have children.”.

Perhaps Washington’s thinking is that their numbers will dwindle and there will be no future generations of this cult to come back and haunt it. Now there is a wish both Washington and Tehran share!
But wishes don’t make policies. Washington needs to understand that its stick is a boomerang that will come back at it. Washington has become morally and fiscally bankrupt as a result of its wrong policies. Its high time to save itself from the quagmire of its own creation before sinking beyond redemption.

ahtribune.com

July 2, 2019 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Algiers Accords: Decades of Violations – And Silence

January 18, 2018″Information Clearing House”- This week marks the 37th anniversary of a pledge made by the United States in 1981:

“The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”

This week also marks 37 continuous years of the United States failing to uphold its pledge: the 1981 Algiers Accords.

Just how many people have heard of the 1981 Algiers Accords, a bilateral treaty signed on January 19, 1981 between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran? Chances are, not many. Just as chances are that not many are fully aware of what actually led to the signing of this treaty.

Following the success of the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah, America’s strongman in Iran, plans were made to topple the new government in Tehran. In 1980, under the Carter administration, the United States began clandestine radio broadcasts into Iran from Egypt. The broadcasts called for Khomeini’s overthrow and urged support for Shahpur Bakhtiar[i], the last prime minister under the Shah. Other plans included the failed Nojeh coup plot as well as plans for a possible American invasion of Iran using Turkish bases[ii].

The new Revolutionary government in Iran, with a look to the past and the 1953 British-CIA coup d’état that overthrew the Mossadegh government and reinstalled the Shah, had good reason to believe that the United States was planning to abort the revolution in its nascent stages. Fearful, enthusiastic students took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took the diplomats as hostages in order to prevent such plans from fruition.

These events led to the negotiation and conclusion the Algiers Accords, point 1 of which was the pledge by the United States not to intervene in Iran’s internal affairs in anyway. The Algiers Accords brought about the release of the American hostages and established the Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal (“Tribunal”) at The Hague, the Netherlands. The Tribunal ruled consistently “the Declarations were to be interpreted in accordance with the process of interpretation set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”[iii] ([*])

A pledge is only as valid and worthy as the person making it. From the onset, the United States failed to uphold its own pledge. For instance, starting in 1982, the CIA provided $100,000 a month to a group in Paris called the Front for the Liberation of Iran. The group headed by Ali Amini who had presided over the reversion of Iranian oil to foreign control after the CIA-backed coup in 1953[iv]. Additionally, America provided support to two Iranian paramilitary groups based in Turkey, one of them headed by General Bahram Aryana, the former Shah’s army chief with close ties to Bakhtiar[v].

In 1986, the CIA went so far as to pirate Iran’s national television network frequency to transmit an address by the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, over Iranian TV in which he vowed: “I will return,”[vi]. The support did not end there. Pahlavi had C.LA. funding for a number of years in the eighties which stopped with the Iran-Contra affair. He was successful at soliciting funds from the emir of Kuwait, the emir of Bahrain, the king of Morocco, and the royal family of Saudi Arabia, all staunch U.S. allies[vii].

In late 2002, Michael Ledeen joined Morris Amitay, vice-president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs; ex-CIA head James Woolsey; former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney; former senator Paul Simon; and oil consultant Rob Sobhani to set up a group called the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI)[viii]. In spite of his lack of charisma as a leader, in May, 2003, Michael Ledeen wrote a policy brief for the American Enterprise Institute Web site arguing that Pahlavi would make a suitable leader for a transitional government, describing him as “widely admired inside Iran, despite his refreshing lack of avidity for power or wealth.”[ix] In August 2003, the Pentagon issued new guidelines – All meetings with Iranian dissidents had to be cleared with Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. Reza Pahlavis’ name was included in the list of contacts that had been meeting with Pentagon analysts[x].

Concurrent with this direct interference, and in the following decade, Washington concentrated its efforts into putting a chokehold on the Iranian economy. A provision of the Algiers Accords was that

“the United States will revoke all trade sanctions which were directed against Iran in the period November 4, 1979, to date.”

Embargoes and sanctions became the norm. Failing to interfere in Iran’s domestic affairs in order to topple the Islamic Republic through economic hardship, the United States once again turned up pressure through broadcasts and direct support for dissidents and terrorists – in conjunction with economic sanctions.

This stranglehold was taking place while concurrently, and in violation of the Algiers Accords, the CIA front National Endowment for Democracy was providing funds to various groups, namely “Iran Teachers Association” (1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,2001, 2002, 2003); The Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI founded in 1995 by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Peter Rodman, Joshua Muravchik, and American intelligence officials advocating regime change in Iran), National Iranian American Council (NIAC) 2002, 2005, 2006), and others[xi].

Funds from NED to interfere in Iran continued after the signing of the JCPOA. The 2016 funding stood at well over $1m.

In September 2000, Senators openly voiced support for the MEK Terror group Mojaheddin-e-khalgh. Writing for The New Yorker, Connie Bruck revealed that:

“Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.RI. broadcasts from Paris into Iran.”[xii].

Perhaps their relationship with Israel and their usefulness explains why President Bush accorded the group ‘special persons status’[xiii].

During the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, the terrorist group got protection from the U.S. troops in Iraq despite getting pressure from the Iraqi government to leave the country (CNN[xiv]). In 2005, “a Farsi-speaking former CIA officer says he was approached by neoconservatives in the Pentagon who asked him to go to Iran and oversee “MEK [Mujahedeen-e Khalq] cross-border operations” into Iran.”

Moreover, according to Pakistani Intelligence, the United States secretly used yet another terrorist group – the Jundallah, stage a series of deadly attacks against Iran. The United States seems to have a soft spot for terrorists.

In addition to CIA funding and covert operations with help from terrorists, the United States actively used radio broadcasts into Iran to stir up unrest including Radio Farda and VOA Persian. It comes as no surprise then that the recipient of NED funds, NIAC, should encourage such broadcasts. Also, the BBC “received significant” sum of money from the US government to help combat the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China.”

It is crucial to note that while the United States was conducting secret negotiations with Iran which led to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA), the MEK were delisted as a foreign terror organization. This provides them with the legitimacy to write opinion pieces in leading American papers.

Also important to note that during the JCPOA negotiations in which the United States participated as a party to an agreement, it was busy flouting the Treaty with its broadcasts in to Iran – apparently, without objection. But the violation was not limited to broadcasts. Item B of the Treaty’s preamble states:

“Through the procedures provided in the declaration relating to the claims settlement agreement, the United States agrees to terminate all legal proceedings in United States courts involving claims of United States persons and institutions against Iran and its state enterprises, to nullify all attachments and judgments obtained therein, to prohibit all further litigation based on such claims, and to bring about the termination of such claims through binding arbitration. “

Unsurprisingly, the US again failed to keep its pledge and a partisan legislation allocated millions for the former hostages.

Clearly, the United States clearly felt bound by the Treaty for it recognized Point 2. Of the Algiers Accords when in January 2016 Iran received its funds frozen by America in a settlement at the Hague. Perhaps for no other reason that to pacify Iran post JCPOA while finding the means to re-route Iran’s money back into American hands.

It would require a great deal of time and verse to cite every instance and detail of United States of America’s violation of a Treaty, of its pledge, for the past 37 years. But never has its attitude been more brazen in refusing to uphold its pledge and its open violation of international law than when President Trump openly voiced his support for protests in Iran and called for regime change. The US then called an emergency UNSC meeting on January 5, 2018 to demand that the UN interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.

America’s history clearly demonstrates that it has no regard for international law and treaties. Its pledge is meaningless. International law is a tool for America that does not apply to itself. This is a well-documented fact – and perhaps none has realized this better than the North Korean leader – Kim Jong-un. But what is inexplicable is the failure of Iranians to address these violations.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy.

Notes

[*] U.S. TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty “as an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.”

Under United States law, however, there is a distinction made between the terms treaty and executive agreement. ” Generally, a treaty is a binding international agreement and an executive agreement applies in domestic law only. Under international law, however, both types of agreements are considered binding. Regardless of whether an international agreement is called a convention, agreement, protocol, accord, etc. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/dynamic/guide.php?id=65)

[i] David Binder, “U.S. Concedes It Is Behind Anti-Khomeini Broadcasts,” New York Times, 29 June 1980,

[ii] Mehmet Akif Okur, “The American Geopolitical Interests and Turkey on the Eve of the September 12, 1980 Coup”, CTAD, Vol.11, No.21, p. 210-211

[iii] Malintoppi, Loretta. World Arbitration Reporter (WAR) – 2nd edition, December 2010

https://arbitrationlaw.com/library/algiers-accord-and-iran-united-states-claims-tribunal-1981-algiers-world-arbitration. Downloaded January 14, 2018

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf

[iv] Bob Woodward, “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987”, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987, p. 480. (Cited by Stephen R. Shalom, “The United States and the Gulf War”, Feb. 1990).

[v] Leslie H. Gelb, “U.S. Said to Aid Iranian Exiles in Combat and Political Units,” New York Times, 7 Mar. 1982, pp. A1, A12.

[vi] Tower Commission, p. 398; Farhang, “Iran-Israel Connection,” p. 95. (Cited by Stephen R. Shalom, “The United States and the Gulf War”, Feb. 1990).

[vii] Connie Bruck, ibid

[viii] Andrew I Killgore. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Washington:Dec 2003. Vol. 22, Iss. 10, p. 17

[ix] Connie Bruck, ibid

[x] Eli Lake, New York Sun , Dec. 2, 2003

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/12/02&ID=Ar00100

[xi] International Democracy Development, Google Books, p. 59 https://books.google.com/books?id=ReTtEj6_myAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

[xii] Connie Bruck, “A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran’s expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat”. The New Yorker, March 6, 2006

[xiii] US State Department Daily Briefing http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/34680.htm

[xiv] Michael Ware, “U.S. protects Iranian Opposition Group in Iraq” 6, April 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, Information Clearing House

January 27, 2018 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MeK Modern Muslims, Bedfellow of Islamophobes

Soraya Sepahpor-Ulrich, an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of the lobby, commented on Rudy Guiliani’s speech in the MKO’s propaganda show in Villepint, Paris :

This bastard is not only a supporter of terrorists, but is an Islamophobe, yet he is supporting the terrorist cult of MEK (must be getting a ton of money from Israel) who are, or pretend to be Moslems – headscarf and all. When running for president, this whore made the threat of Islamic terrorism the centerpiece of his campaign.

He brought two neocons on board with him as advisors; Daniel Pipes and Peter King, senior Republican Congressman on the House Homeland Security Committee who is of the opinion that there are “too many mosques in this country”.

Podhoretz also joined Giuliani (now with McCain), as did John Deady who resigned after it came out that he said the following of Giuliani: "He’s got, I believe, the knowledge and the judgment to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history and that is the rise of the Muslims. Make no mistake about it, this hasn’t happened for a thousand years, these people are very dedicated and they’re also very, very smart in their own way. We need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat or chase them back to their caves or, in other words, get rid of them."

Renowned Evangelical Pat Robertson gave Giuliani his endorsement. So this is the whore supporting terrorists. Please make everyone aware of who this man is and the cult he supports.

June 15, 2015 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Women of Iran, Washington just doesn’t get it

Discovering Iran

Iran Trip: September – October 2014

Marcel Proust said: “The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.” During the past two decades, I visited Iran on numerous occasions staying 10-14 days at a time. This time around, I stayed for 2 months and, heeding Proust, I carried with me a fresh pair of eyes. I discarded both my Western lenses as well as my Iranian lenses and observed with objective eyes. It was a formidable journey that left me breathless.

Part I – Women of the Islamic Republic of Iran

It is hard to know where to start a travel log and how to describe a newfound world in a few pages. However, given the obsession with the status of women, it is perhaps appropriate to start with the women in Iran as I perceived them.

Western media with help from feminists and Iranians living outside of Iran portray Iranian women as being “oppressed”—foremost because women in Iran have to abide by an Islamic dress code: hijab. Yes, hijab is mandatory and women choose to wear either a chador or a scarf. But what is crucial to understand is the role chador played pre-1979 versus the post Revolution era.

Prior to the 1979 Revolution, the chador was indicative of a thinly veiled caste system. While a few distinguished women of high socio-economical background chose to wear the chador, the rest, the majority of Iranian women, were simply born into the habit. In short, the socio-economically disadvantaged wore the pre-1979 chador. In those days, the chador was a hindrance to a woman’s progress; she was looked down at and frowned upon. She could not move forward or up. She was oppressed. But Western feminists were blind to this oppression. After all, the Shah was modern and America’s friendly dictator.

The Revolution changed the status quo and chipped away at the caste system. A revolution, by definition, is a complete change in the way people live and work. And so it is with the Iranian Revolution. The post 1979 chador is no longer an impediment to a woman’s future. Today’s Iranian woman, the same (formerly) less privileged class, has found freedom in her chador. She has been unshackled and she marches on alongside her (formerly) more privileged colleagues. This emancipation is what the Western/Westernized feminists see as oppression.

I myself come from yesterday’s tiny minority of “privileged” women, far too comfortable in my “Western” skin to want to promote hijab, but I will not allow my personal preferences to diminish the value of the progress made because of hijab. The bleeding hearts from without should simply change their tainted lenses instead of trying to change the lives of others for Iranian women do not need to be rescued, they do not follow—they lead.

On two separate occasions I had the opportunity to sit and talk with a group of PhD students at Tehran University’s Global Studies Department. Frankly, these young women charmed me. Their inquisitive and sharp minds, their keen intellect, their vast knowledge, their fluent English, and their utter confidence dazzled me. Western feminists would consider them “oppressed”. Seems to me that feminism needs rescuing, not Iranian women.

The inordinate success of women goes vastly beyond education; they participate in every aspect of society: motherhood, arts and sciences, high tech, film and cinema, research, business, administration, politics, sports, armed forces, bus and taxi drivers, fire-fighters, etc. Women’s active role in society is undeniable. What I found tantalizing was their role as cultural gatekeepers.

Women – The Cultural Warriors

Cultural imperialism is part and parcel of neocolonialism. The eradication of an indigenous culture and replacing it with a hegemonic one enables the hegemon to exert influence on the subject nation—to own it. And women are the nuclei. They hold the family together and pass on traditions. To this end, in every colonial adventure, regardless of geography, women have been the primary targets (i.e. victims of rescue). Iran has been no different. While some have indeed abandoned their culture in order to embrace that of another, the vast majority have resisted and fought back with authentic Iranian tradition.

One group of these cultural warriors left a deep impact on me. I attended a dance ensemble at the famous Roudaki Hall (Talar Roudaki). Girls aged 6 to 18 sent the packed hall into a thunderous applause when they danced to various traditional songs from around the country. Their dance was not MTV stuff. It reflected the beauty and purity of an ancient culture. Their movements and gestures were not intended to be seductive, they were graceful and poetic ushering in the ancient past and bonding it with the present, strengthening it. These were the women of Iran who would guard Iran’s precious culture and traditions against modern, Western culture deemed central to ‘civilization’ and ‘freedom’ by Western feminists.

It is not my intention to give the false impression that every woman in Iran is happy, successful, and valued. Like any other society, Iran has its share of unhappy, depressed girls and women. It has its share of women who have been abused and betrayed. It has its share of girls and women who turn to drugs, prostitution, or both. I came across these as well. I also noted that laws in Iran do not favor women, be it divorce, child custody, or inheritance. Yet women have leapt forward.

Part II – Esprit de Corps: Washington Just Doesn’t Get It

Numerous visitors have travelled to Iran and brought back reports describing the landscape, the food, the friendliness of the people, the impact of the sanctions, and so forth. For the most part, these reports have been accurate—albeit incomplete. I do not want to tire the reader with my observations on these same topics; rather, I invite the reader to share my journey into the soul of the country—the spirit of the Iranian nation.

Washington’s missteps are, in part, due to the simple fact that Washington receives flawed intelligence on Iran and Iranians. This has been a long-standing pattern with Washington. Prior to the 1979 Revolution, a plethora of US personnel lived in Iran. Thousands of CIA agents were stationed there. Their task went beyond teaching torture techniques to the Shah’s secret police; they were, after all, spies. In addition to the military personnel that came in tow with the military equipment sold to the Shah by the U.S., there were official US personnel who worked at the American Embassy in Tehran. None got it.

They all failed miserably in their assessment of Iranians. These personnel were simply too busy enjoying a lavish lifestyle in Iran. As the aforementioned travellers have all repeated, Iran is beautiful, the food scrumptious, the people hospitable. These personnel attended parties thrown by those close to the Shah (or other affluent Iranians) and lived the kind of life they could not have dreamt of elsewhere. American ambassadors doled out visas to the lazy kids of these same families who would not have otherwise been able to make it to the US under normal student visa requirements.

These same Iranians, the privileged elite, provided Americans in Iran with intelligence—inaccurate, flawed information that was passed onto Washington. Washington was content. After all, why doubt your friends, and how could possibly the secret police trained by CIA not get the facts right? To this end, Washington believed Iran would remain a client state for the unforeseen future. The success of the revolution was a slap in the face, but Washington did not alter course.

For the past several decades, Washington has continued to act on flawed intelligence. Today, it relies on the “expertise” of some in the Iranian Diaspora who have not visited Iran once since the revolution. In addition to the “Iran experts”, Washington has found itself other sources of ‘intelligence’, foremost; the Mojahedeen Khalg (MEK) terrorist cult. This group feeds Washington information provided them by Israel. Previous to this assignment, the cult was busy fighting alongside Saddam Hussein killing Iranians and Kurds. Is it any surprise that Washington is clueless on Iran?

What Washington can’t fathom is the source of Iran’s strength, its formidable resilience. Thanks to its ‘experts’, and the personal experience of some visitors, Washington continues to believe that the Iranian people love America and that they are waiting for Washington to ‘rescue’ them from their government. No doubt Iranians are generous, hospitable, and charming. They welcome visitors as guest regardless of their country of origin. This is part and parcel of their culture. They also believe a guest is a ‘blessing from God’—mehmoon barekate khodast. Karime khodast. But this is where it ends.

While the Iranian people love people of all nationalities, including Americans, they see Washington for what it is. Over the past decades, Washington and its policies have adversely affected virtually every single family in Iran. These include those whose dreams and hopes were shattered by the CIA orchestrated coup against their nascent democracy and its popular leader, Mossadegh. Later, lives were turned upside down the Shah’s CIA/Mossad trained secret police arrested, brutally tortured, killed or simply made disappear anyone who dared venture into politics. Thanks to America’s staunch support, these stories never found their way to the papers. And then there are the millions of war widows and orphans, the maimed soldiers, the victims of chemical weapons supplied to Saddam Hussein by America to use against Iranians while the UN closed its eyes in an 8-year war. Not to forget the victims of American sponsored terrorism, and sanctions. Millions of Iranians have first hand experience of all that has been plagued upon them by Washington.

It is these victims, their families and acquaintances that fight for Iran’s sovereignty, that are the guardians of this proud nation. They are the source of Iran’s strength. Victor Hugo once said: “No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.” There simply is no army on earth which can occupy, by proxy or otherwise, the land the people have come to believe belongs to them not by virtue of birth, but because they have fought for it, died for it, kept it from harm.

I met many such families; one in particular was more memorable. During the Shah’s regime, this family worked on my father’s farm. The father and his sons worked the farm and the mother helped around the house. In those days, this family and future generations would have simply continued to work on the farm, remain ‘peasants’ with no prospects for the future. But the revolution rescued them.

Shortly after the revolution, the war started. The boys in the family all went to war. One uncle lost his life to chemical warfare. The rest survived – and thrived. They got themselves free education provided by the same government America wants to dislodge. One of these boys, the man I met after some 35 years, Kazem, once condemned to be a ‘peasant’, had become a successful businessman. I spent hours talking to the family and to Kazem in particular. What impressed me was not just his affluence and his success in business, but the wisdom that only comes with age, and yet he had acquired it in youth. He had intellect and dignity. A gentleman, I found his knowledge of global affairs to be superior to most one would meet at a college in the US. He had experienced war and witnessed death. Iran belonged to him. He would fight for it over and over without hesitating to die for it.

This is the Iran the Diaspora has left behind, the Iran that is unknown to them. This is a far superior country than the one I left behind as a child and visited throughout the years. Iran’s guardians, its keepers, are all Kazems. It has been said that the strength of an army is the support of the people behind it. The whole country is that army. As Khalil Gibran rightly observed: “Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars.” With every wrong policy, America adds to the scars, strengthens the character and spirit of this unbreakable nation. This is what Washington is not able to grasp.

Foreign Policy Journal

November 9, 2014 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Romancing The MEK: America’s Love Affair With Terrorists

Rudy Giuliani, the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate and the former New York Mayor has publicly stated that the United States should use a terrorist group to launch a military attack on Iran’s civilian infrastructure — the nuclear power plants. Giuliani is not alone in his support of the Mujahedin-e Khalq terrorist cult (MEK, also known by other acronyms such as MKO, NCRI). Many prominent voices have put their weight behind the terrorist group.

America has had a long-standing love affair with terrorists. Support for terrorist groups and governments has been part and parcel of American policy. According to William Odom, President Reagan’s former NSA Director, terrorism is a tactic with the having a long record of supporting terrorists[ see pdf ] [i] . But what is unique and novel about romancing the MEK is the political elite’s brazen public display of support for the group, and the shameless prostitution of their services for a fee.

This must be a rude awakening for the American public. After hundreds of thousands of lives lost, trillions of dollars spent on waging a war on terror –"fighting them over there so they don’t come over here", what has come home with the body bags and the debt is the realization that "they", the terrorists ARE here – and they have out politicians in their pockets.

Many citizens fail to understand of present day. They have a hard time reconciling "fighting there", and the government establishing the Unites States as a battleground. They have difficulty understanding prominent politicians receiving payments from a group listed on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), while a provision of the defense authorization bill would grant the military the authority to detain and hold anyone indefinitely, or to assassinate any individual suspected of having ties to al Qaeda [ii] — a terrorist group who according to Hillary Clinton was funded and armed by the US (CNN ).

Incomprehensible as the actions of these distinguished MEK supporters may be, it may well be that they take comfort in the fact that it is the MEK that is buying their lip service and not vice versa. Perhaps they would rather line their pockets instead of asking where the money comes from. But the question does bear asking.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations , the approximate number of the MEK terrorist cult is estimated at a few thousand members, 3-4,000 of whom live in Camp Ashraf, . While the MEK residents of Camp Ashraf greatly benefit from American hospitality, including being chauffeured around by American soldiers , it is unlikely that they would be major contributors to their American supporters.

Who then, provides the funding for the solicitation of ‘s political elite?

The MEK has long had the support of the United States and policy makers ( History Commons ), although recently, after the most recent assassination of yet another Iranian scientist, U.S. officials disclosed to NBC that the MEK terrorist group was "financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service. With American tax payers forking out billions of dollars a year to , buying the services of American politicians by the MEK gives new meaning to the words money-laundering and prostitution.

Up Ed News

April 2, 2012 0 comment

Lord Corbett

Lord Colbert does not do his title justice

(Robin Corbett, who promoted terrorism in Iran and Iraq under the logo of MKO for the past 25 years!!)

For centuries the colonizers exploited and dominated the third world. Today, one of the more subtle tools of imperialism is the use of value-laden language that seeks to define the Arab and Muslim world. With labels such as ‘terrorists’ and ‘Islamofascism’, they wish to establish an ‘Orientalist’ perspective of otherness denoting barbarism as set apart from Israel and the West which represents admirable qualities. It is imperative to reject this imperial imposition of characterization and for each state, individually and collectively, to self-rule, foremost through self-definition.

The case of Mojahedeen-e Khalg (MEK) showcases the ever present imperial influence of the West in defining the ‘other’ due to the ownership of language. The hypocrisy is stark given that the U.S. with the help of her ally the British waged a ‘war on terror’ which has resulted in the death of over a million people to date. Yet, a certain Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, a member of the House of Lords from Gordon Brown’s ruling Labor Party, has coauthored an opinion piece with Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA), both of whom promote the terrorist organization of the MEK. In their opinion, these two argue that engagement with Iran would risk, among other things, a “support for international terrorism”[i].

Lord Corbet Lord Colbert does not do his title justice; to paraphrase Samuel Butler, a degenerate nobleman is like a turnip. There is nothing good of him but that which is under ground. Else how can he explain throwing in his lot with terrorists who are in the employ of Israel?”Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.RI. broadcasts from Paris into Iran” [ii]. Their servitude to the Israelis was after they had committed treason, murder, and terrorism while under the tutelage of Saddam Hossein – the man that the Americans and the British considered a threat to world peace, and whose demise and the invasion of Iraq has now caused a threat to world peace.

While innocent Iraqis were being killed en masse in the ‘war on terror’, the Commander in Chief gave ‘special persons status’ to Saddam’s pet terrorists in Camp Ashraf while an associate from the powerful Republican lobbying group of Barbour Griffith & Rogers invited Neil Livingstone, the C.E.O. of Global Options, an international risk-management firm, and Gregory Minjack, who was an executive at Public Strategies, a Washington-based crisis-management company” to remove the group from the FTO designation. The lobby group was not without help. Congressman Filner has been on the Hill promoting the group. But perhaps one of their most ardent admirers is Cuban-born Congresswoman Senator Ros-Lehtinen who is not new to the game.

In February 1988, Orlando Bosch had been arrested in Miami and implicated in the 1976 Cubana plot, a terrorist act which had resulted in the downing of flight 455 killing 73 passengers. Joe D. Whitley, associate United States Attorney General at the time, called Bosch “a terrorist, unfettered by laws or human decency, threatening and inflicting violence without regard to the identity of his victims”[iii], had the distinct advantage of having Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) Bosch’s release as one of the cornerstones of her 1989 congressional campaign. This murderer of 73 innocent lives had the more good luck. Ros-Lehtinen’s campaign manager was Jed Bush, the President’s son. In July 1989, a month after meeting his son Jed and Ros-Lehtinen to discuss the Bosch case, President Bush rejected his Justice Department’s recommendation and authorized Bosch’s release who became a resident of the United States two years later.[iv] In granting the MEK terrorists asylum in Iraq, George W. is following a family trend.

Bosch’s terrorist partner, Cuban-born, Luis Posada Carriles dedicated his life to the over throw of Fidel Castro and was a CIA recruit who participated in the calamitous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, “he was part of Operation Southern Front…and he worked for the Hammer [Oliver North]…From 1967 to 1986, Luis was a compensated agent of the CIA. And George Bush, the vice president, knew what he was doing.”[v] Yet for blowing up a plane and causing 73 people to be killed, he was arrested in 2005 on immigration charges and released in 2007[vi] . It is interesting to note that George H.W. Bush was director of the CIA when the Cubana airliner exploded. What makes the Cuban-born Ros-Lehtinen support the MEK terrorists, does she have a fatal attraction towards assassins and murderers? Or are she and the rest of Congress following the leader of nation that has waged ‘war on terror’?

Perhaps they believe that by imposing the colonial language of calling the ‘other’ ‘uncivilized’ and state sponsor of terrorists, their mass murder and moral annihilation will go unnoticed. “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” – J.F. Kennedy.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American studying at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She is a member of World Association of International Studies society, Stanford. Her research focus is U.S. foreign policy towards Iran, Iran’s nuclear program, and the influence of lobby groups. She is a peace activist, essayist, radio commentator and public speaker.

[i] http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-world-press/

dont-enable-irans-offenses.html

[ii] Connie Bruck, “A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran’s expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat”. The New Yorker, March 6, 2006

[iii] Quoted in Weiner, “Case of Cuban Exile Could Test the U.S. Definition of Terrorist,” p. A1.

[iv] Bardach, “Twilight of the Assassins.”

[v] Bardach, “Ibid

[vi] “The Good Terrorist: The United States and Cuba,” The Economist vol. 383, iss. 8526. 28 April 2007. p. 44.

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, Counter Currents, May 17, 2008

http://www.countercurrents.org/ulrich170508.htm

May 17, 2008 0 comment

Lord Corbett

Terror Most Imperial

Lord Colbert does not do his title justice

Lord Colbert does not do his title justice; to paraphrase Samuel Butler, a degenerate nobleman is like a turnip. There is nothing good of him but that which is under ground. Else how can he explain throwing in his lot with terrorists who are in the employ of Israel? "Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.RI. broadcasts from Paris into Iran” [ii]. Their servitude to the Israelis was after they had committed treason, murder, and terrorism while under the tutelage of Saddam Hossein – the man that the Americans and the British considered a threat to world peace, and whose demise and the invasion of Iraq has now caused a threat to world peace.

[i].http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-world-press/dont-enable-irans-offenses.html

[ii] Connie Bruck, “A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran’s expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat”. The New Yorker, March 6, 2006

[iii] Quoted in Weiner, “Case of Cuban Exile Could Test the U.S. Definition of Terrorist,” p. A1.

[iv] Bardach, “Twilight of the Assassins.”

[v] Bardach, “Ibid

[vi] “The Good Terrorist: The United States and Cuba,” The Economist vol. 383, iss. 8526. 28 April 2007. p. 44.

Counter Currents

May 17, 2008 0 comment

Maryam Rajavi

Sister Hillary

It seems Hillary Clinton has sacrificed her conscience to ambition. Chinese proverb has it that “he who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes”. She announced her readiness to reduce 70 million Sister Hillary innocent Iranian lives to ashes so that she could imagine her picture in the White House. Her lust for ambition will never be satisfied; on the contrary, it seems to grow more inflamed with the prospect of mass murder. After all, this is nothing new to her.

Hillary knowingly supported the Iraq war to defend the “future of freedom”. In her drive for the Iraq war, she was supported by the Progressive Policy Institute, a self-described think-tank of the Democratic Leadership Council[i]. Perhaps no one describes the group better than former neoconservative Jacob Heilbrunn who wrote: “Don’t look now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback-and not among the Republicans who have made it famous, but in the Democratic Party,”[ii]. Indeed, many of them supported the war for the purpose of promoting democracy.

Her ideology has contributed to the nation’s moral bankruptcy, the loss of over one million lives, and the depletion of America’s treasury. These neoliberals who have driven us into a quagmire, elaborated it would serve America’s interest to promote the Democratic peace theory. Scholars, university professors, and neoliberal jurists presented the concept that sovereignty, as it stood in international law did not provide immunity from attack to states engaging in systematic human rights abuses or amassing weapons of mass destruction. These would be considered ‘pariah’ states to be attacked by democratic coalitions with a warrant to liberalize them.[iii] Candidate Hillary comes from this stock. It seems that the only thing which differentiates her from McCain is the conduct of the war in Iraq, not the immoral and illegal war itself.

One can see why she would oppose the Bush conduct in this war by understanding the PPI. A book entitled “With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty” edited by Will Marshall (President of PPI) outlines the strategy difference the ‘progressives’ (neoliberals) and the Bush unilateralism. The war in Iraq is part of a strategy for”building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy.”[iv]. She has endorsed the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based on her belief that she holds a superior ideology which must be imposed on others, regardless of the cost and the consequences.

No doubt a person’s character is never so well disclosed as when it is seen through the company he/she keeps. It appears that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D -Texas), co-chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign, not only shares her friendship with America’s presidential hopeful, but she also promotes America’s terrorists[v]. The Mojaheden-e Khalgh (MEK) were put on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list by President Clinton for they were responsible for the assassination of Americans in Iran in the 1970’s, as well as for their role in the US embassy takeover[vi], yet their leader and Hillary have a common friend and promoter. Congresswoman Jackson Lee went as far as calling Rajavi “Sister Maryam,[vii]. Are Hillary and Maryam ‘sisters’ too? Is our presidential candidate ‘sister’ to a notorious cult leader?

Raymond Tanter, a former National Security Agency staffer who led the IPC, predicted that the MEK would be removed from the terrorist list and be used by the US against the regime.”I foresee a situation where Laura Bush, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes, and Maryam Rajavi are posing for a picture in the White House,”[viii]. Tanter was not far off. The MEK is certainly being used, and in all likelihood they will be moved from the terrorist list. However, Maryam Rajavi may have to wait for the photo op and take it with Sister Hillary.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American studying at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Her research focus is US foreign policy towards Iran, Iran’s nuclear program, and influence of lobby groups. She is a peace activist, essayist, radio commentator and public speaker.

Notes:

[i] Tony Smith, “A Pact with the Devil. Washington’s bid for world supremacy and the betrayal of the American promise’. Routledge 2007.

[ii] Jacob Heilbrunn,”Neocons in the Democratic Party,”Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2006.

[iii] Tony Smith. Ibid.

[iv] Will Marshall, editor, With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, PPI (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006).

[v] http://www.maryam-rajavi.com/content/view/168/66/

[vi] http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/

[vii] Financial Times, October 6, 2005.

[viii] Connie Bruck, “A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran’s expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat”. The New Yorker, March 6, 2006.

Middle-east-online – Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008 0 comment

Lord Corbett

Member of Parliament for Hire?

Joseph Joubert said: “Imagination is the eye of the soul”. It therefore comes as no surprise that with terrorists lending their imagination to Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, a member of the House of Lords from Gordon Brown’s ruling Labor Party, his soul is blinded. Lord Corbett would have us believe that millions of Iranians are eagerly waiting for the “freedoms offered by Iran’s parliament-in-exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.” Perhaps it is the inaccuracy of the number that troubles this writer. , the only terrorists in Iraq, the MEK, were given ‘special persons status’; hardly a noteworthy credential for ‘self-acclaimed parliamentarians in exile’ who wants to offer freedom, unless the sort offered by the Bush-Blair coalition – complete destruction of Iran. One must wonder what has prompted a distinguished British Lord to rise up in the defense of terrorists, and more importantly, to accept the highly visible position of chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom? To believe in a ‘good Samaritan’ state is fool-hardy. Empirical evidence supports the fact that Britain’s foreign policy has been in direct conflict with that of Iran’s national interest. Given that the MEK’s history has been fully explored and recorded by the Human Rights Watch organization and the United States State Department, one has to examine Lord Corbett’s risky undertaking in associating his distinguished title with this group. Ronal Reagan once said: “Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first”. He was remarkably astute in his observation. In 1995, it became painfully clear to Lord Nolan that 30% of all MPs were being paid for consultancies (advice and lobbying) related to their parliamentary role. At the time of this revelation, the majority of Conservative backbenchers were ‘spoken for’ by one commercial lobby or another. An influential lobby group called ‘Decision Makers’ had Dame Angela Rumbold, Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party as one of its directors. She resigned when Mohammed Al-Fayed, father of Princess Diana’s fiancé, Dodi Fayed, made allegations against senior party figures[iii]. Another ‘lobbying company’ was set up by lan Greer who began in politics working for Cabinet Minister Peter Walker. He remained a Conservative agent for thirteen years after which he has enjoyed close links with senior Conservative politicians. In 1969 he began lobbying as a business. Among Ian Greer Associates (IGA) was Prime Minister Bhutto. Could it be that the MEK is using a lobby group to influence the likes of Lord Corbett? This group is not without influence. Indeed, they have many friends in the United States Congress. They are cunning and skillful in the art of deception. They have also had the world believe that the minority religious in Iran are being persecuted setting Iran in the ‘Orientalist’ perspective of the Muslim ‘otherness’ denoting barbarism. This will give the neocons who believe in a combination of force, ideas, and morality the ammunition to attack Iran. However, nothing is further from the truth. The minorities themselves have spoken to this fact:”Christians and Zoroastrians leave because of unemployment, the bad economy, but these problems affect all Iranians,”said Yonathan Betkolia, an Assyrian Christian leader and member of Iran’s parliament who holds the United States responsible for his community’s decline.”They give all those green cards to our people. Their only goal is to propagate the idea that Iran is mistreating its minorities.” Who is providing this group with such logistical support? Heilbrunn, a former neoconservative who is now senior editor at the Nixon Center’s journal,”The National Interest”, asserts that neoconservatism”is in a decisive respect a Jewish phenomenon,”even if many adherents — albeit a minority — are not Jewish. Moreover, neoconservatives, both Jew and gentile, are bound by a”shared commitment to the largest, most important Jewish cause: the survival of Israel.”Let us hope, for the sake of the British people, and others, that the good Lord Corbett of Castle Vale will not be so easily misguided by unsavory groups in the future. Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American who was educated in Iran, England and France. She is a member of World Association of International Studies – Stanford. Her research focus is US Foreign Policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program, and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy. She is a peace activist, essayist and public speaker.

Middle East Online, Opinion, March 4, 2008 http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=24624

March 9, 2008 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts