Articles

PM Edwin (Edi Rama), tied to the Mojahedin Khalq

Prime Minister Edwin, advised by his boss and his mentor George Sorros, signed a secret agreement with former Secretary of State Kerry to transfer to Albania and to shelter the remaining 3000 Iranian Mojahedin (MEK) from Iraq. This agreement, which went much further than the agreement struck by former Prime Minister Berisha to shelter some tens of Mojahedin in Albania, was considered by Prime Minister Edwin as a miracle that would only bring profit. For the prime minister this was compensation for the gaffes and backsliding on the problem of dismantling Assad’s chemical weapons in Albania. The agreement placed the President Obama administration in debt to the Prime Minister of a small Balkan country. In Albania we would have over 3,000 “tourists” for 365 days a year. Criminal elements close to Edwin, on the back of the minimum accusation of negligence, would benefit from millions of petrodollars for housing, protection or transportation of Iranian Mojahedin, or even for building their paramilitary base in Manzas of Durres, the so-called Ashraf Camp 3. Bribes, only bribes is what you can say about such a deal. Actually, Prime Minister Edwin had forgotten the English saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The arrival of this organization, the clique, the cult led by Madam Rajavi in Albania began to have increasingly disturbing side effects. We recall the anti-Mojahedin protest of the inhabitants of Manza over the cemetery as well as a series of developments in the field of the judiciary.

So far, Albanian prosecutors have the files of four accusations (made by proxy Albanian lawyers) of the families of different individuals resident in Camp Ashraf 3 in Golan. All four criminal charges have the common charge: the unlawful deprivation of liberty of the person. These Iranian Mojahedin family members MEK accuse the organization, Madam Rajavi’s cult, of abducting their relatives (children, brothers, sisters) and holding them in the camp against their will. Strangely enough, the Albanian prosecution is investigating these 4 counts with the speed of a snail ….

Malek Sharaii’s brother, the Iranian Mojahed who reportedly drowned in a reservoir not far from Ashraf 3 camp, sent a letter of protest to Filippo Grandi, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at the United Nations. Faryad Azadi, his brother on behalf of the whole family informs Filippo Grandi that the family is convinced that Malek Sharaii did not die accidentally but was killed by the Iranian Mojahedin (or MEK). The Sharaii family also protests strongly about the attitude of the Albanian police and prosecution, which has halted investigations into how the deceased really lost his life. The mother of the deceased, Masoumeh Torkamani and his sister, Zahra Sharaii, hope for the help of the UN to find his body. Prime Minister Edwin with his Iranian Mojahedin Renaissance is taking us back to the 1990s, when foreign diplomats and UN representatives pressed dictator Alia about the dead on the walls of the embassies in Tirana and the missing in unnamed tombs over in Macedonia. Thankfully this time the MEK’s hunting dogs are only killing Iranians not Albanians, thank God!

The couple, Mahboubeh and Mostafa Mohamadi, had not engaged a lawyer, but had come to Albania and are urgently trying to meet their daughter Somayeh Mohammadi, who according to the couple was abducted by the Iranian MEK and can be found in Camp Ashraf 3. The couple have not missed any Albanian institution without knocking on the door, including the offices of the UNCHR. These two parents have also written a letter to Minister Xhafa about the plight that has befallen them. On July 26, 2017 (I was present), they also filed criminal charges for the unlawful deprivation of liberty of the person at the Police Directorate of Durres District. On Friday, July 27, 2017, a group of Iranian MEK attacked the couple in question in the Medresea area in Tirana. The attack was not just verbal insults and threats, but also physical, with slaps, punches and kicks. Father Mostafa ended up in hospital – his hospital photos have now become viral on Albanian social networks. Then a bunch of MEKs with banners in their hands spent a few hours in the courtyard of the Police Commissariat no. 4 in Tirana, putting pressure on the Albanian police not continue with interrogation of their “friends” who attacked Mostafa, who only insists on meeting his daughter who is believed to be in Camp Ashraf 3 in Manza.

O Edwin, Prime Minister and Chief of the internal affairs of my country, chain up the hunting dogs! If you cannot control the hunting dogs because they have prior links to you, then please explain to them that they are in Albania for humanitarian reasons as persons protected by the Albanian state and not as a bunch of mercenaries that can put pressure on the Albanian police. My homeland Albania is not “the sick man” of the Adriatic with “the Bosphorus disease”, like the Turkey of Sultan Abdul Hamiti,. MEK cannot enjoy extraterritoriality because of your government Edwin; the Prime Minister of my country has not signed Sultan Abdul Hamiti’s capitulation for a meal!

[Oh Edwin, please God you do not lower today’s level to that of Fatmir Mehdi, Meta, Mehdihoxha of 10 years ago who, in order to avoid bribery with colonels and Albanian generals, told that for that medallion of Chinese pellets in Rinas and for those MANPADs and Gerdec cathedrals, Fatmir as Fatmir had not received any dollar, making a favor to those CIAs of the CIA. When Gerdec broke out with 26 people killed and 300 injured, none of the CIA’s “cunat” came to god. Albanian colonels and generals ended up in jail or asylum in the US (SIC!), While Fatmir became an environment minister! Do not lower the level with the CIA fairy tales that Manze’s MEK is throwing dance in Albania, that you are favoring those CIA’s “cunas”. Do not bother me at Mediu of Seed!]

O Edwin, with humility pay attention to the Albanian proverb: The dog, when freed from the chain, bites everyone in the area as well. If the MEK are freed from their chain, Lord knows whether they will stop biting until they reach the general secretary of the ministry or go to the ministers and prime minister. Beware, Prime Minister not to make a mistake in the name of my country with these MEK, there is no anti-rabies vaccine!

O Edwin do not provoke the Albanians who … demonstrated against Assad’s chemical weapons as the concession payment for the National Road, or for the failure of the mines in Bulqiza and so on. The MEK sat you in your place when some 50 citizens of Manza protested against the burial of Mojahedin in the Manza cemetery and you Edwin were lying to say that these Manzas MEKs will profit us?!?!?!?

GJERGJ THANASI, Translated by Iran Interlink

July 29, 2018 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Giuliani, Bolton Repeatedly Met With Group Formerly Designated a Cult-Like Terror Organization

Close Trump associates have been quietly meeting with a controversial Iranian opposition group that was only recently removed from the U.S. terror list, TYT has learned.

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, and John Bolton, Trump’s National Security Advisor, met with the group five separate times since Trump’s inauguration, according to Justice Department documents reviewed by TYT. The documents were submitted to the Justice Department by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)—MEK’s political wing—under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, between July 20, 2017 and June 27, 2018.

That group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK for short, was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department until 2012, at which point it was removed from the State Department’s terror list after an intense lobbying effort. The group was on the terror list for good reason: MEK has killed several American servicemembers and contractors; attempted to assassinate a top U.S. general; and attempted to kidnap the U.S. Ambassador to Iran, Douglas MacArthur II.

In 1992, the MEK conducted a terror attack on the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York, making it one of the few terror groups to have operated on U.S. soil, according to Daniel Benjamin, the former coordinator for counterterrorism at the State Department.

The group has been widely characterized as a cult. As The Intercept’s Mehdi Hasan recently noted, a State Department report found that MEK’s leader “fostered a cult of personality around himself” which had “alienated most Iranian expatriates, who assert they do not want to replace one objectionable regime for another.”

A RAND Corporation report also described MEK’s practices as “authoritarian [and] cultic.” The report cites Iranians who “likened the MEK to the Khmer Rouge and the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas.”

The Justice Department documents reviewed by TYT show that Giuliani attended three meetings with NCRI since Trump’s inauguration. One meeting took place on February 10, 2017, and another on May 10, 2017; both included the same vague description: “to discuss the situation in Iran and the Middle East.”

A third meeting took place on February 27 of this year, “to discuss the protests in Iran.”

As for Bolton, he met with NCRI two times since Trump’s inauguration. One meeting took place on April 13, 2017, “about the nuclear weapons program of Iran.” The other meeting was on August 2, 2017, and is described in vague terms: “Meeting [with] Mr. Bolton.”

After being shown the documents, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, told TYT, “This shows that it’s very difficult to take the Trump admin. seriously when he says he’s looking for diplomacy and a better deal. If Trump actually, genuinely, wants diplomacy, at the end of the day, he’s going to have a difficult time because his associates are so closely allied with the MEK, who are adamantly opposed.”

Nikki Haley, Trump’s U.N. ambassador, retweeted MEK’s official Twitter account in July.

Although Trump has said he is open to diplomacy with Iran and that he merely ended the Iran Deal in search of a “better deal,” administration officials like Bolton have advocated for regime change in Tehran.

In 2017, Bolton told a crowd of MEK members, “The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran.”

Bolton concluded the speech by promising regime change before 2019.

Giuliani has expressed similar sentiments. In March, he led a crowd of MEK members in chanting, “regime change.”

These may not be empty words. On Thursday, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that the Trump administration is preparing to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities “as early as next month,” citing senior figures in the Turnbull government.

Asked about the Trump team’s interest in the group, Parsi told TYT, “MEK are valuable to them because they have training in sabotage, assassination, and terrorism. There’s no other Iranian opposition group that can provide this. It also provides them with a facade of claiming what they’re doing is actually supported by the Iranian people.”

Ken Klippenstein is a freelance journalist who can be reached on Twitter at @kenklippenstein or via email: kenneth.klippenstein@gmail.com

Follow TYT Investigates on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to stay on top of exclusive news stories from The Young Turks

By Ken Klippenstein, TYTnetwork.com

July 28, 2018 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Pompeo’s Ridiculous Crocodile Tears for Iranian People

On Sunday 22 July 2018 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke before what the State Department claimed to be representatives of the Iranian-American community in the United States. Attendance was by invitation only, and the questions had to be submitted in advance, so that they could be vetted. Those who attended were mostly supporters of “regime change” in Iran by imperialist military intervention: old monarchists who still dream of going back to power in Iran; supporters of the MEK, the opposition organization that is universally hated by the Iranian people due to the many treasons committed by it, an organization that up until 2011 was listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, and rich Iranian Zionists who support Israel fervently. Interestingly, they mostly wanted to remain anonymous also.

Based on what the author read in social networks, a very large majority of Iranians living in the United States were opposed to even attending the speech, let alone agreeing with what Pompeo had to say. Pompeo’s speec was supposedly intended to express the Trump administration’s support for the Iranian people, and that is where the absurdity of the administration’s policy toward Iran – if one can call it as such – and the speech itself becomes evident immediately.

To see this, consider the following:

Pompeo has worked closely with some of the most virulent Islamophobes in the United States. He and national security adviser John Bolton made Islamophobia mainstream, yet Pompeo sheds crocodile tears for 83 million Iranians, 98 percent of whom are Muslim.

Pompeo and Bolton have called for bombing Iran, and yet Pompeo’s is under the illusion that the Iranian people believe that he is their friend.

Pompeo and the Trump administration claim to be friends of Iranian people, yet Iranian citizens have been banned from coming to the United States. In his speech Pompeo uttered not a single word about the ban.

Pompeo [and Bolton] were ardent foes of the nuclear agreement between Iran and P5+1 – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany – officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The administration exited JCPOA illegally, and is trying to re-impose tough economic sanctions on Iran. Not only JCPOA benefited the Iranian people economically, it also contributed to lessening tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is supported almost unanimously by the Iranian people both in Iran and in the diaspora, yet Pompeo “laments” the economic plights of the Iranian people that will be even worse after the re-imposition of the sanctions.

Pompeo and Trump claim that they took the United States out of JCPOA because the agreement did not address other issues of concern to them, including human rights. This is, however, the same administration that is extremely close to Saudi Arabia, one of the worst dictatorships that, with the support of the U.S., has been committing war crimes in Yemen for over three years, a war that many believe Saudi Arabia launched to distract attention from its unstable internal conditions, including the war on its Shiite citizens. It is also close to United Arab Emirates (UAE), another Arab dictatorship in the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia’s partners in war crimes in Yemen, , and to Israel, which just passed a law declaring itself the nation-state of Jewish people, even though about 20 percent of its population are Palestinian Arabs.

When dealing with North Korea, the administration does not care about any issue other than its nuclear arsenal. In fact, after meeting with North Korea’s Dictator Kim Jung-un Trump praised him profusely and claimed that his people love him, yet Pompeo tells the Iranian people that the Islamic Republic violates the rights of its citizens, and that it is not enough that Iran has abided by all of its obligations towards JCPOA. This glaring double standard has been transparent to the Iranian people.

Pompeo’s speech itself was a clear demonstration of his imbecility about Iran. He claimed, “The ideologues who forcibly came to power in 1979…” The 1979 Revolution was supported by the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people. The reason that the ideologues took power was due to the political vacuum that the U.S.-supported dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had created in which secular progressives, leftists, and nationalists had either been executed, exiled, jailed, or forced into silence.

Pompeo also claimed, “The regime is also committed to spreading the revolution to other countries, by force if necessary.” That was the goal in the 1980s. But, the eight year war with Iraq made it clear that the goal must be set aside, and it was. The late Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the pragmatic Iranian President declared in the early 1990s that “the [revolutionary] era of Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic] is over.” Economically and militarily, the Islamic Republic is in no position to even dream such a goal now, let alone pursuing it.

Then, Pompeo made extravagant claims about the wealth of the some officials of the Islamic Republic. The “data” for the wealth of the officials that he discussed have already been claimed by Saeed Ghasseminejad, the pro-war Iranian neocon and associate of Mark Dubowitz, the hawkish CEO of “The Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” the pro-Israel think tank that played a leading role in the US exit from the JCPOA. Ghasseminejad has already published the claims in Farsi websites outside Iran. It is certainly true that many of the officials are fabulously rich and became so illicitly, although not even close to the absurd levels claimed by Pompeo [and Ghasseminejad].

They became rich partly due to the institutionalized corruption. But, what Pompeo does not mention is that the backbreaking economic sanctions imposed by the Obama administration on Iran also played a fundamental role in the extraordinary corruption in Iran. At the time of imposing the sanctions, many Iranian analysts and experts, including the author, warned that the sanctions will hurt the ordinary Iranian people, but will enrich Iran’s “deep state.” In order to get around the sanctions, the “deep state” created all types of bogus corporations; controlled the black market created by the sanctions, imported cheap Chinese products and sold them in Iran at much higher prices. Iran’s “deep state” also lost the most after JCPOA was signed and the sanctions were partially lifted. Nowadays, hardly any day passes without some revelations in Iran by the Rouhani administration about major cases of financial corruption.

But, let us assume that all the data that Pompeo presented for the financial corruption of Iranian officials are correct. If their assets are outside Iran, why have Western governments not frozen them yet? If they are still in Iran, why has the US not published credible documents to prove its claims, so that the Iranian people can see them and, therefore, use them to protest the state of the economy?

Pompeo then talked about state of human rights in Iran. It is no secret that, almost from its inception, the Islamic Republic has violated the human and citizen rights of its people. But, if human rights are really of concern to Pompeo and the administration, why does the United States not protest violations of human rights in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, the Philippines, Yemen, and North Korea, and violation of the rights of the Palestinian people by Israel? Why has the Trump administration not protested even once repression of the Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia and the Shiite Majority in Bahrain? And, despite its dismal record on human rights, Iran is a far more open society than any Islamic country in the Middle East and North Africa, and has all the prerequisites for a peaceful transition to complete democracy.

Pompeo also talked about Iran’s presence in Syria and Iraq. Regardless of whether one agrees with Iran’s presence in these two countries, the fact is Iran is there on the invitation of their governments, and Iranian officials have repeatedly declared that Iran will leave as soon as it is asked to by the two governments. The fact is – and this is not acknowledged – that without Iran’s help Baghdad would have fallen to the Daesh [also known as the ISIS or ISIL] terrorists in June 2014, and that Iran has played a fundamental role in defeating Daesh in both Iraq and Syria.

But, if intervention in other countries should be condemned – and it should be – why did the United States invade Iraq and Afghanistan; bomb Libya; help the terrorists in Syria, and is helping Saudi Arabia and the UAE in their criminal war in Yemen? Why has the United States not protested the support given to the terrorists in Syria by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Turkey, a fact that has been acknowledged by both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton? Why did the United States not prevent the rise of Daesh when it could, a fact acknowledged by John Kerry?

Pompeo, Bolton, and Trump do not care about the plight of Iranians. Their own actions against Iranian people provide the best evidence. As one Iranian in Southern California who had listened to Pompeo’s speech, put it, “They [the US] don’t have a policy when it comes to Iran and that’s the problem. The fact is they are deeply hurting the Iranian people.” While Pompeo moaned about the ideological regime in Tehran, he and the administration that he works for are themselves rigidly ideological. They see the world in black and white, and one is either with them or against them. They, together with Saudi Arabia, Israel and UAE want to impose their will on the rest of the Middle East. Despite the administration claims for supporting liberty for Iranian people, what it really wants is total capitulation by Iran and Iranian people.

That will not happen. Iran has existed as an independent nation for 5,000 years, and has a proud history, including fierce resistance against imperial powers. It is up to the Iranian people, and only up to them, how to democratize their regime without outside intervention. They do not want Iran to become another Syria, Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Muhammad Sahimi,

Muhammad Sahimi is a professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. For the past two decades he has published extensively on Iran’s political developments and its nuclear program. He was a founding lead political analyst for the website PBS/Frontline: Tehran Bureau, and has also published extensively in major websites and print media. He is also the editor and publisher of Iran News and Middle East Reports and produces a weekly commentary for broadcasting that can be watched at http://www.ifttv.com/muhammad-sahimi.

Also

United States’ two-faced approach to terrorism

July 26, 2018 0 comments

Missions of Nejat Society

Trump Administration’s Support For Iran Protests May Backfire, Experts Warn

When President Trump warned Iran over Twitter on Sunday night about severe consequences for any threats toward the United States, it did not just come out of the blue.

Speaking to reporters on Monday about the president’s all-caps threat, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said that Trump’s language has been “pretty strong” toward Iran all along.

But the Trump administration has been ramping up rhetoric about what it calls Iran’s “malign” behavior in the region. Administration officials also seem to be trying to encourage Iranians to rise up against their government.

Protests have mounted in recent weeks in Iran, as the country struggles with an economic crisis that has grown more severe since President Trump’s decision in May to pull the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions on the country.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been tweeting about the protests — sometimes exaggerating them. He’s trying to show Iranians that the Trump administration backs those opposing the Iranian leadership.

In a speech to members of the Iranian-American community on Sunday in Simi Valley, Calif., Pompeo said the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, or BBG, is trying to help residents in Iran get around Internet censorship.

“The BBG is also launching a new 24/7 Farsi-language TV channel,” he said. “It will span not only television, but radio, digital and social media format, so that the ordinary Iranians inside of Iran and around the globe can know that America stands with them.”

When he was asked during that speech whether it was realistic to think that the Iranian people will be able to take control of the country from what Pompeo described as a “mafia”-like regime, the secretary of state had an easy answer: “Of course.”But retired U.S. ambassador John Limbert, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran, has his doubts.

“I keep wondering who is feeding him this information,” Limbert said of Pompeo’s remarks. “It’s clear from his speech that he understands nothing about the internal dynamics of the country.”

Limbert was among those held captive at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran during the 1979-1981 Iran hostage crisis, and more recently advised the Obama administration.

He worries about the influence of an Iranian exile group that advocates the overthrow of the Iranian government and was included on the U.S. terrorist list until 2012. The group is called the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, which means People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, also known by its initials MEK.

“Their message is that the place is on the verge of overthrowing the Islamic Republic, which has been a claim for the last 40 years and that they, in particular, are the logical democratic, pluralistic replacement. Now, if you believe that, I have some Florida real estate I could sell you,” he said.

Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton is a supporter of the MEK. And U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley retweeted a video posted last week on an official MEK account.

The State Department, though, says no known member of the Iranian exile group was invited to Pompeo’s speech. His message was mostly about supporting Iranians inside the country who have been protesting.

Trump’s late-night tweet addressed Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and went into a sharply worded warning in all capital letters of a massive yet unspecified American response if Iran ever threatened the United States again.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif shrugged it off in his own tweet Monday afternoon: “COLOR US UNIMPRESSED: The world heard even harsher bluster a few months ago. And Iranians have heard them —albeit more civilized ones—for 40 yrs. We’ve been around for millennia & seen fall of empires, incl our own, which lasted more than the life of some countries. BE CAUTIOUS!”

COLOR US UNIMPRESSED: The world heard even harsher bluster a few months ago. And Iranians have heard them —albeit more civilized ones—for 40 yrs. We’ve been around for millennia & seen fall of empires, incl our own, which lasted more than the life of some countries. BE CAUTIOUS!

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) July 23, 2018

A senior commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was quoted in Iranian media saying “Iran will resist pressure from the enemies” and that Trump’s threats against the country amounted to “psychological warfare,” Reuters reported.

“America wants nothing less than [to] destroy Iran” but “Trump cannot do a damn thing against Iran,” the commander added.

Tensions escalated between the Trump administration and Iran, even as Iranians put pressure on their government. Analysts say activists inside Iran see a connection between the international tensions and the worsening economics.

“I see a new generation of Iranians on the scene who are impatient and especially very troubled with the way they pay the price for their government’s foreign and domestic policy,” said Hadi Ghaemi, who runs the Center for Human Rights in Iran, a New York City-based nonprofit advocacy group.

But Ghaemi, speaking via Skype, said the Trump administration’s other policies hurt average Iranians. Those include a travel ban and the resumption of economic sanctions, including a new round set to target Iran’s automotive industry next month.

“We do find it quite odd that the administration is so passionate and loud about human rights in Iran but really not in other [countries],” he said.

Another Iran watcher, Ariane Tabatabai of Georgetown University, also fears the rhetoric from Washington could backfire.

“We have a bit of a Goldilocks problem when it comes to Iran on a number of levels, and this is one of them,” she said.In her view, the Obama administration was so determined to reach a nuclear deal with Iran that it ended up ignoring protesters inside the country.

“President Trump, on the other hand, I think is too forceful,” she said. “I think that he believes because his hard line on North Korea paid off that it is also going to pay off with Iran. And I just don’t think that’s the case.”

Michele Kelemen and Alex Leff,

July 25, 2018 0 comments

Missions of Nejat Society Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

The Ugly Destination Of Trump’s Iran Policy

President Trump’s belligerent, all-caps tweet about Iran this past weekend is hardly a natural response to anything the Iranians have been saying or doing lately. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani did make a speech on Sunday in which he stated, “America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” while advising Trump that “to play with the lion’s tail” would become a source of “regret.” So, Rouhani was saying that he wants peace with America and that moving toward war would be a bad idea. Hardly the stuff that ordinarily would provoke a flaming riposte.

To the extent Iranian leaders might be sounding a little testy these days, no one should be surprised. In response to Iran’s internationally certified compliance with an agreement in which the country willingly subjected itself to some of the most severe restrictions and intrusive monitoring in the history of nuclear arms control, the Trump administration has reneged on U.S. obligations under the same agreement, sworn hostility toward Iran, waged economic warfare against it, and blatantly attempted to destabilize it.

Trump’s now-familiar methods give rise to some possible motivations for his blast on Twitter. The president is, of course, a master of commanding and diverting the attention of the media and the public. This stoking of the fire aimed at Iran helped to steal headlines from a miserable, Russia-centered week that included the embarrassment at Helsinki. The week continued with a release of documents that knock down a scenario that Trump and his partisan defenders have tried to spin about allegedly ignoble motives underlying the investigation into Russia’s election interference.

Trump’s threat in his tweet of “consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before” brings to mind his earlier threat against North Korea of “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” This comparison in turn evokes another of Trump’s now-familiar tactics, which he tried to use with the North Korean issue, which is to create a crisis as part of his contention that his predecessors left him a mess and then, after holding a meeting or signing something, claiming that he has achieved a wonderful success. The current tension with Iran, featuring the U.S. reneging on the nuclear agreement, certainly is a creation of the Trump administration. But there any similarity with the North Korean case ends. There is no U.S.-Iranian summit meeting, or even normal, working-level diplomacy, in the offing. The administration is too committed to permanent hostility toward the Islamic Republic of Iran to move in that direction.

A critical difference between the two cases concerns the positions of other states in each region. Neighbors of North Korea have welcomed dialogue and détente with Pyongyang, with South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in deserving most of the credit for moving things in that direction. By contrast, the principal regional rivals of Iran—to whom Trump has subcontracted most of his Middle East policy—don’t want any detente between Washington and Tehran. For Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, unending U.S.-Iranian hostility sustains their own privileged relationships with the United States, keeps a major regional rival isolated, and diverts attention from their own foibles and vulnerabilities.

The timing of Trump’s all-caps blast most likely was related to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech the same day, which was a full-throated call to destabilize the Iranian government. The secretary and the president probably hope for some form of regime change in Iran as the one development that somewhere up the line—say, within about two years, before the U.S. election in 2020—they will be able to point to as a foreign policy “accomplishment” in the absence of any other developments for which they can make that claim. Pompeo, at least, is smart enough to realize how implausible is a “better deal” with Iran on its nuclear program, despite the administration rhetoric on that theme. A nothing-but-pressure approach was tried before for years and failed, and now it’s even less likely to yield results when its only protagonist is not an international coalition but instead an isolated United States.

In this regard, it is revealing that in his speech this week, Pompeo said almost nothing about nuclear matters—an issue that would have dominated any U.S. speech on Iran a few years ago. There was nothing to say, other than that the issue was resolved, in the best feasible way, by the multilateral agreement that was negotiated under the previous administration and that the Trump administration categorically rejected.

On North Korea, it must be sinking in even with Trump that, despite his rhetoric after the Singapore summit meeting, the North Korean nuclear problem is nowhere near being solved. Solving it would be a genuine foreign-policy accomplishment, but this, too, may be out of reach during what would be a politically meaningful time frame for Trump.

Regime change in Iran is itself an unlikely “accomplishment,” notwithstanding the administration’s rhetoric and economic warfare intended to bring it about. Wishful thinking prevails. Street demonstrations in Iran that are far smaller than those that fizzled out in the time of the Green Movement several years ago are looked on with hope as harbingers of the regime’s imminent collapse. (An interesting duality in Pompeo’s appearance was that, although he pointed to protests in Iran as evidence of what he portrayed as a population unhappy with the regime, his response to a protestor who interrupted his own speech—shouting something about the migrant children controversy—was “if there were only so much freedom of expression in Iran.”)

Much of the administration’s interference and economic warfare makes regime change in Iran less, not more, likely. The sanctions lend credibility to the regime’s argument that Iran’s economic shortcomings are due more to the United States than to the regime’s mismanagement. The sanctions hurt ordinary Iranians far more than privileged members of the regime. Moreover, a U.S. administration that is openly anti-Islamic—as represented by the travel ban, which affects Iranians more than any other nationality—is hardly taken in Iran as a credible source of inspiration.

Even if the regime in Iran were to change significantly in the next couple of years, that leaves the question of the direction of change. The bankruptcy of the administration’s thinking on this subject is underscored by the role that the cult-cum-terrorist-group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (or MEK)—which was invited to Pompeo’s speech—plays in that thinking. The MEK has American blood on its hands, and it lost almost all support it once had in Iran when it became an auxiliary to Saddam Hussein’s security apparatus during the Iran-Iraq War. Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, and his lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, are among those close to the president who have sung the praises of the MEK in exchange for fat speaking fees.

If significant political change were to occur in Tehran in the next couple of years—especially after everything the Trump administration has done, including reneging on the nuclear agreement, to discredit moderates such as Rouhani—that change would most likely be in a hardline direction. One possibility would be the Revolutionary Guard acquiring more extensive powers, even to the point of a military dictatorship.

Change is unlikely to be in a more democratic direction. Indeed, the regional rivals of Iran with sway over the administration’s policies do not want more democracy (or any democracy, for that matter) in Iran. Such a development could become a basis for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement that they definitely do not want, and that could lessen their own privileged positions with Washington. An Israeli intelligence officer told a visiting scholar when Iran’s Green Movement was active in 2009 that a victory by the movement would be “Israel’s worst nightmare” because it would mean less Iranian isolation and, consequently, more Iranian power.

The Saudi regime needs to worry not only about a possible tilt by the United States toward a more democratic Iran but also the example that such a democracy would set for subjects of the Saudi regime’s own highly autocratic rule. Herein lies another curiosity in Secretary Pompeo’s speech, which made a big deal about Iranian leaders supposedly enriching themselves as a reason to look for regime change in Iran. Wouldn’t there be similar political implications for the rake-offs of Saudi oil revenues that sustain the expensive tastes of the royal family?

The best outcome—and it isn’t good at all–that one can hope for from the administration’s current course on Iran is endless tension, more antagonizing of Iranian citizens who see the United States as hostile to their own interests, and a constant risk of escalation to open warfare. If the remaining parties to the nuclear agreement cannot keep that accord going, and if the Trump administration’s threats continue to revive thinking in Iran about the value of a nuclear deterrent, then a new nuclear crisis might be added to the mess.

Armed conflict would, of course, be even worse. Donald Trump probably is not now seeking such a war, but one cannot rule out that someday he would as a way to escape from greater political troubles he encounters concerning the Russia investigation or anything else. The bigger worry in the meantime is Bolton, who has long yearned for such a war and, in his current job, is in a position to increase the chances of one breaking out.

Paul R. Pillar,

July 25, 2018 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Rajavi should be tried for running a “sex cult” as Adnan Oktar is

The news of the arrest of a Turkish sex cult leader “who preached sermons while surrounded by glamorous women who he dubbed his ‘kittens’” was published in the mainstream media. The news rings the bells for families in the societies all over the world. This warns that the threat of abusive cults is always around.

Photos and films of Adnan Oktar illustrated the reports of his arrest. He is often shown in luxurious places surrounded by “scantily-clad and heavily made-up women — who appeared to have had plastic surgery” dancing around him as if they are mesmerized by him.

The news seems to be a special warning for those who are aware of the sexual abuses that have been committed in the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO, MEK, the PMOI, the Cult of Rajavi). Actually, these people are terribly concerned about the victims of the Cult of Rajavi because the cult’s destructive practices and sexual assaults of its leader Massoud Rajavi are not widely known to the world; the group has covered its true face under the mask of a democratic feminist political group.

Adnan Oktar, a bizarre and controversial Islamic televangelist figure, was detained in his villa in Istanbul’s upmarket Cengelkoy district by local police on Wednesday, the Daily Mail reported.

Police said accusations against Oktar include forming a gang with criminal intent, sexual abuse of minors, sexual assault, kidnapping, blackmail, fraud, money laundering and exploitation of religious sentiments, according to the report.

The accusations that Adnan Oktar is charged with, are very similar to those of other leaders of destructive cults and particularly to those of Massoud Rajavi –the disappeared leader of the MKO. However, Rajavi has never been sued for the crimes he committed against his followers inside the MKO.

In fact, the only time that an MKO leader was arrested was in June 17th, 2003 that Maryam Rajavi, the third wife of Massoud Rajavi was arrested by the French Police in her headquarters in Paris for money laundering and terrorism charges. The police raid was responded by a dozen of followers of the group who set themselves on fire to protest the arrest of their leader’s wife. Massoud Rajavi has been disappeared since then.

Dead or alive, Masssoud Rajavi is denounced by a large number of dissociated members of his cult of personality. Violations of human rights committed in the MKO include a wide range from sexual harassment to torture and death against both men and women and both adults and children. The Human Rights Watch report titled “No Exit” that was published in in 2005 documented a lot of cases of human rights abuses in the Cult of Rajavi. However, one of the most horrific revelations about Massoud Rajavi was later made by Batul Soltani a former member of the MKO’s so-called elite called “Leadership Council”. She bravely revealed horrifying facts about sexual abuse by Massoud Rajavi although she said that recalling those memoires is “awfully difficult” for her.

Soltani exposed a cultic ceremony in the MKO, called “Salvation Dance” (nude dancing) in which women of the “Leadership Council” were made remove their clothes in front of Massoud Rajavi and dance before him. ”Get close to Massoud and unite with him”, Maryam said to the dancing women.

Soltani added, “They had portrayed the issue of having [sexual] relations with Massoud Rajavi in such a way that it appeared to us as the most sacred task. Mas’ud Rajavi also used verses from the Qur`an to justify his behavior”.

Soltani together with two other former members, Zahra Mirbaqeri and Nasrin Ebrahimi once again denounced the MKO by presenting a list of 100 female members of the group who have gone under hysterectomy to be sexually abused by the Cult leader, Massoud Rajavi, to the European Parliament

Nasrin Ebrahimi had previously revealed that Rajavi had entitled the operation to remove women’s womb as “Summit” referring to women’s extreme devotion to their leader. They lose their final sign of sexuality and motherhood, or as Mrs. Singleton says” to neutralize their sexuality”.

Mir Baqeri said that the surgical operations were carriedout to take out the victims’ wombs so that they would not be pregnant afterbeing raped by Rajavi.

Women of the Leadership Council were given a necklace on which Massoud’s portrait was graved earlier than they were made married with him. Zahra Mir Baqeri has one of the necklaces to show those who are concerned.

“Maryam Rajavi invented rituals such as being washed by other women members so as to ‘spiritually purify’ them, followed by the instruction to dance naked before both the Rajavis to prove they had ‘broken the physical and mental barriers’ to their total submission to Massoud,” The British defector of the Cult of Rajavi Ann Singlton writes. “After these coercive practices, he would choose a bedmate for sex. The women have said that they did not agree to sex with Rajavi out of free will but because they had been coerced through deception into submitting to what they later came to recognize as rape.”

Soltani`s testimonies were then confirmed by male defectors too. Ghorban Ali Hossein nezhad, former Rajavi’s personal interpreter writes in his Facebook account, “They told me personally that I should erase my martyred wife from my mind and I should imagine her sleeping with Brother Massoud.”

He recalls the exact words of Mehdi Abrishamchi, MaryamRajavi’s ex-husband as telling the male members of the cult,”Your wives should follow Sister Mayam. I mean as I divorced Sister Mayam so that she could marry Brother Massoud , your wives divorced from you and married Brother massoud.”

Hosseinnezhad even recalls one of the women of the Elite Council who was his Arabic language student once told him, “Rajavi has group sex with us – members of his personal office”. Hossein nezhad asserts that the woman left the group and went to Europe, in 2007.

Compared with Massoud Rajavi What is salient about Adnan Oktar is that at least he seems to be honest in his bizarre mix of Islam and modern secularity. According to The Times, Oktar runs his own television channel, A9, on which he would “broadcast bizarre sermons from his compound on an Istanbul hilltop” that were “light on Islam but heavy on erotica”.

“Many Turks have long considered him a laughing stock,” The Times adds, and he has repeatedly been denounced by Turkey’s religious authorities. Ali Erbas, head of the country’s Diyanet religious affairs agency, said earlier this year that Oktar had “likely lost his mental balance”.

Massoud Rajavi, along with his co leader Maryam can be considered as ridiculous or mentally sick as Adnan Oktar if not more but for sure t they are more fraudulent and perhaps smarter than Adnan because they have kept all of their clandestine crimes within a very isolated cult-like establishment called Mujahedin Khalq Organization and National Council of Resistance (NCR).

Massoud and MaryamRajavi should be brought to justice just for very similar reasons even if the cult leaders deny this horrific practices. In fact, the female members of the Cult of Rajavi look pale, old, exhausted and barren with no plastic surgeries and cosmetics but they are victims of a sexist modern slavery.

Mazda Parsi

July 22, 2018 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nybooks.com

July 21, 2018 0 comments

Missions of Nejat Society

The Baffling Relationship between American Politicians and the MEK

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

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

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

What is the MEK?

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

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

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

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

American Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications of American Support

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

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

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

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

By Ashton Hashemipour, uchicagogate.com

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

July 18, 2018 0 comments

Albania

Albanians angry that America dumps its terrorists on them

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

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

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

Gazeta Impakt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran Interlink reporting from Gazeta Impakt, Tirana Albania,

July 17, 2018 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Christopher A. Preble , National Interest

July 17, 2018 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts