Articles

Reacting to the Tehran Attacks in Europe and the US

The European Parliament started its plenary session last week with a minute of silence to honor the victims of the recent terrorist attacks in London and Tehran. In this way, the EP has joined a number of other institutions, as well as leaders of the EU and its member states, in offering sympathy to the Iranian people.

For a country like Iran, which cannot boast of an abundance of international support and empathy, such a gesture from a leading Western institution was extremely valuable. The news and pictures of the minute of silence spread through the Iranian media immediately and boosted the good will towards the EU among the officials and general public.

There is a deep democratic significance for a parliament to offer its solidarity to a fellow parliament that was a target of a terrorist attack. In this particular case it also conveys a symbolic recognition by the European Parliament of the legitimacy of the Iranian parliament as a relatively democratic pillar of the Iranian political system.

This matters, given the background of intense efforts over the years to de-legitimize the Iranian institutions, including the elected ones, with the aim of building support for regime change. The well-financed exile dissident group Mojaheddeen-e Khalk (MEK), in particular, has developed a strong lobby in the European Parliament promoting this cause.

The times, however, are changing. The images of Iranians voting in the last presidential elections, in a region where few other populations go to the polls, and re-electing their moderate president in a landslide, have certainly made an impact. They have also debunked, once again, the MEK’s claims that the Iranian elections are void of any meaning. In fact, such efforts are provoking a growing backlash among the Euro MPs.

In this context, the fact that the European Parliament perceived the minute of silence dedicated to Iran as completely “normal” and appropriate is itself a testimony of the changing climate in EU-Iran relations.

Contrast this with the attitude in the United States. Although the State Department did issue a proper statement, the majority in the Senate rejected the proposal of Senators Bernie Sanders and Diane Feinstein to postpone the consideration of new anti-Iran sanctions. Instead, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the measures the week after the attacks in Tehran—despite a warning from former Secretary of State John Kerry that it could jeopardize the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Such an attitude reflects Washington’s dominant view of Iran as a country unworthy of minimal sympathy even in such tragic circumstances. Hence, Trump’s infamous words about states becoming targets of the “evil they promote.” The sheer ignorance and insensitivity of these remarks is highlighted by the fact that the “evil” that hit Iran was also responsible for the terrorist attacks in America on 9/11 and in subsequent years in Paris, Brussels, London, Madrid, Manchester, and so on. Such attacks are not inspired by anything that has to do with Iran, but rather an extreme version of Wahhabism, the official creed of Saudi Arabia, whose vision for the Middle East Trump seems to have eagerly embraced.

In an irresponsible escalation shortly after the attacks, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has endorsed the idea of a regime change in Iran. He issued his comment, ironically, on the same day that his State Department released documents pertaining to the role the US played in overthrowing the popular government of Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953, an event to which today’s poisoned state of the US-Iran relations could arguably be traced.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, by contrast, has reaffirmed once again the EU’s strong commitment not only to the nuclear agreement, but also to a deeper engagement with Iran in diverse areas, from economy and energy to conflict resolution in the Middle East.

Recent history, particularly the process leading up to the conclusion of the nuclear deal, suggests that when Iran is shown a modicum of respect and recognition, it is more likely to respond positively to the concerns of its international counterparts than when bullied and insulted. The EU way of showing such respect puts it in a much better position to persuade Iran to abandon some of its more objectionable ways than threats coming from Washington.

The US could have built on the channel established by Tillerson’s predecessor John Kerry with his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif in trying to solve outstanding issues, in particular regarding regional conflicts. Instead, the current administration is making sure not only to destroy that channel but also, with its callous and insulting response to the anti-Iranian terrorism, to create damage to US-Iranian relations that may well outlast Trump. This will not advance any of America’s core interests in the Middle East. However, there is nothing to suggest that this administration realizes that.

Photo: Federica Mogherini (Wikimedia Commons)

by Eldar Mamedov

About the Author

Eldar Mamedov has degrees from the University of Latvia and the Diplomatic School in Madrid, Spain. He has worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and as a diplomat in Latvian embassies in Washington D.C. and Madrid. Since 2007, Mamedov has served as a political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the EP delegations for inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, and Mashreq.

June 21, 2017 0 comments

Terrorist groups and the MEK

ISIS Drew On MEK Expertise For Terror Attacks On Tehran

The following piece has been written by somebody I know well. He does not want his real name to be used because that would jeopardize the sensitive nature of his current work in counter terrorism in Europe – Massoud Khodabandeh.

As a former member of the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist organization (MEK), I followed the news of terrorist attacks on Tehran with shame, guilt and anger.

My shame and guilt stem from having been involved in such attacks in the past as a member of the MEK. My anger springs from what I see as th MEK’s ongoing influence in these current attacks. Based on my inside knowledge of the MEK I believe this organization has now helped the most notorious terror organization in the world to attack our country and our people.

As I followed news of the attacks I was forced to remember my own role in a similar mission and how my membership of the MEK had almost cost me my life. While analyzing the details of the ISIS attack as they emerged, it was easy to see that these operations in Tehran had been based on the expertise of MEK operations in several ways. I have identified some of these similarities which I have given in outline below.

Planning

The targets selected by ISIS were sites constantly targeted by the MEK. The Iranian Parliament and its members had always been primary targets for the MEK since the 1980s. The group had managed to assassinate several members of the Parliament and tried to plant a bomb there at one point. They were unsuccessful and some members were killed by security forces while other terrorist teams were arrested. Similarly, after Ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine was created, Massoud Rajavi, the late MEK leader, announced that “Khomeini’s grave must be exploded”. It became a mantra among MEK members which they would chant in indoctrination sessions. The MEK tried unsuccessfully to send terrorist teams there in 1991 and 2002.

While ISIS and the MEK have the same interests in attacking Iran, ISIS could have caused much greater anti-government fear and hatred among the civilian population in line with its regime change agenda if they had bombed a civilian target like transport infrastructure or a shopping mall. They could have done more damage by targeting the Revolutionary Guards whose forces are in Syria. Instead, the ISIS targets matched those which had been constantly under attack by the MEK for thirty years.

Logistics

ISIS used locally recruited Iranians for this attack. Their main challenge was to get their weaponry to Tehran without being detected by Iranian security forces. This had always been the main challenge for MEK terrorists. They used different methods to get their weapons to Tehran. For example, hiding the weapons in a small truck loaded with food or inside an empty computer case. The MEK experiences were helpful to the ISIS attackers. They paid a female acquaintance to join them to go to Tehran, pretending it is a family visit. This was to raise less suspicion. Between 2000-2003, the MEK used the same approach to get their terrorists from Iraq to Tehran. The first suicide bomber in Iran was a female MEK member. Since then, the MEK used women in suicide operations to ‘normalize’ their terrorist teams.

The suicide mission

An important similarity is the human factor. Just like the MEK, ISIS terrorists selected and trained for suicide missions are thoroughly brainwashed first. They undergo intensive indoctrination and psychological manipulation sessions and afterwards they are not allowed to think of anything else but their mission; terror. From the videos and reports, it is clear that the terrorists are numbed and fearful people who are prepared to use weapons as a first resort against innocent unprepared people. The ISIS terrorists exploded their vests in their first moments of contact with security forces. A couple of them even exploded their vests as soon as they just saw the security forces. This is similar to MKO terrorists who were brainwashed to assassinate unarmed civilians or perform a mortar attack in a large city like Tehran. They were also armed with cyanide pills and a hand grenade and ordered that rather than risk capture they must commit suicide and hurt as many of the people around them as possible.

Governmental backing

It has been widely reported that, just like the MEK, ISIS also gets support from inside Saudi Arabia. After the Tehran terrorist attacks neither Saudi Arabia nor the MEK condemned the events. This echoes MEK behaviour under the Saddam regime. The MEK could not and would not condemn any action of Saddam or the Saudis because they were being paid and supported by them.

The MEK needed governmental level backing to move across national borders. Saddam arranged for MEK operatives to get inside Iran from Pakistan and Turkey rather than cross the Iraqi border which was under international scrutiny. ISIS has also been able to cross borders and move weapons and fund its activities in a way that indicates governmental level of support.

There is no indication that the MEK were directly involved in the Tehran attacks. But from my inside knowledge and based on having performed a similar style of suicide attack in Tehran myself some years ago, there is little doubt in my mind that ISIS have been able to use MEK expertise to pursue this modern terrorist attack.

Massoud Khodabandeh, Iranian.com,

June 21, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Dangerous Development: Iranian Missile Launch into Syria Against ISIS Puts US in Precarious Position

Yesterday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced that it had fired several missiles at ISIS positions in the Deir Az Zor province in Syria. The reason given for this unprecedented military strike was retaliation for a double terrorist attacks which struck Tehran two weeks ago. Readers should not underestimate the significance of this event.

21st_WIRE_Patrick_HenningsenAccording to a statement issued by the news agency for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Sepahnews, “Multiple medium-range missiles were fired from the Iranian provinces of Kermanshah and Kurdestan, and a large number of terrorists were killed and their weapons were destroyed.”

Regarding the alleged ISIS attack which killed 13 people and wounded 50 others, the Revolutionary Guard added, “The spilling of any pure blood will not go unanswered.”

Make no mistake about it – this was a major media event. It’s been 30 years since Iran has fired missiles at targets outside of its own borders.

Iranian television featured images of the IRGC missiles being launched at night…

1 Iran Missile SyriaThe following image (above) was released in a media handout from Iranian news agency, Sepahnews, showing a missile launched by the Revolutionary Guards Corps in the west of Iran, targeting an ISIS position near the city of Deir Az Zor.

The IRGC has also warned that more missile strikes will follow should ISIS militants plot any future attacks on Iran. “If they carry out a specific action to violate our security, definitely there will be more launches, with intensified strength,” said General Ramazan Sharif of the IRGC (also cited by AP).

Fars News Agency added, “The IRGC warns the Takfiri terrorists and their regional and trans-regional supporters that they would be engulfed by its revolutionary wrath and flames of the fire of its revenge in case they repeat any such devilish and dirty move in future.”

This latest move by Iran is worrying for a number of reasons. Justified or not, Iran’s launch from its western provinces, over Iraqi airspace and into Syria will most certainly heighten tensions in an already tense Syrian theatre. If the situation escalates, the question of who has the upper hand may not matter should the situation descend into all-out war involving the US.

Syria: A Crowded Theatre

Iran’s missile strike took place on Sunday June 18th, targeting an ISIS command center located near the embattled city of Deir Az Zor, a key choke point on the road to the ISIS-held city Raqqa in northeastern Syria. This area is currently a hive of international military activity featuring a host of players – the Syrian Army, Russia, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah militia and opposing US, UK, Australia, France, Turkish and German forces positioned alongside numerous US-allied (and paid for) militias like the Kurdish SDF, YPG militias – all presumably camped in the region to “defeat ISIS.” Add to this the problem of US having repeatedly attacked Syrian military forces in a manner which has aided the strategic advances of ISIS. Following from this point, it should be well-known by now, based on successive US aggressions inside Syria, that the Pentagon is probing both Syrian and Russian defenses, testing their level of patience, perhaps in the hope that either Syria or Russia might retaliate against an US aircraft, or US support positions on the ground. In the event that the US loses a single aircraft, or loses one member of its combat team to hands of a Syrian or Russian military asset, then Washington will no doubt seize on this event as an “act of aggression,” initiate its media machine to begin consensus-building internationally, ramping-up military operations on par with Iraq in 2003. This would be the excuse that the US-led Coalition has been needing in order to blow the Syrian theatre open into a wide regional or possibly, world-wide war.

The missile strike by Iran could be a mid-term game changer in the sense that it places Iran squarely into the frame of fighting international terrorism, and ISIS. Up until this point, parties in the US led by the Neoconservative right, the Trump White House, and the sister lobbies of Israel and Saudi Arabia – have tried hard to enforce a strict party line that Iran is somehow, “The number one state sponsor of terror on the planet,” despite the fact that no evidence is ever presented to back-up this sensational geopolitical plank. One of the main beneficiaries of this talking point is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who gains on two fronts; the ‘Iranian terror’ line deflects from Saudi’s own sordid role in supporting and funding armed militants, terrorist groups (including active factions in Syria) and radical mosques worldwide. This dovetails well with the Trump Administration’s current embrace of Saudi in the ‘War on Terror’ and the simultaneous casting-out of gulf state Qatar from the US-led Coalition’s inner circle in Middle East military and diplomatic affairs. This week, Turkish troops were deployed to Qatar, in a show of support for the gulf state by Ankara. This is just another signal that the geopolitics of the region and around Syria, is getting more complicated by the day.

trump saudi arabia5BFFs? Trump and the Saudis, sword dancing at the Arab Summit in Riyadh last month.

However, Washington and Riyadh’s efforts to bracket Qatar with ‘state sponsor of terror’ Iran will be even more difficult following the Tehran’s twin-terror attack and Sunday’s retaliatory missile strike. For this reason, the IRGC believes that Saudi and the US are linked to the Tehran attacks. The FT explains:

However a statement from the Revolutionary Guards linked the “brutal attack” to Donald Trump’s visit last month to Riyadh, where the US president singled out Iran for fuelling “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror”.

“This terrorist act took place a week after a joint meeting between the US president and head of a reactionary regional country [Saudi Arabia] which has been a constant supporter of terrorism,” the statement said. “The fact Isis claimed responsibility proves that they [Saudi Arabia] were involved in the brutal attack.”

Despite all of this, Trump has placed all his chips on Saudi Arabia as Washington’s only major Arab partner in the region. Does Washington really think Saudi is of high moral standing in the region? You can blame their decline in popularity for a number of reasons – supporting Wahhabi extremism, beheading Shia clerics, or Saudi’s ability to buy their seat at the head of the UN Human Rights Committee, or cynically acquiring the UN Womens Rights chair. Perhaps Washington is over-estimating Saudi Arabia’s position in the Middle East.

Tehran Attack: Who Did It?

Another interesting but under-reported component of this story has to do with the reason for Iran’s missile retaliation. Although ISIS apparently claimed credit for the Tehran attacks on June 6th, other evidence suggests that another well-known international terrorist entity might have been involved.

After events in Tehran, the US-backed regime change terrorist proxy, the MEK (Mojahedin-e Khalq) was named by senior Iranian politician Mr. Hamid-Reza Taraghi, as a partner in the terrorist attacks. This theory gains a bit more credence following a statement from former member of the MEK, Massoud Khodabandeh, who has stated that ISIS drew on MEK ‘expertise’ for the terror attacks on Tehran. Certainly, the MEK have been active in carrying out operations inside of Iran for decades now, while ISIS has not. Massouds analysis of the attacks is stunning, and raises two essential points:

“The targets selected by ISIS were sites constantly targeted by the MEK. The Iranian Parliament and its members had always been primary targets for the MEK since the 1980s. The group had managed to assassinate several members of the Parliament and tried to plant a bomb there at one point. They were unsuccessful and some members were killed by security forces while other terrorist teams were arrested. Similarly, after Ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine was created, Massoud Rajavi, the late MEK leader, announced that “Khomeini’s grave must be exploded”. It became a mantra among MEK members which they would chant in indoctrination sessions. The MEK tried unsuccessfully to send terrorist teams there in 1991 and 2002.”

“While ISIS and the MEK have the same interests in attacking Iran, ISIS could have caused much greater anti-government fear and hatred among the civilian population in line with its regime change agenda if they had bombed a civilian target like transport infrastructure or a shopping mall. They could have done more damage by targeting the Revolutionary Guards whose forces are in Syria. Instead, the ISIS targets matched those which had been constantly under attack by the MEK for thirty years.”

The MEK factor is extremely worrying because it signals a new leg in Washington’s asymmetric war in the region. History shows us that when great powers sow this level of chaos, the chances for a multi-country conflagration becomes more likely.

Regardless of where blame is apportioned in this case, Iran seems to have accepted the claim by ISIS for these attacks on Iranian soil, effectively giving Tehran an internationally recognized green light to act unilaterally against ISIS assets inside Syria. For those who subscribe to the school of thought that implicates Saudi Arabia and the US for aiding and supporting ISIS covertly, then Iran has not only called their bluff, but co-opted their own ‘anti-ISIS’ narrative too. Presently, Iran has military assets deployed in Syria at the invitation of the government in Damascus, so it’s certain that both Damascus and Moscow were aware of Iran’s missile strike in advance, but not the US – once again demonstrating that without significant ground assets deployed in the region the US cannot really control the situation around Raqqa. This means that Washington, no matter how hard its media machine can spin, are simply not able to dictate facts on the ground in Syria.

Clearly, Iran seized an advantage here, but how this plays out in terms of increased tensions with the US-led Coalition in Syria remains to be seen.

Timing is Everything

The most worrying aspect of this development is the timing. On the same day as Iran fired missiles into Deir Az Zor province in Syria, a US F/A-18E Super Hornet shot down a Syrian SU-22 fighter jet near Raqqa. Washington claimed it as an act of ‘collective self-defense’ as the Syrian jet had dropped bombs “near US-backed forces.” As a result of this overt act of aggression by the US, the Russian Defense Ministry announced this morning that it is halting its “Deconfliction” cooperation with its US counterparts set out in their bilateral Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria.

Add to this the fact that each day the US continue to kill more Syrian civilians during their supposed ‘anti-ISIS’ strikes in Raqqa, and it’s not difficult to see that the US position is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle Eastern theatre, leaving its only two remaining solid partners as a pair who themselves are now widely regarded as rogue states in the region: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The scene has now been set for a wider war. All it will take is a small spark between the two major opposing geopolitical forces or their allies.

Patrick Henningsen is an American-born writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire and host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR).

By Patrick Henningsen, 21st Century Wire,

June 21, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Path to Persia: The Proxy War Path through MEK/ISIS

US Legislator Brookings´ “Path to Persia” II: The Proxy War Path through ISIS

Iran has just been hit for the first time by ISIS – the tool of the US, Turkey, the UK and Israel – so this is a declaration of war by those powers on Iran!

The BBC 7 June 2017

Twin attacks on the Iranian parliament and Ayatollah Khomeini’s mausoleum in the capital, Tehran, have killed at least 12 people and injured many more. The Islamic State (IS) group has said it carried out the attacks, which would be a first in Iran.

NATO-General Wesley Clark sagte im Jahr 2001 auf Pentagon-Insider-Informationen basiert voraus, der Iran sei die Letzte von 7 Regierungen, die die USA zu stürzen plane.

Brookings/US incredible hypocrisy to fool the world

On 29 Nov. 2013, I wrote, referring to Tony Cartalucci: The Brookings Institution is a very influential US think tank that has been building US policies over the past 70 years.

In Brookings´paper “Which Path to Persia?“, 2009, Brookings writes on p. 39:

“…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

Indeed, Iran may come under attack according to plan. Brookings writes: Goading Provocations for an Air Strike, p. 97-98): “…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.”

Now the US is using proxies to bring about regime change in Iran – so far mostly letting ISIS fight against Iran.

However, the problem is that all Syrian anti-Assad warriors cooperate with IS(IS) and Al Qaeda! So, the Brookings article indirectly admits IS(IS) as a US ally.

This plan is not new in principle: Divide and rule – as already the ancient Romans said, using Muslim mujahedeens – in this case ISIS – as a tool to smash the order of states like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, indeed even Europe, and here and here

Tony Cartalucci, Activist Post 9 May 2017 writes:

Armed Violence Targeting Tehran Was the Stated Goal of US Policymakers

The recent terrorist attacks in Tehran are the literal manifestation of US foreign policy. The creation of a proxy force with which to fight Iran and establishing a safe haven for it beyond Iran’s borders have been long-stated US policy. The current chaos consuming Syria and Iraq – and to a lesser extent in southeast Turkey – is a direct result of the US attempting to secure a base of operations to launch a proxy war directly against Iran.

In the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” Es gelang then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail.

The report explicitly stated:

The United states could also attempt to promote external Iranian opposition groups, providing them with the support to turn themselves into full-fledged insurgencies and even helping them militarily defeat the forces of the clerical regime.

The United states could work with groups like the Iraq-based National council of resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.

Brookings policymakers admitted throughout the report that MEK was responsible for killing both American and Iranian military personnel, politicians, and civilians in what was clear-cut terrorism. Despite this, and admissions that MEK remained indisputably a terrorist organization, recommendations were made to de-list MEK from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization registry – which happened in 2012 – so that more overt support could be provided to the group for armed regime change. and the group would receive significant backing from the US openly.

This included support from many members of current US President Donald Trump’s campaign team – including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton.

However, despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups.

Under a section of the paper “Which Path to Persia 2009” titled, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” Brookings notes:

Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply.

For the US proxy war on Syria, Turkey and Jordan fulfill this role.

Brookings noted in 2009 that:

A group not mentioned by Brookings in 2009, is the Islamic State. Despite claims that it is an independent terrorist organization propelled by black market oil sales, ransoms, and local taxes, its fighting capacity, logistical networks, and operational reach demonstrates vast state sponsorship.

The Islamic State reaching into Iran, southern Russia, and even as far as western China was not only possible, it was inevitable and the logical progression of US policy as stated by Brookings in 2009 and verifiably executed since then.

The Islamic State represents the perfect “proxy”.Surrounding the Islamic State’s holdings are US military bases, including those illegally constructed in eastern Syria.

Here US-Senator John McCain meets in Syria with ISIS. The head in the red circle belongs to al-Baghdadi, the Jewish Mossad-Agent, who is the boss of the Isis

The use of terrorism, extremists, and proxies in executing US foreign policy, was demonstrated definitively during the 1980s when the US with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – used Al Qaeda to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan. This example is in fact mentioned explicitly by Brookings policymakers as a template for creating a new proxy war – this time against Iran.

For the US, there is no better stand-in for Al Qaeda than its successor the Islamic State. With terrorists now killing people in Tehran, it is simply verification that this agenda is advancing onward.

In reality, the Islamic State – like Al Qaeda before it – depends on the state sponsorship the US, Europe, and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf are providing. It is also sponsorship they can – at anytime of their choosing – expose and end. They simply choose not to in pursuit of regional and global hegemony.

The 2009 Brookings paper is a signed and dated confession of the West’s proclivity toward using terrorism as a geopolitical tool. While Western headlines insist that nations like Iran, Russia, and China jeopardize global stability, it is clear that they themselves do so in pursuit of global hegemony.

by Anders , new.euro-med.dk

June 20, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

With ISIS or MKO! Proxy War Go on for the US Warmongers

While American Congressman Rohrabacher believes that terror attacks by ISIS that kill innocent people in Iran are legitimate when directed against a hostile regime, his country’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson confirms that his goal about Iran, remains regime change.

According to Think Progress, Tillerson said the US policy as it stands is to rely on “elements inside of Iran” who can be supported toward the end goal of regime change, with the hope it would be a “peaceful transition of that government.” [1]

As Think Progress asserts, “elements inside of Iran who can be supported toward the end goal of regime change” might be the Mujahedin Khalq terrorist organization (the MKO/ MEK/ Cult of Rajavi). [2] Coincidently the MKO has bribed several US Congressmen such as Dana Rohrabacher in exchange for their support.

On Thursday, June 8th, the day after the twin attacks in Tehran, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) praised the recent Islamic State attack as a “good thing” and suggested that maybe the United States should work with the militant organization. [3]

“It’s no surprise that Rohrabacher is so anti-Iran he is willing to praise the Islamic State for conducting an attack in the country”, writes Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani of Think Progress. “The congressman is a vocal supporter of regime change as well as a huge advocate of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a cult-like group known for human rights abuses which wants to overthrow the Iranian government and which was classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government until 2012.”[4]

On the other hand, we see Congressman Ted Poe who is also an ardent supporter of the MKO and he is the very person who encouraged Secretary Tillerson to imply his support for the anti-Iran groups like the MKO. “Tillerson’s remarks were in response to questioning from Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), a vocal supporter of the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), whose members were in attendance at the briefing”, states Daruis Namazi of National Iranian American Council (NIAC). “Rep. Poe (R-TX) asked Tillerson whether the U.S. supports “a peaceful regime change” and whether it is U.S. policy “to lead things as they are or set up a peaceful long-term regime change.” Tillerson implied that, it was U.S. policy to move toward supporting regime change, stating the U.S. would “work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of those governments.” [5]

As a matter of fact, “Peaceful transition of government” is nothing but a mirage. As far as the US hardliners count on terrorist violent groups like the MKO, ISIS etc. nothing will be peaceful. Namazi believes, “Such an endorsement is more likely to be a boon to groups seeking to violently overthrow the Iranian government, such as the MEK. As a result, the Trump administration could be headed toward repeating the mistakes of the U.S.-sponsored overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953.” [6]

The American journalist Tony Cartalucci goes further implying that the US has already started the agenda of violent regime change in Iran using proxy forces like the MKO. He bases his arguments on the official document of the Brookings Institution 2009, titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran”. In the paper, “the use of then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail.” [7]

As Cartalucci reports, Brookings policy makers admit the MKO’s violent past including the assassination of six US military personnel and civilians in the 1970s in Iran. However, the group was delisted in 2012 following a multi-million-dollar lobbying campaign. Since then the group reopened its Washington office and ratcheted up its large scale anti-Iran drive but it was not successful. “However, despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups,” Cartalucci writes. [8]

Other armed group’s seems to include the ISIS for the US warmongers which will not substantially be able to lead a “peaceful” transition of governments. The so-called “peaceful transition” will not be fulfilled by using the MKO either. The group’s violent past with terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of thousands of innocent civilians and government officials is undeniable. Moreover, the MKO’s alliance with the then Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war eradicated the little support they enjoyed among the Iranian public opinion.

Pual Pillar of the National Interest clarifies how the MKO’s violent past helped the Iranian security forces get experienced enough to cope with such incidents. “The principal perpetrator of terrorism in Iran over the past four decades has been the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the Marxist/Islamist cult/terrorist group that prior to the revolution had claimed Americans among its victims,” Pillar writes. “Thanks largely to the MEK’s activity, Iran necessarily has had much experience in countering terrorism. Khamenei lost the use of his right arm when he was injured by an MEK bomb in an assassination attempt in 1981.” [9]

Obviously, proxy wars using terrorist groups and/or ethnic minorities is of no use but causing the Iranian people more united. As they proved it after the last week’s terrorist attacks in Tehran sharing images and messages of solidarity like #together-with-Iran and #united-we-stand.

By Mazda Parsi

References:

[1]Varkiani, Adrian Mahsa, Tillerson calls for regime change in Iran, Think Progress, June 15, 2017

[2] ibid

[3] Varkiani, Adrienne Mahsa, Republican congressman praises ISIS attack in Iran, says US should, Think Progress, June 10, 2017

[4] ibid

[5] Namazi, Darius, Secretary Tillerson Eschews Iran Diplomacy in Favor of Regime Change, NIAC Council, June 15, 2017

[6] ibid

[7] Cartalucci, Tony, Tehran Was Always America’s And Thus The Islamic State’s Final Destination, New Eastern Outlook, June 11, 2017

[8] ibid

[9] Pillar, Paul R, Terrorism in Tehran: Reality Confounds Rhetoric Mujahedin Khalq, the National Interest, June 11, 2017

June 19, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Secretary Tillerson Eschews Iran Diplomacy in Favor of Regime Change

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson indicated he has no plans for negotiations with Iran and expressed favor for moving to support elements within Iran intent on regime change during testimony on the State Department budget in the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. Tillerson’s remarks are certain to ratchet up tensions with Iran, where elements remain deeply suspicious of U.S. intentions and have levied charges on ordinary citizens for alleged collaboration with hostile powers.

Tillerson’s remarks were in response to questioning from Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), a vocal supporter of the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), whose members were in attendance at the briefing. Rep. Poe (R-TX) asked Tillerson whether the U.S. supports “a peaceful regime change” and whether it is U.S. policy “to lead things as they are or set up a peaceful long-term regime change.” Tillerson implied that, it was U.S. policy to move toward supporting regime change, stating the U.S. would “work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of those governments.”

The Obama administration was careful to avoid associating itself definitively and publicly with efforts to topple the regime, recognizing that it could undermine the cause of the Iranian people seeking to move their government in a more moderate direction as well as opportunities for negotiations. Further, given Tillerson’s dismissal of Iran’s elections when the moderate Hassan Rouhani trounced the hardline Ebrahim Raisi, it is unlikely Tillerson is endorsing the method that Iranian voters have chosen – gradual change through participation. Such an endorsement is more likely to be a boon to groups seeking to violently overthrow the Iranian government, such as the MEK. As a result, the Trump administration could be headed toward repeating the mistakes of the U.S.-sponsored overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953.

On top of Tillerson’s effective endorsement of regime change, the top diplomat gave no indication that he had considered engaging Iran diplomatically. In response to a question from Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) on whether he would press his Iranian counterparts on the whereabouts of his constituent, Bob Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007, Tillerson stated “I have no current schedule to meet with the Iranians.”

Similarly, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Tillerson dismissed suggestions from Sen. Murphy to engage in direct negotiations with Iran over Yemen. According to Tillerson, “The Iranians are part of the problem…They are not directly at the table because we do not believe they have earned a seat at that table. We would like for the Iranians to end their flow of weapons to the Houthis, in particular their flow of sophisticated missiles to the Houthis. We need for them to stop supplying that, and we are working with others as to how to get their agreement to do that.”

In a further departure from the Obama administration, Tillerson ascribed hegemonic aspirations to Iran, despite the fact that it is being outspent militarily 5 to 1 by Saudi Arabia. Tillerson stated that the U.S., “must counter Iran’s aspirations of hegemony in the region.” President Obama described Iran as a regional power and urged Saudi Arabia to learn how to coexist.

However, Tillerson did decline to endorse the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization when questioned by Rep. Poe, stating, “we continually review the merits both from the standpoint of diplomatic but also from international consequences of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in its entirety as a terrorist organization.” An Iran sanctions bill that just passed the Senate (S. 722) would push the Trump administration to issue such a designation, and Poe has been pushing a similar measure in the House.

While the Iran policy review is currently still underway, Sec. Tillerson’s effective endorsement of regime change, disinterest in Iran negotiations and continued harsh rhetoric bodes ill for the administration’s yet-to-emerge strategy.

By Darius Namazi

June 17, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Sordid History Of State Sponsored Terrorism Against Iran

For decades, Western empires have waged a silent war against Iran, using tactics ranging from supporting known terrorist groups to deposing the country’s leaders and leveraging regional rivalries. The war continues today, even as the U.S. condemns Iran for sponsoring terrorism itself.

People gather around a car as it is removed by a mobile crane in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 11, 2012. Two assailants on a motorcycle attached magnetic bombs to the car of an Iranian university professor working at a key nuclear facility, killing him and wounding two people. The assassination was later confirmed to be a joint effort by the MEK and Israeli intelligence by U.S. officials. (AP/Meghdad Madadi)

NEW YORK (Opinion)– With blood still fresh on the streets of Tehran after last week’s deadly terror attack, the U.S. was quick to condemn the attacks. But in a sadly predictable move, President Donald Trump’s White House also blamed the victim, condemning Iran as a sponsor of terrorism.

While this may seem like merely the latest instance of insensitivity on Trump’s part, it is, in fact, emblematic of the strategy of supporting terrorism against Iran that Washington has employed for decades.

The official White House statement, while expressing grief over the attacks, was noteworthy for implying that Iran itself was responsible for the tragedy. “We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote,” reads the second sentence of the statement.

Aside from the sheer tastelessness and callous disregard for the victims of the attack, the irony of the official statement was obviously lost on Trump. Perhaps if Trump would’ve chosen to pull his head out of the posteriors of Saudi oil executives, he might realize that it is the U.S., not Iran, that has a long history of sponsoring terrorism to which it later falls victim

Moreover, if Trump had a sense of history beyond having watched all ten seasons of Ice Road Truckers, he would know that Iran has, for decades, been the victim of a terror campaign backed both directly and indirectly by the United States in the hopes of bringing regime change to the Islamic Republic, returning the country to its place as energy footstool of the West.

Perhaps, Mr. President, you could consider reading on. You might learn something.

The recent history of terrorism against Iran

The subject of terrorism directed against the Islamic Republic of Iran would likely need a dissertation-length analysis well beyond the scope of this article. However, even a cursory examination of the use of terror against Iran reveals a number of worrying trends, with all roads leading West.

Put another way, terrorism against Iran is as American as apple pie; as British as shepherd’s pie; as Israeli as stolen Palestinian pie.

For instance, take the oft-touted “freedom fighters” of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK; also known as MKO), a terrorist group hailed as heroes by the U.S. neoconservative establishment, despite having been officiallyrecognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization from 1997 through 2012. Indeed, so warm and cozy were these terrorists with policymakers, including key government officials, that through an intensive lobbying campaign, including advocacy from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the MEK was officially removed from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Senator John McCain has meets with the head of the US-designated terrorist organization, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), Maryam Rajavi, in the Albanian capital, Tirana, April, 2017.

Never mind the fact that MEK was implicated by the Obama Administration itself as having colluded with Israel in assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, a blatant violation of international law. But of course, this was nothing for MEK, whose history is one of assassination and terror against Iran.

As Anthony Cordesman and Adam C. Seitz noted in their book “Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?”:

“Near the end of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Baghdad armed the MEK with heavy military equipment [provided by the US] and deployed thousands of MEK fighters in suicidal, mass wave attacks against Iranian forces…In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries…In April 1999, the MEK targeted key Iranian military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff…The pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during “Operation Great Bahman” in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran.”

It should also be remembered that the U.S. opened its military base in Iraq to MEK, which used Camp Ashraf (also known as Camp Liberty) as a safe haven and staging area until it was closed (and MEK members killed) by former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Perhaps a hundred other examples of MEK terrorism against Iran, sponsored and backed by the U.S., could be provided. Suffice to say that the removal of MEK from the U.S. government’s official terror organization list was the result of a well-funded and well-orchestrated lobbying campaign with many key allies on Capitol Hill and the Beltway, including some of the most influential neoconservative figures, such as Max Boot, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and Rudy Giuliani.

Another way of looking at this relationship would be to say that the U.S. has been the principal sponsor of one of the most violent and prolific anti-Iranian terrorist groups. And they are certainly not alone.

Washington has long been seen by many as a backer of, and potential handler for, the organized crime and terror organization known as Jundallah. This notorious terror organization, which has operated on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border in the region of Sistan-Baluchestan, has been led for decades by the Rigi family, a well-known anti-government crime family, and has been linked a number of high-profile terror attacks in recent years, including a deadly October 2009 bombing that killed over 40 people, including 15 Iranian Revolutionary Guard members.

During a funeral ceremony, people mourn next to flag-draped coffins of victims of two bomb blasts in the city of Zahedan, Iran, July 17, 2010. Jundallah, which has carried out several other bombings in southeast Iran over the past few years, claimed responsibility for the blasts, which killed 27. (Fars/Ali Azimzadeh)

Counterterrorism experts have long been aware of Jundallah’s historic ties to both U.S. and Israeli intelligence. As Foreign Policy reported in 2012, Israeli Mossad and U.S. CIA operatives essentially competed with one another for control of the Jundallah network for years. The report noted that:

“The [U.S. government] memos also detail CIA field reports saying that Israel’s recruiting activities occurred under the nose of U.S. intelligence officers, most notably in London, the capital of one of Israel’s ostensible allies, where Mossad officers posing as CIA operatives met with Jundallah officials.”

Consider for a moment the reality of what the report illustrated: U.S. intelligence officials were livid that their Israeli counterparts would meet with Jundallah while posing as CIA agents. Not only does this signal a turf war between the two ostensible allies, it indicates a much deeper and more intimate relationship between Western intelligence agencies and the anti-Iranian terror group. Considering Jundallah became the battleground between the CIA and Mossad, it’s not a stretch to say that the organization is, to some degree, influenced or even directly controlled by the U.S.

Like Jundallah, Jaish al-Adl is a terror group operating in Iran’s southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan, as well as Pakistan’s Balochistan Province. The group has carried out numerous attacks against Iranian government institutions, including one infamous incident in March 2014 in which five Iranian border guards were kidnapped, with one being executed later.

According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium:

“[Jaish al-Adl is] an extremist Salafi group that has since its foundation claimed responsibility for a series of operations against Iran’s domestic security forces and Revolutionary Guards operating in Sistan and Balochistan province, including the detonation of mines [link added] against Revolutionary Guards vehicles and convoys, kidnapping of Iranian border guards and attacks against military bases… Jaish al-Adl is also opposed to the Iranian Government’s active support of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which they regard as an attack on Sunni Muslims…Jaish ul-Adl executes cross-border operations between the border of Iran and Pakistan and is based in the Baluchistan province in Pakistan.”

Jaish al-Adl is certainly not riding alone on the terror train, as their cousins Ansar al-Furqan – a fusion of the Balochi Harakat Ansar and Pashto Hizb al-Furqan, both of which have been operating along Iran’s eastern border with Pakistan – have entered the anti-Iran fray in recent years.

According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium:

“[Ansar al-Furqan] characterize themselves as Mujahideen aginst [sic] the Shia government in Iran and are linked to Katibat al Asad Al ‘Ilamiya; Al-Farooq activists; al Nursra Front (JN), Nosrat Deen Allah, Jaysh Muhammad, Jaysh al ‘Adal; and though it was denied for some time, appears to have at least personal relationships with Jundallah…The stated mission of Ansar al Furqan is ” to topple the Iranian regime…”

Here one sees the intersection of the war against Iran and the ongoing war in Syria. Sunni extremist organizations such as Jaish al-Adl and Ansar al-Furqan see their war against Iran as an extension of the war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, itself part of the broader jihad against Shia Islam.

Weaponizing Iraq’s Kurds against Iran?

Thanks to WikiLeaks, it is well-documented fact that Israel, as well as the U.S., have long attempted to use Kurdish groups such as PJAK (an Iraqi Kurdish terror group) to wage continued war against Iran for the purposes of destabilizing its government. At the same time, however, both Washington and Tel Aviv have been involved on the ground with the Kurdish Special Forces by attempting to use them against Iran.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh noted in 2004:

“The Israelis have had long-standing ties to the Talibani and Barzani clans [in] Kurdistan and there are many Kurdish Jews that emigrated to Israel and there are still a lot of connection. But at some time before the end of the year [2004], and I’m not clear exactly when, certainly I would say a good six, eight months ago, Israel began to work with some trained Kurdish commandoes, ostensibly the idea was the Israelis — some of the Israeli elite commander units, counter-terror or terror units, depending on your point of view, began training — getting the Kurds up to speed.”

Ethnic Kurdish Israelis protest outside the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 8, 2010.

Iran’s leaders have been keenly aware of the presence of Israeli special forces and intelligence on the ground in Kurdistan, knowing that ultimately it is Tehran in the crosshairs. And indeed, that has been the recent history of relations between Israel and the Barzani/Talabani-led Iraqi Kurds. As pro-Israeli blogger Daniel Bart noted:

“During most of that time there were usually some 20 military specialists stationed in a secret location in southern Kurdistan. Rehavam Zeevi and Moshe Dayan were among Israeli generals who served in Kurdistan…The Israelis trained the large Kurdish army of Mustafa Barzani and even led Kurdish troops in battle…The “secret” cooperation between Kurdistan and Israel is mainly in two fields. The first is in intelligence cooperation and this is hardly remarkable as half the world including many Muslim states have such relationships with Israel. The second is influence in Washington.”

Here again one sees the rich diversity of tactics employed by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. And while no one should be surprised that Washington and Tel Aviv would use regional antipathy and rivalries to gain leverage over and ultimately destabilize Iran, the use of terrorist groups as a weapon might come as a surprise to the uninitiated. But indeed, terrorism has been perhaps the most potent weapon in this war.

A new chapter in an old story

For Iran, the last seventy years have demonstrated that so-called “Western democracies” are actually anti-democratic and function as state sponsors of terrorism – precisely the terms hurled at Iran on a near-daily basis in the corporate media. From the CIA and MI6’s “original sin” of deposing Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in a coup d’etat in 1953, to imposing the U.S. puppet Shah with his secret police, torture chambers and forced disappearance of dissidents, the U.S. and its allies have been waging a terror war against the people of Iran for decades.

And what exactly is the great sin of the Iranian people? For one, they had the misfortune of residing in a country that sits atop trillions of dollars in energy reserves, making it a prime target for empires throughout the last century. Additionally, with its large, well-educated population, Iran is a lucrative market for Western corporations, so long as the pesky democratically elected government can be removed as an obstacle. And Iran, strategically located along both the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea, bordering the Middle East and South Asia, forms a critical node in the projection of power for all Western empires, including the U.S.

For these reasons, the Islamic Republic is rightly seen by Tel Aviv and Riyadh as a regional rival, a growing power that challenges Israeli-Saudi hegemony in the region. So it should come as no surprise that Iran has been repeatedly victimized by Western-sponsored terrorism.

And so, when the Orange Buffoon currently occupying the White House, or any of the neocons who have held the reins of US foreign policy for years, blasts Iran as a sponsor of terror at precisely the moment the country is reeling from a national tragedy, it is rather revealing. Because, indeed, it is the US and its closest allies that have the long and sordid track record of sponsoring terrorism, not Iran.

So when Trump or any of the neocons who have held the reins of U.S. foreign policy for years blasts Iran as a sponsor of terror at precisely the moment the country is reeling from a national tragedy, it is rather revealing.

It is the U.S. and other Western powers that have allowed the ISIS (Daesh) to proliferate, backed al-Qaeda, and sponsored myriad terror groups in waging war against Iran. It is Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh that have cast Iran as the villain and painted terror groups as legitimate resistance against the “mullocracy.”

Here again, when it comes to terrorism and U.S. foreign policy, we see the pot calling the kettle black. However, given Iran’s unwillingness to be cowed by terror, no one should be surprised if the kettle finally boils over.

By Eric Draitser, Mint Press News,

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eric Draitser is a geopolitical analyst based in New York and the founder of StopImperialism.

June 15, 2017 0 comments

Terrorist groups and the MEK

The legacy of the MKO in ISIS attacks in Tehran

The twin terrorist attacks at Iran’s parliament and Ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine committed by ISIS recalls the very similar attacks that were frequently committed by the te Mujahedin Khalq Organization about three decades ago. Actually, Iranian citizens were the first ones to witness suicide attacks in the early years of the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Today the legacy of the MKO is reproduced by the ISIS.

While Maryam Rajavi the co-leader of Rajavi’s cult of personality (the MKO) condemns the attacks in Tehran, last Wednesday’s terrorist attacks took Iranians back to the first decade after the Islamic Revolution, when her group’s terror operatives slayed many citizens and officials in the streets, residential areas, public and governmental buildings in various cities all over Iran.

,“The principal perpetrator of terrorism in Iran over the past four decades has been the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the Marxist/Islamist cult/terrorist group that prior to the revolution had claimed Americans among its victims,” Paul R.Pillar of the Strategic Culture website accurately asserts. “Thanks largely to the MEK’s activity, Iran necessarily has had much experience in countering terrorism.”

The role of the MKO terrorists in the bloody parts of the Iranian modern history is so highlighted that no journalist could conceal the fact. Any news report that covered the recent terrorist acts in Tehran had to name the MKO as the first suicide terrorists to launch massive acts of violence against Iranian civilians and authorities.

Ironically, there are only a few days left to the anniversary of the MKO’s iconic date, June 20th 1981 (Khordad 30th) which signals the official start of the group’s armed struggle against the Islamic Republic. At the time, the so-called protest of the MKO agents turned into a bloodbath. The group followers floated in the streets with any type of arms such as cutter, knife, colt and Kalashnikov… opening fire on innocent people. Since then the group committed numerous terrorist acts against the Iranian civilians and officials killing thousands of people.

A lot of MKO operations were suicidal. Firing grenades in public places, throwing fire into public places and other violent acts by the MKO agents were the shocking scenes that the Iranian citizens eye-witnessed repeatedly during the 1980s. In case the MKO operatives were at risk of being arrested by the security forces they would swallow cyanide capsules. And now after four decades the MKO methods is exactly used by the ISIS terrorists in Tehran assaults.

Today, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi should be brought to justice for “shedding blood of innocent people”. They should answer this very question that under which pretext they shed the blood of Leila Nourbahksh, the three-year-old girl who burned alive in a bus the MKO agents set on fire in Shiraz, a city in the South of Iran.

This is the first time the ISIS could manage to launch a terror act in Iran, although it has tried several times in the recent past. ISIS should know that its God father, the MKO, was once eradicated in this country, so there will be no place left of its successors.

By Mazda Parsi

June 14, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Terror as Opportunity: Trump Is Exploiting the Tehran Attacks

It’s strange how US President Donald Trump ignores the logic just because he believes what he likes to believe and ignores the truth.

While officially the White House is condemning the ISIL suicide attacks in Tehran, in keeping with their policy of being against ISIL, Trump’s own statement on the matter appeared less than wholly sympathetic, the man who is always in a tendency to create enemies is attributing the attacks to Iran “falling victim to the evil they promote.”

President Trump has made clear since the campaign that he does not like Iran, and spent much of his recent trip to the Middle East pushing hostility toward Iran, as well as portraying Iran as being to blame for most of the terrorism in the region. That ISIL is the world’s biggest terrorist organization, and that Iran has been heavily supporting both Iraq and Syria in fighting ISIL, doesn’t fit into Trump’s agenda. The fact that ISIL just launched cowardly terrorist attacks in Tehran is particularly damaging to the US agenda of trying to spin everything wrong in the Middle East as being Iran’s fault.

Trump’s desperate answer to this, then, is to remind everyone that Iran is a “state sponsor of terrorism,” an official designation by the US government which means effectively nothing, and only currently applies to three countries that the US doesn’t like, none of whom has anything to do with ISIL, Al-Qaeda, or other major international terrorist groups.

It’s a waste of time and effort, then, to deflect the Trump tweet as misdirected spittle. Iran is busy burying its civilian victims, working with Syria, Iraq, Russia and the Hezbollah movement to coordinate the response to this horrific and cowardly terrorist attack, and provide leadership and reassurance to its people and allies, seeing that:

– Saudi Arabia – and by association, that of US President Donald Trump – are to blame for the first ISIL assaults on potent symbols of Iranian ideology, setting the stage for spiraling tensions with Saudi Arabia, its regional minions and Trump, at a critical moment in the region.

– The consequences of attacks in Tehran will be felt around the world. The suspicious attacks came one week after the meeting of Trump with the leader of Saudi Arabia, one of the region’s reactionary regimes. It shows they are involved in this savage action.

– The attacks will make the Islamic Republic more determined in the fight against regional terrorism, extremism and violence. Tehran says it will prove once again that it will crush the enemies’ plots with more unity and more strength.

– There will be flintier measures against hardcore extremists in Iraq and Syria as well, much of it pointed in the direction of ISIL, Al-Qaeda, and their associates.

ISIL is at war, ideologically and militarily, with Iranian forces and allies in Syria and Iraq. On the other hand, ISIL has natural allies among anti-Iran regional states and terrorist groups in restive south-eastern Sistan-Baluchistan province, which has a large Sunni population. In 2010, Wahhabi extremists linked to the Jundallah network killed 39 people at a mosque in the province. Minority Kurdish terrorist groups and ethnic Arabs also have a history of small-scale attacks in the north-west and south-west respectively.

As Iranian Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi says, Wednesday’s twin attacks in Tehran were not the first terrorist attempts; more than 100 terror plots had been foiled in the past two years. “This was not the first terrorist plot. Terrorists have tried to carry out more than 100 terrorist plots over the past two years, all of which have been thwarted,” Alavi said on Thursday.

In sum, the Wednesday atrocities were set against the backdrop of the anticipated collapse of ISIL’s self-declared caliphate, as Iranian-backed Iraqi and Syrian army forces, plus Russian-backed Hezbollah and volunteer forces, close in on its Mosul and Raqqa strongholds. In response to this pressure, ISIL has called on its followers to take the fight to its enemies wherever they live. Wednesday’s terror attacks fit this emerging pattern of displaced activity by ISIL.

On the other hand, well-documented covert efforts by George W Bush’s administration in the 2000s to destabilize Iran by funding militant internal terror groups are not forgotten in Tehran. Nor is unofficial, on-off American support for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or the MKO, a terrorist group backed by the United States that is responsible for numerous terror attacks inside Iran.

It doesn’t take a strategic mind to realize that Trump’s overt hostility is encouraging a repeat of past destabilization efforts, directly or indirectly. Overturning the previous US president Barack Obama’s policy of limited engagement, Trump has launched a blistering attack on Iran. Speaking during a visit to Riyadh, he demanded Iran’s international isolation, claiming Tehran was the world’s main exporter of “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror”.

He even trumpeted a big arms deal with the Saudis. And this week he threw his support behind Riyadh’s diplomatic and commercial ostracism of Qatar, which has tried to keep on good terms with Iran. This has led regional politicians to warn of imminent war.

All told, Riyadh is ISIL’s biggest inspiration and supporter. Iran, the European Union, and the United States are on the same side fighting the ISIL in Iraq. Unlike the autocratic Persian Gulf regimes, Iran also has a democratic political system that just came under attack, with an elected parliament and president, that confounds the “sponsor of terrorism” charge by Trump. This awkward fact seems to enrage Trump, the Saudis and ISIL in equal measure. That’s why those who live in a reality universe are better off ignoring his tweets exploiting the Tehran attacks.

June 14, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

A communist terrorist group in Albania must be condemned by all friends of Iran

The Albanian based MEK could have helped Saudi funded ISIS to carry out the terrorist attack on Tehran.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for today’s deadly terrorist attack in The Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran in turn has pointed a finger at Saudi Arabia which is well known as an agitator for aggression against Iran and also a major covert supporter of ISIS and al-Qaeda.

But it is another group that historically has waged terrorist atrocities against Iran. This group is Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) also known as the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran.

The group is an expressly stated communist terrorist group whose goal ever since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 is to overthrow the government of Iran. That being said, the group is often more than willing to forgo its ideology in order to make alliances of convenience with any state or group willing to help it pursue its penultimate goal of destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Throughout the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s the group found shelter in Iraq, but the Shi’a dominated Iraqi government kicked the group out of the country in 2009.

The group then relocated to the NATO member state of Albania, a known sponsor of semi-secular Sunni terrorism in the Balkans.

The group now thrives in Albania as does ISIS. Under the radar of international scrutiny, ISIS has quietly co-opted much of the lucrative narcotics trade in Albania from local mafia lords. The result is the early stages of a perfect storm whereby Albanian political corruption and the effective Albanian mafia state are sharing the same political geography with a communist anti-Iranian terrorist group and also ISIS.

Although there is little doubt that as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have said, Saudi has a hand in today’s tragic event, but this does not preclude the MEK from having a hand in the attack.

Concerned parties must seriously examine whether the MEK and ISIS have forged some sort of pact beneath the radar. Such a thing is entirely possible for several reasons.

First of all, ISIS has never once carried out an attack on Iranian soil and given the secure and stable nature of Iran, it almost beggars belief that they were able to do so.

Secondly, if indeed the Saudi/ISIS hand was in play and was therefore able to penetrate deeply into Iran, in Tehran no less, which is geographically far from both Iraq and Syria, it means that whoever did this had to penetrate deeply into Iranian territory before carrying out the crime. The MEK, although with difficulty, have managed to penetrate into Iran many times before and carry out terrorist atrocities. They know the internal geography of the country far more than the average ISIS commander. Furthermore, studies have shown that like ISIS, the MEK also receives funding from Saudi Arabia.

Consequently, there is every possibility that ISIS and the MEK have forged some sort of alliance or at minimum an agreement on the sharing of intelligence.

In either case, the NATO member state of Albania is guilty of harbouring and facilitating terrorism, something that Serbia has warned of for many years.

Albania is the place where the MEK, ISIS, NATO and Europe meet. If Iran wants to truly avenge this atrocity, it must focus on not only its traditional Middle Eastern enemies, but also on Albania.

By Adam Garrie ,The Duran

June 13, 2017 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts