Home » Articles » Page 172

Articles

The cult of Rajavi

Collapse of Morality in the MKO

From Stealing Flowers to Sexual Abuses

The reports and documents published on the MKO camps, demonstrate that morality has been deleted from the group’s internal relations.

 Morality is defined as a particular system of values and principals of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. It gives the person or society the extent to which an action is right or wrong. In a moral-based society people obey moral and human values including helping others, offering sympathy to others, being honest, being polite… These do’s and don’ts are less or more practiced and respected in normal societies.

Nonetheless, in the Cult of Rajavi (the MKO) from the peak of the cult’s hierarchy – where Massoud Rajavi stands – moral values have been violated and even confused with immoral values.

For instance, marriage, maternal love, family life are regarded by the MKO leaders as counter values. In turn, polygamy, treason and divorce –that are usually considered as counter values– are recommended values in the Cult of Rajavi. The leader of the MKO is able to marry as many wives as he wants – up to the number of the Cult’s Elite Council, about 600 women. He can sleep with all of them while male members of the group are not allowed to marry or even to think of the opposite sex otherwise they are humiliated and punished by the cult system. Not only polygamy is considered a value but also dishonesty of the cult leader is viewed as an ordinary.

The most recent case of immoral acts in the MKO was covered by French media. Last week, French newspaper Le Figaro reported that plant pots decorating graves in a cemetery in Auver Sur d’Oise were found in the MKO base. “The 59 year old widow followed the path of the plant on her computer. Imagine her surprise to find that the floating plant came to rest in the premises of the NCRI, based in Auvers since 1980,” reported Le Figaro. The French newspaper also reported that besides the hydrangeas other plants were found that might have been stolen from other graves in the cemetery, where such disappearances have intensified over the past year despite the precautions taken by the municipality.

The news of the new Rajavi’s scandal was widely covered by former members of the cult. It was followed by numerous cases of memoirs and experiences of former members about stealing objects for the group. Former senior interpreter of the MKO, Ghorban Ali Hossein Nejad recited that stealing goods was called “Liberating” in the MKO.

He believes that robberies by cult members should be measured as “ideological” because they are indoctrinated by Massoud and Maryam Rajavi and their Machiavellian ideas that justify every means to get the goal.

In ex-members memos and evidences you read about all sorts of stolen items from Iraqi tanks and artilleries for the MKO army to suits and ties for the group’s gatherings. The whole stories indicate the awful decline in values in the cult of Rajavi. Defectors recall that at that time they were proud of their immoral acts.

Furthermore, as we witness the evidences of female defectors such as Batoul Soltani, we realize that every women who was more dedicated to Rajavi’s sexual desires was more admired and more glorified by the cult leaders. This was definitely the outcome of the manipulative indoctrination structure of Massoud Rajavi’s cult of personality. The lust of the MKO authorities for absolute obedience of members prompts them to suggest he evil as good.

By the way, the stolen plant that made a French citizen sue the MKO might be a very small step to counter the huge immoral and inhuman acts of the MKO leaders but it is an indicator of collapse of morality in a group that when its leader was arrested by French Police in 2003, millions of dollars were found in her base.

It is a pity that more crucial crimes and counter values practiced in the MKO are ignored by the international community. Leaders of the group are not brought to justice for their inhumane acts. There are countless records and documents of these cases of abuses in the MKO but they have not been investigated seriously by judicial bodies yet.

Mazda Parsi

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Hong Kong: Beware of Staged Violence

As momentum in Hong Kong’s US-backed so-called “Occupy Central” protest falters, attempts to escalate chaos and provoke or perpetuate violence is generally the next step in any given US-engineered “color revolution.” Not only is this a matter of simple observation, but a matter of documented fact as well. As such, observers must remain vigilant for such an escalation.

Iran as a Documented Precedent

It was the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, “Which Path to Persia?” that stated unequivocally in regards to toppling the government of Iran, that (emphasis added):

Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it. This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.   Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it.”

The policy document would also openly conspire to fund and arm listed terrorist organizations including the notorious Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The document would state:

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.

It would also admit that (emphasis added):

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.

And of course, in the following years after Brookings’ report was published, MEK was indeed delisted, armed, and funded before being attacked and nearly wiped out under the now US-ousted government of Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki.

The Brookings Institution’s report, “Which Path to Persia?” is a signed confession – a documented conspiracy that was demonstrably executed not only in Iran but also in neighboring Syria. While it’s ultimate goal of toppling Iran’s government has so far failed, there is no doubt that the criminal conspiracy found within its pages became US policy in both Iran and far beyond. It is an indictment against the legitimacy of US foreign policy, the tactics it uses to execute it, and the alleged causes of “democracy” and “freedom” it claims to be promoting while it does so.

US-backed Chaos – Thailand 2010

Like Hong Kong’s current “Occupy Central” protests, there was another US-backed political network in Southeast Asia’s nation of Thailand led by long-time US proxy Thaksin Shinawatra that was losing momentum.

Their so-called “pro-democracy” protests began waning in April of 2010. After multiple attempts to provoke Thai security forces into violence, Shinawatra’s political lieutenants deployed heavily armed militants to lay waste to protesters and security forces alike, killing some 25 people in a single night including soldiers and an assassinated Thai Army colonel who was leading riot control operations.

Altogether some 300 heavily armed terrorists would be deployed over the following weeks resulting in armed clashes in Bangkok’s streets concluding in May and leaving over 90 killed and many more injured. While to this day Western media claims it was a military crackdown, irrefutable evidence including photographs, videos, and even admissions from the West’s own Human Rights Watch confirm the presence of Shinawatra’s armed mercenary force.

Like what was planned in Iran by Brookings, and demonstrably carried out in nations like Libya and Syria – waning protests were quickly backed by heavily armed terrorists in Bangkok to prevent staged unrest from being contained by security forces.

Hong Kong Next?

As momentum falters in Hong Kong’s “Occupy Central,” the possibility of its US sponsors carrying out staged violence to escalate tensions remains high. In what fashion such provocations manifest themselves in remains to be seen, but it is unlikely the West will allow their proxies to become so exposed upon the world’s stage, only to allow local authorities to finally restore order, then quietly dismantle, perhaps permanently, Washington’s network of sedition in Hong Kong.

Onlookers must remain vigilant and quickly analyze acts of violence with the insidious nature of “Occupy Central’s” true leadership and foreign sponsors kept in mind.

For Hong Kong’s authorities, they must resist attempts by protesters to provoke them into violence and be vigilant of false flag violence. For the protesters themselves, they must be aware that their lives are seen as utterly disposable by both “Occupy Central’s” leadership, and their foreign sponsors. While their intentions may be pure, their leaders are confirmed to be compromised agents of foreign sedition. As was the case in Bangkok in 2010, US-backed political fronts can and have in the past opened fire on both their own supporters and state security forces to escalate tensions.

The West’s “mystery gunmen” have found themselves employed everywhere from Libya and Syria, to Egypt and Ukraine, as well as Southeast Asia’s Thailand. It is not entirely unthinkable that the US may use similar tactics in Hong Kong, or other troubled spots the US is stoking chaos in such as China’s western province of Xinjiang or Tibet.

Land Destroyer, 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The adventures of the MKO and warmongers

The ISIS threat in the Middle East might be over someday but the threat of cult-like extremism will not leave the region unless the super powers stop pursuing their empire-building policies in the region.

The beginning of the sectarian violence in the region perhaps goes back to the time of Russian influence in Afghanistan when the US supported Afghan Mujahideen and then created Taliban, the extremists group to fight the Soviet Union –the US strategic adversary in the Middle East. The rise of Taliban was the start of al Qaeda. Al Qaede in turn has been the originator of even worse extremist groups such as ISIS or IS. The entire historical memory of the world indicates that the Threat of extremism is a Western creature.

“The ISIL or IS threat is a smokescreen,” Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya the award-winning author, sociologist and geopolitical analyst states. “The strength of the ISIL has deliberately been inflated to get public support for the Pentagon and to justify the illegal bombing of Syria.” He suggests that the US has a broader dream which is regime change in Iran. ”… Baghdad and Damascus have been viewed as pathways for the Pentagon towards Tehran, “he writes. [1]

To accomplish such an objective, the US has the same plan for the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO, Rajavi’s Cult, MEK).  As Nasemroaya notices, “disingenuously and ironically, the US and Britain used Saddam Hussein’s support for the MEK to justify labeling Iraq as a state-sponsor of terrorism and to also justify the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq”. [2]

That part of the US government that is opposed to diplomacy with Iran is dramatically manipulated by the MKO propaganda. The group’s multi-million dollar lobbying campaign finally resulted in getting removed from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations of the US State Department in September 2012 but shilling for the MKO has not stopped since then. The warmongers of the Congress view the Cult of Rajavi as “the main Iranian opposition” and an “alternative” for the Islamic Republic.

Daniel Larison of the American Conservative website criticizes Western supporters of the MKO who argue about the Iranian “deceit”. “Leaving aside how crazy it is to spurn diplomacy because governments sometimes lie and break their promises, there is something especially weird about an argument that simultaneously promotes the cause of the MEK while complaining about Iranian deceit,” he writes. [3]

Larison clarifies how the MKO propaganda actually deceived the West to buy its sponsorship. He states:” As it has sought to rehabilitate itself in the West, the MEK has claimed all sorts of spurious, self-serving things about what it represents. Despite being a bizarre authoritarian cult with Marxist and quasi-Islamist views, it now pretends to be exactly what Westerners want an Iranian exile group to be.” About the group’s skillful propaganda he writes,” It doesn’t matter to the MEK’s American fans that it is lying about its political views, and they are obviously not worried about reciting those lies for Western audiences. Indeed, it has so completely hoodwinked them that they think it should be rewarded with American support.” [4]

 “The MKO Since 2003, the US has been funding the MEK,” Nazemroaya also warns about the US support for the MKO. “Washington has been protecting the MEK, because it wants to keep them on a leash as either leverage against Tehran or to have the option of one day installing the MEK into power in Tehran as part of a regime change operation against Iran.” He confirms that the MKO “has literally become incorporated into the Pentagon and CIA toolboxes against Tehran.”[5]

The Iranian-American analyst declares that the MKO’s money is circulated among its sponsors and the group’s propaganda arm. “The irony is that the money for the event most probably came from the US government itself. US allies probably contributed too,” he writes. “This money has gone to the MEK’s lobbying initiatives with the US Congress and US Department of State, which in effect is recycling US funding.” [6]

The fraudulent policy of the West to run its empire in the Middle East is very clearly seen in recent Henry Kissinger’s comment about ISIS which MKO propaganda website proudly republishes it. The former US Secretary of State who is famous for his warmonger policies, expressed in an interview with NPR that he considers ”Iran a bigger problem than ISIS”. He sounds to be making this audience ready for another war in the region—which is a dream for Maryam Rajavi. [7]

Daniel Larison announces to his country fellow politicians that the MKO is not “the main Iranian opposition” or “anything like it”. He suggests, ”The shilling for this group by many prominent American former officials and politicians is one of the more disgraceful displays of the last decade, and as long as it continues it should be held up for derision.” [8]

However, as Nasemroaya proposes, the West’s imperialism policy is not indeed based on truth but it is based on its in benefits and interests.  “When it comes down to it, the US is not concerned about fighting the ISIL, which has been serving Washington’s interests in the Middle East,” he concludes. ”America’s main concern is about preserving its crumbling empire and preventing Eurasian integration.” [9]

Mazda Parsi

Sources:

[1] Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius, The March to War: Fighting ISIL is a Smokescreen for US Mobilization against Syria, Iran, Global Research, September 26, 2014

[2] ibid

 [3] Larison, Daniel, The Disgraceful Shilling for the MEK Continues, The American Conservative, August 9, 2014

[4] ibid

[5] Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius, The March to War: Fighting ISIL is a Smokescreen for US Mobilization against Syria, Iran, Global Research, September 26, 2014

[6] ibid

[7] NPR Staff, Henry Kissinger’s Thoughts On The Islamic State, Ukraine And ‘World Order’, NPR  , September 6, 2014

[8] Larison, Daniel, The Disgraceful Shilling for the MEK Continues, The American Conservative, August 9, 2014

[9] Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius, The March to War: Fighting ISIL is a Smokescreen for US Mobilization against Syria, Iran, Global Research, September 26, 2014

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

MEK leader Massoud Rajavi refuses to allow Camp Liberty residents to seek refuge in Albania

On January 5, 2014, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Jane Holl Lute of the United States as his Special Adviser for Relocation of Camp Hurriya Residents Outside of Iraq. Since then, she has worked dynamically to resolve the stalemate at Camp Liberty where 2700 residents remain trapped, unable to leave the camp. As a result of her diligence, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Albania was able to announce it has provided the necessary measures for the transfer of a further 210 Camp Liberty residents to Albania. Local reports indicate that several apartments are ready to accommodate the newly arrived individuals.

Previously, in March 2013, Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha had announced that Tirana was ready to host 210 members of the MEK “for humanitarian reasons.” Since then, over 200 residents have already been transferred to Albania.

As a UNAMI representative, Jane Holl Lute works in close co-operation with several Iraqi governmental bodies including the security forces and Iraq’s Ministry of Human Rights, as well as the UNHCR and independent bodies such as the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC).

UNAMI has had to deal with constant complaints from the Mojahedin commanders about siege conditions at the camp. On 31 August, UNAMI reported that “the provision of life support systems such as water, electricity and food continue to be well in excess of basic humanitarian standards”. In addition, MEK advocates in Europe, such as MEPs Julie Ward and Judith Kirton-Darling, also insist that the MEK be protected from further attacks like the events at Camp Ashraf on September 1, 2013 and for them to be moved as soon as possible to third countries to prevent further violence.

Yet, now it has been made possible to transfer another 210 to a place of safety, the MEK has refused to allow anyone to leave Camp Liberty. Of course this may be linked to news that over half of the MEK members who now reside in Tirana have renounced the group and have begun to speak out about human rights abuses inside Camp Liberty. The MEK leader Massoud Rajavi cannot afford to allow more of the camp’s residents the freedom to decide their own futures, and would prefer to keep them locked up in Iraq under his direct control.

The problems at the camp can quickly be resolved if the MEK commanders would agree to open the gates of the camp and allow the individual residents to access external help from the UN, ICRC and Iraqi NGOs, as well as allowing them to access much needed medical care. Above all, it has been found that the most help to residents has been given by their own families once they have left the camp. Since it has proven itself inadequate in the care of the Camp Liberty residents, the MEK should therefore allow them to have family visits and to access all the help they need from agencies outside the camp.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 67

++ Maryam Rajavi has launched a campaign to threaten ex members through their various websites. Nader Naderi an outspoken ex member has riposted that “if we were going to stop exposing your crimes we would have stopped when you had the power of Saddam behind you in Iraq, not now that we are living in Europe. Live with it, your benefactor is dead!”

++ Ali Ardalan a recent ex member, was married today. Many of his friends and other ex members have congratulated the happy couple. Ehsan Bidi (in Albenia) congratulated them, saying this is like spitting in the face of Rajavi.

++ In Iraq, Shakhvan Abdollah MP announced that the Mojahedin are lying and he has never supported them. A Rajavi affiliated website had apparently claimed that he has supported them.

++ In Iraq, Faraj Al Saedi, one of the high political leaders with the Hakim faction, announced that the presence of the MEK in Iraq is against the Iraqi interest and they must be expelled asap.

++ Jasem Mohammad Shankali MP, from the Kurdish faction, said that the expulsion of the MEK is in accord with an International agreement and has to be done asap.

++ Nejat has published an article titled ’33 years of deception by Rajavi’. The article is a thorough examination of the history of the Rajavi cult.

In English:

++ Mazda Parsi of Nejat Bloggers analyses the MEK’s claim of a legal victory in France. In 2003, France’s counterintelligence chief at the time, Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, said the crackdown was aimed at preventing attacks on Iranian diplomatic missions in Europe and elsewhere. He said that the MKO was transforming their compound in Auvers-sur-Oise, Paris, into “an operational center for terrorism,” after losing firepower in Iraq when the US disarmed them. Pointing to the seizure of 9m dollars in Maryam Rajavi’s compound, Parsi says that a “trial that begins with terrorism, money laundering and spying accusations, and which ends in acquittal of those who are charged with the crimes, cannot be so credible”.

++ In a lengthy analytical article titled ‘ Iran and Israel vie in Kurdistan’ in Asia Times, Brian M Downing, says, “Israel, in conjunction with the Iranian exile group Mujahideen-e-Khalq, has been assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists for several years now and Israel may have plans of taking advantage of rising Kurdish nationalism across the region and inciting Iranian Kurds …”

++ Nejat Bloggers revealed that six residents have escaped from Camp Liberty in the past few weeks.++ Le Figaro reported that a widow discovered the flower pots she had placed on her husband’s grave had been stolen and taken to the Mojahedin Khalq base at Auvers-sur-Oise.

++ Iran Interlink revealed that UNAMI and the UNHCR have managed to find a place for 210 residents of Camp Liberty in Tirana, Albania, where they would join another 210 who have previously been given refuge there. The Mojahedin Khalq, however, will not allow anyone to leave Camp Liberty.

October 3, 2014

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Maryam Rajavi

Rajavi’s Interesting Interpretation of Justice and Victory

French judiciary thrown out terrorism and money laundering charges against members of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO). As the case against the MKO was closed, the group propaganda called it a “legal victory” and “a victory for justice”.

In 2003, after Maryam Rajavi along with 165 of her followers were arrested by French Police, France’s counterintelligence chief at the time, Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, said the crackdown was aimed at preventing attacks on Iranian diplomatic missions in Europe and elsewhere. He said that the MKO was transforming their compound in Auver Sur d’Oise, Paris, into “an operational center for terrorism,” after losing firepower in Iraq when the US disarmed them.

Considering the large amounts of money – about 9 million dollars – found in the MKO Parisian base, the money laundering accusation was not so deniable but the bizarre long-lasting investigation process –for eleven years– might change the path to justice and might involve a lot of other parameters. Moreover, the trial that begins with terrorism, money laundering and spying accusations, and which ends in
acquittal of those who are charged with the crimes, cannot be so credible.

 It is crystal clear that eleven years of lobbying and spending huge amounts of money to get lawyers and consultants manipulates the administration of justice.

However, for the time being, legal culpability or acquittal of the MKO in Western courts does not seem to be so important since the West has a double standard toward to terrorism and divides terrorism into bad and good. For instance, the Syrian opposition group – that were linked with ISIS from the beginning – were at first supported financially, politically and militarily by the west,  but now that the West sees its interests at stake by these Islamic extremists of the Islamic State group ,it forms coalition against it. The same approach is used about the MKO. Depending on its function in the Iran-West relations, the MKO has had different roles for the past three decades. However, the entire contradictions about the Wests’ attitude regarding the MKO never changes the violent cult-like substance of the group.

Actually justice is defined by the individuals who are still banned behind the bars of the MKO cult structure. It is defined by thousands of civilians who have been victims of violence of the Cult of Rajavi. Justice should be defined by women who were abused in filthy relations of Massoud Rajavi’s cult of personality. Violated women’s rights should be investigated in the new Press TV documentary, “Comrades in Arms”. (The documentary shows how women of the MKO were manipulated to devote their soul and body to the cult leader, Massoud.)

 Justice and legitimacy should be sought in tears of parents who died before their dreams of visiting their loved ones in Ashraf came true.

In her alleged celebration for “victory”, Maryam Rajavi makes fun of “terrorism accusation” while documents of the MKO’s violent history are even available on its own journals. The MKO’s propaganda and media have always glorified their terrorist acts against the Iranian civilians and officials.

The group’s violent past is undeniable. The last example of the MKO’s support for terrorism was obviously seen in the group’s propaganda website.  When Iraqi strategic city, Mosul was seized by the ISIS forces a few months ago, the MKO hailed and praised the occupiers calling their atrocities, ”uprising of Iraqi revolutionaries and tribes”! The MKO congratulated extremist occupiers while Iraqi state and people were awfully concerned and shocked by destructive, bloody acts of the ISIS.

Definitely, the truthfulness of a movement is determined by its positions, acts and the public support it enjoys. As a matter of fact, the MKO cult has taken hostile positions against Iranian nation for over three decades, by siding with Saddam Hussein in the 8 year war against Iran or spying and operating terror acts for Israelis against Iranian scientists.

 To investigate the extent of public support for the MKO in Iran, one should simply read the reports of the US government on the group such as RAND report and the report of the US State Department for Patterns of Global Terrorism.

Victory means winning people’s hearts and minds realizing justice and truth for the same people. But, Mujahedin e Khalq do not enjoy the least support by the Iranians inside Iran. Besides, they are not able to accomplish human rights and justice for their own members inside the Cult.

Mazda Parsi

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 66

++ Reactions to the Paris court case continue. Rajavi is on overdrive to shout “victory, victory”. But critics asked “what victory?” Ali Jahani has written listing all the so-called victories Rajavi has announced, with this as the latest one. He asks “as what part of your non-existent strategy or tactic does this so-called victory have a place, how is this a victory?” Irandidban has reacted to the court case saying that this is not something worth Iran even thinking about, but certainly France lost face when the judge accepted the word of Maryam Rajavi saying she had nothing to do with the Mojahedin Khalq organisation and was therefore not answerable for any crimes. It goes without saying that Massoud Rajavi has suffered the biggest loss here because all his excuses have gone – similarly being removed from the terrorism lists and similarly the change of government in Iraq. Now we must wait and see what Rajavi’s next excuse is for not doing anything useful. Using the same argument, Maryam Sanjabi’s article asks “what is Massoud Rajavi’s excuse for not coming out? With all these victories why is he still hiding.”

++ Rajavi has published an extensive article (in Farsi) claiming that the Paris judge has said ‘the MEK are a legitimate political force and have not undertaken any wrongdoing whatsoever, and are a respectable group, etc, (basically repeating what the MEK’s hired lobbyists say). It is interesting that the court of around 9 affiliated people have nothing to do with the MEK at all. As usual, there is no source given for this claim, and it its becoming a trend for the MEK to simply make things up on their sites. Their hope is that by repeating these lies they will be made to look like facts. They have increasingly opened new outlets under pseudonyms in London and Brussels, and now manufacture document-like pdf files about all sorts of issues and then link them all together. The MEK are also using these made-up networks against the Khodabandehs and Iran Interlink (as their main exposer and main enemy according to a pronouncement of Rajavi). As usual the outpourings are a mish-mash of everything to hide their true faces and, as usual, they are trying to show themselves as anti-fundamentalist but at the same time attack Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne and anti-war MPs and personalities, (and placing the Khodabandehs in the centre of these). An example is the website standforpeace.org.uk.

++ An article on Sahar reports that Rajavi has a new audio message for Camp Liberty residents in which the story of the “Moon or the Well (Mah va Chahr)” is explained. He says that some see me at the bottom of the well and some see me in the moon. He says that people who blame me for everything from 30 khordad (1981) to the situation in Iraq, don’t know what they are talking about! He says “I am in the moon”, and declares “you and the people of Iran should be grateful because I saved the MEK, (he doesn’t say for what purpose), and that was the biggest achievement of its history, and it has been its utmost aim and its highest aim ever. He does not explain what happened to ‘toppling the regime’ etc. Sahar reports that the situation inside the camp is explosive and trouble can be triggered any day, and the situation is becoming more and more dangerous as members resist orders and fights break out.

++ Nejat has a briefing article about the members of the so-called Friends of a Free Iran in the European Parliament which had its first meeting on 17th September as announced by the MEK. The article talks about the MEK undertaking damage limitation after the loss of Struan Stevenson and Alejo Vidal Quadras in the EP. “The new group comprises the same people who denounced Iraq – which did not take off – the same disrepute people who have been recruited as the MEK’s paid lobbyists”. Nejat concludes the article describing this as “Too little. Too late”. The new group is described as a mirror for Netanyahu’s policy against any deal between Iran and the West and as advocates for war and bombing.

++ Ghorban Ali Hossein Nejad has written a letter to the French president saying that “now the country of France (where I live) has accepted that the Mojahedin have done no wrong, could you please ask your friends to let me see my daughter for five minutes after all these years, and arrange for my other daughter, who has never seen her sister, to be allowed to have a short visit? After all you now have a responsibility in this as the head of the Mojahedin Khalq, who have my daughter in the unacceptable camp in Iraq, is operating from this county as your guest.”

++ Parsian Youth site has posted a new article further exposing a number of MEK torturers. Their names are Mortezaee (aka Javad Khorasan), and Abdolvahab Faraji Nejad (aka Afshin), both trained interrogators and torturers of Saddam’s Private Army. They have now been sent to Tirana, Albania, to control the members and ex members there. Both carry ‘Pentagon ID cards’ to show and they claim thereby to have ‘full immunity from the law’.

In English:

++ In Geneva the Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism (ADVT), an Iranian non-governmental organization for people who have lost loved ones to terrorism, hosted a panel in the 27th meeting of the UN Human Rights Council. Speakers from Iran, Britain and the United States attended – Shia, Sunni and Christian. In the meeting Iranian victims of terrorism were able to tell their story.

 

++ Razak Abdul A’imma al-Haidari, Iraqi MP, from the Badr Parliamentary bloc said that the Mujahedin Khalq Terrorist Organization was counting on the ISIL in Iraq to collude with them to keep its members at Camp Liberty (Temporary Transit Location) and then to take them back to Camp Ashraf. “The MEK is ready to cooperate with any terrorist party hostile to the Iraqi government and the people”, the MP Al-Haidari told Ashraf News reporter.

++ News Analysis, Xinhua News: DAMASCUS, Sept. 19 (Xinhua) — Washington’s recent decision to arm and train the Syrian rebels, who will supposedly fight the Islamic State (IS) terror group, will only exacerbate and prolong the Syrian crisis in what analysts said would be like “casting oil on a smoldering fire.”

++ An article by Massoud Khodabandeh published in Huffington Post and Iranian.com says ‘America Must Make Its Underlying Intentions Toward Iran Clear’. “If America’s Iran policy was designed to weaken and isolate the country, it has failed. Iran certainly feels itself in a much stronger position moving forward. Ultimately, the real leverage behind a sanctions regime is that it stops short of, but still depends on the ability to follow through with the ultimate threat, war. It is, however, now possible to state that if Israel, with or without the backing of the United States, could have launched a pre-emptive air strike to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, then it would have done so by now.”

 

++ TEHRAN (FNA)- Yuram Abdullah Weiler, a Colorado-based writer and political critic, believes that the broad international coalition against ISIL is a massive media event to justify direct US intervention in Syria, underscoring that last year’s false-flag chemical attacks were not sufficient, but this year’s beheadings of western journalists seem to have sold intervention in Syria to the West.

 

“The Washington regime has a history of using covert action to attain its geo-political goals. From the Philippines to Latin America to the Middle East, the US has intervened in so many countries that it is difficult to count them. And what some would call covert action, I would call state-sponsored terrorism, so in that sense, the US is the world’s leader in its support of terrorism,” he said in an interview with Fars News Agency.

++ Open Letter of 57 victims of the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq Terrorist Cult to Barak Obama, President of the United States of America. “We believe there are a tremendous amount of similarities between the ISIS that was described in your speech, and the Iranian terrorist Mujahidin-e Khalq. Indeed, many experts on Iraq and Iran share the view that the Mujahidin in Iraq provide media and logistics support for ISIS. Some of the common characteristics of the Mujahidin and ISIS are as follows: 1. The Mujahidin hide their anti-western and anti-democratic thinking from the general public. While they believe in religious lifelong leadership and Islamic Caliphate and have been practicing it within their cult for years, they pretend publicly to believe in democracy and free elections…”

 

++ Expert in cultic abuse and terrorism in the MEK, Anne Khodabandeh, speaks in a London charity meeting. “A lively discussion followed. In particular the issue of Muslim dress code was raised in terms of the adoption of the Niqab by western middle class educated Muslim women. Anne Khodabandeh explained the structure of terrorist organisation by using the ‘onion’ analogy. At the core of the onion are the suicide bombers and beheaders, these are surrounded by financiers, logistics and arms suppliers, but beyond that are layers and layers of people not identified as terrorists but who support and hide the innermost activities. Some do this by creating diversionary issues like provocative dress.”

++ Fars News published a piece by Gareth Porter titled: The False Intelligence Behind the “Manufactured Crisis” over Iran’s Nuclear Activities. Extract: “Someone leaked to David Sanger of the New York Times that those documents had come from the laptop computer of an Iranian scientist involved in the alleged program who later feared that he had been discovered and managed to get the computer out through his wife. US officials told senior IAEA officials that they feared the “third party” that had brought out the documents was now dead, according to former Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei. But that was a crudely constructed cover story to hide the real source of the documents. In fact, the German intelligence agency, BND got those documents from a member of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK, also known as MKO, NCRI and PMOI), the Iranian terrorist organization that had become a client of Israel. The MEK member was a sometime source for the agency, but senior BND officials regarded the source as “doubtful,” according to former senior German official Karsten Voigt, who told me the whole story of his November 2004 conversation with his BND contacts on the record a year ago.”

++ Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya writes for Global Research: The March to War: Fighting ISIL is a Smokescreen for US Mobilization against Syria, Iran. Extract: “Like Syria, Al-Malaki government’s cardinal sins were tied to blocking the pathway to Tehran. Firstly, the Iraqi government evicted the Pentagon from Iraq at the end of 2011, which removed US troops stationed directly on Iran’s western border. Secondly, the Iraqi federal government was working to expel anti-government Iranian militants from Iraq and to close Camp Ashraf, which could be used in a war or regime change operations against Iran. Ashraf was a base for the military wing of the Iraqi-based Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK/MOK/MKO). The MEK is an anti-government Iranian organization that is bent on regime change in Tehran. It has even openly endorsed US-led attacks on Iran and Syria.”

September 26, 2014

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The March to War: Fighting ISIL is a Smokescreen for US Mobilization against Syria, Iran

The ISIL or IS threat is a smokescreen. The strength of the ISIL has deliberately been inflated to get public support for the Pentagon and to justify the illegal bombing of Syria. It has also been used to justify the mobilization of what is looking more and more like a large-scale US-led military buildup in the Middle East. The firepower and military assets being committed go beyond what is needed for merely fighting the ISIL death squads.

While the US has assured its citizens and the world that troops will not be sent on the ground, this is very unlikely. In the first instance, it is unlikely because boots on the ground are needed to monitor and select targets. Moreover, Washington sees the campaign against the ISIL fighters as something that will take years. This is doublespeak. What is being described is a permanent military deployment or, in the case of Iraq, redeployment. This force could eventually morph into a broader assault force threatening Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.

US-Syrian and US-Iranian Security Dialogue?

Before the US-led bombings in Syria started there were unverified reports being circulated that Washington had started a dialogue with Damascus through Russian and Iraqi channels to discuss military coordination and the Pentagon bombing campaign in Syria. There was something very off though. Agents of confusion were at work in an attempt to legitimize the bombardment of the Syrian Arab Republic.

The claims of US-Syrian cooperation via Russian and Iraqi channels are part of a sinister series of misinformation and disinformation. Before the claims about US cooperation with Syria, similar claims were being made about US-Iranian cooperation in Iraq.

Earlier, Washington and the US media tried to give the impression that an agreement on military cooperation was made between itself and Tehran to fight ISIL and to cooperate inside Iraq. This was widely refuted in the harshest of words by numerous members of the Iranian political establishment and high-ranking Iranian military commanders as disinformation.

 After the Iranians clearly indicated that Washington’s claims were fiction, the US claimed that it would not be appropriate for Iran to join its anti-ISIL coalition. Iran rebutted. Washington was dishonestly misrepresenting the facts, because US officials had asked Tehran to join the anti-ISIL coalition several times.

Before he was discharged from the hospital after a prostate surgery, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the highest ranking official in Iran, told Iranian television on September 9, 2014, that the US had requested that Tehran and Washington cooperate together inside Iraq on three different occasions. He explained that the US ambassador to Iraq had relayed a message to the Iranian ambassador to Iraq to join the US, then, in his own words, «the same [John Kerry] — who had said in front of the camera and in front of the eyes of all the world that they do not want Iran to cooperate with them — requested [from] Dr. Zarif that Iran cooperate with them on this issue, but Dr. Zarif turned this [request] down.» The third request was made by US Undersecretary Wendy Sherman to Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Khamenei additionally made it clear that he categorically ruled out any cooperation with Washington on the issue. «On this issue, we will not cooperate with America particularly because their hands are dirty,» he publicly confirmed while explaining that Washington had ill intentions and nefarious designs in Iraq and Syria.

Like Russia, Iran has been supporting Syria and Iraq against ISIL. Also like Moscow, Tehran is committed to fighting it, but will not join Washington’s anti-ISIL coalition.

New Invasion(s) and Regime Change Project(s) in the Pipeline?

As was pointed out on June 20, 2014, in Washington’s eyes Nouri Al-Malaki’s federal government in Baghdad had to be removed for refusing to join the US siege against the Syrians, being aligned to Iran, selling oil to the Chinese, and buying weapons from the Russian Federation. Iraq’s decision to be part of an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline also undermined the objectives of the US and its allies to control the flow of energy in the Middle East and to obstruct Eurasian integration. [1]

 There were also two other unforgivable cardinal sins that Al-Malaki’s government in Baghdad committed in Washington’s eye. These offenses, however, should be put into geopolitical context first.

Remember the post-September 11, 2001 (post-9/11) catchphrase of the Bush II Administration during the start of its serial wars? It went like this: «Anyone can go to Baghdad, but real men go to Tehran!» The point of this warmongering catchphrase is that Baghdad and Damascus have been viewed as pathways for the Pentagon towards Tehran. [2]

Like Syria, Al-Malaki government’s cardinal sins were tied to blocking the pathway to Tehran. Firstly, the Iraqi government evicted the Pentagon from Iraq at the end of 2011, which removed US troops stationed directly on Iran’s western border. Secondly, the Iraqi federal government was working to expel anti-government Iranian militants from Iraq and to close Camp Ashraf, which could be used in a war or regime change operations against Iran.

Ashraf was a base for the military wing of the Iraqi-based Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK/MOK/MKO). The MEK is an anti-government Iranian organization that is bent on regime change in Tehran. It has even openly endorsed US-led attacks on Iran and Syria.

Although the US government itself considers the MEK a terrorist organization, Washington began to deepen its ties with the MEK when it and its staunch British allies invaded Iraq. Disingenuously and ironically, the US and Britain used Saddam Hussein’s support for the MEK to justify labeling Iraq as a state-sponsor of terrorism and to also justify the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Since then the US has been has been nurturing the MEK.

Since 2003, the US has been has been funding the MEK. Washington has been protecting the MEK, because it wants to keep them on a leash as either leverage against Tehran or to have the option of one day installing the MEK into power in Tehran as part of a regime change operation against Iran. The MEK has literally become incorporated into the Pentagon and CIA toolboxes against Tehran. Even when the US transferred control of Camp Ashraf to Baghdad, the Pentagon kept forces inside the MEK camp.

 Eventually the MEK forces would mostly be relocated in 2012 to the former US base known as Camp Liberty. Camp Liberty is now called by an Arabic name, Camp Hurriya.

The Istanbul bureau chief of the Christian Science Monitor, Scott Peterson described how US officials began to really put their weight behind the MEK during the start of the Arab Spring in 2011. This is tied to Washington’s regime change dreams. Peterson wrote that US officials «rarely mention the MEK’s violent and anti-American past, and portray the group not as terrorists but as freedom fighters with ‘values just like us,’ as democrats-in-waiting ready to serve as a vanguard of regime change in Iran.» [3]

Washington Has Not Abandoned Dreams of Regime Change in Tehran

Washington has not abandoned its dreams for regime change in Tehran. Is it a coincidence that the US and EU support for the MEK is increasing, especially when the ISIL threat in Iraq began to be noticed publicly?

 Six hundred parliamentarians and politicians from mostly NATO countries were flown in for a large MEK gathering in the Parisian northeastern suburb of Villepinte that called for regime change in Iran on June 27, 2014. Warmongers and morally bankrupt figures like former US senator Joseph Lieberman, Israeli mouthpiece and apologist Alan Dershowhitz, former Bush II official and Fox News pundit John Bolton, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and French former minister and United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNIMIK) chief Bernard Kouchner all met the MEK to promote regime change and war. According to the MEK, over 80, 000 people attended the regime change rally. Supporters of the insurgencies in Iraq and Syria were also present at the Villepinte gathering calling for regime change in Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

The irony is that the money for the event most probably came from the US government itself. US allies probably contributed too. This money has gone to the MEK’s lobbying initiatives with the US Congress and US Department of State, which in effect is recycling US funding. People like Rudy Giuliani — probably one of the most hated mayors in the history of New York City until he took advantage of the tragic events of 9/11 — are now effectively lobbyists for the MEK. «Many of these former high-ranking US officials — who represent the full political spectrum — have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK,» according to the Christian Science Monitor. [4]

Giuliani has been speaking at MEK events at least as far back as 2010. In 2011, he publicly pushed for regime change in Tehran and Damascus at a MEK gathering. «How about we follow an Arab Spring with a Persian Summer?» he rhetorically declared. [5] Giuliani’s next sentence revealed just how much of a scion of US foreign policy the initiative to support the MEK truly is: «We need regime change in Iran, more than we do in Egypt or Libya, and just as we need it in Syria.» [6]

Joseph Lieberman’s friend and fellow war advocate Senator John McCain was unable to make the trip to the Parisian suburb in Seine-Saint-Denis, but addressed the regime change gathering via video. Congressman Edward Royce, the chair of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, also showed his support for regime change in Iran through a video message. So did Senator Carl Levin and Senator Robert Menendez.

Large delegations from the US, France, Spain, Canada, and Albania were present. Aside from the aforementioned individuals, other notable American attendees to the June 27, 2014 event included the following:

1. Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the lower chamber (House of Representatives) in the bicameral US Congress;

2. John Dennis Hastert; another former speaker of the House of Representatives;

3. George William Casey Jr., who commanded the multinational military force that invaded and occupied Iraq;

4. Hugh Shelton, a computer software executive and former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff;

5. James Conway, the former chief of the US Marine Corps

6. Louis Freeh, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

7. Lloyd Poe, the US Representative who sits on (1) the US House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats and chairs (2) the US House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non‐proliferation and Trade;

8. Daniel Davis, a US Representative from Illinois;

9. Loretta Sánchez, a US Representative from California;

10. Michael B. Mukasey, a former attorney-general of the US;

11. Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont;

12. William Richardson, the former secretary of the US Department of Energy;

13. Robert Torricelli, a former legislator in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate senator who is the legally representative of the MEK in Iraq;

14. Francis Townsend, former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush Jr.;

15. Linda Chavez, a former chief White House director;

16. Robert Joseph, the former US undersecretary that ran the (1) Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, (2) the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, and the (3) Bureau of Political-Military Affairs;

17. Philip Crowley, the former assistant-secretary of state responsible for public affairs;

18. David Phillips, the military police commander who restructured the Iraqi police and was responsible for guarding Camp Ashraf and Saddam Hussein as a prisoner;

19. Marc Ginsberg, the senior vice-president of the public relations firm APCO Worldwide and former US ambassador and US presidential adviser for Middle East policy.

Like the US presence, the French presence included officials. Aside from Bernard Kouchner, from France some of the notable attendees were the following individuals:

1. Michèle Alliot-Marie, a French politician who among her cabinet portfolios was responsible for the military and foreign affairs at different times;

2. Rama Yade, vice president of the conservative Radical Party of France;

3. Gilbert Mitterrand, the president of the human rights foundation France Libertés, which has focused on ethnic groups such as Kurds, Chechens, and Tibetans;

4. Martin Vallton, the mayor of Villepinte.

From Spain the notable attendees were the following:

1. Pedro Agramunt Font de Mora, the Spanish chair of the European People’s Party (EPP) and its allies in the Council of Europe;

2. Jordi Xucla, the Spanish chair of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Group in the Council of Europe;

3. Alejo Vidal-Quadras, a Spanish politician and one of the fourteen vice-presidents of the European Union’s European Parliament;

4. José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the former prime minister of Spain (who was also visibly accompanied by his wife Sonsoles Espinosa Díaz).

Other notable attendees from other Euro-Atlantic countries included:

1. Pandli Majko, the former prime minster of Albania;

2. Kim Campbell, the former prime minister of Canada

3. Geir Haarde, the former prime minister of Iceland;

4. Ingrid Betancourt, a former Colombian senator;

5. Alexander Carile, a member of the British House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament

6. Giulio Maria Terzi, the former foreign minister of Italy;

7. Adrianus Melkert, a former Dutch cabinet minister, a former World Bank executive, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s former special envoy to Iraq.

Not only regime change was talked about, but the cross-border crisis in Iraq and Syria was a major subject. Fox News gave the event special coverage. Just in July, the MEK’s leadership had condemned Iranian support to the Iraqi federal government in its fight against the ISIL, yet since the US had began to nominally fight the ISIL the MEK has begun to hold its tongue.

Before the regime change gathering, the MEK’s leader Maryam Rajavi — who the MEK has designated as the president of Iran since 1993 — even meet with the puppet Syrian National Council’s leader Ahmed Jarba in Paris to discuss cooperation on May 23, 2014.

MEK leader Maryam Rajavi and SNC leader Ahmed Jarba meet to discuss cooperating for regime change in Tehran and Damascus.

Regime Change in Damascus through Mission Creep in Syria

The bombing campaign that the US has started in Syria is illegal and a violation of the UN Charter. This is why the Pentagon took the step of claiming that the US-led bombing campaign was prompted by the threat of an «imminent» attack that was being planned against the territory of the US. This allegation was made to give legal cover to the bombardment of Syrian territory through a warped argument under Article 51 of the UN Charter that allows a UN member to legally attack another country if an imminent attack by the said country is about to take place on the UN member.

 Barack Obama and the US government have done their best to confuse and blur reality through a series of different steps they have taken to claim legitimacy for violating international law by bombing Syria without the authorization of Damascus. Although US Ambassador Samantha Powers informed Syria’s permanent representative to the UN that US-led attacks would be launched on Al-Raqqa Governate, informing Bashar Al-Jaafari through a formal unilateral notification does not amount to being given the legal consent of Syria.

The US-led attacks on Syria do not have the backing of the UN Security Council either. The US government, however, has tried to spin the September 19, 2014, meeting of the UN Security Council that John Kerry chaired as a sign that the UN Security Council and international community are backing its bombing campaign.

Nor is it a coincidence that just when the US assembled its multinational coalition to fight the ISIL and its pseudo-caliphate, that John Kerry conveniently mentions that Syria has violated the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). While admitting that Syria did not use any material prohibited by the CWC, Kerry told US legislators that Damascus had breached its commitments to the CWC on September 18, 2014. In other words, Washington intends to go after Syria and pursue regime change in Damascus. If this does not make it clear, then the fact that the US will use Saudi Arabia to train more anti-government forces should. [7]

A US brinkmanship strategy to justify a US-led bombing campaign against Syria has been put into action with the intent of creating a pretext for expanding the illegal US-led airstrikes in Syria that started on September 22, 2014.

 What the US envisions is a long-term bombing campaign, which also threatens Lebanon and Iran. According to Ali Khamenei, the US wants to bomb both Iraq and Syria using ISIL as a smokescreen on the basis of the model in Pakistan. More correctly, the situation should be compared to the AfPak (Af-Pak) model. The US has used the spillover of instability from Afghanistan into Pakistan and the spread of the Taliban as a pretext for bombing Pakistan. Iraq and Syria have been merged as one conflict zone, which Ibrahim Al-Marashi, using a neologism, has described as the rise of «Syraq.»

The Broader Objective: Disrupting Eurasian Integration

While the US has been pretending to fight the same terrorist and death squads that it has created, the Chinese and their partners have been busy working to integrate Eurasia. America’s «Global War on Terror» has been paralleled with the rebuilding of the Silk Road. This is the real story and motivation for Washington’s insistence to fight and remobilize in the Middle East. It is also the reason why the US has been pushing Ukraine to confront Russia and the EU to sanction the Russian Federation.

America wants to disrupt the reemerging Silk Road and its expanding trade network. While Kerry has been busy frightening audiences about the ISIL and its atrocities, the Chinese have been busy sweeping the map by making deals across Asia and the Indian Ocean. This is part of the westward march of the Chinese dragon.

Parallel to Kerry’s travels, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Sri Lanka and went to the Maldives. Sri Lanka is already part of China’s Maritime Silk Road project. The Maldivians are newer entries; agreements have been reached to include the island-nation into the Maritime Silk Road network and infrastructure that China is busy constructing to expand maritime trade between East Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. Nor is it a coincidence that two Chinese destroyers docked at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas in the Persian Gulf to conduct joint drills with Iranian warships in the Persian Gulf.

Parallel to east-west trade, a north-south trade and transport network is being developed. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was in Kazakhstan recently where he and his Kazakhstani counterpart, President Nursultan Nazarbayev, confirmed that trade was due to see manifold increases. The completion of the Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran railway, which will create a north-south transit route, is being awaited. Cooperation between Tehran and the Eurasian Union was also discussed by the two presidents. On the other western side of the Caspian Sea, a parallel north-south corridor running from Russia to Iran through the Republic of Azerbaijan has been in the works.

The anti-Russia sanctions are beginning to cause uneasiness in the European Union. The real losers in the sanctions in Russia are the members of the European Union. Russia has demonstrated that it has options. Moscow has already launched the construction of its mega natural gas Yakutia–Khabarovsk–Vladivostok pipeline (also known as the Power of Siberia pipeline) to deliver gas to China while BRICS partner South Africa has signed a historic deal on nuclear energy with Rosatom.

Moscow’s influence on the world stage is very clear. Its influence has been on the rise in the Middle East and Latin America. Even in NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, Russian influence is on the rise. The Russian government has recently compiled a list of over one hundred old Soviet construction projects that it would like to recuperate.

An alternative to US and EU sanctions is beginning to emerge in Eurasia. Aside from the oil-for-goods deal that Tehran and Moscow signed, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak announced that Iran and Russia had made several new agreements worth seventy billion euro. Sanctions will soon merely isolate the US and the EU. The Iranians have also announced that they are working with their Chinese and Russian partners to overcome the US and EU sanctions regime.

America is being rolled back. It cannot pivot to the Asia-Pacific until matters are settled in the Middle East and Eastern Europe against the Russian, Iranians, Syrians, and their allies. That is why Washington is doing its best to disrupt, divide, redraw, bargain and co-opt. When it comes down to it, the US is not concerned about fighting the ISIL, which has been serving Washington’s interests in the Middle East. America’s main concern is about preserving its crumbling empire and preventing Eurasian integration.

Notes

[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «America pursuing regime change in Iraq again,» RT, June 20, 2014.

[2] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «The Syria Endgame: Strategic Stage in the Pentagon’s Covert War on Iran,» Global Research, January 07, 2013.

[3] Scott Peterson, «Iranian group’s big-money push to get off US terrorist list,» Christian Science Monitor, August 8, 2011.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Matt Spetalnick, Jeff Mason and Julia Edwards, «Saudi Arabia agrees to host training of moderate Syria rebels», Caren Bohan, Grant McCool, and Eric Walsh eds. Reuters, September 10, 2014.

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya,

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

America Must Make Its Underlying Intentions Toward Iran Clear

The 5+1 nuclear negotiations will resume in November. Although this is still some time away, analysts, policy writers and diplomats have been busy working to formulate an achievable diplomatic position which will bridge the gaps left at the end of the last session. Here in the UK, we think we know what our position must be. Iran must make concessions on the number of its centrifuges and in exchange sanctions will be lifted within a reasonable time scale. In this respect, the UK falls broadly in line with the American position. But with the opening of the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly next week, and the second visit to New York of Iran’s President Rohani, perhaps this is a good time for the UK to step back and consider exactly what that American position actually is. A side-meeting on September 18 in New York will test the waters on progress. Iran is not optimistic.

This time last year, western powers pinned great hopes on newly elected President Rohani after the painful and acrimonious Ahmadinejad years. President Obama’s unprecedented personal phone call to him was widely welcomed as a parting gesture of goodwill.

So, can we expect a similarly positive welcome this time around? In many ways, Iran has enjoyed a positive year on the world scene, most recently supporting Iraqi Shiite militia in ousting IS from parts of northern Iraq. Iran has also demonstrably complied with the demands on its nuclear program which were set at the end of the last round of negotiations.

But when Rohani arrives in New York this time there will certainly be no roses strewn across his path. America’s tone this time will be significantly different; if not overtly hostile, it is still, conspicuously chilly. Evidence for this comes not in words — the official America line is that diplomacy must be given a chance to succeed — but specific anti-Iran activity clearly demonstrate a truer U.S. position which still engenders ostracism and enmity rather than engagement and diplomacy.

Ratcheting up pressure on a country by raising concerns over human rights abuses is, of course, a standard diplomatic tool. Amnesty International has criticized Iran for weaknesses in the judicial process leading to the executions of a large number of criminals in recent months. But beyond this, Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, became highly critical of an American led campaign which exploited various conferences and forums to pick at the human rights issue like a scab, hoping that it would bleed enough to provoke Iran to respond in anger. Shaheed complained that such actions which deliberately involved him may have actually compromised his impartiality in the eyes of Iran and destroyed his efforts at confidence building to overcome non-cooperation.

But the main indication of bad faith on the American side came when, in spite of widespread warnings and criticism, Congress voted to impose even more sanctions on Iran in the gap between negotiating sessions without waiting for a proper assessment of Iranian compliance with its agreed obligations. Congress argued that since sanctions forced Iran to the negotiating table, this would add leverage to the U.S. position. But there was no evidence of this. Critics pointed out that Saddam Hussein’s regime survived for years under sanctions and only a disastrous war and occupation deposed him. Iran has been under American sanctions for 30 years. What did Congress hope to achieve by adding more? The only interpretation for many was that Congress acted deliberately to provoke Iran to walk away from the nuclear negotiating table.

Iran’s interpretation, which is just as valid as an American view, was that America can only engage in diplomatic relations if its intention is to make concessions as well as extract them from Iran. Iran sees no evidence of this. President Obama is unable to lift sanctions imposed by Congress and clearly a bellicose Congress will not vote to lift sanctions. Indeed one Iranian lawmaker characterized the fresh sanctions as “punishing Iran because Israel lost in Gaza” when Operation Protective Edge achieved none of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s self-imposed objectives.

Now that Iran and Russia have agreed to strengthen energy ties and are looking to create a payment system outside the hegemony of the U.S. dollar, America is slowly waking up to a shifting power balance, arguably of its own making, which signals increasing evasion of the U.S. sanctions regime by countries seeking the economic advantages attached to trading with Iran. Even apart from the problems of Ukraine, Russian and Chinese trade imperatives are unpicking the unity of the P5+1. Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice just traveled to China at his behest to strengthen relations. Germany and France are also weighing the potential economic losses and gains that are imposed on them by the sanctions regime, and may also drift further from the U.S., UK and the silent partner of both, Israel.

Iran has been under sanctions for 30 years but the economy is growing stronger. From a western perspective the Middle East is chaotic and is reaching crisis point with the advent of ISIL. But Iran now enjoys growing influence in the region through the exercise of soft power. Hamas leaders in Gaza are accepting a more political role and have agreed to work with Fatah to create a new Palestinian Authority. Hezbollah has successfully carved out a leading role in the government of Lebanon. This is where we see the hand of Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurdistan and Syria draw ever closer to Iran not only as a natural, but more importantly in the light of perceived American double-standards, as a reliable ally. Iran’s latest use of this influence was used to successfully help Iraqi Shiite militia oust ISIS from various locations in north Iraq. If America’s Iran policy was designed to weaken and isolate the country, it has failed.

Iran certainly feels itself in a much stronger position moving forward.

Ultimately, the real leverage behind a sanctions regime is that it stops short of, but still depends on the ability to follow through with the ultimate threat, war.

It is, however, now possible to state that if Israel, with or without the backing of the United States, could have launched a pre-emptive air strike to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, then it would have done so by now. The truth is, not only does Iran’s military capability render it a daunting foe, but its retaliatory capability would strike deep into American interests in the Middle East. In 2013, Iran successfully guided down an American drone which was then reverse engineered to create a home made version. Only in August, Iran claimed, controversially, that it had shot down an Israeli drone before it left Iranian airspace after it had been tracked flying near the Natanz nuclear power plant.

Also in August, Iran’s Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, announced that the supersonic Khalij-e Fars (Persian Gulf) ballistic missile has gone into production. Although Iran describes this as a defensive weapon, the Pentagon is reportedly concerned about Iran’s reach into the Persian Gulf where U.S. warships would be vulnerable.

The crisis in northern Iraq must prove a salutary lesson. That Iran can wield soft power in Iraq does not need stating, but that Iran is willing to work in military cooperation with America where they have mutual interests and benefits has been swept under the carpet by ideologues refusing to “give in” to the Iranians. Instead Senator Kerry is off to visit Jordan, whose own citizens threaten turmoil over recent events in Gaza, and Saudi Arabia, whose Wahhabi reach into Iraq amounts to at best an irritant to the majority of Shiites and Kurds, and at worst, amounts to support for IS. Excluding Iran and focusing on Syria only reinforces the perception that this will essentially be an anti-Iran coalition. But the price will be paid not by Iran but the weak Gulf states and western countries where the terrorists may turn next.

Acknowledging this doesn’t mean we have to like it and it certainly doesn’t mean that the west shouldn’t drive a hard bargain over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But it does mean that America needs to rethink its obdurate resistance to this new reality and accept that if it can’t wage war against Iran it will need to engage with the Islamic Republic as is, in the here and now. The days of war and regime change bluster have reached the end of the road.

What all this ultimately means is that when the P5+1 countries sit down together with Iran for the next round of nuclear negotiations, they will do so in a much weaker position, not only because of disunity, but because of what Iranians see as American duplicity. America can only engage honestly in diplomatic relations if its intentions are to make concessions as well as extract them from Iran. Iran sees that American diplomats still do not have a clear mandate to resolve the outstanding issues. Instead it appears more the case that the U.S. wants to try to force Iran to walk away first and claim a Pyrrhic victory.

Certainly the UK cannot formulate a negotiating policy in conjunction with the United States until America makes clear its underlying intentions toward Iran.

Huffington Post

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Ironically, only Iran can help America really take control of ISIS

President Obama’s short speech to the nation on September 10, addressed the urgent need to take action against the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL). The speech began with a description of ISIS and the danger it poses. Of course Obama used his own potent words to talk about ISIS, but the organisation which he described has the characteristics of a group that:

•Recruits by deception; pretends to embrace religious precepts but in reality pursues an extremist political ideology.

•Holds such simplistic and erroneous beliefs that it can only prevent its members from seeing through them by preventing them from thinking and therefore fills every minute of their day with activity, whether military training or peeling carrots or cleaning latrines.

•Indoctrinates recruits with thought stopping fears and certainties so as to create a stark, unassailable ‘us and them’ mentality, a sense of innate superiority which obliges followers to ruthlessly eliminate all enemies.

•Uses cruel, arbitrary punishments, extra-judicial killings, and example killings to warn against disobedience.

•Demonstrates its abilities through terrorising acts, then boldly advertises that it has killed tens of thousands of people.

•Has a leader who arrogates all rights and knowledge to himself, who dictates the sexual behaviour of his followers and has a hareem of women for his own use.

•A leader who dictates the minutiae of the followers’ lives and operates a strict hierarchy of control with obedience to his whims as the guiding principle for promotion or demotion.

•Is universally hated by ordinary people.

This, however, is not a description of ISIS, it is a description of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the exiled Iranian terrorist group. While ISIS claims to be Sunni, and the MEK claims to be Shiite, there are such significant similarities they can both be defined as destructive cults. The major distinguishing difference of course is the incomprehensible savagery of ISIS, which even the MEK never aspired to.

The MEK operates as a totalitistic, destructive mind control cult which harms its own members as much as its victims. Its past is littered with death and destruction; the MEK has publicly boasted of killing 12,000 during its terrorist campaign against Iran, and it also killed 25,000 Iraqis for Saddam Hussein during its 30 year sojourn in that country. But in spite of this history the MEK now has some high profile advocates in Washington. Some, like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Hillary Clinton, choose to ignore the unsavoury aspects of the group’s behaviour and embrace its vehemently anti-Iran stance instead.

This was only possible because the MEK were brought under control during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. The militant group were bombed, then disarmed and corralled into a single camp, effectively rendering it impotent as an armed force. The MEK’s means of surviving this was to focus on a new identity and present itself under the guise of a political opposition. Fronting Maryam Rajavi as a democratic, feminist leader the MEK used its apparently unlimited financial resources to court western policy makers with a vague promise of engineering regime change in Iran by acting as the vanguard of a counter revolution. The MEK’s advocates support it not because of its potential as a terrorist force or even because of its numbers which at present comprise fewer than a thousand loyal, active members. Instead, it is as a cult that it has value. The MEK’s ability to deceptively recruit and manipulate people into doing just about anything is its chief asset; an asset that could not be bombed out of them or confiscated along with their weapons. The fact too that MEK followers are not paid and are effectively enslaved, makes it even better value.

This is also why the IRI is still cautious of the group. Observers express themselves puzzled by the sensitivity shown by successive Iranian governments to this apparently toothless tiger. But Iran has a sophisticated understanding of the dangers posed by cultic terror groups born from experience. Iran also understands that simply waging war on such a group, fighting fire with fire, will not destroy it. Iran has been successful in reducing the MEK to nothing more than a lobbying group because its approach to the MEK is as a cult, not just a terrorist organisation. Inside Iran, a country wide attempt is made to educate against the dangers of such cults and controlling groups. It is their way of inoculating the population against deceptive recruitment.

There can be no doubt that ISIS at present is like a mad dog running wild. There can be no comparison between the old defunct MEK and the 30,000 young fanatics who are ISIS. It must be either destroyed completely or brought under control. Like the MEK, ISIS has made sophisticated use of the internet to create a massive cyber presence for itself, on its own terms, which then translates into mainstream media coverage becoming part of its recruiting tool. The immediate concern of western governments is that ISIS must be stopped because it poses a threat to their own populations as much as regional ones; a lesson bitterly taught by Al Qaida.

As a consequence, President Obama has gathered a coalition of forty countries willing to take on IS militarily. But, for all their bravado, the central, unspoken dilemma for all of them is that ISIS has the potential to do precisely what most of these coalition countries want – oust the Assad regime in Syria and push back Iranian influence in Iraq by strengthening the Sunni tribes in the north. This is why, behind the belligerent threats of bombing, the will to actually destroy the group completely is weak. This is why, instead of negotiating a tough pax with the Syrian government, America proposes to flout international law to launch illegal aerial bombing raids into that sovereign country.

In northern Iraq, Iran has shown itself as the US’s natural ally in any effort to contain ISIS. Iran is the one country with the greatest experience of dealing with this kind of cultic terrorist threat, and could perhaps help formulate a comprehensive plan to bring ISIS under control just as the MEK is now under control. Yet Iran remains the US’s greatest nemesis.

What is preventing cooperation on this vital issue is the continued enmity between America and Iran. But the stark fact is that an American policy of threats and sanctions have yielded nothing in the way of stopping or reducing Iran’s regional standing.

Realistically, if America and Israel together could have defeated Iran and forced the country to submit either through sanctions or war, then this would have happened by now. This has not and cannot now happen – not through pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, not through engineering civic riots and insurgency, and certainly not through proxy terrorist groups. But American policy toward Iran, based on what Gareth Porter describes as a manufactured crisis, has ensured that the US is incapable of acknowledging that after Israel, Iran is her natural strategic partner in the Middle East. This is not to say that America has to like the Islamic Republic of Iran, or to stop criticism of its policies or to not drive a hard bargain on nuclear issues. But to continue the hopeless pursuit of regime change at the expense of diplomatic engagement and potential cooperation is self-defeating to say the least.

Already as a result of this misconstrued policy, Iran will certainly enter the next round of nuclear negotiations significantly stronger, rather than weaker. American leverage will be practically null: America’s belligerence toward Russia over the Ukraine has severely, if not permanently, alienated the two countries; Congressional sanctions have forced both Russia and China to pursue separate trade deals with Iran; Germany and France are coolly weighing their economic losses against any political gains in continuing to follow America’s intransigent position toward Iran. Even the plucky, loyal little UK may keep at arms length an American negotiating team which has gone behind their backs before. Without lifting a finger itself, Iran will benefit from these fractures in the P5+1. On top of that, its popular (in the rest of the world), support for the Palestinian cause, its success in helping Iraqi Shia militia repel ISIS, and its principled insistence on Iran’s inalienable right under the terms of the NPT to a civic nuclear power program, will all lend the Iranian negotiators gravitas on the world stage. Perhaps the only option left is for the talks fail, for one side or the other to be forced to walk away from the table. In that case, everyone loses.

Clearly it is controversial to attempt even a neutral description of the Iranian position. To go further and suggest that the US needs to find a way to cooperate with Iran in order to find a way to curtail the horrors of ISIS, is perhaps beyond the pale for many. But when this overwhelming and self-defeating enmity prevents sound political analysis from understanding and acknowledging the real problem, and when this prevents the creation of real, effective solutions, then we need to question where American interests really lie, and who is prepared to serve them.

Iranian.com, About Anne Khodabandeh (Singleton):Middle East Strategy Consultants,

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts