Articles

US sponsored terrorism? Let’s hope not!

I think people should be very concerned about the following:

"A car loaded with explosives blew up near a bus carrying members of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards in southeastern Iran, killing 18 of them, the state-run news agency reported today.

The car stopped in front of the bus near Zahedan, the capital of Sistan-Baluchestan Province, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

It called the attack a terrorist operation and said the car’s occupants fled on motorbikes seconds before the car exploded.

"This blind terrorist operation led to the martyrdom of 18 citizens of Zahedan," IRNA quoted a Guards commander, Qasem Rezaei, as saying.

State-run television said the bus had been taking them to work when the attack took place. There was no immediate claim of responsibility but Rezaei blamed "insurgents and elements of insecurity" for the attack. Hossein Ali Shahriyari, a deputy representing Zahedan, told an open session of the parliament today that "insurgents and drug traffickers" were behind the attack.

Shahriyari called lawless regions in southwestern Pakistan a safe haven for Iranian insurgents and drug traffickers, and called on the government to take up the issue with Islamabad."

Why should we be concerned?

"The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.

One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being "run" in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.

One former counterintelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, describes the Pentagon as pushing MEK shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The drive to use the insurgent group was said to have been advanced by the Pentagon under the influence of the Vice President’s office and opposed by the State Department, National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.

-snip-

According to all three intelligence sources, military and

intelligence officials alike were alarmed that instead of securing a

known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of

terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world –

including US civilian and military casualties

– Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on

special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran

strike.

They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all," one intelligence source said."

and the below is just one example of a policy to support terrorists for use as proxy groups:

"Bomb blasts struck Iranian government buildings in the capital of an oil-rich border province, followed within hours by two other bombs in central Tehran, killing nine people, days before presidential elections."

I believed that the attacks by MEK had been halted in March of last year. If this attack is shown to be tied to MEK terrorists or any other "group" we are funding, arming, and training in the region, then the US will be implicated – even if we had nothing to do with the bombing directly.

Let’s use Al Qaeda and the US as an example to illustrate how the MEK-US relationship might look to Iranians:

Imagine that this morning you woke up to find that 18 US national guardsmen were assassinated on US soil via a car bomb on their way to a work facility. Now imagine that it was determined that Al Qaeda was behind the attack and that Syrian government officials were behind the funding, training, and harboring of this Al Qaeda cell. How would you react? Would you not see this as a declaration of war against our country? How then would this look to Iranian citizens if it turns out MEK or any other organization being run by Israel and the US is behind this attack?

We can only hope that the US backed groups had nothing to do with this bombing, but I fear given what we already know, the case against us is looking very strong.

Larisa Alexandrovna, February 16, 2007

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/us-sponsored-terrorism-l_b_41191.html

February 19, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO: Shameless Mercenary Force

Months after baseless claims were expressed on Iran’s interference in Iraq, US military officials presented loose evidence, which included a number of photos of weapons and ammunition; meanwhile it was made clear that the evidence was fake and that the dates on the ammo had nothing to do with Iran’s ammunition factories.

It’s apparent that presenting such documents is only aimed at boosting the claims of warmongers, who try to accuse Iran of interference in Iraq. The final purpose of such people is to pave the way for military invasion against Iran.

However, the world is now aware- due to the exposure of US’s deceptions in Iraq- and understands that such lies are aimed at serving warmongers’ ambitions and come only from those who seek a war with Iran.

Members of Congress and many other US politicians represent their people in criticizing such lies and reveal their real nature to the public opinion.

Meanwhile, the remnants of bankrupt gang of Rajavi have recently turned into the mouthpiece of warmongers, working in the favor of their interests.

After Pentagon lies against Iran were exposed, Alireza Jafarzadeh, member and spokesman of MKO in the US, came to the scene and claimed that "advanced bombs that kill Iraqis have been made in Sattari Industries, which is controlled by Revolutionary Guards Corps, and transferred to Qods Force. These bombs are then smuggled into Iraqi through 3 border points, including Mehran."

So, this is exactly what a US spy had said to Germany’s "Monitor: "MKO’s assigned with the things CIA is ashamed of doing".

When the Pentagon agents wanted to present their fake evidence they didn’t show their faces, but the MKO publishes lies and fake documents without any shame.

Irandidban – 2007/02/17

February 19, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO-Baathists Alliance

Three years after evident interferences of terrorist cult of Rajavi in Iraq’s affairs- with the assistance of Baath remnants- it has now become clear that this alliance has been influential in Iraq’s unrest. Meanwhile, Iraqi elites warn about the plans of the cult of Rajavi and its supporters, who are seeking a religious and ethnic crisis in Iraq.

Hassan Al-Alavi, Iraqi researcher and elite, in an interview with Al-Hurra TV channel, pointed to the Baathists’ use of MKO and said: "Why do the sunnis, who are against Iraqi Shiites, go and ally with the Iranian MKO. This is a political war and it’s not based on religious vision or ideological principles. In this conflict, each side uses its tools to blow the other side."

Abbas Al-Yasseri, author and analyst, criticized some Sunni MPs’ use of terrorist group of Rajavi and said: "Some people use the MKO, which is a terrorist organization and is known for its role in the previous regime. This group has now central role in plotting against Iraqis and in religious differences. Some TV channels and failed newspapers help this organization. It holds conferences and interferes in Iraq’s internal affairs. What’s surprising is that some MPs take part in the conferences of this terrorist group in Brussels and Paris. One of them, who is the leader of a Parliament’s fraction, said they had common goals and principles with the MKO. I think this person is putting himself in the corner of the ring when he forgets, or pretends that he’s forgetting, that the MKO has been designated by the EU and many other countries of the world as a terrorist group. In this way, he is making alliance with terroristsâ€¦."

Also, Sheikh Sabah Al-Saedi, Member of Parliament from Coalition List asked for the removal of Mohammed Dayinee’s immunity. Saedi said: "Following Dayinee’s comments and his support for armed group, a number of MPs have asked the parliament to review this proposal. These comments and his position will lead to terrorism investigation."

The revelations on extremists who use the MKO as a leverage has increased to the point that news wires announced that coalition forces have asked international police to arrest Mashan Jaboori. "Coalition forces issues arrest warrant for him, citing his TV channel’s support for terrorist groups".*

—————————————————-

* All reports quoted from IranLiberty website

Irandidban – 2007/02/17

February 19, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MKO, Sectarian Terrorist Organization

The presence of Iranian opposition group, Mojahedin-e Khalq, has had negative consequences for Iraqis.

This organization was used as a sectarian group against Iraqis and Saddam Hussein turned them into a suppression force against Iraqi people. In 1991, we witnessed the role of this organization in Shaabanieh uprising against the Kurds. The elements of this group are known for their brutality. In 1991, during the assassination of senior religious leader Seyed Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr, they were used again as a suppression tool.

The MKO has been designated as a terrorist organization and the stances of the US and Europe on this group are similar. As it served the goals and interests of Saddam’s regime in the past, it is now acting to deepen tribal differences. Some Imperialist forces have tied their hopes to this terrorist group and even use this organization against Shiites of Iraq and Iran; they use it for illegal operations.

This group has an active role in destabilizing the security and supporting terrorists. For instance, we can discuss the status of Dyala province. this organization is playing a role in Iraq’s instability and it has conducted many crimes against Iranians. Even, tribal leaders and sheikhs in Dyala can’t stand this group anymore. What should be dealt with carefully is the plan they’re trying to achieve in Iraq: sectarianism and plotting against Iraqis. For example, the group held a conference under the name of supporting Iraqi Sunnis with coordination of European representatives, but the European sides didn’t take part in the conference.

While the Iraqi government tries to destroy paramilitary and armed groups in order to secure the country and apply the law, the presence of a foreign armed militia in Iraq, which has military teams and plots against Iraqis, is a threat to our nation.

The comments of Mr. Ali Al-Dabbagh, Iraqi government spokesperson, on the threats of this organization and the decision of the government to expel this group show that the government is well aware of the dire consequences of the presence of this terrorist group in Iraq and that they are determined to establish security for Iraqis.

The response of NCRI to the comments of Mr. Dabbagh is funny and sarcastic. This response includes illogical sentences:

"The legitimacy of MKO’s presence comes out of Geneva Convention"!

We answer: "Which law legitimizes the interferences of a terrorist group in our internal affairs? Which law opens their hands to erase our national figures and which law allows them to kill our children?"

Iraqi government should discuss the case of this organization and expose the crimes they did against the Iraqis so that world public opinion is aware. It should also do its best to expel the group from Iraq. Iraqi parliament should take this case and decide about it. If we ask our neighbors, including Iran, not to interfere in our internal affairs, we should first expel this organization since its presence in Iraq is interference in Iranian affairs.

The presence of this organization in Iraq is against all laws and regulations and also against the national interests of Iraqis.

Abdulkarim al-Mohammadavi

February 19, 2007 0 comment

Maryam Rajavi

Maryam Rajavi’s A Widow!?

Economist has always had a lot of information. This week’s Economist has an article, "Fund and Find Your Opposition", in which the author speculates the death of Massoud Rajavi and that Maryam Rajavi has become a widow!

The article has a critical view on Condi Rice’s request for allocating 75 million dollars to finding an opposition desirable for the US.

The article goes as follows:

So America’s challenge now is to find suitable NGOs, trade unions, human-rights groups and students to receive the $20m they have been allocated. (The other $55m will help disseminate Persian-language broadcasts and propaganda on the internet.) Iran’s internal opposition lacks a Nelson Mandela; Iranians in the diaspora (1m in the United States) cannot even boast of an Ahmed Chalabi, the neo-conservatives’ failed favourite to run Iraq…

Even supposing the promise of cash moves the diaspora to unite, the credibility of its leading lights is low. Though he has astutely backed calls for a referendum on a political system to replace the Islamic Republic, Reza Pahlavi, the personable but reputedly unambitious son of the last shah, is little spoken of in Iran."

As for the MKO, the article says:

"As for the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), which sided with Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran in the 1980s and is officially considered a terrorist organisation by the United States and the European Union, it is widely despised by Iranians back home, millions of whom lost relatives in that war. The group fosters a cult of personality around Maryam Rajavi, wife (probably widow) of its long-time leader. There is growing support in the United States and Europe for removing the terrorist label attached to the PMOI, which is widely credited with having exposed several of the nuclear-research facilities the Iranian government had kept secret for many years. But that may not endear it to people in Iran either."

"Probably widow", this is what raises questions. Why? Does the Economist have secret reports, or is only based on rumors due to the long absence of Massoud Rajavi?

If the latter case is true, those who create rumors and those who extend the cult of personality and its ambiguities should be blamed equally. If the former case is true and the report is based on intelligence, then why are they creating ambiguity?

Anyway, we should wait for MKO’s response.

Irandidban’s analysis on Economist article – 2007/02/18

February 19, 2007 0 comment

USA

On Cheney, Rumsfeld order

On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say

The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.

One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.

“The MEK is run by a husband and wife team who were given bases in northern Baghdad by Saddam,” the intelligence official told RAW STORY. “The US army secured a key MEK facility 60 miles northwest of Baghdad shortly after the 2003 invasion, but they did not secure the MEK and let them basically be because [then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz was thinking ahead to Iran.”

Another former intelligence official added that the US military had detained as many as 3,500 members of MEK at Iraq’s Camp Ashraf since the start of the war, including the highest level ranking MEK leaders. Ashraf is about 60 miles west of the Iranian border.

This intelligence official, wishing to remain anonymous, confirmed the policy tensions and also described them as most departments on one side and the Pentegon on the other.

“We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization.

“These guys are nuts,” this intelligence source said. “Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.”

Stephen Cambone is the Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence. His office did not return calls for comment.

According to all three intelligence sources, military and intelligence officials alike were alarmed that instead of securing a known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world – including US civilian and military casualties – Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran strike.

“They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” one intelligence source said.

Indeed, Saddam Hussein himself had used the MEK for acts of terror against non-Sunni Muslims and had assigned domestic security detail to the MEK as a way of policing dissent among his own people. It was under the guidance of MEK ‘policing’ that Iraqi citizens who were not Sunni were routinely tortured, attacked and arrested.

Although the specifics of what the MEK is being used for remain unclear, a UN official close to the Security Council explained that the newly renamed MEK soldiers are being run instead of military advance teams, committing acts of violence in hopes of staging an insurgency of the Iranian Sunni population.

“We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY.

Asked how long the MEK agents have been active in the region under the guidance of the US military civilian leadership, the UN official explained that the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year and included unmanned drones run jointly by several agencies.

In a stunning repeat of pre-war Iraq activities, the Bush administration continues to publicly call for action and pursue diplomatic solutions to allegations that Iran is bomb-ready. Behind the scenes, however, the administration is already well underway and engaged in ground operations in Iran.

The British, however, are less enthused about a strike in Iran. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has called an American strike on Iran “inconceivable,” while Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he’s keeping all his options open. Asked about the MEK, a senior British intelligence official said that the Brits are not yet sure of what the situation on Iran’s southern border is, but vehemently condemned any joint activity with the terrorist organization.

“We don’t know who precisely is carrying out those attacks in the south but we believe it is MEK,” the British official said.

When asked if the US military is running the MEK, the source was careful to indicate that while there is a US unit in Iran gathering information, it’s difficult to say if they are in any way involved with MEK.

“The people who are inside Iran are from a US Special mission unit,” the source explained. “They are called by codenames, but would not be involved in the bomb blasts. They want to get in, get the intelligence and go out with anyone knowing they have been there. But the bomb blasts might be diversions away from the operations by this US special mission unit. The British are definitely not involved in any of this.”

Moreover, the British official expressed that any operations with MEK would violate their own military code and would absolutely not be tolerated.

“We have very strict rules and can’t go consorting with terrorists," the official added. "We did it in Northern Ireland. No more.”

April 13, 2006

February 19, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

So Discredited A Ruling

"When the European court issued a ruling on this case, the MKO was on the terrorist list of the EU and the court, of course, complained that enough reasons for designating the group. However, the legal obstacles are being resolved now in order to keep this group on the list," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said on the issue of lifting restrictions of MKO properties.

He added that, "We agree that the group should remain on the list. There was a legal problem which is being dealt with and the group will remain on the terrorist list".

Following these comments on the terrorist gang of Rajavi, the remnants of the cult issued a statement and said:

1. This position ignores the ruling of the court in whole and mocks the ruling of law, which is the backbone of democracy.

2. Illegal insistence on keeping the MKO on terror list is a gift to the mullahs’ regime that’s trying to disrupt the process of the court. This is another aspect of the policy of compromising with mullahs, which will advance to the point where religious fascists get to one or two nuclear bombs.

3. The stance of French Foreign Ministry indicates that it has decided, in contradiction with the decision of the court, to put the MKO on the list of terrorist organization without giving a chance of fair hearing to the MKO.*

In the 1st article of this statement, Mojahedin-e Khalq, admitting how discredited the ruling of First Instance Court is, tries to resort to the ruling as a strong and credible one while it has been proved that the ruling has neither led to the MKO’s exit from terror list nor to the lifting of bans on its properties.

In the 2nd article that is inspired by the deceiving policies of Rajavi, the MKO tries to link itself to the issue of Iran and its nuclear program and convince the public opinion that the West has no way except choosing between the MKO and Iran.

Given this, it should be said that Western politicians are familiar with MKO’s tactics and won’t allow them to use opportunities.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that the MKO won’t be used as a means against Iran but it indicates that there’s a good understanding of MKO’s position in Iran’s political scene. As the Western officials have repeatedly declared, there’s no need for this group to be taken off the terror list….

More importantly and regarding what has been said in the 3rd article, Mojahedin who have been in European countries for 25 years and claim of having ties with senior officials, journalists, Parliamentarians and …are now asking for a fair hearing!

This only means that all claims by the criminal gang of Rajavi have been invalid and discredited so that after 25 years they are seeking fair hearing.

Irandidban – 2007/02/13

February 15, 2007 0 comment

The Ideology of the MEK

February 8, A New Phase to Encounter People

A notable date in Mojahedin Khalq’s history is 20 June 1981 which marks a turning point in developing a good understanding of the group’s ideological, political and strategic nature that build the fundamental premise of its challenge with the Islamic Republic. The importance of the chapter lies in the fact that in spite of Rajavi’s insistence to justify his decision, declaring armed struggle, as a strategic and well calculated move, Mojahedin not only suffered an overall loss of organizational competency, but also generated a temporal hurdle in Iran’s prime leap towards democracy.

It cost Mojahedin a big price to come to believe that it was actually impossible to overthrow the created Islamic system in a short-run process as the group had anticipated. Successive blows over the body of the organization both was leading it to the precipice of a complete termination and challenging the adopted strategy of establishing a phase of armed struggle. Hardly could Mojahedin give an explicit explanation of the factors evolving so challenging a decision, a fact that has remained unanswered to the time. However, now nearly three decades after the initiation of the phase, Mojahedin admit that it was not a sound decision and consider it as a barren move. Bijan Nyabati, a left member of NCRI, talking on the move as unproductive states:

The strategy of developing a national-wide armed move came to be nothing but undermining the position of a great social movement to that of a limited militia struggle with no perspective.*

It has also come to be the cause of a widespread disagreement among the insiders and the detachments of many as well as fostering dispute with other active oppositions.

The crushing blows the organization received during the early months following the armed move phase made irreparable cracks in its structure. Among all the blows struck, the 8 February blow was one of the most crushing ones. Talking on the strategic importance of the event, Bijan Nyabati says:

Martyrdom of the commander [Musa Khyabani] was the first strategic blow over the armed resistance. From that point on, the regime took an offensive posture while Mojahedin maintained a defensive shelter.

The killing of nearly 20 team-commanders of Mojahedin including Musa Khyabani and Ashraf Rabiee after Rajavi’s escape to France brought Mojahedin’s blind assassinations into a sudden halt. Regardless of the force loss, the operation teams inside Iran suffered a great trauma and lost a big portion of their operational potentialities. On the other hand, the tactic of urban guerilla warfare as the leading axis of the armed struggle move was facing a challenge:

And finally, the blow that bereaved Mojahedin, and not only them, for ever was that strategic one struck on 8 February 1982 that put an end to the accuracy of urban guerilla warfare!

Nyabaty refers to the event as a dead-end to the armed strategy that proves to have initially been a foul and which was followed by other received strikes. He explains:

The last blow struck on Mojahedin on the first August 1982 was merely military. Martyrdom of the commander Syavash Seifi characterizes the blow to be a military strike. Thus, the urban guerilla warfare that had faced a dead-end on 8 February 1982, reaches its climax.

The 8 February incident makes Mojahedin desperately withdraw its ranking commanders from Iran to plan a new tactic:

To break the dead-end, Mojahedin, for the moment stressing on the armed struggle policy, adopt a fundamentally tactical change. By withdrawing the remnants of its commanders and ranks out of the soil dominated by the enemy, the tactic of conduct from the outside is adopted.

The aim was to reorganize the commanders to retaliate the 8 February strike. There is an exception; the armed operation mainly aimed at the regime’s authorities shifts to target civil elements alleged to be the regime’s agents.

Massoud Rajavi, besides reviewing various strategic lines, insists on a widespread armed struggle with the difference that, from a tactical point, the aim shifts from the authoritative elements to the believed agents among the people. That is to say, to cut off the finger-points of the suppression in the society in a new turn of tactic. It was a hallmark in the sense of being an easy target for the operation teams.

The result of this turn of tactic was tragic and it is estimated that more than ten thousand civilians were the victims of Mojahedin’s atrocious blind terrorist operations and bombings.

Although a shattering blow, the 8 February strike opened Mojahedin’s eyes on the truth that the people, caught in Mojahedin’s propelled atmosphere of disorder and terror, not only despised them but also confronted them. Mojahedin attempted to trouble the society and inject terror to paralyze the security system of the regime so as to continue the line of assassinating the key authorities with the assistance of their infiltrated agents. But, seeing people in the front of the regime, Mojahedin shifted to target the “finger-points”, a Mojahedin idiomatic expression meaning ordinary people. Besides being easy targets, people could at least lose the trust in the regime and react in the way Mojahedin could take advantage of. These are the reasons that before approval of the ruling system’s legitimacy, advocates Mojahedin’s deprivation of a sound theoretic and political insight to develop a realistic analysis of social context.

The adopted tactic of conducting urban guerilla warfare in exile means that Mojahedin are convinced that people have to be disregarded in their campaign calculations. People were replaced by other supporting apparatus like Iraq that provided them with all forms of geographical, political, military, and financial backings. Consequently, a new transformation was evolved and a new definition of friends and enemies developed.

*All quotes are extracts from Bijan Nyabati’s “A distinct look at Mojahedin’s internal revolution”

Bahar Irani – February 13, 2007

February 15, 2007 0 comment

Iraq

Adnan, Al-Alyan and Alaani Cry for MKO!

What forced me to write this were the cries of Adnan, Al-Alyan and Alaani for the MKO in Brussels.

First, this double behavior these people are following will have nothing except destruction of Iraq and Iraqis, including Shiites and Sunnis, and only helps their personal interests. As everyone knows, the MKO is an Iranian organization and besides, it has been categorized as a terrorist group. Now, what’s the mystery of relations of Adnan, Al-Alyan, Zafer and Al-Zari with this organization that they cry for it and claim of Iran’s interference in Iraq through Shiite militia? Why do they claim that Shiites are Safawis not Iraqis? Why do they cry for the elements of MKO while they’re in fact very Safawis in Iraq?

Is there anything except the fact that these remnants want to destroy Iraq with every possible means? They would do it even if they have to sell Iraq and Iraqis with the cheapest price and set fire to the public in order to revenge for their former master. These people tried to sell Iraq in their deals with Israelis, the US and some neighboring countries. Their last card could be the MKO. This would be their losing card not winning card but they consider it a boost to their sick bodies.

What’s the reason for these people, who are of Iraqi Sunnis, to cry for the MKO. This group includes people who plot for killing and beheading Iraqis.

Our government should always be vigilant about the dangers of MKO criminals, who were used by Saddam Hussein in killing our Kurd brothers during 1991 uprising. These traitors were armed to the teeth, used modern weapons, had enough experience to run the war, agents of Estekhbarat monitored their training and their weapons and their ties with the former regime was complex and strong; I’m sure that they already have cooperation with terrorist groups in Iraq. They’re being supported by the people who call themselves”the enemies of Safawis”.

This group should be dealt with cautiously. It should be noted that if their weapons were transferred to terrorists like Dulaimi and Zari, a disaster would happen to Iraq and Shiites in particular.

Nabil Al-Basari/Sautaliraq,

February 15, 2007 0 comment

USA

How Not to Handle the Facts

How Not to Handle the Facts: Max Boot’s Pretzel Logic on Iran

Editor’s note: Los Angeles Times columnist Max Boot argued in an Oct. 25 column, “How to Handle Iran,” that America should aim to topple the Iranian government with cash infusions to guerrilla groups and, perhaps, with American military force. Boot is considered by many to be the “respectable” face of neo-conservatism. A senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and former editorial editor for The Wall Street Journal, he nimbly straddles the mainstream and neocon universes.

There are so many things wrong with Max Boot’s Los Angeles Times column, “How to Handle Iran,” one hardly knows where to begin.

But these “soft” measures aren’t the real deal anyway as far as Boot is concerned, as his column eventually makes clear. Washington needs to consider the option, he writes, “of going beyond peaceful measures to foment change.” Though ruling out an outright invasion, he advocates doing “to Iran what the Iranians are doing to us in Iraq,” that is, “funneling weapons and money to militias that are killing our soldiers.” Among the militias to which he advocates funneling weapons and money is the Mujahedin Khalq (MEK), an outfit Boot himself calls a “leftist political cult.” “Leftist” is euphemistic: The MEK is in fact a Stalinist political cult.

Boot mentions that the MEK “mounted attacks on Iran in the 1980s and 1990s from bases in Iraq,” but conveniently fails to mention that it was funded, supported and given cover throughout that period by Saddam Hussein himself. He also fails to mention that this group is on the State Department’s official list of terrorist organizations. (Several of Boot’s fellow neoconservatives have been campaigning for the MEK to be removed from that list, thus far unsuccessfully.)

It appears not to have occurred to Boot, or to the Mujahedin Khalq’s other conservative supporters, to find out what Iran’s human rights activists and democratic dissidents think of this “cult.” Not surprisingly, the MEK is held in near-universal disdain by those dissidents, precisely because it is a cult, a terrorist body and Stalinist in ideology—that is, undemocratic to the core. Either this contradiction hasn’t occurred to Boot or, worse, it simply doesn’t matter to him.

Likewise with what Boot calls “the only serious option left” when all is said and done: airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. What does Boot make of the fact that, without exception, every human rights activist and democratic dissident in Iran is categorically opposed to U.S. airstrikes on their country? Does this “inconvenient” fact simply not factor into Boot’s equation, or is it something that must be pushed aside in his calculus?

Whichever the case, Boot can’t have it both ways. Either he fancies himself a supporter of Iran’s democratic dissidents, in which case he has to confront the gaping discrepancies between his positions and theirs (on military strikes, on the MEK, on U.S. funding and on other issues), or he should drop the pretense of representing the views of Iran’s dissidents and frame his position in more honest terms.

As it turns out, Iran’s democratic dissidents have already solved this question for us, by making it clear that they want nothing to do with Boot’s neoconservative agenda. Boot and his fellow travelers would be well served to think through the implications of that fact.

Oct 31, 2006 – Truthdig -By Danny Postel and Nader Hashemi

[Danny Postel is senior editor of openDemocracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp) and the author of the forthcoming “Reading ‘Legitimation Crisis’ in Tehran: Iran and the Future of Liberalism” (Prickly Paradigm Press, December). Nader Hashemi is an Andrew W. Mellon postdoctoral fellow in the department of political science at Northwestern University and the author of a forthcoming book on Iran and democracy.]

February 14, 2007 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts