Page 174 – Nejat Society

MEK Overt and Covert Server of US Interests

For those who have been involved with the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/ MEK/ PMOI/ Cult of Rajavi) or have studied its background from the early days of its foundation, it is clear that the group was founded as an anti-Imperialist movement against the Shah of Iran, in the 1960s.
“Anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-American, MEK fighters killed scores of the Shah’s police in often suicidal street battles during the 1970s”, wrote Arron Merat in the Guardian.

“The group targeted US-owned hotels, airlines and oil companies, and was responsible for the deaths of six Americans in Iran.”Death to America by blood and bonfire on the lips of every Muslim is the cry of the Iranian people,”went one of its most famous songs.”May America be annihilated.”

However, a U Turn in the MEK’s policies took place just after the fall of the group’s main logistical and financial sponsor, Saddam Hussein in 2003. Having found themselves helpless and desperate, the group leaders tried to find new sponsors. The sponsors were naturally supposed to be chosen among the enemies of Iranians. Definitely, the US was the most hostile state against the Iranian government and eventually the most potential sponsor for the MEK.

In order to gain the support of the US government the MEK leaders had to serve it in any way possible. Their services included bribe, spying and operational activities as of a proxy force and any other service that a mercenary force may offer.
The MEK’s evident role in spying on Iranian nuclear facilities, in the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists and other cross boarder operations inside Iran, which were revealed by numerous journalists and analysts, bring them to similar assumptions about any violent act against Iranians.
Max Perry of the Dissident Voice has also the matching analysis about the downing of the Ukranian plane. His theory compares the MEK with a Dominican Republic-based Cuban exile terrorist organization that associated with the US intelligence in the bombing of Cuban Airlines Flight 455 in 1976 which killed all 73 passengers and crew on board. This was part of the Operation Northwood of which”the planners concluded that such deceptive operations would shift U.S. public opinion unanimously against Cuba”.

https://dlb.nejatngo.org/Media/Interview/IMPAKT_Mohammadi_201807_p1.mp4

“It was also entirely plausible that U.S. special operations planners could have consulted the Northwoods playbook replacing Cuba with Iran and the right-wing gusanos who were to assist the staged attacks in Miami with the Iranian opposition group known as Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK/People’s Mujahedin of Iran) to do the same in Tehran.,”writes Max Perry.”In July of last year, Trump’s personal lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani gave a paid speech at the cult-like group’s compound in Albania where he not only referred to the group as Iran’s”government-in-exile”but stated the U.S’s explicit intentions to use them for regime change in Iran. The MEK enjoys high level contacts in the Trump administration and the group was elated at his decision to murder Soleimani in Baghdad.”

“That the U.S. is still cozy with”former”terror groups like MEK seeking to repatriate is good reason to believe its use of militant exiles for covert operations like those from Havana has not been retired. If there were jumps to conclusions that proven serial liars could be looking for an excuse to stage an attack to lay the blame on Iran, it is only because the distinct probability was overwhelming.”Perry concludes.

Whether Perry’s hypothesis is correct or not, warmongers in the US government seems to be insolent enough to themselves to enjoy the services of a formerly terrorist designated group like the MEK. While the State Department ordered employees a few days after the assassination of General Soleimani not to meet with Iranian opposition groups including the MEK, it override the memo a few days later. The overt endorsement of MEK terrorists was covered by the Daily Beast.
“At whiplash speed, the State Department is walking back an order barring American diplomats from meeting with controversial Iranian dissident groups—including one close with Trump World allies and previously designated as a terror group, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK),”reported the Daily Beast.”The initial memo, greenlit by a career State Department employee, angered Congressional Iran hawks. And the Department’s move to change its guidance has drawn cheers from them.”
The new directive of secretary Pompeo seeks to preserve the MEK as its spying and operational tool.”While the new memo did not mention MEK or the other groups, it said diplomats should simply”use good judgement when receiving invitations or meeting with opposition groups”and should raise questions and concerns with senior State officials––an apparent revocation of the order that they only take such meetings with Foggy Bottom’s explicit approval.”
Nevertheless, the covert and overt cooperation between the terrorist cult of the MEK and the US do not seem to be productive in the US policies towards Iran. Alexander B. Downes’s analysis on the options US may choose to topple the Iranian government in the Washington Post, clarifies that”Cooperation with local opposition groups”such as the MEK”is not a feasible option”.
Particularly about the MEK he writes,”The leading dissident organization, the Albania-based Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), has no presence in Iran, not to mention a highly dubious past.”

By Mazda Parsi

January 25, 2020 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Hillary de-listed the MEK, to exploit it in US-led destabilization

On January 3, 2020, the plane of Qasem Soleimani, major general of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and commander of its elite Quds Force, arrived at Baghdad International Airport. At the same time, the US MQ-9 Reaper, a prime assassination drone, was loitering in the area with other military aircraft.

At the Airport, Soleimani left with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Iran-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces. As they entered two vehicles, the convoy headed toward downtown Baghdad. At 1 am local time, the Reaper launched several missiles on Baghdad Airport Road. The two cars exploded in flames killing some 10 people, including Soleimani and al-Muhandis.

After the devastation, whatever was left of Soleimani could be identified only by his ring. Ironically, several perished Iranian and pro-Iranian commanders had been instrumental in the defeat of the Islamic State.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Washington had made an “intelligence-based assessment” that Soleimani was “actively planning in the region” to attack US interests. In turn, President Donald Trump declared Soleimani was behind “imminent attacks” on US diplomatic facilities and personnel across the Middle East.

That’s the official story.
Undermining de-escalation

Afterwards, Trump’s team got caught offering mixed messages about Iran’s “imminent” attacks as a justification for Soleimani assassination. National security adviser Robert O’Brien says Trump authorized eliminating Soleimani who cooperated with his allies “to kill American diplomats and soldiers in significant numbers.” Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper claims there was “exquisite intelligence” indicating Soleimani was “conducting preparing military operations” akin to “terrorist activities” against the US. In turn, Pompeo seized Iran’s past behavior as justification.

None of these reasons, which stress attributed intentions rather than hard evidence, seem credible in the light of Iran’s efforts at multilateral diplomacy, its challenging economic conditions and the behind-the-façade attempt at de-escalation with Saudi Arabia. However, the mixed messages do reflect a longstanding US effort to justify “permanent war” in the Middle East and certain other hot spots. The House resolution to limit Trump’s war powers against Iran is a move in the right direction but it can neither reverse the past policy mistakes nor halt the current escalation.

In the subsequent TV address, Trump delivered his Orwellian soundbite. “We took action last night to stop a war… We did not take action to start a war.” And yet, several US planes were taking off from bases in the eastern United States toward the Middle East as Pentagon sent 3,500 members of the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the largest deployments in decades.

Amid mega rallies for Soleimani and Iraqi parliament calling for the expulsion of US troops from the country, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei spoke about the impending “retaliation.” Trump warned Tehran that any retaliation would result in US targeting 52 Iranian significant sites, including cultural sites. The allusion was to the number of American hostages during the Iran hostage crisis some 40 years ago.

Then came the bomb shell. Two days after the assassination, Iraq’s Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi addressed his country’s parliament suggesting that Soleimani was on a peace mission. According to Abdul-Mahdi, he had planned to meet Soleimani on the morning the general was killed to discuss a diplomatic rapprochement that Iraq was brokering between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Abdul-Mahdi said Trump personally thanked him for the efforts creating the impression that Soleimani could safely travel to Baghdad, even as the White House was busy planning a hit.

Subsequently, Pompeo rushed to defend the assassination, again. “We know that [the report about Soleimani’s peace mission] wasn’t true,” he said. “We got it right.” Once again, he presented no hard evidence.

In reality, the US assassination appears to have been the latest effort to preempt de-escalation plans in the region, to reinforce Iran’s destabilization. It follows years of misguided covert operations. Here’s how it happened.

From Trump’s U-turn to new Iran sanctions

Only a few years ago, there was still great hope in Iran. After years of diplomacy, the comprehensive nuclear accord (JCPOA, July 2015) was achieved between Tehran and the so-called P5+1 nations; that is, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—China, France, Russia, UK, and the US, plus Germany together with the European Union (EU). Under the deal, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) gained access to all Iranian nuclear facilities.

To Iran, the deal offered relief from US, UN and multilateral sanctions on energy, financial, shipping, automotive and other sectors. These primary sanctions were lifted after the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) certification in January 2016 that Iran had complied with the agreement. Yet, secondary sanctions on firms remained in place, along with sanctions applying to US companies, including banks.

After the 2016 US election, the Congress with its Democratic majority—not president-elect Trump—paved the way for a U-turn. Following the House of Representatives, the Senate in late 2016 unanimously extended the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) for a decade. Stunningly, the deal that President Obama had portrayed as his legacy in the region was shot down surprisingly fast. Intriguingly, most Democrats reversed their positions regarding the nuclear deal.

As Trump arrived in the White House, he began developing a far more muscular policy against Iran to benefit from Saudi economic and geopolitical support. In May 2017, Trump and Saudi Arabia’s then-king Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud signed a historical arms deal, which totaled $110 billion immediately and $350 billion over a decade. Widely perceived as a “counterbalance” against the Iranian influence in the region, it cemented the ties between Saudi Arabia and the US. However, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s reform efforts have been tarnished by harsh measures against members of his family and opposition, the Khashoggi murder and dismemberment, and the devastating war and famine in Yemen.

In return for the Saudi deal, the White House began a concerted push to counter Iran’s regional and strategic weapons programs, which had been excluded from the Iran deal. In May 2018, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 11, “ceasing U.S. participation in the [Iran nuclear deal]” and taking additional action to counter Iran’s “influence and deny Iran all paths to a nuclear weapon.”

That’s when the US effectively nullified a decade-long unified, multilateral approach to Iran’s activities, while setting in motion unilateral economic sanctions, which have affected not just U.S. businesses but targeted commerce from other major economies, particularly China, France, Russia, UK, Germany and the EU.

Even after Iran’s missile attacks against two bases of American troops, which seem to have purposefully shunned human targets, Trump promised further ratcheting up of economic sanctions against Iran. The use of sanctions is predicated on a purposeful effort to overthrow the Iranian government.

From Bolton’s “Shah scenario” to regime change

The Trump administration has greenlighted clandestine efforts to weaken Iran’s “moderates” hoping to incite “hawks” into strategic moves that could be used as a pretext for regime change. In April 2018, Trump hired the neoconservative uber-hawk John Bolton as US National Security Advisor (he was booted less than a year and half later). A relic of the Bush era, Bolton had engaged in the “weapons of mass destruction” pretense that led to the Iraq War. Now he advocated regime change in Iran and other countries.

By November 2017, Bolton urged the US to have a contingency plan for a “Shah of Iran scenario” and regime change before February 2019; the 50th anniversary of the Iranian revolution. His change agent was Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group which advocates a violent coup in Iran. In the early 2010s, the UK, EU and the US considered MEK a terrorist organization until then-State Secretary Hillary Clinton de-listed the group, to exploit it in US-led destabilization.

To support his economic sanctions with clandestine operations, Trump named Michael D’Andrea as the head of CIA’s Iran operations. Nicknamed “Ayatollah Mike,” he inspired the character of The Wolf in the Oscar-awarded movie Zero Dark Thirty (2012). Although D’Andrea failed to track Nawaf al-Hazmi, one of the hijackers who crashed American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, he was made head of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center few years later. With President Obama’s blessing, he also presided over hundreds of US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. His operatives oversaw several interrogations, which a US Senate report has described as torture. And he has been blamed for the Camp Chapman attack in Afghanistan in which seven CIA operatives were killed.

When the then-CIA chief Mike Pompeo became Secretary of the State, his deputy Gina Haspel took charge of CIA. Following 9/11, Haspel oversaw a secret CIA prison in Thailand, which housed suspected Al-Qaeda operatives. Relying on “enhanced interrogation techniques,” she, like D’Andrea, was deeply involved in the detention and interrogation program condemned by the 2014 Senate report.

Worse, Haspel played a key role in the destruction of 92 interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees in black sites. While the Bush and Obama era CIA leaders supported her CIA nomination, more than 100 retired US generals and admirals expressed “profound concern,” due to her record.
Plunging oil production

D’Andrea and Pompeo favor regime change in Iran and some observers see their covert-operation influence in the 2019-20 Iranian protests in many cities. As Iranians have greatly suffered from US efforts at domestic destabilization and international insulation, some demonstrators are obviously motivated by economic woes. But it also seems that Bolton’s Shah scenario and its variations remain on the table, as evidenced by the role of the US-sponsored Pahlavi loyalists among some protesters.

In contrast, Iranians see oil as the main reason to US interest in the Middle East. Iran and Iraq hold some of the world’s largest deposits of proved oil and natural gas reserves. Combined, their reserves exceed those of Venezuela, which has the world’s largest proved reserves.

Between 2010 and 2013, the sanctions hurt Iran’s economy contributing to the fall of crude oil exports from 2.5 million barrels per day to 1.1 million by mid-2013. That, in turn, was compounded by the plunge in oil prices since early 2014. Following the nuclear deal, Iran’s production soared back to 4 million barrels. With Trump’s efforts at regime change, the capacity steadily decreased to 3.7 million barrels per day. Recent OPEC estimates suggest it has plunged to 2.8 million barrels.
Iran’s Petroleum Production and Consumption, 2011-2018 (Source: EIA, Difference Group)

Iran’s Petroleum Production and Consumption, 2011-2018 (Source: EIA, Difference Group)

If Iran’s production capacity takes a further hit, that will penalize particularly its biggest importers China, India, South Korea and Turkey.
Diminished Prospects

Since Russia and China were expected to stay behind the Iran nuclear deal, the real question was whether the European powers—Germany, France, the UK, and the EU itself—would defend it. Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration targeted European businesses that did business in and with Iran after the nuclear deal. In June 2019, the EU created a mechanism (INSTEX) that allows European countries to trade with Iran despite US sanctions. But it was too little, too late. Brussels failed to sustain the Iran nuclear deal against Trump’s unilateral moves.

Before 2015, Iran’s economy shrank by 9% two years, due to sanctions. After stabilization, sanctions relief enabled Iran’s oil exports to return to nearly pre-sanctions levels, permitted Tehran to regain access to funds held abroad, boosting 7% overall economic growth in 2016. Foreign energy firms made new investments in the energy sector and major aircraft manufacturers sold Iran’s commercial airlines new passenger aircraft. The relief contributed to the victory of Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani in the 2017 presidential election. Growth broadened to the non-oil sector. Real GDP growth was projected to rise toward 4.5% over the medium-term as financial sector reform was anticipated to take hold.

But then came the Trump U-turn. In May 2018, he had the U.S. withdraw from the nuclear deal, while secondary sanctions drove Iran’s economy into mild recession as major companies exited the country rather than risk being penalized by the US. The value of Iran’s currency declined sharply. Even before the US escalation, Iran’s economy was expected to undergo a second consecutive year of recession and contract by 8.7% in 2019/20. Inflation was estimated to reach 38% annually with mounting fiscal pressures. Economic expansion, which began after the nuclear deal, has been undermined. Neither is stagnation enough for the Trump administration. What the White House is fostering is progressive contraction.

Following the drastic re-escalation, Iran’s economy will have to cope with even more challenging downward risks. And if oil exports were to be curtailed further, the economy could enter into a steeper recession and suffer from high inflation rates. In such a status quo, the challenge of protecting the vulnerable households would put additional pressure on the government finances and potentially the rial. Unfortunately, that may be precisely the White House’s objective.

“The challenges highlight the crucial role of further economic diversification by focusing on non-oil sources of growth and government revenues,” the World Bank stated in a recent update. In reality, economic diversification can only be built on peaceful conditions and political stability, which allow governments to proceed with a medium-term diversification. Such preconditions predate Trump’s Iran policy that has undermined years of international, multilateral diplomacy.

The net effect is the most dangerous escalation in the Middle East in decades and possibly the last nail in the fragile global economic prospects that could cause a synchronized global contraction in the course of 2020.

This article was originally published by the UK-based World Financial Review on January 10, 2020.

By Dan Steinboc, World Financial Review

January 23, 2020 0 comments

Albania

Will the MEK turn back to haunt Albania?

Albanian President Ilir Meta said a few weeks ago that”Albania is not a devilish country, but a democratic country that has suffered from an unprecedented devilish dictatorship and has come to value human rights as sacred“. His comments was a reaction to Iranian supreme leader ayatollah Ali Khamenei who mentioned Abania as a “very small but devilish European state, where Americans cooperate with Iranian traitors against the Islamic Republic.”
Actually, Albania backed the US attack to assassinate the Iranian general Qassem Soleiman, on the first days of January 2020. Whether Albania is a democratic country or not, it is now publicly supporting the terror of an Iranian official and advocating and sheltering the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/ MEK/ PMOI/ Cult of Rajavi) with a long history of terrorist acts and cult-like practices.
However, the stance of the Albanian president seems expectable due to the social and health services that the MEK offers the Albanian people for free. It is also very likely that a part of those huge sums of money that the group donates western politicians in exchange for their support, goes to the pockets of Abanian government officials that have warmly welcomed the terror group in their territory.
The MEK’s so-called humanitarian services to the Albanians can be regarded as an act of generosity and sympathy. But, the true face of the MEK lies in its history and the conditions of its rank and file: about two thousand elderly members who are kept in a hypnotic-like state.
The cult-like structure of the MEK makes it an inhuman entity from inside with a humanitarian face from outside. The potential threat of Rajavi’s cult of personality has been drawn into attention since the group’s relocation to Albania. The experience of the group’s residence in Iraq has given important lessons to the international society.
The MEK functioned as a private army for Saddam Hossein. They collaborated with Baath Party in suppression of Iraqi Kurd’s and Shiit uprisings in the early 1990’s. Meanwhile they were offering social services to Iraqi Sunni tribes who were hostile against Iraqi shiits and kurds and Iranians. The MEK played a very crucial role to escalate the divisions and instability in Iraq at Saddam’s era and after its collapse. Iraqi newly established government actually expelled the group from its territory since the beginning of its ruling but they could not manage the expulsion until 2013.
The group was received by Albania under a beneficial contract between the United States and the poor Albania. Albanian government is definitely gaining advantages by offering safe heaven to the MEK but they should be absolutely warned that a terrorist cult-like establishment like the MEK will come back to haunt their country someday. This is a serious warning.
Mazda Parsi

January 22, 2020 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Has the MEK Re-Entered Its Military-Terrorist Phase?

Early on December 31, Iranian news sources, as well as some anti-Iran groups, reported an explosion in front of the building of a construction institute affiliated with the IRGC.

A few hours later, a spokesperson for the Mujahedin-e Khalq organization (MEK, a.k.a MKO, NCRI, PMOI, etc.) claimed responsibility for the attack in an announcement. Some Iranian sources released footage of the building showing it was intact and denied the bombing. Some others, quoting informed sources, described the incident as merely a biker throwing a lit firecracker near the building.

Regardless of whether or not the attack has occurred or how much damage it has caused, MEK claiming responsibility for the attack indicates the group’s plans and intentions to return to its violent phase.
MEK’s announcement reminds political observers and Iran analysts of the group’s bloody operations in the country and its brutal squad of assassins in different parts of Iran during the 1980s. Operations in which according to a 1994 US state department report on the MEK, thousands of civilians were murdered and various political, economic and military centers were damaged.
The MEK has adopted a violent approach against its opponents since it was established in 1965. The group’s harsh, violent and terrorist attitude, has been recruited in the face of domestic critics, the Shah’s government, and then the Islamic Republic of Iran. MEK’s military treatment of Iraqi ethnic minorities, especially Turkmen and Kurds, when the group was located in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein, was also part of a brutal approach taken by the group’s leaders from the outset. This procedure continued until 2003.
Following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK which was listed by the US as a terrorist group, was forcibly disarmed by the US Army and the group’s military wing was forced to hand over its heavy and semi-heavy weapons to the US forces in Iraq.
The MEK has since tried to adapt its tactics to the new situation. So in order to get out of the terrorist lists in the UK, EU and US, a new approach was taken that was more like a tactical change than a strategical one; entering a phase of political and propaganda activities against Iran to persuade the West that the MEK is the only alternative to the Islamic Republic.
In the 16 years since the forced disarmament, the MEK has established extensive contacts with former Western political figures and launched massive propaganda efforts against Tehran. But none of these activities of the MEK could bring them their desired outcome, which is the acceptance of the group as an alternative to the Islamic Republic and the overthrow of the Iranian political system.
Therefore, in recent years, the MEK has sought to direct its regime-change activities within Iran by organizing its forces who are titled by the group as ‘insurgent cells’. In the past few years, the actions of these cells have been limited to installing images of the group’s leaders and burning pictures of Iranian high-ranking officials in low-lying, low-traffic areas. The MEK has not made any successful gains from the formation of these cells so far.
Although the December 31 operation caused neither casualties nor damage, it was a significant act in several respects.

The first issue is the use of a bomb in the operation and claiming responsibility for the blast by a MEK spokesperson in the group’s official media, a phenomenon that has been unprecedented in recent years since the MEK’s tactical shift and entering into the phase of political propaganda.

In a video released hours after the explosion on MEK’s website, the group claimed responsibility for the attack and attributed it to its own military branch, the National Liberation Army (NLA). The NLA was the MEK’s military wing in the Iraq-Iran war, which served alongside Saddam Hussein’s army and conducted cross-border raids into Iran during the last stages of the war. In addition to border attacks on Iran, the NLA served Saddam in the brutal repression of Iraqi Kurds during 1991.
Therefore, citing this infamous military branch and attributing the attack to it, means a shift in the MEK’s tactics and its re-entering to the armed and terrorist phase.
Another important point is the MEK spokesperson’s sharp statement, in which he spoke of the need to demolish the centers affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. This threat resembles two deadly terrorist operations by the group in the offices of the Islamic Republic Party and Prime Minister in 1981.
This is probably why the spokesperson, for the first time since the group’s disarmament in 2003, has called upon (the US) for the return of their weapons.

It seems unlikely that the MEK’s spokesperson be unaware of the political and legal burden of these threats. It is clear that the MEK is seriously seeking to change its strategy and return to the phase of violent and terrorist acts.

This action, as it was said, stems from the MEK’s foundation which is based on achieving results through violent acts. It also demonstrates that the group’s decade-long political and propaganda activities to persuade Western governments to overthrow Iran’s political system have so far failed. So the MEK’s return to phase of terrorist acts could be its response to this failure.

It appears that continuation of this approach by the MEK, will put Western sponsors of the group in an unfavorable position and it will cause further damage to Iran’s relations with them. The MEK is turning from a refugee group in Albania to a group that, in addition to carrying out anti-Iranian actions, is now on its way into armed phase, an approach which could lead to Tirana’s direct confrontation with Tehran.
Tehran’s recent confrontations with Western powers such as Washington and London in the Persian Gulf in the battle of tankers and UAVs demonstrate that Iranians, who now benefit military balance in the West Asian region, do not easily overlook their security threats. Whether this threat is posed by the MEK through terrorist operations, similar to what they did during the 1980s and saw its consequences, or by its Western sponsors through providing facilities for the terrorist group.

BY Reza Alghurabi – ahtribune.com

Reza Alghurabi is an Arab journalist who lives in Iran. He is a former researcher at the Beirut Center for Middle East Studies and an independent researcher and journalist writing in Iranian newspapers including the Khorasan daily.

January 21, 2020 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Twitter gives platform to MEK Terrorists misinfo. Campaign

Facebook is doubling down on censorship of anything less than villification of slain Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, deleting a clip showing his history of fighting terrorism – and demonetizing the account posting it.

The social media behemoth didn’t just remove independent journalist Dan Cohen’s ‘In the Now’ segment, “How ‘good guy’ Soleimani became US media’s ‘bad guy,” from the show’s page on Tuesday – it demonetized In the Now entirely, citing the typical unspecified violations of “community standards.” The move comes amid an alarming escalation in the platform’s crackdown on political speech that runs contrary to US foreign policy, a wave of censorship that has not been limited to Facebook.

Despite being 100% factually accurate, Facebook censored my video on how Soleimani led Iran’s fight against ISIS and demonetized @IntheNow_tweet’s account. Apparently the truth violated”Community Standards”. For now, you can watch the segment here: https://t.co/Z1qz11Ro9T pic.twitter.com/0qOCYKHq6E

— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) January 15, 2020

Cohen’s video calmly and accurately explains how Soleimani “saved the region from falling to ISIS,” fighting the terrorist group alongside the US and its Kurdish allies before he was recast posthumously by a complicit western media as “actually a huge terrorist and a ticking time bomb who was born to kill Americans.” The video exposes the ideological inconsistency of the outlets currently depicting the Quds Force commander as the devil incarnate, showcasing clips from those same outlets in recent years praising Soleimani’s battlefield performance.

Rania Khalek, who runs In the Now, tweeted in shock that a video merely stating facts about Soleimani had gotten her page demonetized, asking “where is the outrage” now that Facebook was so explicitly deleting material for ideological reasons.

Facebook is deleting political content at the behest of the US government. At the behest of a Trump-run government. They are deleting content that challenges the US drive for war. Where is the outrage????

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) January 15, 2020

Facebook and its subsidiary Instagram have come under fire from independent journalists and media organizations like the International Federation of Journalists for embarking on a wholesale campaign to deplatform all support for Soleimani in the weeks following the US airstrike that killed him. The company has claimed the extensive US sanctions placed on Iran, including the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, require it to censor such posts, though even legal experts quoted by CNN took a dim view of that rationale.

Facebook and Instagram not only remove accounts run by or for sanctioned individuals or groups, but also posts that (they claim) praise or seek to assist the people in question – making sanctions a convenient excuse for mass-deplatforming any user who holds a political view the US government has deemed heresy.

Iranians saw insult added to injury when over a dozen Iranian journalists, several state-run media organizations, and countless ordinary individuals and activists’ Instagram accounts were yanked entirely in the days following Soleimani’s assassination. Many more saw pro-Soleimani posts removed, even when they carefully avoided saying his name – one Lebanese researcher praised “Q*ssem S*leim*ni” for protecting Christians from ISIS and al-Qaeda, only to have his video removed anyway.

The rank ideological discrimination not only left them unable to publicly mourn for a leader beloved by the lion’s share of the people, but allowed pro-regime-change trolls to dominate the narrative. Facebook has recently taken flack from the US political establishment for refusing to “fact-check” political ads, but non-advertising content is more tightly controlled than ever.

Facebook and Instagram are far from alone in clamping down on the speech of Iranian users, however – YouTube briefly deleted state-backed PressTV’s channel earlier this week, only to reactivate it after an outpouring of popular support

BREAKING: Our Press TV UK account has been permanently disabled by #YouTube without explanation, amid US-led anti-Iran sanctions and hostility.@Presstvuk #PressTVUK #Censorship pic.twitter.com/WoH9nAYChK

— Press TV UK (@Presstvuk) January 13, 2020

Twitter removed state-backed media outlet Al-Alam News’ account, as well as that of the popular Iran-backed Spanish-language media outlet HispanTV, only reinstating the latter after a massive public backlash. Dozens of individual Iranians who supported their government were also deplatformed on Twitter, while anti-government users – many linked to notorious exile terror group Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) – were allowed to continue slinging hate against Soleimani and his supporters. Twitter even dished out a ban to Syrian President Bashar Assad, but restored the account after a few days.

Defend Democracy.press

January 19, 2020 0 comments

Albania

MEK in Albania, the potential threat against the country

By hosting the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) on behalf of the US, despite the group being labelled a terrorist organisation by Iran, Albania has drawn the ire of Supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

The acting Albanian foreign minister Gent Cakaj announced on his Facebook account that an additional two Iranian diplomats would be expelled from Albania. This follows a decision in 2018 which expelled the Iranian ambassador and has made Albania a frontline in a clash between the United States and Iran.

The decision to expel the Iranian diplomats seems likely a result of the comments made by Iran’s powerful Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the aftermath of Qasem Soleimani’s assassination at the hands of the US in which he said: “In a very small European country but an evil country in Europe, there are American elements with some Iranian traitors, they got together to conspire against the Islamic Republic.”

In 2014, under US pressure, Albania took in more than 4,000 members of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) a secretive group formerly based Iraq.

“Albania is hosting one of the most dangerous terrorist organisations on behalf of the United States,” says Dr Olsi Jazexhi, an Albanian academic and expert who has been tracking MEK activities in Albania.

“The Americans imposed them [MEK] on Albania and since Albania is a very fragile state they had to accept. The same thing was done by Prime Minister Edi Rama who is still hosting MEK in Albania,” Jazexhi tells TRT World.

Considered a terrorist group by Iran, the MEK was also listed as a terrorist organisation by the US State Department until 2012.

The Obama administration re-designated the group and formalised a relationship that the US had been cultivating covertly, protecting the group in Iraq at a US military base, then under American occupation.

“The reason for the MEK being brought to Albania is the general ignorance of Albanian politicians who do not understand the danger of international terrorism and the implications that this terrorism has on nation-states” added Jazexhi.

The MEK is a militant political organisation that subscribes to an unusual mixture of Marxist and Islamic ideology.

It has been accused of killing of American military personnel, bombing American companies and targeting innocent Iranian civilians during a campaign of terror over several decades.

A report by the US media outlet NBC News suggested that the group is being financed by Israeli intelligence and was also behind a string of assassinations targeting Iran’s nuclear scientists between 2007 and 2015.

“The MEK is deeply despised in Iran, they fought for Saddam Hussein against Iran for eight years. Then they spied for the Americans and the Israelis, they are mercenaries and a cult group,” said Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Professor of English Literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran.

Former members of the MEK have spoken out about the oppressive cult-like rules enforced in the organisation, including marriages that have to be arranged by the leadership. There have been reports that the organisation has at times asked its followers to divorce en masse and locked up and even killed members who have criticised the dogma of Maryam Rajavi, the current head of the MEK.

“No one in Iran has any sympathy or respect for them [MEK], they are traitors to the country. They are tools of Western powers. Thousands of them are working as an online army in Albania,” said Marandi speaking to TRT World.

Earlier this year The Intercept, an online investigative publication reported on how the MEK had created a fake online persona called Heshmat Alavi in order to spread propaganda against the Iranian government, including advocating for regime change.

The so-called writer Alavi was managed in part from Albania and had fooled many American publications who had published the fake persona’s writing.

“Using different aliases on the internet, on Facebook as well as Twitter” they have managed to create a digital army, says Marandi, adding: “These social platforms do not block their activities because it is done in coordination with the US government and also they carry out spying activities in Iran.”

The US assassination of Iranian general Soleimani and the subsequent retaliation by Tehran in a series of rocket attacks on US bases underscores the dangerous manoeuvrings between the two powers and the potential to suck in other countries, including the small Balkan state of Albania.

“Albania has become the most dangerous country in the world for Iran after the United States and Israel,” says Jazexhi.

“While the United States and Israel are in open conflict with Iran, Albania by hosting MEK has become a major centre of anti-Iranian propaganda in the world.

The MEK doesn’t lack powerful friends in Washington and in particular enjoys close ties with the hawkish Trump administration. In 2017 the group paid National Security Adviser John Bolton and Trump’s personal lawyer Rudi Giuliani for speaking engagements.

With powerful friends like this, Albanian politicians don’t “dare to do anything” says Jazexhi even though “the majority of Albanians are appalled by what the government is doing.”

The MEK could also be acting against the Albanian penal code says Jazexhi.

“The Albanian penal code states very clearly that if a person or a group of people incites to fight against a foreign country or incites people or asks people to participate in a conflict in a foreign country they could be persecuted for this,” adds Jazexhi.

MEK actions in an impoverished country like Albania, which is still struggling to emerge from a communist dictatorship, doesn’t bode well for its long term stability or rule of law. Iraq has become a battleground of influence between the US and Iran, a faraway conflict for many Albanians.

“When you host terrorists and you aid terrorists than you should be afraid of suffering the consequences. These are not normal people,” says Marandi. “The Albanian government is foolish to cooperate in such a way with the Americans.”

Albanian President Ilir Meta shot back at comments made by [Ayatollah] Khamenei saying: “Albania is not a devilish country, but a democratic one.” However, Meta made no mention of the lack of democratic structures within the MEK and the human rights violations it has been accused of.

“MEK with its paramilitary camps that they have in Manza, Albania has created a state within a state,” says Jazexhi and as tensions between Iran and the US continue to heat up the role that the MEK is playing in Albania could also make it another theatre of conflict.

Elis Gjevori ,TRT world

January 18, 2020 0 comments

USA

US restricts its support for Regime change in Iran: What happened?

Mike Pompeo, a man who played an important role in General Soleimani’s assassination directed his diplomats to restrict their connections with forces that support a regime change in Iran. What changed in US policy towards Iran? What deal broke out between two arch-rivals?

An Iran hawk who advocated killing general Qasem Soleimani, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has ordered his diplomats to limit contacts with militant Iranian exile and opposition groups that support either regime change or greater rights for ethnic groups like Kurds and Arabs.
Coming on the back of the Soleimani killing, Mr. Pompeo’s directive appears to put an end to the Trump administration’s hinting that it covertly supports insurgent efforts to at the very least destabilize the Iranian government if not topple it.
A litmus test of the directive by Mr. Pompeo, known to have a close relationship with Donald J. Trump, is likely to be whether the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, distances himself from the controversial National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an offshoot of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a group that was taken off the US Treasury’s list of designated terrorists several years ago.
Mr. Pompeo said that direct US government engagement with these groups could prove counterproductive to our policy goal of seeking a comprehensive deal with the Iranian regime that addresses its destabilizing behaviour.
Mr. Giuliani is a frequent, well-paid speaker at gatherings of the group that has built a significant network among Western political elites. The council and the Mujahideen openly call for regime change in Iran.
The Mujahideen were moved with US assistance from their exile base in Iraq to a reportedly Saudi-funded secretive facility in Albania.
A New Jersey-based lobbying firm hired by the NCRI, Rosemont Associates, reported last year in its filing as a foreign agent frequent email and telephone contact on behalf of its client with the US embassy in the Albanian capital of Tirana as well as Brian Hook, the US Special Representative for Iran, and Gabriel Noronha, an aide to Mr. Hook.
In his directive, Mr. Pompeo said that “direct US government engagement with these groups could prove counterproductive to our policy goal of seeking a comprehensive deal with the Iranian regime that addresses its destabilizing behavior.”

The secretary went on to say that Iranian opposition groups “try to engage US officials regularly to gain at least the appearance of tacit support and enhance their visibility and clout.”
Mr. Pompeo’s cable, while keeping a potential negotiated deal with Iran on the table, does not stop other US government agencies from covertly supporting the various groups, that also include Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of al-Ahwaz (AMLA), the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI).

Iran, which has long believed that the United States, alongside Saudi Arabia and Israel, supported the Mujahideen as well as ethnic militants that intermittently launch attacks inside Iran, is likely to take a wait-and see-attitude towards Mr. Pompeo’s directive that could be seen as a signal that the Trump administration is not seeking regime change.
The timing of the directive is significant. Iran responded to the killing of Mr. Soleimani with carefully calibrated missile attacks on US facilities in Iraq in a bid to create an environment in which backchanneling potentially could steer the United States and Iran back to the negotiating table.
The appointment was followed by publication by a Riyadh-based think tank believed to be close to crown prince Mohammed bin Salman of a study for Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran
While it was uncertain that one round of escalated tensions would do the trick, potential efforts were not helped by the death of Oman’s Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said, a key interlocutor who has repeatedly helped resolve US-Iranian problems and initiated contacts that ultimately led to the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program.
In his directive, Mr. Pompeo, referring to Komala, acknowledged that “Iran’s regime appears to assess that the United States and/or Israel support this group of militant Kurds.”
Iranian perceptions were reinforced not only by calls for regime change by senior figures like Mr. Giuliani and Saudi prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of the kingdom’s intelligence service and ex-ambassador to Britain and the United States, but also the appointment in 2018 of Steven Fagin as counsel general in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Shortly before moving to Erbil, Mr. Fagin met In Washington as head of the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs, with Mustafa Hijri, leader of the KDPI as it stepped up its attacks in Iranian Kurdistan.
Iranian perceptions were further informed by the appointment of John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s since departed national security advisor and like Mr. Giuliani a frequent speaker at NCRI events, who publicly advocates support of ethnic insurgencies in Iran in a bid to change the regime.
As Mr. Trump’s first director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Pompeo named Michael D’Andrea, a hard-charging, chain-smoking covert operations officer, alternatively nicknamed the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, whose track record includes overseeing the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, as head of the CIA’s Iran operations.
The appointment was followed by publication by a Riyadh-based think tank believed to be close to crown prince Mohammed bin Salman of a study for Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran. Prince Mohammed vowed around the same time that “we will work so that the battle is for them in Iran, not in Saudi Arabia.”
Pakistani militants have claimed that Saudi Arabia had stepped up funding of militant madrassas or religious seminaries in the Pakistani province of Balochistan that allegedly serve as havens for anti-Iranian fighters.

The New York Times reported this week that aides to Prince Mohammed had in the past discussed with private businessmen the assassination of Mr. Soleimani, an architect of Iran’s regional network of proxies, and other Iranians as well as ways of sabotaging the country’s economy.
Mr. Pompeo’s directive is unlikely to persuade Iran that Washington has had a change of heart. Indeed, it hasn’t. Mr. Trump maintains his campaign of maximum pressure and this week imposed additional sanctions on Iran.
Nonetheless, potentially taking regime change off the table facilitates backchanneling that aims at getting the two nations to talk again.

Dr. James Dorsey – Global Villagespace
Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy.

January 16, 2020 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Trump Admin Walks Back Anti-MEK Memo

The State Department ordered employees days ago not to meet with an Iranian dissident outfit close to Rudy Giuliani and other Trump world figures. Now, the memo is being overridden.

At whiplash speed, the State Department is walking back an order barring American diplomats from meeting with controversial Iranian dissident groups—including one close with Trump World allies and previously designated as a terror group, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK). The initial memo, greenlit by a career State Department employee, angered Congressional Iran hawks. And the Department’s move to change its guidance has drawn cheers from them.
The first memo, first reported by Bloomberg and reviewed by The Daily Beast, included sober warnings against meeting with the MEK, pointing to its terrorist past and saying most everyday Iranians have a low view of the group. The memo also warned about interactions with the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, highlighting its attacks on Iranian military targets; and directed diplomats to get permission from State Department headquarters before meeting with members of an Azeri separatist group. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sent out the memo on January 7, and it cautioned that meetings with these groups could undermine U.S. efforts to reach a deal with Tehran. Joey Hood, a senior career State Department official, approved the memo, according to the document The Daily Beast reviewed.
But now, the memo is being overridden. The Daily Beast obtained a cable, sent to U.S. diplomats Sunday night, superseding the week-old directive.
“Posts should welcome opportunities to meet with and learn from members of the Iranian diaspora community,” said the cable, which explicitly noted it “supersedes” the January 7 missive. “After 40 years of repression and violence at the hands of the Ayatollahs, the Iranian people’s pride in their history has not diminished nor has their resolve to celebrate it in the face of the Islamic republic’s abuses.”
The cable went on to say that U.S. diplomats should consider hosting members of the diaspora for “Persian cultural events,” while noting that “not all Iranian opposition groups’ interests and objectives align with U.S. policy priorities.”
“While it is up to the Iranian people to determine the future course of their nation, the United States will continue to stand with them and echo their calls for justice and accountability,” the cable said.
While the new memo did not mention MEK or the other groups, it said diplomats should simply “use good judgement when receiving invitations or meeting with opposition groups” and should raise questions and concerns with senior State officials––an apparent revocation of the order that they only take such meetings with Foggy Bottom’s explicit approval. State Department spokespersons did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the cable.
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani—who the MEK hired to help it get off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist groups and who recently called the group “my MEK people”—welcomed the reversal. “[The MEK] is very supportive of a free…Iraq. It’s run by a great woman who is committed to ending suppression of women and in a non-nuclear Iran,” the president’s personal lawyer messaged The Daily Beast. “They were of great assistance to us during [the] Iraq invasion and are supported by a very non-partisan group of American former and present public officials.”
The MEK is close with several other hawkish Trumpworld figures, including retired Gen. Jack Keane and former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Giuliani’s longtime friend and former law partner, is a pro bono adviser to the group’s political wing.

“They’re undermining the president’s policy when nobody’s watching.”
— Hill staffer

The group has a controversial past. For, among other things, its alleged role in assassinating three U.S. Army officers and three more civilian contractors, the MEK found itself on the American government’s official list of foreign terrorist organizations. It’s also been accused of acting as a death squad for the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. A 2009 Rand Corporation paper described the MEK’s “near-religious devotion to [its leaders], public self-deprecation sessions, mandatory divorce, celibacy, enforced separation from family and friends, and gender segregation.” The group and its allies vehemently deny all these charges.

The fast-paced walk-back came after the initial State Department memo drew ire from Congressional Iran hawks. One noted that the memo went out to diplomats just days after a U.S. strike killed Soleimani, and as senior political officials at the State Department were presumably bracing for Tehran’s retaliation.
“It’s a pretty significant 180 for State,” said Christian Whiton, formerly a senior advisor to the Department under Presidents Trump and George W. Bush. “Even if it’s worded diplomatically, it’s not that common to have something issued and then rescinded almost immediately. And I think it just goes to show that the original statement was something done at a junior level that didn’t have support or buy-in from senior political officials.”
It was the second time in recent months that Hood, the career official who greenlit the memo, angered Hill hawks. In Congressional testimony on December 4, he had a tense exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz about funding for the Lebanese government and whether that money went to Hezbollah. A transcript of the hearing indicates that Hood laughed in response to a question from Cruz; the episode left raw nerves.
“They’re undermining the president’s policy when nobody’s watching,” said a Hill staffer for member pushing for a tougher policy toward Iran.
Others, meanwhile, pointed to the reversal as the latest struggle by the Trump administration to clearly explain its stance on conflict with Iran. A Congressional staffer working on Iran policy and who favored the reversal noted that it comes as the administration has sent mixed messages on the legal basis for the Soleimani strike and the number of U.S. embassies threatened by Iranian-allied Shiite militias.
“I think there’s a lot of fog of war-type messages that have come out,” said the staffer, who spoke anonymously to discuss the sensitive matter. “I think there’s still a lot of fog of war.”

The State Department reversal, as reflected in the cable, comes as Pompeo and other U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Mark Esper, have struggled to publicly articulate the U.S.’ next steps after killing Soleimani and to reconcile their accounts of the intelligence that precipitated that strike.
For years, the Trump administration had maintained a campaign of “maximum pressure,” leveling crippling sanctions on Iran’s economy in an effort to re-open talks with Tehran on a nuclear deal. Since the Soleimani strike, Trump administration officials have struggled to define the administration’s Iran policy. Some have said the maximum pressure campaign always included a military option. Others say the U.S. has long communicated to the Iranians that if Tehran killed Americans, there would be military consequences.

“U.S. diplomats should not be meeting with MEK. They represent a dangerous cult. We should avoid all the mistakes of the Iraq war including being hoodwinked by purported diaspora opposition with no links at home.”
— former Obama administration official Jarret Blanc

Now, it seems, the State Department is shifting its thinking on how to approach Iran on a diplomatic level following the Soleimani strike. In the hours immediately following the assasination, U.S. officials, in an attempt to de-escalate, described the hit as a warning and insisted that America was still interested in working with Iran on conversations about the nuclear deal. The U.S. special representative for Iran Brian Hook appeared on BBC World, saying that killing Soleimani was designed to “advance the cause of peace.” Sunday’s cable, meanwhile, will cheer Iran hawks––and frustrate Obama administration alums.
“There are at least two problems with this reversal,” said Jarrett Blanc, a former Obama administration official who worked on Iran policy. “The first is that the policy is wrong. U.S. diplomats should not be meeting with MEK or its affiliates. They represent a dangerous cult. We should avoid all the mistakes of the Iraq war including being hoodwinked by purported diaspora opposition with no links at home. The second problem is that it reflects the total incompetence and chaos of this administration’s policy making —to send out an instruction and less than a week later countermand it. They just don’t know what they are doing.”
For years in the United States, lobbyists and advocates for the MEK have operated an aggressive, sustained, and successful campaign to have the group removed from the State Department’s terror list, a move that was finalized in the Obama era. The organization’s stateside backers also include Democratic figures such as retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean, as well as attorneys Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, two informal legal advisers to Trump.

Betsy Swan,Erin Banco,Asawin Suebsaeng, The Daily Beast

January 15, 2020 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Pompeo keeps MEK at arms length

An Iran hawk who advocated killing general Qassim Soleimani, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has ordered his diplomats to limit contacts with militant Iranian exile and opposition groups that support either regime change or greater rights for ethnic groups like Kurds and Arabs.
Coming on the back of the Soleimani killing, Mr. Pompeo’s directive appears to put an end to the Trump administration’s hinting that it covertly supports insurgent efforts to at the very least destabilize the Iranian government if not topple it.
A litmus test of the directive by Mr. Pompeo, known to have a close relationship with Donald J. Trump, is likely to be whether the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, distances himself from the controversial National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an offshoot of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a group that was taken off the US Treasury’s list of designated terrorists several years ago.
Mr. Giuliani is a frequent, well-paid speaker at gatherings of the group that has built a significant network among Western political elites. The council and the Mujahedeen openly call for regime change in Iran.
The Mujahedeen were moved with US assistance from their exile base in Iraq to a reportedly Saudi-funded secretive facility in Albania.
A New Jersey-based lobbying firm hired by the NCRI, Rosemont Associates, reported last year in its filing as a foreign agent frequent email and telephone contact on behalf of its client with the US embassy in the Albanian capital of Tirana as well as Brian Hook, the US Special Representative for Iran, and Gabriel Noronha, an aide to Mr. Hook.
In his directive, Mr. Pompeo said that “direct US government engagement with these groups could prove counterproductive to our policy goal of seeking a comprehensive deal with the Iranian regime that addresses its destabilizing behaviour.”
The secretary went on to say that Iranian opposition groups “try to engage US officials regularly to gain at least the appearance of tacit support and enhance their visibility and clout.”
Mr. Pompeo’s cable, while keeping a potential negotiated deal with Iran on the table, does not stop other US government agencies from covertly supporting the various groups, that also include Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of al-Ahwaz (AMLA), the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI).
Iran, which has long believed that the United States, alongside Saudi Arabia and Israel, supported the Mujahedeen as well as ethnic militants that intermittently launch attacks inside Iran, is likely to take a wait-and see-attitude towards Mr. Pompeo’s directive that could be seen as a signal that the Trump administration is not seeking regime change.
The timing of the directive is significant. Iran responded to the killing of Mr. Soleimani with carefully calibrated missile attacks on US facilities in Iraq in a bid to create an environment in which backchanneling potentially could steer the United States and Iran back to the negotiating table.

While it was uncertain that one round of escalated tensions would do the trick, potential efforts were not helped by the death of Oman’s Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said, a key interlocutor who has repeatedly helped resolve US-Iranian problems and initiated contacts that ultimately led to the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program.
In his directive, Mr. Pompeo, referring to Komala, acknowledged that “Iran’s regime appears to assess that the United States and/or Israel support this group of militant Kurds.”
Iranian perceptions were reinforced not only by calls for regime change by senior figures like Mr. Giuliani and Saudi prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of the kingdom’s intelligence service and ex-ambassador to Britain and the United States, but also the appointment in 2018 of Steven Fagin as counsel general in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Shortly before moving to Erbil, Mr. Fagin met In Washington as head of the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs, with Mustafa Hijri, leader of the KDPI as it stepped up its attacks in Iranian Kurdistan.
Iranian perceptions were further informed by the appointment of John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s since departed national security advisor and like Mr. Giuliani a frequent speaker at NCRI events, who publicly advocates support of ethnic insurgencies in Iran in a bid to change the regime.
As Mr. Trump’s first director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Pompeo named Michael D’Andrea, a hard-charging, chain-smoking covert operations officer, alternatively nicknamed the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, whose track record includes overseeing the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, as head of the CIA’s Iran operations.
The appointment was followed by publication by a Riyadh-based think tank believed to be close to crown prince Mohammed bin Salman of a study for Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran. Prince Mohammed vowed around the same time that “we will work so that the battle is for them in Iran, not in Saudi Arabia.”
Pakistani militants have claimed that Saudi Arabia had stepped up funding of militant madrassas or religious seminaries in the Pakistani province of Balochistan that allegedly serve as havens for anti-Iranian fighters.
The New York Times reported this week that aides to Prince Mohammed had in the past discussed with private businessmen the assassination of Mr. Soleimani, an architect of Iran’s regional network of proxies, and other Iranians as well as ways of sabotaging the country’s economy.
Mr. Pompeo’s directive is unlikely to persuade Iran that Washington has had a change of heart. Indeed, it hasn’t. Mr. Trump maintains his campaign of maximum pressure and this week imposed additional sanctions on Iran.
Nonetheless, potentially taking regime change off the table facilitates backchanneling that aims at getting the two nations to talk again.
Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, an adjunct senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute and co-director of the University of Wuerzburg’s Institute of Fan Culture
James M. Dorsey, Euro-Asia Times,

January 13, 2020 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts