Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MKO hanging on the Trump administration?

The stunning victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential elections concerned his critics over his domestic and foreign policies. A large number of articles, op-eds and letters have recently been published to warn the audience about the risks of a US run by Donald Trump. Certain journalists and scholars have focused on the hardliners and warmongers who are likely to become a part of his administration. It is worth to know that in the majority of the articles, paid sponsorship for the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) is considered as a negative point in the political life of figures like John Bolton, Rudolf Giuliani and Newt Gingrich who are supposed to be Trump’s Secretory of State or advisors.

Actually the double standard that divides terrorists to “good” and “bad” is the reason for enemies of the Iranian government to repeat the mantra "Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism", ignoring Saudi Arabia’s financing of ISIS and supplying of suicide bombers and even ignoring the assassination of the American citizens by the MKO in the 1970s and furthermore ignoring the MKO suicide attacks during the 1980s and 90s –in fact the MKO operatives were the first suicide attackers in the history prior to Taliban, Al-Qaida and ISIS. Just because one group opposes your enemy, doesn’t mean they aren’t your enemy as well. The current situation in Syria has made that crystal clear. ISIS opposes Assad who is supported by Iran and opposed by the US, so is ISIS a US ally?

As the elected president Trump criticized the conduct of American foreign policy under the Bush administration and not only the Obama administration, for the wars in the Middle East, it is not improbable that his administration will be careful about fraudulent propaganda of MKO crisis mongers and their sponsors. The open letter of Justin Raimondo a Libertarian American Journalist and the editor of the Antiwar website to Donald Trump tries to exaggerate such antiwar stances taken by him in his speeches in the presidential campaigns. He writes, ”But, hey, I’m not just watch-dogging you – I’m heartened by your apparent decision to stop funding and supporting the Syrian Islamist terrorists Hillary told us are really “moderates.” We have no business trying to bring about “regime change” in Syria, or anywhere else, and the farther we stay away from that hellhole the better.” Raimondo also tries to put an egg in Trump’s hat by implying that another war will be the worst decision in American Foreign policy. ”I’m also very much encouraged by reports that you have no intention of ripping up the Iran deal. That’s exactly what you said during the campaign, but the media – particularly Fox News – wasn’t listening apparently. We don’t need another war in the Middle East: indeed, it’s the last thing we need,” he asserts. [1]

Eli Clifton of the Lobelog expresses his concern over the probable active role of the murderers of Americans in the next American administration. “If Lopez, Giuliani, Bolton, or Gingrich serve in the Trump administrations, the MEK will have the highest level access its ever enjoyed in the U.S. government, a remarkable journey for a fringe Islamic-Marxist group that, until 2012, was on the State Department’s terrorism list for its role in assassinating Americans,” he writes.[2]

American sponsors of the MKO have been paid by the group for the support they voice every now and then. “Throughout the first term of the Obama administration, Iranian American organizations with extensive links to the MEK paid prominent U.S. national security officials to speak on behalf of the group”, Josh Rogin reveals in the Washington Post. “They also contributed heavily to the campaign coffers of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The payments ran through the lobbying law firm DLA Piper, which passed the money through a speakers’ bureau that cut checks to the officials.” It should be taken in to consideration that the MMO was officially listed as a foreign terrorist organization at that time. Therefore, paid speakers have violated the law that prohibits American citizens from material support for terrorist entities.   [3]

“In March 2012, Giuliani traveled to Paris to speak at an MEK conference alongside the group’s secretive leader Maryam Rajavi. While there, he called the U.S. military base in Iraq where the United States wanted to relocate the MEK a “concentration camp.” Those comments later appeared in an MEK ad in the New York Times, according to josh Rogin. “That same month, the Treasury Department’s investigation into the payments made to American politicians became public when former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell admitted that he had received a subpoena related to his work on behalf of the MEK. It’s illegal for American citizens to do business with a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization.” [4]

Regarding that the MKO have bought a large number of supporters among US politicians particularly the republican figures, it might be natural to be concerned about the next US government’s warmongering policies but how much the extent of such influence would be –if there is any influence.

The Huffington Post reported, a few days ago, that John Bolton –a top candidate to serve as President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of state, is publicly calling for the U.S. to help overthrow the existing government in Iran. Bolton who was a hyper-hawkish supporter of the US-led military invasion to Iraq and has always recommended a military attack against Iran opposing the nuclear deal with Iran, “has no plans to tone down his adventurist foreign policy views, which run counter to Trump’s repeated promises to focus resources domestically and to avoid unnecessary entanglements abroad.” [5]

Bolton announces his new plan that has cheered the MKO up. He told Breitbart News Daily, “I think the people of Iran would long for a new regime. I don’t think the regime is popular, but I think it has the guns. And I think there are ways of supporting the opposition that does not involve the use of American military force that does involve helping the opposition to get a different kind of government.” His clear recommendation for arming the MKO seems terribly silly because it suggests the extent of his ignorance, mis-calculations, and mis-understanding about the MMO, the Iranian people and their view on the MKO. [6]

Arash Azizi of the Global Voice was one of the first journalists who warned about the disastrous advocacy for the notorious MKO. He suggests, “The links with MEK are a serious cause for worry, and the reason Iranians should be vigilant and make it clear that this cult doesn’t speak for the people of Iran, nor they are genuine advocates of democracy in the country.” [7] His assertion was then confirmed by Michael Rubin, former Pentagon official who is at the same time a harsh critic of Islamic Republic. [8]

“Still, it is important to remember that the MKO is a Marxist, authoritarian cult with minimal support inside Iran,” Rubin writes in commentary magazine. “Many Iranians view the MKO in the same way as Americans view John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban. That the MKO conducted terrorism which victimized ordinary Iranians has only solidified Iranian public opinion against the group even further.” [9]

Rubin also warns about the MKO propaganda, “The MKO’s rhetoric about democracy can be alluring, but if the goal of the Trump administration is to contain, weaken, and roll back the influence of the Islamic Republic, then outreach to the MKO is the worst possible move because it would rally Iranians around the flag and strengthen the current regime.” So, he comes to the conclusion that “the enemy of an enemy is not always a friend.” [10]

By Mazda Parsi

References:

[1]Rimondo, Justin, Dear President Trump, An open letter, Antiwar.com, November 14, 2016

[2] Clifton, Eli, Former Terrorist Group To Enjoy Close Ties to Rumored Trump Cabinet, Lobelog, November 15, 2016

[3] Rogin, Josh, Giuliani was paid advocate for shady Iranian dissident group, Washington Post, November 15, 2016

[4] ibid

[5] Schulberg, Jessica, John Bolton, Top Contender For Secretary Of State, Calls For Regime Change In Iran, Huffington Post, November 18 2016

[6] Conway, Madeline, Bolton calls regime change the ‘only long-term solution’ in Iran, Politico.com, November 17, 2016

[7] Azizi, Arash, Possible Trump Cabinet Members’ Links to the MojahedinKhalq Could Spell Trouble for Iran, Global voice,13 November, 2016

[8] Rubin, Michael, Will Trump Embrace the MKO?,Commetary Magazine, Nov. 11, 2016

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Why Rudy Giuliani Shouldn’t Be Secretary of State

World leaders watching America make a shift under Donald Trump fall into two broad camps: those who hope that the United States will muddle through the next four years, an inexperienced president notwithstanding, and those who are eager to see Washington’s international standing and influence unravel.

The latter outcome could be averted if Mr. Trump selects an experienced and conscientious leader as his top diplomat. That would require appointing someone other than Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, who is reported to be the front-runner for the job.

Before addressing why he would be a dismal and potentially disastrous choice, it’s worth reflecting on the enormous foreign policy challenges the incoming administration will face.

The Trump administration will have to create a new Syria policy, which will require deft understanding of Russia’s intentions and capabilities in the Middle East, and careful management of a complex coalition of allies fighting the Islamic State. The Trump White House will most likely be tested early by North Korea’s bellicose and nuclear-armed leader. Leaders across Europe will be watching to see whether the Trump administration is willing to let the Western military and diplomatic alliance erode, which would be a boon for Russia. Closer to home, the new White House will have to weigh the risks of turning Mr. Trump’s irresponsible blame-Mexico campaign rhetoric into policy, which would severely undermine national security by halting cooperation between the two governments on migration from Central America, law enforcement matters and counternarcotics programs.

A successful secretary of state must be steeped in history and geopolitics and have shrewd negotiating skills and a clear sense of America’s capabilities, principles and the limits of Washington’s power.

The extent of Mr. Giuliani’s international experience has been largely limited to giving speeches and consulting work. He lacks any substantive diplomatic experience and has demonstrated poor judgment throughout his career. Indeed, as he became Mr. Trump’s most bombastic champion, Mr. Giuliani at times appeared unhinged.

For a taste of Mr. Giuliani’s foreign policy misadventures, consider his 1982 visit to Haiti as an associate attorney general. He preposterously proclaimed that there was “no political repression” on the island, which was then ruled by President Jean-Claude Duvalier, a tyrant. As mayor, he dabbled in petty diplomacy in 1995 by having the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat ejected from a New York Philharmonic concert celebrating the United Nations.

Mr. Giuliani was embraced as “America’s mayor” after 9/11, a label, which he promoted for years, that allowed him to gloss over his poor performance in City Hall. Under his direction, New York City decided to base its emergency command center in the World Trade Center, a prime target that had been bombed in 1993. In 2000, he enraged black New Yorkers with his shockingly insensitive response to the fatal police shooting of Patrick Dorismond, an unarmed black man, whom Mr. Giuliani derided as less than an “altar boy.”

Since leaving office, Mr. Giuliani has earned millions working for foreign governments and businesses, which would raise a flurry of potential conflicts of interest. For instance, he was paid to deliver speeches in 2011 and 2012 defending a cultlike Iranian exile group that was on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

In the long list of ridiculous things Mr. Giuliani has said, his remarks about President Obama in February 2015, when the presidential campaign was gearing up, were particularly disgraceful. “I do not believe that the president loves America,” Mr. Giuliani said at a dinner in Midtown Manhattan. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

Mr. Trump, who has no background in international affairs, would be wise to seek the counsel of former Republican secretaries of state about the demands of the job. Anyone offering sound advice would urge him to scrap plans to have Mr. Giuliani run the State Department.

By Editorial Board,

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Rudi Giuliani took money from Qatar, Venezuela, Iranian exiles

His foreign clientele could present conflicts of interest as secretary of state

Rudy Giuliani’s paid consulting for foreign governments would present conflicts of interest as the nation’s top diplomat that would make the Clinton Foundation look trifling.

Since leaving the New York mayor’s office, Giuliani has made millions as a lawyer and consultant, including for some clients at odds with U.S. foreign policy. When some of those ties surfaced amid Giuliani’s own presidential bid in 2007, they were considered to pose an unprecedented number of ethical quandaries for a potential commander in chief.

Now those concerns have no doubt been eclipsed by Donald Trump’s own web of business entanglements, which are still not completely known to the public. Giuliani’s participation in Trump’s transition and contention for the job of secretary of state poses a direct challenge to Trump’s promises to root out Washington self-dealing and ban his administration’s officials from lobbying for foreign governments.

In 2011, an exiled Iranian political party called the Mujahedin e-Khalq, known as the MEK, paid Giuliani to give a speech in Washington calling on the State Department to remove the group from its list of terrorist organizations. The MEK recruited a host of other formal officials to its cause and succeeded in reversing the terrorist designation in 2012.

A subsidiary of Giuliani’s consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, advised Qatar’s state-run oil company on security at a natural gas plant, The Wall Street Journal reported. Qatar is a U.S. ally that hosts a major American military base but once stifled an attempt to arrest Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who went on to mastermind the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the 9/11 commission report.

The same subsidiary, Giuliani Security & Safety, provided security advice to a Singapore gambling project on behalf of a partnership that included a tycoon close to the North Korean regime who is considered an organized crime figure by the U.S., according to a report in the Chicago Tribune. “I think the person involved, if it’s correct, was a 1 percent owner that had no involvement with us, we never worked for, had nothing to do with,” Giuliani told NBC’s Tim Russert at the time.

Giuliani Partners also advised TransCanada, which sought to build the Keystone XL pipeline that President Barack Obama rejected but Trump has said he wants to approve. And Giuliani helped the maker of the OxyContin painkiller, Purdue Pharma, settle a Drug Enforcement Administration investigation with a fine.

The Houston-based law firm Giuliani joined as a named partner in 2005 lobbied in Texas for Citgo, the U.S. subsidiary of the Venezuelan state oil company then controlled by President Hugo Chavez, The New York Times reported in 2007. The firm also did work for Saudi Arabia’s oil ministry, according to The Associated Press.

The law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, lobbied at the federal level during Giuliani’s time there for energy companies including Southern Company, Duke Energy, Energy Future Holdings, Arch Coal, Chesapeake Energy and NuStar Energy, records show. It also represented Cornell Companies, a private prison operator that later merged with GEO Group. Giuliani never personally registered as a lobbyist. He left the firm for rival Greenberg Traurig this year, and currently is on leave.

Giuliani’s assistant at Greenberg Traurig and the Trump transition didn’t answer requests for comment.

The Clinton Foundation has been hounded by Republican suspicions of selling access to Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and the nonprofit did accept big bucks from foreign governments. But Clinton’s defenders point out there’s no proof she ever made an official act to benefit a foundation donor, and, unlike Giuliani, she never personally profited from the foreign contributions to her charity.

When Giuliani ran for president, he reported assets of $18.1 million to $70.4 million.

Isaac Arnsdorf, Politico,

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

John Bolton, Top Contender For Secretary Of State, Calls For Regime Change In Iran

John Bolton, a top candidate to serve as President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of state, is publicly calling for the U.S. to help overthrow the existing government in Iran.

“The only long-term solution is regime change in Tehran,” the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations told SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily on Thursday morning. “The ayatollahs are the principal threat to international peace and security in the Middle East.”

The call for regime change is very much in line with past statements from Bolton, a hyper-hawkish Bush administration official who stands by the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. He has repeatedly urged the U.S. to help Israel bomb Iran or do it alone. Even as Iran was in the final stages of negotiating an international agreement that requires it to dramatically scale back its nuclear infrastructure, Bolton recommended a military attack.

Thursday’s remark suggests that he has no plans to tone down his adventurist foreign policy views, which run counter to Trump’s repeated promises to focus resources domestically and to avoid unnecessary entanglements abroad.

The Trump campaign has struggled to outline a cohesive foreign policy vision. But to the extent that the president-elect has a worldview, it seems to lean non-interventionist. He has said he would require U.S. allies to shoulder more of the burden for their own security, even suggesting that some non-nuclear nations could obtain nuclear weapons to defend themselves without help from Washington. He speaks aggressively about “destroying” the Islamic State but hasn’t offered a plan to match his rhetoric. Instead, he’s suggested that he might let Russia, which is backing Syrian President Bashar Assad, take charge of outside efforts to help resolve the civil war in Syria.

One of Trump’s first calls with a foreign leader after the election was with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia is allied with Iran in the Syrian conflict, making Bolton’s comments about Iran that much more awkward.

Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump slammed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for being too quick to intervene militarily. At every opportunity, he brought up her vote for the Iraq War and her push for NATO airstrikes in Libya ― even though he had backed both operations at the time.

Bolton said Thursday that he finds the debate between interventionism and non-interventionism “unproductive.”

“To me, it’s like saying, ‘Do you prefer a spoon or a knife?” he said. “And the immediate next question is, ‘Well, for what?’ That’s how I view interventionism and non-interventionism. These are the tools in the country’s toolkit and you do what’s appropriate.”

Yet Bolton often prefers the knife of intervention, no matter what the occasion. Much like the proponents of the Iraq War who said the 2003 invasion would be a straightforward undertaking welcomed by the Iraqis, Bolton said Thursday that Iranians want regime change. He also hinted that such regime change could involve the U.S. arming opposition groups.

“I don’t think the regime is popular, but I think it has the guns. I think ― there are ways of supporting the opposition. It does not involve the use of American military force. It does involve helping the opposition to get a different kind of government,” Bolton said.

He did not respond to requests from The Huffington Post for clarification on how regime change in Iran might take place without direct U.S. military intervention.

In the Breitbart interview, Bolton criticized President Barack Obama for not doing more to support the Green Movement protests in Iran in 2009. But he has also supported more extreme opponents to the regime. Bolton has attended rallies in support of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an exiled Iranian dissident group that the U.S. classified as a terrorist organization until 2012.

The obvious disconnect between the worldviews of Trump and Bolton makes it hard to grasp why the president-elect is considering Bolton to be his top diplomat. But lacking any foreign policy experience himself, Trump is easily swayed in this area by the advice of those close to him, multiple sources with knowledge of the transition told The Huffington Post.

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser, likes Bolton, the sources said, in part because of Bolton’s extreme anti-Iran stance and his related unconditional support for Israel. Billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, Trump’s largest financial backers during the campaign, have been heavy supporters of Bolton as well.

 Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

While Trump has called the Iran nuclear agreement a “disaster” and the “worst deal ever negotiated,” he hasn’t urged overthrowing the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as an alternative. At times during the campaign, Trump said he would rip up the nuclear accord, but more frequently, he made vague promises to “renegotiate” the terms of the deal and extract more concessions from Iran. He said he would “enforce it like you’ve never seen a contract enforced before.”

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee ― who has also been floated as a possible secretary of state ― said Wednesday that it’s more likely that Trump will seek to build consensus among U.S. allies that Iran is violating the agreement than move to tear up the deal immediately.

Ryan Grim contributed reporting.

Jessica Schulberg, Foreign Affairs Reporter,

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 168

++ After Donald Trump won the Presidential election, the MEK abruptly changed their tune and began to support him. In addition, this week the MEK held celebrations in Auvers sur Oise and Tirana. Several articles ridiculed this saying ‘they actually think Trump will save them’.

++ Farsi radio channels outside Iran, such as VOA and Radio Farda, have similar articles as the English language media about Giuliani, Bolton and Gingrich and their past financial and lobbying association with a terrorist group which has killed Americans. The MEK tried at first to ignore this media crisis, but then decided to get members and supporters to add comments as individuals to articles in support of the MEK as the ‘main opposition’. Commentators ridiculed this because it is evident this is orchestrated by the MEK. What is worse is that these comments have made it worse for the targets of these articles. They want to whitewash their past support, not have it proven loud and clear in every media outlet.

++ News from Tirana is that two top ranking MEK members were arrested trying to enter the country with false passports. Up to yesterday one was still in prison while the other was released with an electronic tag into the MEK camp. Rumours circulated that Maryam Rajavi had visited Tirana clandestinely. Insiders from the MEK say the group doesn’t deny these rumours. Instead, they want this to circulate because it makes the MEK seem more active and important. Members in Tirana have been calling supporters in other countries to say ‘she came, we cried, we begged forgiveness’. They want to promote Maryam because it is becoming increasingly clear that she is incapable of managing the MEK. The message they want supporters to get is that the close membership worship Maryam as they did Massoud.

++ At the same time, two days ago, a letter from Massoud Rajavi was read to members. In the letter, he congratulates Donald Trump on becoming President of the USA. Rajavi claims things will now change rapidly for the MEK and the regime will soon be overthrown. This has not had the desired effect. People did not cheer and clap. They looked despondent and afterwards began to talk about their problems and the problems of the MEK. Some asked, ‘why does Rajavi write a letter. Now we’re safe in Albania why doesn’t he join us here?’ Some commentators have placed this in the context of Maryam Rajavi‘s effort to replace her husband. But, they say, even if Massoud himself came he could not pick up where he left off, let alone her trying to lead the cult. The same evening this letter was read, five people left the MEK and joined other formers in Tirana.

In English:

++ The close scrutiny of President-elect Trump’s possible choice of cabinet members has allowed journalists to single out Rudi Giuliani, John Bolton and Newt Gingrich – among many others – as problem appointees due to their past support for the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist group. That support was given when the MEK was still on the US terrorism list. As well as revealing corrupt behaviour, Massoud Khodabandeh wrote in the Huffington Post that these links would pose a security threat. The MEK have recorded and filmed private meetings and conversations these three held with MEK members which could be used as leverage (blackmail?) if they are appointed to positions of influence.

++ The MEK may be basking in the warmth of fresh attention and Maryam Rajavi may even believe it heralds a change in the group’s fortunes. But what is really happening is that the ‘cost’ of supporting the MEK is becoming more and more expensive. If neither Giuliani, Bolton nor Gingrich achieves political position because of their past association with this terrorist cult, then other politicians will be more reluctant to support them for fear it will damage their careers.

November 18, 2016

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Gaffney, Lopez, and the MEK

Phil Giraldi alerts us to some of the bad appointments Trump may end up making. Here is one example:

“ Another former CIA officer who is a particularly polarizing figure and is apparently being looked at for high office is Clare Lopez, who has claimed that the Obama White House is infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Lopez is regarded by the Trump team as “one of the intellectual thought leaders about why we have to fight back against radical Islam.” She has long been associated with the Center for Security Policy, headed by Frank Gaffney, a fanatical hardliner who believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in both the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City bombing, that Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist is a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, that Gen. David Petraeus has “submitted to Sharia,” and that the logo of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency reveals “official U.S. submission to Islam” because it “appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star.”

The chance that Lopez or others connected with Gaffney will end up in important positions seems certain to increase now that Frank Gaffney himself has reportedly joined the transition team to “assist on national security issues.” There is even some talk that Gaffney might be considered as a possible nominee for CIA director. That last one seems like a long shot, but if he’s part of the transition team in any way that would still be horrifying.

As if all that weren’t bad enough, Lopez would also be another possible Trump appointee who has been a booster for the Mujahideen-e Khalq over the last few years. Lopez has referred to MEK members as “pro-democracy Iranian patriots,” which would come as news to almost all Iranians and especially to the group’s former members. She has also called for direct U.S. support of the MEK, and has engaged in the usual whitewashing of its record and its ideology that we have come to expect from the group’s supporters.

Eli Clifton concludes a recent report on Lopez and the other pro-MEK figures around Trump this way:

    If Lopez, Giuliani, Bolton, or Gingrich serve in the Trump administrations, the MEK will have the highest level access it’s ever enjoyed in the U.S. government, a remarkable journey for a fringe Islamic-Marxist group that, until 2012, was on the State Department’s terrorism list for its role in assassinating Americans.

Leaving aside the obvious danger these people pose on Iran policy, it is further proof of Trump’s poor judgment that so many people that have been flacking for a foreign totalitarian cult are being seriously considered to serve in his administration.

By Daniel Larison

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

What Will a Trump Foreign Policy Look Like?

So far he has surrounded himself with hardliners

Much of what Trump will do overseas is unknown. He has taken public positions on a few issues, but he has said little or nothing about most of the world. The miserable coverage of foreign policy in this election has helped ensure that he didn’t have to.

What we do know is that Trump has surrounded himself with hard-liners and authoritarians, and he is reportedly considering some of them for top Cabinet posts.

 A Trump administration that includes the likes of Giuliani, Gingrich, Flynn, and Bolton will certainly not be a restrained or realist one, and we can expect increased hostility towards Iran and anyone perceived to be aligned with them. Flynn is one of Trump’s earliest foreign policy advisers, and he co-authored a book with Michael Ledeen, one of the most fanatical Iran hawks of all. He and Ledden wrote this:

We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela. Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.

This is the delusional thinking of someone who could very well be the next Secretary of Defense.

As I mentioned earlier this week, Gingrich, Giuliani, and Bolton have all been boosters of the totalitarian cult and “former” terrorist group, Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), which seeks to replace the current Iranian government with its cult leader. Trump has made denouncing the nuclear deal a major part of his indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, and Iran hawks in Congress will be eager to torpedo it.

I have a hard time seeing Trump fighting to preserve a signature achievement of a president he loathes, and so it is more likely than not the nuclear deal is going to unravel. That will not only be a bad outcome in terms of nonproliferation, but it will also open the door to war with Iran that the deal at least temporarily closed.

One of the bigger challenges facing a Trump administration will be finding people willing to serve in it at lower levels. Many Republican foreign policy professionals have already gone on record opposing Trump’s election in the strongest terms, and it is doubtful that they would now be willing to work for him.

Unlike other Republican presidents-elect, he will not be able to recruit from veterans of the last Republican administration. Since the last Republican administration was a disaster on foreign policy, that is not all bad news, but it does mean that lots of jobs are probably going to go unfilled for a while or will be filled by underqualified loyalists.

In broad strokes, a Trump foreign policy will probably be highly unilateralist, preoccupied with terrorism and Iran, and fixated mostly on the Middle East.

In that sense, it won’t be as much of a radical departure as his supporters hope and his opponents fear, but it will mean continued U.S. entanglement in unnecessary wars for the foreseeable future.

Our foreign policy was already overly obsessed with both terrorism and Iran and has relied on overly militarized responses, and I don’t see a Trump administration advised by the likes of Flynn and Bolton changing that anytime soon.

By Daniel Larison

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

EU-Iran Relations in the Trump Era

One undeniable benefit of the historic nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is that it opened the channels of communications between Iran and the EU beyond the narrow issue of the implementation of the agreement. As the high-level political consultations between the EU and Iran on November 8-9 in Brussels have shown, the bilateral agenda now includes economic cooperation, discussions on regional issues, notably Syria, and even a nascent dialogue on human rights. Thus, the Brussels meetings have provided a suitable opportunity for both Europeans and Iranians to compare notes on the election of Donald Trump as the US president and what it means for the survival of the JCPOA and broader normalization of EU-Iran relations. What emerged from the conversations shows a considerable convergence of views.

Despite Trump’s pre-electoral pledge to renegotiate the deal that he deemed to be “disastrous,” both Iranians and Europeans have adopted a wait-and-see approach. To illustrate how the electoral rhetoric may not match the real actions in office, Iranians pointed to the quiet removal from Trump’s webpage of his statement vowing to ban Muslims from entering the US. Another glimmer of hope, from the Iranian perspective, lies in Trump’s repeated expressions of willingness to work with Russia in Syria and the broader Middle East on the ultimate goal of defeating the so-called Islamic State (ISIS or IS). Since Tehran’s already works closely with Moscow to achieve these priorities, it would be very hard for Trump to square the circle by simultaneously cooperating with Russia and antagonizing Iran. According to this most optimistic reading, Trump foreign policy’s uncertainty holds out some possibility of a more restrained and realist course—as opposed to Hillary Clinton’s predictably hawkish policies that might have undermined the nuclear deal even without consciously seeking such an outcome.

There is, however, a danger of some neoconservatives moving closer to Trump and setting his administration on a more aggressive course than his campaign pronouncements suggested. Already some notorious uber-hawks, such as New Gingrich, John Bolton, and Rudy Giuliani, are slated for top jobs in the Trump administration, including the crucial secretary-of-state job. All three have deep ties with the Iranian dissident cult MEK, on the US terror list until 2012, bitterly opposed to the current Iranian government and advocating regime change in Iran. Although the Saudis, Iran’s archrivals in the region, cast their lot with Clinton, they may now be busy trying to figure out how they can “buy off” Trump. And one of Trump’s top donors, Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate with strong pro-Likud views, has threatened Iran with a nuclear strike.

This uncertainty has prompted analysts like Ariane Tabatabai from the Center for Strategic and International Studies to call on the EU to be more assertive in safeguarding and implementing the deal and act as a check on America. The EU might do exactly that. Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign policy chief and chair of the Joint Commission tasked with overseeing the implementation of the JCPOA, explicitly emphasized the multilateral character of the Iran deal, codified by a UN SC resolution. Since Iran, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, complies with its commitments on the deal, there is absolutely no incentive on the EU side to renegotiate the deal.

Furthermore, the EU’s own interests have been pushing it to invest in its relations with Iran. The EU is closer to the Middle East than the US and is directly affected by the turmoil there in the shape of a terrorist threat and irregular migration. Whether it is the Syrian war or the flow of refugees from Afghanistan, Europeans realize they have to deal with Iran. They also see it as a potentially lucrative market for their businesses. The traffic of officials and businesspeople between Tehran and European capitals is heavy these days. On October 25, the European Parliament (EP) adopted a forward-looking report on relations with Iran. The Council of the EU, the main foreign-policy making body representing the bloc’s 28 member states, is preparing to adopt its new guidelines on relations with Iran, which are expected to overlap significantly with the EP report.

More broadly, there are signs that the election of Trump is already stimulating some hard thinking about the EU’s strategic autonomy. Plans to create a “defense union” are likely to gain further momentum. Of course, transatlantic relations possess a certain inertia that will likely persist. This link is long-standing and deserves to survive the Trump presidency. However, the EU is unlikely to follow the US in doing something as self-defeating as revoking or even re-negotiating the nuclear deal with Iran. What could, however, put the EU in an indefensible position is if Iranian hardliners sabotage the implementation of the deal as a response to American non-delivery on its commitments. It is only to be hoped that cooler heads will prevail in Tehran in the face of possible provocations from the Republican-led White House and Congress.

There is, however, a wild card on the European side as well—Europe’s own right-wing populists, such as the leader of the French National Front Marine Le Pen. Her election as France’s president can no longer be ruled out. Le Pen and her Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), a far-right group in the EP, generally sticks to a superficially friendly line on Iran, regularly lambasting Iran’s foes such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This, however, is part of a general backlash against the French elites, known for their close relations with the Gulf despots, rather than an expression of support for Iran. Le Pen is known for her staunch support for Israel. In the European Parliament vote on the Iran report, she and most of her colleagues from the ENF group abstained. Should Le Pen, who professed her enthusiastic support for Trump, be elected as the president of France, the Iran deal might suffer another blow.

In a world of growing uncertainty, the current leaders of the EU and Iran must do their utmost to ensure that the Iran deal survives the complicated politics of some of its parties. The stakes could not be higher: the fate of a working agreement that not only defused a potentially devastating conflict but also opened a way for re-engaging with one of the key countries in the Middle East.

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

By  Eldar Mamedov

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Giuliani was paid advocate for shady Iranian dissident group

Reports say former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has emerged as a leading candidate to serve as secretary of state under President-elect Donald Trump.  (Reuters)

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is reported to be in contention to be Donald Trump’s attorney general or secretary of state. Senators who will be considering his confirmation may want to examine the fact that Giuliani took money to advocate on behalf of an Iranian dissident group while it was listed by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, potentially breaking the law.

For years, Giuliani has been one of the most prominent American officials to advocate on behalf of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a Marxist Iranian opposition group that claims to be the legitimate government of Iran and resembles a cult. A Treasury Department investigation in 2012 examined whether speaking fees paid by several MEK front groups to a long list of U.S. politicians, including Giuliani, violated laws on Americans receiving money from designated terrorist organizations.

The State Department added the MEK to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 1997 due to its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The group, which has about 3,000 members living in exile in Iraq, has not conducted a confirmed act of terrorism in more than a decade. In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the United States mostly disarmed the MEK and provided its members with protection at their Iraqi base, Camp Ashraf.

Throughout the first term of the Obama administration, Iranian American organizations with extensive links to the MEK paid prominent U.S. national security officials to speak on behalf of the group. They also contributed heavily to the campaign coffers of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The payments ran through the lobbying law firm DLA Piper, which passed the money through a speakers’ bureau that cut checks to the officials.

In 2011 and 2012, Giuliani gave several speeches, including at events inside the congressional office buildings, calling on the State Department to take the MEK off of the list of foreign terrorist organizations. He also heavily criticized the U.S. government’s effort to help relocate MEK members when the Iraqi government evicted them from Camp Ashraf.

In March 2012, Giuliani traveled to Paris to speak at an MEK conference alongside the group’s secretive leader Maryam Rajavi. While there, he called the U.S. military base in Iraq where the United States wanted to relocate the MEK a “concentration camp.” Those comments later appeared in an MEK ad in the New York Times.

That same month, the Treasury Department’s investigation into the payments made to American politicians became public when former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell admitted that he had received a subpoena related to his work on behalf of the MEK. It’s illegal for American citizens to do business with a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization.

During a pro-MEK protest and rally outside the State Department in 2011, Rendell told me he had received $20,000 for his appearance there. How much money Giuliani received per appearance is unclear, although he spoke on behalf of the MEK several times in 2011 and 2012.

Representatives of several of the front groups, which have names like the Iranian American Citizens of Northern California, have maintained that they have not broken any laws.

Other potential Trump administration appointees took money to advocate for the MEK while it was listed as a foreign terrorist organization, including former ambassador John Bolton and former CIA director James Woolsey, but they were less involved than Giuliani. Other officials who have given pro-MEK paid speeches include Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), former FBI director Louis Freeh, former senator Robert Torricelli, former representative Patrick Kennedy, former national security adviser Gen. James Jones, former Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Richard Myers, former White House chief of staff Andy Card, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former representative Lee Hamilton, former CIA director Porter Goss and former senator Evan Bayh.

At the time, top State Department officials often complained about the U.S. politicians who were advocating for the MEK, calling their interference unhelpful and misguided. The American supporters of the MEK were increasing tensions between the U.S. government and the MEK while negotiations were ongoing.

“The Americans who ought to know better and claim to be on the side of good solutions are really damaging it. Either they are too lazy or too arrogant to actually do their homework. They don’t spend the time to learn facts, they just pop off. They accept the MEK line without question and then they posture,” one State Department official told me in 2012.

In October 2012, after the MEK finally relented to State Department pressure and moved to Camp Liberty, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to remove it from the foreign terrorist organization list. What happened to the Treasury Department’s investigation after that is unclear.

The MEK story is complicated because the group does have legitimate grievances and has been the target of deadly attacks by Iranian-backed forces inside Iraq. There are also reports that the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services have used the group’s members at various times to conduct covert operations inside Iran.

Giuliani and the other MEK supporters’ argument that the group is the victim of human rights abuses and deserves protection from atrocities is valid. But by profiting from their advocacy while the group was a listed terrorist organization, they may have broken the law.

And if Giuliani really believes that the MEK could represent a viable alternative to the current Iranian government or a even a key pillar in U.S. policy on Iran, his potential tenure as a national security official in the Trump administration will mean a new and uncharted era in U.S.-Iran relations.

By Josh Rogin ,

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Former Terrorist Group To Enjoy Close Ties to Rumored Trump Cabinet

Donald Trump’s rumored picks for key foreign-policy positions have already set off alarm bells about the future administration’s embrace of war hawks and Islamophobes. Today, Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin pointed out that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is currently reported to be under consideration for an appointment to secretary of state or attorney general, potentially violated the law when he made paid speaking appearances for the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), when the State Department listed the Iranian dissident group as a foreign terrorist organization.

Giuliani isn’t the only likely member of the future administration to have maintained close ties and advocated on behalf of the former terrorist group, which assassinated six Americans in Iran between 1973 and 1976.

John Bolton (another rumored choice for secretary of state), Clare Lopez (who is reportedly short-listed for deputy national security adviser), and Newt Gingrich (who allegedly turned down an offer of secretary of state but has shown interest in serving as a policy adviser in the Trump administration) have all advocated for the former terrorist group and praised its cultish leader, Maryam Rajavi.

Shortly after the overthrow of the Shah, the group experienced a falling out with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and fled into exile. Over the following years, the group’s leaders, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, aligned with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war (7,000 members fought alongside Saddam Hussein, against Iran) and shifted toward increasingly cultish behavior, mandating divorces and celibacy for their soldiers while cultivating a cult of personality around themselves.

Massoud Rajavi hasn’t been seen since overseeing the surrender of MEK forces to the U.S. following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This summer,  the former head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency, Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud referred to Massoud Rajavi as “the late Massoud Rajavi,” suggesting that he may be deceased. Turki’s participation at an MEK event, meanwhile, was a tacit acknowledgement of Saudi Arabia’s support of the group. Indeed, forming opportunistic alliances has been a hallmark of the MEK. In 2012, U.S. officials told NBC News that Israel’s national intelligence agency, Mossad, was training and arming the MEK to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.

The group seeks to portray itself as a government-in-exile and the secular, democratic alternative to Iran’s theocratic government. But the MEK’s lack of influence inside Iran and skepticism about their allegations regarding Iran’s nuclear program—for example, photographic evidence the MEK provided last year allegedly showing evidence of “Lavizan-3,” a secret uranium enrichment facility in the suburbs of Tehran, turned out to be a stock photo from an Iranian safe company – haven’t prevented the group from gaining footholds in Washington through campaign contributions and lucrative speaking gigs for politicians who praise Rajavi and call for regime change in Iran at MEK rallies.

The MEK is known for paying generous sums to former officials who speak at their events. Lee Hamilton, a former chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee who headed the Woodrow Wilson Center for 12 years, told InterPress Service that he was paid “a substantial amount” to appear on an MEK panel in 2011.

Giuliani, Bolton, Lopez, and Gingrich have all sung the praises of Maryam Rajavi, called for the U.S. to work towards regime change in Tehran, and treated the MEK as a legitimate Iranian government in exile.

Speaking at an MEK rally outside Paris last year, Giuliani, who had taken speaking fees from the group when it was on the foreign terrorist organization (FTO) list, told the audience:

I will not support anyone for President of the United States who isn’t clear on that slogan behind me. What does it say? It says “Regime Change.” … I will not support a candidate who does not have the moral fiber and the courage to stand up to the Ayatollah and tell him “We are going to do everything we can to get you out and you are never going to become a nuclear power.”

Bolton, who also advocated for the group when it was on the FTO list, told an MEK audience outside Paris last summer:

There is only one answer here: To support legitimate opposition groups that favor overthrowing the military theocratic dictatorship in Tehran, and it should be the declared policy of the United States of America and all of its friends to do just that at the earliest opportunity.

Gingrich, who also spoke for the group before it was delisted, told the 2016 gathering in Paris:

There are no moderates in the dictatorship. The dictatorship cannot be trusted. The [nuclear] agreement made with it is insane.

He concluded by praising the commitment of Rajavi’s followers, saying:

I want you to know that the message I will take home to America is that there are thousands and thousands of Iranians who are prepared, who are ready, who are committed to and who believe that we can truly bring democracy to Iran.

Lopez, who serves as a vice president at the Center for Security Policy, a far-right think tank headed by anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney, and as executive director of the long-time MEK advocacy group, the Iran Policy Committee, from 2005 to 2006, wrote that Prince Turki’s surprising appearance marked a watershed moment for the MEK.

She wrote:

…[T]he implications of official Riyadh government support for the largest, most dedicated, and best-organized Iranian opposition movement will reverberate through the Middle East.

Although not openly stated by bin Faisal, the new NCRI-Riyadh alliance may be expected to involve funding, intelligence sharing, and possible collaboration in operations aimed at the shared goal of overthrowing the current Tehran regime.

If Lopez, Giuliani, Bolton, or Gingrich serve in the Trump administrations, the MEK will have the highest level access its ever enjoyed in the U.S. government, a remarkable journey for a fringe Islamic-Marxist group that, until 2012, was on the State Department’s terrorism list for its role in assassinating Americans.

by Eli Clifton

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts