Mujahedin Khalq in the List of terrorist Organizations

As U.S.-Iran tensions escalate, Iran’s domestic opposition group is courting allies in the U.S in hope to replace the current authoritarian Iranian regime.

Last week, another former high-ranking official joined the camp.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, registered last week as a foreign agent lobbying pro bono for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a major Iranian dissident group pushing to topple the country’s current administration. Mukasey’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Earlier this week, Mukasey received attention for defending President Donald Trump in an op-ed, pointing to the Justice Department’s statement that declined investigations into the president’s July call with Ukraine.

The council is the political arm of Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK. Responsible for killing Iranian and American citizens in the past, the group was a U.S.-designated terrorist group before its delisting in 2012 following a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.

The group also had close ties with Iraq President Saddam Hussein, who in 1986 sponsored MEK with weapons, funding and a military base in hope for help against the Iranian government.

Although Mukasey officially registered his ties to the group just last week, he had previously met with the group several times between 2015 and 2018, Foreign Agents Registration Act records in OpenSecrets’ Foreign Lobby Watch database show.

Mukasey is among a list of high-ranking former officials who gave paid speeches at conferences in support of the MEK, and was investigated, but never sanctioned, by the Treasury Department for potential violations of law for accepting speaking fees.

Mukasey spoke last year in Paris at the “Free Iran” conference — a gathering of Iranian opposition groups — in favor of a regime change in Iran, promising that he would never rest while supporting the effort. “We hope that the mullahs will topple,” Mukasey said, “but it’s gonna take more effort.”

The former attorney general joined lobbying firm Debevoise & Plimpton after he stepped down as attorney general in 2009. Since 2011, Mukasey and his family members have given more than $50,000 to mostly Republicans and their affiliated PACs, records show. Much of the money went to hawkish lawmakers including Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and former Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

All three senators spoke vocally against the Iranian government in the past. In 2017, Tillis was part of a U.S. delegation led by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to Albania to meet with MEK’s leader Maryam Rajavi. She later thanked the Blunt-led delegation for the Senate’s effort to protect MEK members in Iraq.

Cotton, a longtime critic of the Iranian government, pushed the Trump administration in June to launch a “retaliatory strike” against Iran after the U.S. blamed the country for a series of attacks. McCain backed Trump’s decision to shelve the Iran nuclear deal long before the president withdrew from the agreement, arguing that Iran has “literally been getting away with murder.”

Mukasey’s registration comes at a time when the U.S.-Iran tensions continue to build since Trump’s withdrawal in 2018 from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal.The already-strained relationship took a downturn after multiple attacks and U.S. military movements near the Persian Gulf.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

As the bilateral disagreement intensifies, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently warned that the Middle Eastern country will defend itself with an “all-out war” if the U.S. launches a strike against it. Last Saturday, the U.S. Air Force pulled its longtime Qatar-based Middle East command center back to South Carolina for the first time, the Washington Post reported, saying Iran-related incidents sped up the decision.

Amid rising distrust, the National Council of Resistance of Iran claimed last week that it has evidence proving the Iranian government dictated the attack on Saudi oil facilities, further fueling the conflicts.

Raising its profile in Washington, D.C., over the past few years, the group often participates in congressional briefings, receptions and other events, FARA filings show. They also frequently run opinion pieces in conservative media outlets such as The Washington Times, the Washington Free Beacon and Fox News.

The council has paid American lobbying firm Rosemont Associates $1.4 million since 2013 to lobby the government. Senator-turned-MEK-lawyer Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) — lobbying on behalf of the group — received backlash in 2002 for his support for Iranian opposition groups. While senator, Torricelli met with the council twice in 2001 discussing human rights issues and Iranian missile attacks, records show.

Mukasey’s registration is only the most recent revelation in a network of current and former government officials and ambassadors with ties to the high-profile opposition group.

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, well-known for his aggressive foreign policy views on Iran and other countries, is a longtime critic of the Iranian regime. He advocated for the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, and proposed to bomb Iran to stop nuclear proliferation in an op-ed.

For over a decade, Bolton publicly backed the MEK as a replacement for the current Iranian administration. His personal financial disclosures revealed that he was paid $40,000 in 2016 to conduct a speech to the group.

Between 2015 and 2018, the group met multiple times with Rudy Giuliani, former New York City Mayor and now Trump’s attorney, records show. Representing foreign clients while offering legal services to the president, Giuliani has invited scrutiny. The attorney, with rich connections with Ukraine, pushed the foreign government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden in the most recent Trump-Ukraine controversy.

Giuliani spoke publicly on several occasions in support of overturning the Iranian regime. “The mullahs must go, the ayatollah must go,” said Giuliani at last year’s “Free Iran” conference, “and they must be replaced by a democratic government which Madam Rajavi represents.”

Torricelli, who has long lobbied on behalf of the council, published a Politico op-ed in 2016 arguing that Giuliani’s ties to the group should not be concerning.

Officials of the council met Giuliani in July 2015 to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, days after Iran reached an agreement with six other countries in Vienna to scale back its nuclear commitments in exchange for sanctions relief. Since Trump pulled from the deal, Iran has ramped up uranium production, potentially setting the country on a path to breaching the agreement as the U.S.-Iran tensions worsen.

By Yue Stella Yu, OpenSecrets

Is the Trump Administration Allowing a Terrorist Group to Shape Its Iran Policy?

A now powerful player in the White House, the MKO/MEK group has become a force to be reckoned with, most likely to the detriment of peace.
In a rare move last month Congressional members crossed party lines to join in a bipartisan effort to curb U.S. President Donald Trump’s belligerent tweets and comments about Iran. The vote was not veto proof. At the same time, it appears the MKO/MEK, also known as the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, a group long opposed to the Iranian government, has the ear of the hardliners in the White House.
The Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), which was once a sworn enemy of the United States, has over the past few years reinvented itself as a tactical ally to several Western governments in view of its desire to see Iran’s government collapse.
Often described as a cult by both experts and former members, the group was responsible for the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s.

At the height of 1979 Iranian Revolution the group cheered the storming of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, and the subsequent hostage crisis that followed. Fifty-two American diplomats were held hostage for a period of 444 days.

Such a history of violence and indoctrination was nevertheless ignored when party leaders Maryam and Masoud Rajavi offered to push for a modern-day regime change in Tehran and pose as the only viable alternative to what America sees as an absolute theocracy in Iran.
A report by Elizabeth Rubin published in 2003 in the New York Times, entitled: “The Cult of the Rajavi” best encapsulates the reality of the MKO/MEK.
In a move that coincided with calls in the Middle East for broad democratic reforms and an end to Western military interventionism, the United States announced its decision in 2012 to remove the MKO/MEK from its terrorism list.
While the MKO/MEK may disapprove of Tehran’s mullahs, in alignment with Washington’s narrative, its use of the adjective “democratic” hardly applies to what can only be described as a cult-like paramilitary organization revolving around the worship of its founders and leaders, Masoud and Maryam Rajavi.

During Saddam Hussein’s last year in power, some Iranians held in Abu Ghraib prison were repatriated to Iran in exchange for Iraqi prisoners of war (POWs). These were dissident members of the MKO who had been sent by the organization for “safekeeping” in Abu Ghraib.6 The release of these prisoners in 2002-2003 provided a direct window into conditions inside the MKO camps that was previously inaccessible to the outside world.

For well over a decade now, Human Rights Watch has denounced the countless serious rights violations the MKO/MEK continues to perpetrate against both its members and those its leadership labels as its ideological opponents. A 28-page report sheds light on the abuses its members face should they dare disobey, including claims that those wishing to leave the group have been subjected to “lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings and torture.”
In 2018, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, addressed an MKO/MEK rally in Paris, calling for regime change in Tehran. The arrival of National Security Advisor John Bolton, one of the MKO/MEK’s most powerful and enthusiastic advocates, has given the group unprecedented proximity to the White House and a new lease of political life notwithstanding fears the White House has essentially aligned its policy on Iran with that of the group’s political dogmatism.

Iranian MEK pay John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani; NBC’s Engel

Addressing a crowd of MKO/MEK members, Bolton called in no uncertain terms for the fall of Iran’s regime and the rise of the extreme group.
“There is a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs, and that opposition is centered in this room today … The behavior and objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself,” Bolton announced to the room.
“The outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday … The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran … The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself,” Bolton continued.

Background and Influence
Believed to have between 5,000 to 13,000 members, the MKO/MEK was established in the 1960s as a reaction to the oppressive rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi, a mixture of both Marxism and Islamism. Born in violence, the group has seen its history peppered with calls for bloodshed and acts of terrorism.

In 1981 it led a series of attacks in Iran, which culminated with the killing of 74 senior officials, including 27 MPs. Later that year, its targeted bombing attacks claimed Iran’s president and prime minister’s lives.
Since the 1980s the group has lived in exile, first under the protection of late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein whose troops fought with MKO/MEK troops against Iran, then at the pleasure of several European governments, most notably France and Albania.
Eli Clifton, a fellow at the Nation Institute warned against the MKO/MEK’s influence in the U.S. noting,

“When [MKO] members go and swarm Capitol Hill and seek meetings with the members of Congress, they’re very often the only voices that are heard, because there is simply not a lot of Iranian-American presence on Capitol Hill.”

Moreover, Clifton stressed how the organization, which operates through front groups, writes very large checks to those speaking at their events, thus subsidizing political support. Estimates are in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 per speech. Bolton is estimated to have received upwards of $180,000 to speak at multiple events. His recent financial disclosure shows that he was paid $40,000 for one speech at an MKO/MEK event in 2017.
In 2018 Trita Parsi, leader of the National Iranian American Council wrote on Twitter:

“People, let this be very clear: The appointment of Bolton is essentially a declaration of war with Iran. With Pompeo and Bolton, Trump is assembling a WAR CABINET.”

That is not to say that all politicians and/or state officials, whether in the United States or in Europe, have fallen for the group’s clever play on identity politics. As demonstrated by Congress’ bipartisan efforts to curb hawkish cries for war on Iran, many still are willing to make no moves on Iran.
Over two dozen House Republicans joined Democrats to vote for a measure blocking President Donald Trump from taking military action against Iran without congressional approval. In the light of President’s propensity to push the limits of his executive prerogatives, such a measure comes as a welcome respite. The measure, introduced by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, would prohibit federal funds from being used for military action against Iran without the blessing of Congress. The measure passed 251-170.
“House and Senate leaders must recognize the will of Congress and include a strong provision to bar an unauthorized war with Iran in the final version of the defense bill that comes out of conference,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) in comments to the press.

Deception and Manipulation
Although many will take comfort in the measure, the White House remains too closely tied to the MKO/MEK for anyone to be callous about such political and ideological entanglement, especially if we consider what dire consequences we may all face should war break out in a region already plagued by unrest; notwithstanding the ever-present threat of Islamic radicalism, as expressed by Wahhabis and Salafis.

An Iranian Activist Wrote Dozens of Articles for Right-Wing Outlets. But Is He a Real Person?

As a recent article by Murtaza Hussain in The Intercept states, the MKO/MEK has become too much of a reference point to Washington’s anti-Iranian stance for anyone to entertain any further, at least not if we are serious about acting on facts as opposed to fiction. And yes, in this instance the White House does appear to be collating “fake news” to formulate its Iranian agenda.
As the article infers, Washington’s data on Iran may not be real … at least not in a fashion befitting the most powerful military in the world.
The Intercept article reads: “In 2018, President Donald Trump was seeking to jettison the landmark nuclear deal that his predecessor had signed with Iran in 2015, and he was looking for ways to win over a skeptical press. The White House claimed that the nuclear deal had allowed Iran to increase its military budget, and Washington Post reporters Salvador Rizzo and Meg Kelly asked for a source. In response, the White House passed along an article published in Forbes by a writer named Heshmat Alavi.”
However, “Heshmat Alavi appears not to exist. Alavi’s persona is a propaganda operation run by the Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e-Khalq, which is known by the initials MEK, two sources told The Intercept.” Alavi, the Intercepts posits, is but the product of a collective effort for war against Iran.
Hassan Heyrani, a high-ranking defector from the MEK who is said to have helped shape and directed similar disinformation campaigns in the past told the Intercept how Alavi’s online persona is “run by a team of people from the political wing of the MEK.”

“They write whatever they are directed by their commanders and use this name to place articles in the press. This is not and has never been a real person,” Hayrani further asserted.

While we may have all grown accustomed to Mr. Trump’s bellicose rhetoric and untruths, the possibility of a war with Iran to fit the ambitions of a group made infamous for its terrorist activities and cultish ideology ought to give us pause.
And though not all may look upon Iran’s current regime as ideologically pleasing, to argue change in favor of a group that disallows its members to marry for it would distract them from their political purpose and due worship of their leaders Masoud and Maryam Rajavi is ill-advised.

MKO electronic army – Albania Courtesy of The Spring Institute, Tehran.
A well-oiled machine benefiting from the largess of Iran’s wealthy enemies in the region, for example, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the MKO/MEK has long infiltrated both mainstream media and social media through the establishment of its electronic army. In an interview for Al Bawaba in 2018 Masoud Khodabandeh, a former high-ranking MKO/MEK official, shed light on Saudi Arabia’s financial support for the group, explaining how Riyadh regime has funneled, gold bars, cash and other valuables worth hundreds of millions of dollars through various third parties.
Among other revelations, Khodabandeh described how after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud became the outfit’s main supporter.
“I would say that after the fall of Saddam, the MKO, which was then being run by Masoud [Rajavi] under the patronage of Saddam, changed to the organization run by Maryam [Rajavi] under the patronage of Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud,” he said.
Reports by several organizations and officials in Iran have revealed how deeply embedded the MKO/MEK is within the media to the extent that its data manipulation is now regarded as gospel by even the most well-established of news agencies.
Heshmat Alavi, whose factual existence has been put into question, for example, has been a regular in outlets such as Forbes, The Hill, the Daily Caller, and The Federalist, begging the question of media complicity to serve the group’s powerful political agenda.
A recent documentary published in Iran argues the group’s systematic manipulation of the media as its leadership attempts to present itself as the only democratic alternative to Iran’s current system of governance, the Governance of the Jurist, enticing ever-more willing war hawks to promote belligerence over diplomacy.

What Lies Ahead for MKO/MEK?
In recent weeks, a timeline that coincides with a hardening of tone against Iran, state officials and activists in Tehran have raised questions as to the group’s future based on Maryam Rajavi’s illness. Sources in Iran have confirmed they believe Mrs. Rajavi suffers from cancer, consequently putting the MKO/MEK’s immediate political sustainability under much uncertainty.
Masoud Rajavi, who has failed to appear in public for several years, is believed to reside in Albania, where the MKO/MEK relocated most of its members, most of whom are well into their 50s and 60s.
While groups such as the MKO/MEK, with an ideological premise that relies on a cult of personality, in this case, that of a couple, have for obvious reasons a limited reach, we ought not to discount its ability to muddy our geopolitical waters should their views be fanned under a hawkish anti-Iranian agenda.

Whitewashing the MEK Makes No Sense

If we consider how the group, as documented by the Intercept over the years has managed through heavy lobbying to wash away its terrorist past to now pose as an acceptable alternative to Iran’s current regime, to the tune of millions of dollars, the MKO/MEK’s ability to taint the broad geopolitical discourse through “influencers” should not be discounted, hence the importance of Congressional oversight on the U.S. Executive branch.

A report by Robert Mackey published in March 2018 issues a crucial warning:

“Despite such doubts that the MEK’s political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, is any more reliable than Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress proved to be, spending lavishly on paid endorsements has earned the group a bipartisan roster of Washington politicians willing to sign up as supporters. At a previous gala in 2016, Bolton was joined in singing the group’s praises by another former U.N. ambassador, Bill Richardson; a former attorney general, Michael Mukasey; the former State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley; the former Homeland Security adviser Frances Townsend; the former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I.; and the former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. That Paris gala was hosted by Linda Chavez, a former Reagan administration official.”

To disavow Iran politically should not translate into an alliance of convenience with groups we know to have promoted and perpetrated heinous acts of terrorism. Recent attempts at regime change in Libya and Syria, through the weaponization of less than desirable factions, on the basis that the end justified the means should serve as cautionary tales.
To offer more than an ear to a group, which not too long ago, rejoiced at the misfortune of U.S. diplomats certainly flies in the face of the America President Trump has been not only so keen on but vocal on defending and promoting.
To watch the MKO/MEK grow in strength and access ought at the very least to give us pause.

By Catherine Shakdam, citizentruth.org 

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Citizen Truth.)

Trump’s Strange, Tense Campaign Against Iran Politics

At the 2017 U.N. General Assembly, President Trump asked French President Emmanuel Macron to relay a private message to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Trump wanted to meet, in secret, with the Iranian leader, according to Western and Iranian officials. Macron called Rouhani and asked if he was interested. The Iranian leader and members of his delegation were astonished. Trump had just given a blistering speech in front of more than a hundred world leaders declaring that Iran was a corrupt dictatorship whose leaders had turned a wealthy country “into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.” He had called on “the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran’s government end its pursuit of death and destruction.” From the U.N. pulpit, Trump warned Tehran’s revolutionary leaders, “Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever.” Rouhani rebuffed the overture. He told Macron that he had had enough problems at home after taking a telephone call from President Obama, in 2013—and Obama hadn’t publicly insulted him. “We said, ‘Are you joking?’” the foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, told me. A year later, the three leaders were again at the United Nations. At the end of his meeting with Trump, Macron said that he was scheduled to see Rouhani later that day. Did Trump want him to relay another message? “No,” Trump reportedly replied. “They have to suffer more first.” In the past month, the Trump Administration has been “dramatically accelerating”—in the words of the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo—its efforts to inflict more pain on Iran. On April 8th, in an unprecedented step, Trump designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. No leader of any nation has ever designated another country’s standing Army as a terrorist organization—not even George W. Bush before the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, in 2003. The move was all the more striking because the United States and Iran are not at war—yet.

Iran’s parliament responded in kind, passing legislation that designated the U.S. Central Command—or CENTCOM, the military branch that runs operations in the Middle East and South Asia—as a terrorist organization. In a show of support, Iranian legislators also wore uniforms of the Revolutionary Guard into parliament. This week, the Administration extended its “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. The White House announced that it would sanction any country or company—even longtime allies—that buys Iranian oil. The five largest importers of Iranian oil are China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey. In the past, Washington has granted waivers as long as imports from Iran at least decreased. No longer. The U.S. goal is to eliminate all Iranian oil sales, a move designed to cripple the country economically. Since Trump announced that he would re-impose sanctions, last May, Iran has lost at least ten billion dollars—around thirty million dollars a day—in oil revenues, the State Department claimed this week. No past punitive U.S. or international sanctions—applied during the 1979-1982 hostage crisis, the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, or by the U.N. between 2006 and 2016—totally cut off Iran’s exports. “We will continue to apply maximum pressure on the Iranian regime until its leaders change their destructive behavior, respect the rights of the Iranian people, and return to the negotiating table,” Pompeo said, on Monday. Trump, who last year abandoned the 2015 nuclear deal brokered by six major powers, has demanded that Tehran negotiate a new and bigger pact that also covers Iran’s missiles, support for extremist movements, intervention in the Middle East, and human-rights abuses. On Wednesday, Iran dismissed the U.S. threat but expressed concern that escalating tensions could trigger a military confrontation. “President Trump believes that by pushing us, by imposing economic pressure on us, we will sell our dignity. Not gonna happen,” Zarif said, at the Asia Society, in New York, on Wednesday. “We don’t look at history in terms of two-, four-, and six-year terms as usually people do over there—the members of Congress or in the Administration or in the Senate. We look at history in millennia. And our dignity is not up for sale.” The matching terrorist designations by both countries have fuelled speculation in Washington’s foreign-policy community, and among elected officials of both parties, about intentional or accidental military conflict. Last month, Senator Richard Durbin, of Illinois, and Senator Tom Udall, of New Mexico, warned in a Washington Post op-ed of the similarities between the U.S. language against Iran today and the rhetoric about Iraq under Saddam Hussein. “Sixteen years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we are again barrelling toward another unnecessary conflict in the Middle East based on faulty and misleading logic,” they wrote. “The Trump administration’s Iran policy, built on the ashes of the failed Iraq strategy, is pushing us to take military action aimed at regime change in Tehran. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past, and Congress must act urgently to ensure that.” In New York, on Wednesday, Zarif said that he did not believe President Trump wants a war with Iran, but said that others in the Administration—as well as countries with influence at the White House—did. “It is not a crisis yet, but it is a dangerous situation. Accidents, plotted accidents, are possible,” Zarif said. “The plot is to push Iran into taking action. And then use that.” He charged that “the B-Team,” after their initials—the national-security adviser, John Bolton; the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu; the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman; and the U.A.E. crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed—wanted some kind of military showdown between the United States and Iran. “I wouldn’t discount the B-team plotting an accident anywhere in the region, particularly as we get closer to the [2020 U.S.] election,” Zarif said. “The B-Team wants regime change at the very least. They want the disintegration of Iran, as their objective.” Zarif’s comments underscored a widely held view among diplomats and analysts in Washington that Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo ultimately differ in their goals on Iran—and on how far they are willing to go to achieve them. The President campaigned against another war in the region—citing the trillions of dollars spent in the lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senior Western diplomats who are engaged with the White House believe that, despite his inflammatory language, the President still does not want to deploy troops to fight Iran. Shortly after Bolton was appointed last year, a Western envoy recalled hearing Trump say to him, with teasing seriousness, “You’re not going to bring me into a war, are you?“ The President also said publicly that he was willing to meet Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Bolton, however, has long advocated regime change—and the use of military force to achieve it. In 2015, he wrote an op-ed in the Times titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” “The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required,” he wrote. “Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.” (Iran was actually then well into negotiations with the six major powers about the nuclear deal that was signed three months later.)

Before going to the White House, Bolton was also a longtime supporter of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (M.E.K.), or People’s Warriors, an exiled group that advocates overthrowing the Iranian government. The M.E.K. was on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations until 2012 and was long allied with Saddam Hussein. Bolton was a keynote speaker at its annual conference, in Paris, for eight years. At its 2017 annual conference, he vowed that their rally on the fortieth anniversary of the revolution, this past February, would be held in Tehran. Pompeo also called for regime change when he was in Congress, representing Kansas. Since becoming Secretary of State, he has claimed that the Administration is instead seeking to change the regime’s “behavior.” But, last May, he outlined a list of twelve demands for Iran so sweeping that they were widely perceived as a call for regime change. At a closed-door meeting with a group of Iranian-Americans in Dallas, last week, Pompeo reportedly said, “Our best interest is a non-revolutionary set of leaders leading Iran.” Yet he also said, this week, that the United States does not support the M.E.K. Iran’s reciprocal threats have escalated the risks of confrontation. After the United States issued its global ban on importing Iranian oil, Tehran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which up to thirty per cent of seaborne global oil trade flows. Zarif vowed that Iran would flout the U.S. ban on oil sales. “We will continue to use the Strait of Hormuz as a safe transit passage for the sale of our oil,” Zarif said, on Wednesday. “But if the United States takes the crazy measure of trying to prevent us from doing that, then it should be prepared for the consequences.” In his speech at the Asia Society, Zarif did hold out one possibility for talks with the United States. For the first time, he offered publicly to arrange a swap of American and Iranian prisoners held in each country’s jails. There are at least six Americans, dual-nationals or U.S. permanent residents, imprisoned in Iran, with another two out on bail. Iran has not said how many of its citizens are being held in U.S. prisons, but a review of publicized cases indicates that there may be more than a dozen Iranians or dual-nationals charged, indicted, or convicted. Iran made the offer privately last year. But the Trump Administration had not shown an interest in pursuing it until recently, and only after pressure from families of detainees, according to U.S. sources familiar with the overture. “I put this offer on the table publicly now,” Zarif said. “Exchange them. All these people that are in prison inside the United States, on extradition requests from the United States, we believe their charges are phony. The United States believes the charges against these people in Iran are phony. Why? Let’s not discuss that. Let’s have an exchange. I’m ready to do it. And I have authority to do it. We informed the government of the United States six months ago that we are ready. Not a response yet.” Under the Trump Administration, the prospects of dialogue with the Islamic Republic on detainees, diplomatic détente, or any other subject seems more remote than ever—and the risk of escalating tensions is ever higher.

Pompeo also called for regime change when he was in Congress, representing Kansas. Since becoming Secretary of State, he has claimed that the Administration is instead seeking to change the regime’s “behavior.” But, last May, he outlined a list of twelve demands for Iran so sweeping that they were widely perceived as a call for regime change. At a closed-door meeting with a group of Iranian-Americans in Dallas, last week, Pompeo reportedly said, “Our best interest is a non-revolutionary set of leaders leading Iran.” Yet he also said, this week, that the United States does not support the M.E.K. Iran’s reciprocal threats have escalated the risks of confrontation. After the United States issued its global ban on importing Iranian oil, Tehran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which up to thirty per cent of seaborne global oil trade flows. Zarif vowed that Iran would flout the U.S. ban on oil sales. “We will continue to use the Strait of Hormuz as a safe transit passage for the sale of our oil,” Zarif said, on Wednesday. “But if the United States takes the crazy measure of trying to prevent us from doing that, then it should be prepared for the consequences.” In his speech at the Asia Society, Zarif did hold out one possibility for talks with the United States. For the first time, he offered publicly to arrange a swap of American and Iranian prisoners held in each country’s jails. There are at least six Americans, dual-nationals or U.S. permanent residents, imprisoned in Iran, with another two out on bail. Iran has not said how many of its citizens are being held in U.S. prisons, but a review of publicized cases indicates that there may be more than a dozen Iranians or dual-nationals charged, indicted, or convicted. Iran made the offer privately last year. But the Trump Administration had not shown an interest in pursuing it until recently, and only after pressure from families of detainees, according to U.S. sources familiar with the overture. “I put this offer on the table publicly now,” Zarif said. “Exchange them. All these people that are in prison inside the United States, on extradition requests from the United States, we believe their charges are phony. The United States believes the charges against these people in Iran are phony. Why? Let’s not discuss that. Let’s have an exchange. I’m ready to do it. And I have authority to do it. We informed the government of the United States six months ago that we are ready. Not a response yet.” Under the Trump Administration, the prospects of dialogue with the Islamic Republic on detainees, diplomatic détente, or any other subject seems more remote than ever—and the risk of escalating tensions is ever higher.

newyorker.com