WAR against IRAN
Mujahedin Warmongers
Editor’s note: The recently released National Intelligence Estimate says Iran had “suspended its nuclear weapon program.” But Iran’s purported nuclear weapons program never existed, writes NAM contributing editor William O. Beeman. Beeman is professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota and author of “The ‘Great Satan’ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.”
Iran has never had a proven nuclear weapons program. Ever. This inconvenient fact stands as an indictment of the Bush administration’s stance on Iran.
The recently released 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran “suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003” caught the Bush administration flat-footed. In his panic, Bush grasped desperately at the idea that the weapons program may have once existed. However, the report does not offer a scintilla of evidence that the weapons program was ever an established fact.
Designating 2003 as the date that Iran “stopped” its program is telling:
this is the year the Bush administration first decided to create a case for attacking Iran based on the purported danger of its nuclear program.
In February 2003, the U.S. government-designated terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq, better known as the MEK (or MKO) “revealed” the existence of Iran’s nuclear facilities to Washington. The MEK, which had been purged from Iran during the period following the 1979 revolution, took up residence in Iraq under the protection of Saddam Hussein. The MEK, sometimes identified as an “Islamic Marxist” organization, is dedicated to the overthrow of the current Iranian government. It has been assiduous in courting American lawmakers to recruit U.S. support for its cause. Legislators such as Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Florida Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have championed this cause, and neoconservatives Patrick Clawson and Daniel Pipes lobbied for its removal from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations in order to use the MEK in the Bush White House drive for regime change in Iran.
Subsequently, the Bush administration claimed that Iran had “concealed” its weapons program for decades, and began a campaign to shut down all nuclear development.
In fact, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) grants all nations the “inalienable right” to peaceful nuclear development. Further, it does not require any nation to report its facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until fissile material, such as uranium, is actually introduced into the facility.
Iran did indeed have a brief reporting lapse. It revealed the start of its nuclear enrichment experiments at the time they began, rather than announcing this to the IAEA 180 days before experimentation as was required. This was in 2003, and it was the only serious breech of protocol.
The National Intelligence Estimate now identifies 2003 as the date when the weapons program stopped — literally at the point when the Bush administration first became aware of it.
2003 was two years before the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was more than a year before the United States began to lobby for U.N. economic sanctions against Iran. Claiming that “international pressure” had caused Iran to modify its behavior, the Bush administration tried desperately to justify its exaggerated characterizations of the danger Iran posed to the world. The only event that the Bush administration can now claim as constituting “international pressure” is the May 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
If the international community understands that Iran never had a weapons program, President George W. Bush’s statement that Iran could start the program up “again” is clearly absurd.
It is now clear that the Bush administration’s campaign to convince the world of the danger of Iran’s purported immanent nuclear weapons was a sham. The campaign was one in a series of public pretexts to effect regime change in the Islamic Republic. No amount of equivocation, or bluster about Iran’s “continuing” danger can mask the fact that American credibility on this issue has been irrevocably damaged.
The only positive outcome of this debacle may be that the Bush administration may finally accept that differences with Iran can only be solved by actually talking to the leaders of the Islamic Republic. Restoration of diplomatic relations, even at a low level, will begin the process of reducing the hostile atmosphere that has been created, and will start the long, slow process toward the restoration of productive and peaceful relations.
New America Media, News Analysis, William O. Beeman
Many of us remember the Iraqi exile groups whose tall tales the Administration used to justify the invasion of their country in 2003. Fewer people are aware that similar groups from other Middle Eastern countries frequent the halls of Congress and editorial board rooms carrying their frightening ghost-written books with guidance from pro-war think tanks. The organized challenge against the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) summary on Iran this month included such a group, which for years cried wolf about Iran.
The NIE’s critics are complaining that it falsely weakens the Bush administration’s campaign against Iran. Trusting that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons is suicidal, warn the neoconservatives who prompted the invasion of Iraq in search of imaginary banned weapons. As in the period that preceded the Iraq War, the hawks are now validated by an exile entity dedicated to violent regime change. The Iranian enabler group that has replaced the old Iraqi National Congress is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). In cooperation with leading neoconservative figures, NCRI has for over a decade spared no effort to destroy any chance of a U.S.-Iranian détente.
Eight days after the NIE summary assured the world that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons at this time international media reported that NCRI dismissed the report’s findings. No other Iranian opposition group has actively challenged the new NIE’s credibility.
Going even farther, NCRI’s Washington spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, claimed that Iran’s nuclear program is managed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s (IRGC) scientists during a Fox News interview. As the most trusted branch of Iran’s armed forces, the IRGC was late this year designated by the White House as a sponsor of international terrorism. The exile group has also echoed the Washington war party’s claims that Iran is arming Iraqi resistance groups with advanced weapons resulting in U.S. casualties.
NCRI’s scare campaign against Iran is an attempt to overcome its own infamy. The”Council”is a front group based in Paris for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (known also as MEK, MKO, or PMOI), according to the U.S. State Department, which bans both as a single terrorist organization. MEK’s pariah status makes it entirely dependent on the goodwill of the U.S. military, which has since the spring of 2003 sheltered its 3,500-plus fighters in northern Iraq after they disarmed.
The militia has for a quarter-century topped Tehran’s”most wanted”terrorist list and is now sought by Iraq’s government for atrocities it allegedly committed in Saddam’s service. It fled Iran in the mid 1980s and fought on the Iraqi side during the Iran-Iraq war, hoping to overthrow the young Islamic Republic. Its campaign to deepen Western distrust of Iran is motivated primarily by the real possibility that its key figures will face capital crimes charges in Iraq and Iran if a U.S. accommodation with Iran ends the militia’s utility to U.S. strategists as a bargaining chip. The latest sign of MEK’s vulnerability emerged December 16 when Iran asked that the next round of U.S.-Iran negotiations in Baghdad address MEK’s status.
Like the old Iraqi National Congress headed by Ahmad Chalabi, the MEK has powerful conservative backers in Western capitals that promote it as a democratic alternative. In Washington, these have included John Ashcroft, Dick Armey, Richard Perle, and members of Congress Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Tom Tancredo, all of whom were and remain advocates of the Iraq invasion. Among officially designated foreign terrorist organizations, MEK is the only one that can obtain street demonstration permits in Washington through its thinly disguised front operations. Poster-size portraits of the husband and wife team that have headed MEK for a generation are in abundance at such rallies, including one held on the grounds of U.S. Congress in 2004.
The surest way for the MEK to stay in business appears to be just the path they are following. They need to make themselves indispensable to the warmongers in the United States by helping subvert accommodation with Iran. (In this, they share the predicament of their neocon masters, who will be out of a job if peace prevails for too long.)
If Washington decides against an all out war on Iran and opts instead for a”low intensity conflict,”as Ronald Reagan’s wars of attrition in Central America came to be known, the MEK can well be the core of a Contra-style mercenary force. Claiming the mantle of the”Reagan Revolution,”the neoconservatives would certainly welcome that as the next best thing to the war that they want badly even after the NIE largely vindicated Iran. There have been persistent rumors over the past year that American military or intelligence agencies have trained selected MEK operatives for clandestine missions in Iran, after having them renounce terrorism and swear allegiance to”democracy.”
If, on the other hand, the Bush administration or its successor chooses sustained dialog instead of confrontation with Iran, the future of the MEK will never be far from the minds of Iranian negotiators. The White House has stressed its twin objectives of strengthening the government of”liberated”Iraq and limiting Tehran’s influence there. Iranian leaders see an inherent contradiction in that policy. They are anxious to find out whether the U.S. will continue to shelter the MEK as an irritant to Iran or will transfer custody of the militia to Iran’s trusted Iraqi authorities as an affirmation of Iraqi sovereignty. As Washington prepares for its next round of talks on Iraqi security with Iran in January, a sure way it can build confidence would be to agree to discuss this sensitive matter.
Rostam Pourzal, Alternet.org, December 28, 2007
Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) has spared no efforts under the cult-like hegemony of the Rajavis and its innate hypocrisy to conduct a violent regime change in Iran and to destroy chances of rehabilitation of relations between Iran and some other Western countries. For instance, only eight days after the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) summary assured the world that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, MKO’s alias, NCRI, challenged against the report’s findings. No other Iranian opposition group has actively challenged the new NIE’s credibility. Following the organizational tendency of duplicity to escalate the tension whenever it grabs any opportunity, NCRI’s Washington spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, claimed that Iran’s nuclear program is managed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s (IRGC) scientists during a Fox News interview. That is what Rostam Pourzal, heading the U.S. branch of the Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, expands on in his article published in AlterNet. He believes that “NCRI’s scare campaign against Iran is an attempt to overcome its own infamy. The "Council" is a front group based in Paris for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (known also as MEK, MKO, or PMOI), according to the U.S. State Department, which bans both as a single terrorist organization. MEK’s pariah status makes it entirely dependent on the goodwill of the U.S. military, which has since the spring of 2003 sheltered its 3,500-plus fighters in northern Iraq after they disarmed”. The militia has for a quarter-century topped Tehran’s "most wanted" terrorist list and is now sought by Iraq’s government for atrocities it allegedly committed in Saddam’s service. It fled Iran in the mid 1980s and fought on the Iraqi side during the Iran-Iraq war, hoping to overthrow the young Islamic Republic. Its campaign to deepen Western distrust of Iran is motivated primarily by the real possibility that its key figures will face capital crimes charges in Iraq and Iran if a U.S. accommodation with Iran ends the militia’s utility to U.S. strategists as a bargaining chip. The latest sign of MEK’s vulnerability emerged December 16 when Iran asked that the next round of U.S.-Iran negotiations in Baghdad address MEK’s status.
Mojahedin.ws-December 28, 2007
I have recently posted an interesting piece by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich entitled "Iran Intelligence Report: Another Psychological Warfare?". This was not the first time I had read Soraya’s very interesting and insightful articles about Iran and this latest piece prompted me to contact Soraya and ask her for an interview. Soraya kindly agreed to my request and it is my real pleasure today to resume my "Saker interviews" series with a (virtual) conversation with her.
——-
Q: First, could you please introduce yourself in a couple of words. I know that you have an interesting bio and that you lived in several countries, including Iran. Could you please give us some details about yourself?
A. I am an Iranian-American with a degree from International Relations from U.S. As an independent researcher, I have focused on U.S. foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program and the role of lobby groups in foreign policy decisions. I think of myself as a peace activist and have become a political essayist because I think that building awareness is important and people can make a change. I am also a public speaker and radio commentator.
Q: Also, just to set the record straight, do you consider yourself a supporter or an opponent of the current government of the Islamic Republic of Iran?
A. I support a secular democracy. Having said that, I must emphasize that there is a clear distinction between Iran as a country, as a nation with over 10,000 years of history, and the current government policies. While I disagree with the internal policies of the Islamic Regime of Iran regarding human rights and democracy, I strongly support Iran’s right for independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Q: In your article you mention the Mojahedeen-e Khalgh (MEK) group. In the western corporate media it is very rarely mentioned. This group is listed on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations but a number of observers have also alleged that this group is supported by the USA and especially the CIA. What can you tell us about this group, its activities in Iran and its relationship with the USA?
A. Mojahedeen-e Khalgh/National Council of Resistance (also known by their acronyms MEK/MKO/NCRI) is a terrorist group in every sense. U.S. and EU also consider them as a terrorist group, and yet they are supported by the United States. In act, it is such an irony that Mr. Bush declares a war on terror, depletes our treasury, American soldiers die in order to keep us safe from terrorists, yet our tax dollars are being spent not on keeping terrorists in comfort. Upon invading Iraq, 3800 MEK terrorists were given special persons status by the orders of this administration. When this order was issued, there was considerable surprise even at the State Department briefing (source: US State Department Daily Briefing).
These sentiments are echoed in Europe where their leader roams around the European parliament. Hardly the treatment a terrorist should receive.
As for their relation with Iran – The MEK is deeply hated by the majority of Iranians because of their [alliance] with Saddam Hossein during the Iran-Iraq war. The MEK are responsible for killing Iranians and the American government now thinks they can install them as a substitute to the Iranian regime.
The MEK claims to have exposed Iran’s nuclear plant under construction “ however, Sy Hersh exposed their Israeli connections. And the essay I wrote, further exposed the role the US/Israel has in mind for them.
Q: Even before the publication of the 2007 NIE it was quite obvious that all this nonsense about an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program being developed right under the noses of the IAEA inspectors was just a pretext for "regime change" in Iran. But what about the accusation that Iran is training, funding, arming and even possibly directly supporting various Shia factions in Iraq, including the Badr Corps and the Mehdi Army? What do you make of the US accusation that the Pasdaran’s Quds Force is operating in Iraq against US occupation forces?
A. I have not seen any credible evidence to support these accusations. But, the Iraqi government at the highest level such as Prime Minister Nouri Maleki, Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari, all have repeatedly appreciated Iranian cooperation for Iraq’s stability and security. However, I just find it odd that the U.S. is always losing military equipment. Not only was the war planning poor, but it seems that the arms are coming from the US, and not from Iran. In the latest scandal it has been discovered that $1 billion in military equipment is missing in Iraq.
Laura Strickler, CBS News, said, "Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted-for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit."
Q: In his testimony to Congress General Petraeus said: In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps’ Qods Force. A Hezbollah "department 2800" directed by the Quds Force, that sounds very specific. What do you make of that accusation?
A. This is curious indeed. World Public Opinion came out with a poll taken in 4 Moslem countries, Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia, and Pakistan. With a vast margin, they all thought that the US is seeking to undermine Islam. Every time there is news of an incident, it is reported as ‘Islamist radicals, Islamist terrorist, racial Islam’ and so forth. Not a single terrorist is identified by his or her nationality, they are always identified by their religion, I presume because we lack the intelligence to identify the perpetrator’s nationality – unless we want to make a point about Islam being a terrorist religion. – which could explain why the Moslem world is so apprehensive about America. So I am dumbfounded how in Iraq, General Petraeus who I dare say is the Green Zone, managed to know exactly who is training a specific group in such minute detail. One must also understand that Hezbollah has fought hard to become a legitimate group in Lebanon – it is one thing to fight against Israel as a force, another to be ‘terrorists’ in Iraq. Moreover, if Iran wants to do something in Iraq, regretfully, it has its own people.
Q: The Neocons have succeeded in getting Congress to pass a resolution declaring that the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (Pasdaran) is a ‘terrorist’ organization. Since the latter are under the direct command of Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, does that not amount to declaring him and the entire Iranian government as ‘terrorist’?
A. Since Ayatollah Khamenei is the chief commander of Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guards as well, then one might assume that Ayatollah himself is accused indirectly. I forget how many years it has been since they have said Iran is a state sponsor of terrorists. But, I don’t think those who passed this resolution, really meant the Ayatollah. I think the main purpose of this resolution is to create a dispute between the two main branches of Iranian military organization–the regular Army and the Revolutionary Guards on one hand and also to justify economic pressure on the Revolutionary Guards, such as blocking its assets outside Iran.
However, Mr. Rafsanjani (the former president and the current Chairman of the Assembly of Experts) responded to this law that it is against the entire Iranian nation. And even the moderates such a former president Khatami expressed almost the same opinion, but in a different way. Moreover, it seems that there is not much enthusiasm to enforce this resolution.
Q: Speaking of Ali Khamenei, he is a very interesting figure. According to Wikipedia, he is not Persian but Azeri and even though he is at the helm of a majority Persian country he is also the spiritual leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah (even though most Lebanese Shia are followers of Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Lebanese Arab). What is your take on this little know personality (at least in the West), on his role in today’s Iran, and on his relationship with President Ahmadinejad?
A. Yes, that’s true Ali Khamenei as a religious leader and as an Ayatollah has many followers and not just in Lebanon. In Shia, there is no Pope-like figure that everyone follows. All Shia Grand Ayatollahs, whether Arab or Iranian, while they have common and extremely close perception of Shiism even as they hold different view in many details. For example, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Najaf, who was born in the Iranian city of Mashhad is the most influential man in Iraq, who can send shockwaves through Iraq with a Fatwa. All Iraqi Shias listen to him and follow his command in despite of Iraqis being Arabs.
So, the same holds for Lebanon; many Shias despite being Arabs follow Ayatollah Khamenei as their spiritual leader while others follow Grand Ayatollah Fadl-Allah – These two are close friends. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah is a political leader and not a spiritual leader, though he is a medium rank Shia cleric. Nasrallah came out as a hero for defending Lebanon against Israel during the 33-day war – Ahamadinejad is a hero to many for resisting the U.S. intimidation and defending Iran’s sovereign right.
Q: There have been a number of changes at the head of the Pasdaran recently with Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jaafari replacing Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi who was appointed to the position of Senior Advisor to the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for Military Affairs. Similarly, Saeed Jalili has replaced Ali Larijani as Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator. What do you make of these changes? Are they are reflection of infighting among various groups inside the Iranian government?
A. It is hard to say, it could be because of many reasons. As you may know, it is a policy in any country that no one should occupy a key position, specially in the military and security for a long period. That is what happens and even in the U.S. high-ranking generals, in spite of their loyalty and service are replaced all the time. I think, this could be the main reason for the recent changes in Sepah (the IRGC or Pasdaran. VS), though, I do not exclude other possibilities.
Q: What kind of political opposition is there in Iran today? What has been going on between the ‘Conservative’ and ‘Reformist’ parties in Iran? What about the so-called ‘ultra-conservatives’ lead by Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi? It is often said that President Ahmadinejad has disappointed his supporters? Is that true and, if yes, who do you believe might succeed him?
A. "Ahmadinejad: rock star in rural Iran" (see CS monitor article)
Q: According to Wikipedia, Iran is only 51% Persian. The US has often used the ethnic diversity of the countries who dared to refuse its supremacy to break them apart into smaller, subservient, parts fully dependent on Washington’s goodwill. One only needs to see how the US financed and supported the various nationalist movements in the former Soviet Union or former Yugoslavia to impose its rule by the old ‘divide and conquer’ tactic. Is there are risk that the USA might repeat this with Iran?
A. Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. As you know, very often some people might change and edit the posted material. Furthermore, nobody knows exactly the precise percentage of ethnic diversity of Iran. Even the Iranian government can’t give the exact figure, what is at hand is based on guestimations. For centuries, Iranians have intermingled from different parts of Iran, greater Persian Empire and even different parts of the Middle East. So, it is really foolish to map out Iran based on ethnicity.
But, the second part of your question about the possibility of creating ethnic problem for Iran, I say yes, there might be small groups of western-supported separatists, like PJAK [Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan] who commit terrorism. Please see the article Movers and Shakes of U.S. foreign Policy
But the analogy of the former Soviet Union or even former Yugoslavia is not appropriate here. The former Soviet Union was made of different Nations occupied by Russia. The former Yugoslavia came to existence only after World War I. On the other hand, Iran has been a nation for more than 2500 years. The sense of national pride and long history is very strong amongst the vast majority of Iranians.
by VINEYARDSAKER
“Iran: Fact & Fiction”
On December 8, 2007, CNN’s Special Investigations Unit started televising “Iran: Fact & Fiction” with Campbell Brown and Frank Sesno. Currently, the scheduled showings are 7 and 11 P.M. (Eastern Time) on December 8 and 9, 2007.
The major theme of the program is missed opportunities by political leaders in America and in Iran for peace. After years of television programs on the Fox News Channel and elsewhere promoting America’s worst enemies, the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) who want to bomb Iran, this CNN program provides some attempts to learn from past missed opportunities for peace.
Iran helped America fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, Fall 2001
Following September 11, 2001, the Islamic Republic of Iran helped America fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. CNN provided only a few of the examples of Iran’s help, such as providing safe passage for humanitarian supplies going to Afghanistan and offering to work with the American military in providing military training for a new government in Afghanistan. How did President George W. Bush thank Iran for Iran’s sacrifices and help? In his January 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said that Iran is a member of the axis of evil. James Dobbins, a former State Department official, reported the extent of Iran’s help.
Iran’s Unsigned 2003 Memorandum
Switzerland passed to the American government an unsigned 2003 memorandum from the Iranian government suggesting in detail ways to resolve differences between Iran and America. This television program showed only a portion of the 2003 memorandum. That portion included a discussion of the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists. Brown and Sesno did not explain that President George W. Bush had used the MEK as a pretext for the Iraq War in 2002 and then protected America’s terrorist enemies at Camp Ashraf, Iraq in 2003.
Nicholas Burns, responsible for Iran at the State Department now (but not in 2003), appeared to lack knowledge of, and interest in, the 2003 memorandum.
Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), expressed her satisfaction that the Swiss official who passed the Iranian memorandum to American officials lost his job. She noted that America’s ambassadors to Iraq and to the United Nations meet with Iranian officials but nothing results from the meetings.
Brown and Sesno should have interviewed Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), author of “The Guldimann Memorandum: The Iranian ‘roadmap’ wasn’t a roadmap and wasn’t Iranian” (Weekly Standard, October 22, 2007).
Trita Parsi, National Iranian American Council (NIAC), regarded the Bush Administration’s failure to respond to the 2003 memorandum a missed opportunity.
Mohammad Khatami’s Election as President of Iran, 1997
This program included details of the efforts of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who served in the Clinton administration, to respond to the opportunity provided by the election of Mohammad Khatami as President of Iran in 1997:
1. Albright gave speeches responding favorably to themes expressed in Khatami’s speeches.
2. America relaxed visa restrictions on Iranians.
3. Iranian scholars were permitted to visit America.
4. America wrestlers competed in Iran.
5. Albright gave a speech admitting American errors to a meeting of Professor Hooshang Amirahmadi’s American Iranian Council (AIC).
This program included an appearance by Kenneth Pollack, formerly with the National Security Council, who noted that Iran’s Supreme Leader responded unfavorably to America’s friendly overtures. Brown and Sesno failed to disclose relevant details about Pollack, such as:
1. Pollack is the author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Pollack has admitted that he understands very little Arabic.
2. Pollack is the author of The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America. At the end of this book, Pollack admitted that he has never been to Iran and does not know Persian (Farsi).
Trita Parsi explained correctly that it was a mistake for America’s political leaders to reach out to only one person or one faction in the Iranian government.
Frank Sesno explained correctly that many Iranians do not trust America’s political leaders because of American support for the Shah of Iran and of American support for Saddam Hussein against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.
Unfortunately, Brown and Sesno did not mention that President Bill Clinton had given a speech to the World Jewish Congress (WJC) on April 30, 1995 pleasing Zionists with trade sanctions against Iran.
Nuclear Inspections
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei noted that Iran’s work with centrifuges is a political act. He reported that Iran does not allow surprise inspections or as complete access to its nuclear facilities as it did in the past. His advice for America was to “cool it”. While some American political leaders want a pressure cooker to explode, a cooler approach could result in being able to trust Iran in the future.
Former United Nations inspector David Kay regarded current Iranian leaders as dangerous but expressed the view that America has a 6 to 8 year opportunity to achieve a secure basis for peace.
Unfortunately, no one made comparisons with Israel, India, Pakistan, and with North Korea. America’s current political leaders have rewarded countries who did not even sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea is an evil communist, totalitarian regime guilty of torturing and of murdering Christians and persons who attempt to flee from North Korea. Many nuclear analysts that North Korea will never comply with agreements to end its nuclear weapons program.
2008 Presidential Candidates
Joe Klein, author of “Iran’s Nukes: Now They Tell Us” (Time magazine, December 6, 2007) noted that there is a real opportunity now for an opening with Iran, but President George W. Bush will fail to seize the opportunity. Klein predicted that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) will hurt the saber rattling Republican presidential candidates. Rudy Giuliani, with a staff of neoconservative advisers, might be hurt the most. Among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton could be hurt because of her vote on a Senate resolution. Iranian leaders are hurting the opportunity by enriching uranium and by supporting Hezbollah. However, Iran is not building nuclear weapons.
David Gergen agreed that Republican presidential candidates who have supported President George W. Bush’s excessive war rhetoric will be hurt.
Saturday December 8, 2007 – 09:13pm (PST) Permanent Link
—————————
London Meetings with Members of Parliament, November 22, 2007
Paul Sheldon Foote,November 23, 2007
On Thursday, November 22, 2007 (Thanksgiving Day in America), some Members of Parliament experienced separate talks with questions and answers by Professor Raymond Tanter [President, Iran Policy Committee; promoting the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists] and Professor Paul Sheldon Foote [opposing the MEK terrorists and neoconservatives].
The Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) arranged for my meeting with Members of Parliament.
http://www.cmec.org.uk
The following is my PowerPoint outline submitted to the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) following the meeting. My talk covered many, but not all, of the topics in this outline during the time period available for the meeting with some Members of Parliament.
US Division of Foreign Policy Towards Iran
Paul Sheldon Foote
Academic Credentials
• Professor of Accounting, California State University, Fullerton
• BBA, University of Michigan—Ann Arbor; MBA, Harvard Business School; Ph.D., Michigan State University
Marriage in Iran
• Married an Iranian khanam in Tehran, Iran, 1968
• Met my wife in London, 1967, when we worked at the Chief Foreign Branch of Barclays Bank (Fenchurch at Lombard streets)
Military Service
• Army lieutenant, Vietnam War
• Volunteered and served in Vietnam, 1968-1969, to fight communists
• Real veteran and conservative, not a neoconservative chickenhawk
Irandoost
• Lover of Iran
• Persian language studies, Harvard University, 1971-1972
• Professor Richard Frye, Greater Iran
• Sir Roger Stevens, The Land of the Great Sophy
International Work Experience
• Government of Norway, Oslo, 1967
• Barclays Bank, London, 1967
• U.S. Army, Vietnam, 1968 – 1969
• American Embassy, Tehran, Iran, 1970
International Work Experience 2
• Citibank, Lebanon and India, 1972-1973
• Singer Sewing Machine Company, Greece, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, 1974 – 1975
International Work Experience 3
• Sultan Qaboos University, Oman, 1994 – 1996.
• English language teaching, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1995, 1996.
• Fraud consulting, Oman, 1998.
Republican Party Credentials
• Lifelong registered Republican, never a neoconservative admirer of Trotsky or of communism
• Elected: Los Angeles Republican County Central Committee, 1990
Republican Party Credentials 2
• Republican candidate for California State Assembly, 1992
Ron Paul
Republican Congressman: I support for President in 2008
• Libertarian Party presidential candidate, 1988
• “Neo-CONNED” speech to Congress, 2003
Patrick J. Buchanan
• Right From The Beginning, 1988 political autobiography
• Neoconservatives, claiming to be former communists, cannot dupe real conservatives.
Patrick J. Buchanan 2
• A Republic, Not an Empire (2002)
• Real American conservatives support setting an example of how to have a great republic at home, not how to invade other countries to steal resources.
Patrick J. Buchanan 3
• Where the Right Went Wrong (2005)
• Neoconservatives (Neo-Trotskyites) are not anti-communist because they opposed the Soviet Union after Stalin’s murder of Trotsky.
Patrick J. Buchanan 4
• “Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.”
Justin Raimondo
• Director, Antiwar.com
• Former public office candidate: Libertarian and Republican parties
• Articles critical of neoconservatives (Trotskycons) and of MEK
Justin Raimondo 2
• Book: Reclaiming The American Right
Claes Ryn
• Professor, Catholic University of America
• Book: America the Virtuous
• Parallels between neoconservatives (neo-Jacobins) and the Reign of Terror of French Revolution
Lew Rockwell
• Libertarian articles critical of neoconservatives and of MEK posted at LewRockwell.com
Renew Diplomatic Relations
• Bruce Laingen, Republican and highest ranking diplomatic hostage in Iran, has supported talks and diplomatic relations with Iran
• Example: March 6, 1998 PBS News Hour
End Western Support of Terrorists
• There are no good terrorists.
• Western countries need to stop all operations of Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists.
Close Camp Ashraf, Iraq
• September 2002: President Bush used MEK as pretext for Iraq War.
• 2003: American and coalition forces attacked Camp Ashraf.
• 2007: America protects its communist enemies.
End Trade Sanctions
• President Clinton, a Democrat, at the World Jewish Congress Dinner (New York City, April 30, 1995) announced he would sign executive orders stopping investment in Iran.
End Trade Sanctions 2
• Clinton thanked Edgar Bronfman, a major shareholder in Conoco, for stopping Conoco from investing $1 billion in Iran’s petroleum industry.
• Clinton noted Bronfman’s Zionist ties.
End Trade Sanctions 3
• “I know he was the President of the World Jewish Congress, the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.” –Clinton, April 30, 1995
End Trade Sanctions 4
• The West has promoted trade and investment involving tens of thousands of factories in Communist China.
• China has millions of political prisoners and executes many for religious or political beliefs.
End Trade Sanctions 5
• Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has a policy of nonintervention
• Contrary to neoconservative lies, real conservatives are not isolationists. We support world trade, not endless wars.
Condemn Zionist Racism
• “A million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail.” –Rabbi Yaacov Perrin at 1994 funeral for Baruch Goldstein, charter member of Jewish Defense League who murdered 29 Muslims.
Stop Strangling Iran
• Neoconservatives lie about exporting democracy.
• European powers crushed Persia’s 1906 Constitutional Revolution.
• Iranians struggled for democracy a century ago.
Reject Zionist Claims to Palestine
• For an honest history of the 7th Century conversion of King Bulan and of the Khazars to Judaism, read Chagall’s Target.
• Ashkenazics were descendents of Noah’s son Japhet, not Shem.
-Finns, not Semites and not “Chosen”.
Do not reward NPT non-signers
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty non-signers:
• India
• Israel
• North Korea
• Pakistan
Stop Stealing Resources
• The 1872 Reuter’s Concession (or Reuter Concession) described by Lord Curzon as ‘the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign [i.e. British] hands’
• Newspapers published editorials and articles expressing shock at Baron de Reuter’s concession from Persia’s Shah.
Stop Stealing Resources 2
• The Shah of Iran squandered the wealth of the Iranian people for the benefit of American interests.
• The Shah of Iran abolished political parties and created a one-party totalitarian state.
• Interlock: The untold story of American banks, oil interests, the Shah’s money, debts, and the astounding connections between them
book by Mark Hulbert
Stop Stealing Resources 3
• Stop using the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other international organizations to control and impoverish countries.
Stop Stealing Resources 4
• Neoconservatives lied about exporting democracy and fighting terrorism in Iraq.
• Be honest about petrodollar warfare: “It is the crude, dude.”
Contact Information
• Professor Paul Sheldon Foote
• Department of Accounting
• California State University, Fullerton
• PO Box 6848
• Fullerton, CA 92834-6848 USA
• (714) 278-2682
• Email: pfoote@fullerton.edu
• Skype Name: paulsheldonfoote
Blog and Political Forum
•http://360.yahoo.com/paulsheldonfoote
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/
Professor Paul shedon Foote, December 08, 2007
Immediately after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 Massoud Rajavi, guru of the Mojahedin Khalq cult went into hiding. After three years incommunicado, a statement was issued in 2006 in his name. In it Rajavi announced his timescale for toppling the Iranian regime: "in the next two years". Little attention was given at the time. Rajavi has made this kind of claim frequently over the past 30 years without effect.
Information from inside the cult, however, indicates that the specific deadline of January 2009 is part of a more sinister plan by the cult leaders. Following the announcement of this date, every member was required to sign a piece of paper giving their oath that they will not leave the cult until January 2009 – by which time, according to Rajavi, the regime must be toppled.
Rajavi’s message states that when the deadline of January 2009 arrives: ‘anyone who wants to can leave, and I will myself throw out all the useless ones. I will keep the rest who are pure, and I will tell them then what they have to do for me’. Experts on the MKO’s cult jargon interpret this as Rajavi’s intention to have his followers ‘wreak havoc’; the most predictable scenarios being mass suicide in Camp Ashraf and/or attacks on external interests with suicidal intensity in other parts of the world where the MKO cult has bases. That is, the ‘pure’ MKO operatives will kill all Rajavi’s opponents in Europe and then kill themselves.
The 2006 US State Department Country Reports on Terrorism, which describes the Mojahedin as a terrorist entity with cult-like characteristics, warned: "Many MEK leaders and operatives, however, remain at large, and the number of at-large MEK operatives who received weapons and bomb-making instruction from Saddam Hussein’s regime remains a source of significant concern."
A similar plan was previously exposed by Iran-Interlink [see links below]. On November 3rd 2001 in response to 9/11, Rajavi announced the Black Phase – if US forces attacked Iraq, the MKO would launch an all-out attack on Iran.
http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/child%20pages/pending_human_rights_disaster.htm
http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/info/brief_3.htm
Over thirty years, Rajavi has consistently sought conflict and chaos to keep his cult alive. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 Rajavi has tied his fate to the US neo-conservative/far-right Israeli agenda of regime change. The MKO has repeatedly and emphatically offered itself to be used as an agent for regime change.
Banking on an aggravated standoff between Iran and the USA, Rajavi had hoped the US (or Israel) would attack Iran before the end of the Bush administration. But by 2006 the MKO leadership had grasped that after January 2009 the current Bush Administration would lose any possibility of starting a war with Iran, and any successor would be unlikely to start a war soon after. Ordering his followers to adhere to his deadline serves to ensure that the cult does not disintegrate from within before that date. The deadline is also a warning to western governments, the MKO will wreak havoc in the cities of Europe if I, and my cult, are not supported.
Now with the US National Intelligence Estimate report on December 3rd effectively removing any reason for war with Iran for the foreseeable future, there is nothing left for Rajavi to fill the void between now and January 2009. His deadline for destruction appears to have arrived sooner than he anticipated.
ENDS
Contact
Anne Singleton, Iran-Interlink
editor@iran-interlink.org
www.iran-interlink.org
Iran-Interlink
PO Box 148
Leeds LS16 5YJ
UK
Iran Interlink Brief, December 08, 2007
At the end of October a symposium was held in the French National Assembly, attended by a few second rate persons from the world of France and politics which brought nothing new to confront the Iranian threat.
More interesting is the guest of honor: Raymond Tanter.
Interesting first in his capacity as a professor at Georgetown University in the USA and as a former member of the National Security Council at the White House. But also because it is a striking example of an ambiguous relationship between a part of American political circles and certain terrorist groups.
Indeed, Tanter currently chairs the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) which performs lobbying for the Mojahedin-e Khalq (aka PMOI, MEK, MKO, NCRI,… etc.), recognized as a terrorist organization by both the European Union and the USA.
But what is interesting is how Tanter has been under the control of the Mojahedin. At one point his wife, Constance Anderson-Tanter, accused the People’s Mujahideen of being responsible for the separation of the couple.
In several testimonies she clearly accuses the spokesman of the Mojahedin in the USA, Alireza Jafarzadeh, of first becoming a friend, then the confidant and finally mentor to her husband. At that point he convinced Tanter to leave his wife.
This kind of mental manipulation is usual in the Mojahedin and is the methodology of a typical type of sectarian group (cult) that has been frequently described.
Although curious this has been the fate of Raymond Tanter. A US academic who has become faithful to a terrorist cult…
It is, in this case, inappropriate for him to pretend to be an independent expert…
————
Original in French:
Quand un membre de l’administration US vire sa femme pour faire plaisir à une secte
Fin octobre s’est tenue à l’Assemblée nationale française, un colloque réunissant quelques seconds couteaux du monde politique français et qui n’a rien apporté de neuf à la rengaine sur la menace iranienne.
Plus intéressant en est l’invité d’honneur : Raymond Tanter.
Intéressant par sa qualité de professeur à l’université de Georgetown aux Etats-Unis et d’ancien membre du Conseil de sécurité nationale à la Maison Blanche, d’abord. Mais aussi, car il est un exemple marquant des relations ambiguës entre une partie de l’administration américaine et certains groupes terroristes.
En effet, Tanter préside actuellement le Comité pour une politique iranienne (Iran Policy Committee IPC) qui fait du lobbyng en faveur des Moudjahidine du peuple iranien (connu aussi sous le nom de l’OMPI, CNRI, etc…), organisation reconnue comme terroriste tant par l’Union européenne que par les USA dont Tanter fut pourtant un très haut fonctionnaire.
Mais ce qui est emblématique, c’est la manière dont l’OMPI l’a mis sous sa coupe. Au point que son épouse, Constance Anderson-Tanter, a accusé les Moudjahidine du peuple d’être responsables de la séparation du couple.
Elle accuse clairement dans plusieurs témoignages, le porte parole de l’OMPI aux USA, Alireza Jafarzadeh d’être devenu l’ami, le confident et finalement le mentor de son époux. Au point qu’il l’aurait convaincu de quitter sa femme.
Cette sorte de manipulation mentale est habituelle au sein des Moudjahidines et typique d’un fonctionnement de type sectaire qui a déjà été souvent démontré :
Bien curieux destin de Raymond Tanter, agent du gouvernement US, qui serait devenu un vrai fidèle de la secte terroriste…
Il est en tous les cas bien mal venu pour jouer à l’expert indépendant…
Peace Movement is a kind of movement in which various people are active. Its principal objective is challenging wars especially imperialistic wars. And of course, in all peace movements most of their efforts are focused on fighting US imperialism since the thing that is important to Europeans and Americans is the take over of neo-cons and neo-liberals in Europe and America. Neo-cons and neo-liberals have violated people‘s civil rights and social and political freedom. They also caused several billion dollars paid by American and European tax-payers, slope to warship against innocent people. Democrat chief of US congress said:” 10 million children, in the US enjoy no health services and the Bush administration refuses the plan for the development of health services at the same time asks for two billion dollars for its war in Iraq or Afghanistan while it can provide health services for 10 million children with the money spent for 40 days fighting in Iraq. The same system is working in Europe now, because the reforms are developing against the benefits of low class of the society and the neo-liberal governments are trying to load the expenses on poor people. Therefore the gap between poor and rich, according to European media and experts, is becoming bigger and bigger. Thus the Europeans and Americans have figured out that “war on terror” has become a pretext for Imperialists in order to pour much more money into big concerns and to violate human rights. Now the people of Europe and America know well of the atrocities made in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the name of “civilized” world and are well-informed of the nature of such wars.
The public hatred toward war has also made right wing Iranian oppositions such as monarchists, Mujahedin, PKK and Komola and a part of republicans apparently oppose the war but actually and practically they act along with the objectives of war-mongers. This is particularly obvious in Muajhedin-e-Khalq whose leader Maryam Rajavi asks for “The absence of military intervention” but suggests a third option of which you can only find the war odor and from the other side she strongly supports Bush’s policy under the name of “Democracy from Tehran to Damascus” including sanctions. Her lobbies throughout Europe and America are feeding the propaganda machine of Imperialism mass media. MKO’s representative in the US, Ali Reza Jaafarzade is an employee of Fox News Cannel which belongs to Mordakai, a Zionist Lobby which has a lot of mass Medias in Europe, America and Australia. And this is a significant example of MKO’s cooperation for hitting war drums. Also it should be told that Ali Reza Jaafar Zade has a political expertise office in Washington DC and serves as a foreign affair analyst and also political advisor for neo-cons. He has close relations with Zionist lobbyist like Richard Perle and neo-cons’ channels and warmongers of Israel lobby including Raymond Tanter former American security advisor. Therefore whenever the US brings an issue to its propaganda field in order to incite war, MKO also does its best to heat the war up and sharpens its propaganda services trying to present itself including holding press conference on Bush’s propaganda for “war on terror”.
Along with warmongers, Mujahedin have shown their deep hatred toward peace and antiwar movements and they claim that any analysis against warmongers of Bush administration is linked to Islamic Regime. Now they try to criticize the whole peace movement claiming “Islamic Regime’s lobbies in peace movement” in order to destroy any effort for peace using lies and slanders. MKO’s leader hostility against peace movement is exactly along with their warmonger policies. They intentionally want to link all peace movements to regime’s lobby so that they can impose suffocation
atmosphere to peace movements. The same work they do to their own dissidents that anyone who criticizes their ideology automatically is viewed as an element of regime! Those elements are of course among politicmen of Iranian oppositions or international Medias or even the leaders of other countries!
With this method of considering people as white or black so oppressively, now Mujahedin are entering a new scene for suppression of their dissidents and that is Peace Movement. Speaking ambiguously of Iranian regime lobbies and their links with Peace Movement, They try to pollute Peace Movement with Islamic Regime so that they can show any peaceful movement as pro-Islamic regime, accusing peace supporters and oppressing them psychologically and politically. Millions people around the world have shown their opposition to war mongers’ policies not only while the occupation of Iraq but also today (like last weekend when several thousands of broad –minded people demonstrated against Bush’s aggressive policies, in various cities in the United States). This shows the failure of the plots of Iranians Chalabis who don’t have any coverage on their actions anymore and neither have they denied their cooperation with war firms and for their services as mercenaries they are paid by Americans. The good example is Ali Reza Jaafarzade’s service office in Washington DC where he gives services to propaganda machine of Imperialism, Israeli lobbies in the US and Mujahedin’s communications in Bagdad. Another example is what the director of the war institute “Edition Global” said;" I have had relations with MKO since thirty years ago.” Thus you can conclude the entire story.
MKO’s policy has always had double standards and their slogans have always been contradictory to their actions. During Iran-Iraq war MKO became a close friend of Saddam Hussein and according to Rajavi they concluded a “ pact of brotherhood”, shouting freedom and peace slogans they benefited from the overture ,contradiction and fight between Iran and Iraq along with the massacre of millions of innocent people, However they yelled peace slogans, they were drumming up for the war. Even after the American occupation of Iraq their analysis was that Islamic Regime is living with crisis and to pass the crisis it would again get war with Iraq and because of that they made the waters more troubled. Today, as what they did before, they face the Iran-America relations with a contradictory policy, for example Maryam Rajavi speaks of “the absence of military intervention” and bargains for the removal of MKO from terror list but virtually she tries to deteriorate the war crisis. Such a movement must have a deep hostility against Peace Movement since it sees everything in American invasion to Iran in order to get rid of the dangerous situation it has stuck in, in Iraq: exposing the risk of expulsion. Besides it has encountered a lot of restrictions in France! The MKO’s leaders have allegedly said “any alternative for them is better than the current situation and the war is one of the alternatives.”
Ali Shams
Translation: Nejat Society
In an article recently released by Asia Times Online, Pepe Escobar discusses that General David Petraeus, media-hungry US supreme commander in Iraq will continue to be the key pawn in the current, breathless demonization-of-Iran campaign, whose target is to manufacture consent for an American attack against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) inside Iran. In his propaganda blitz, Petraeus resorts to information provided by notorious terrorist groups that have long been listed on the State department’s FTO.
As the article points out, “Petraeus’s dubious sources include the ragtag Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), a micro-terrorist group that used to be harbored by Saddam Hussein inside Iraq and now is protected by the Americans in Diyala province. So from Saddam’s terrorists the MEK are now elevated to the status of”our”terrorists”.
Pepe Escobar further discusses that “Tehran knows exactly what’s going on. Editorials at the conservative Mehr news agency in Iran routinely accuse the US – and especially the CIA – of using both MEK and PJAK to”destabilize Iran”. Now a bankrupt terrorist group that has transformed into a cult of personality, Mojahedin-e Khalq engages in any dirty affair to survive. Wearing a pro-democratic mask, the group has hardly fought for the interests of its people; it has long been intriguing against its own people hand in hand with whomever challenges the Iranian regime.
In an earlier article that Manouchehr Hosseinzadeh contributed for Payvandnews, the author refers to Mojahedin-e Khalq as a bankrupt group that “spend the night in bed with enemies of our people and in the morning cry freedom. Their account is different. They are sentenced to the destiny of decaying in the arms of those who call them terrorist yet protect them to use in another day”.