The Third View on Mujahedin Khalq

UN and Iraq probe deaths of 52 Iranian exiles at camp

BAGHDAD: A UN team visited a camp housing Iranian exiles north of the Iraqi capital yesterday as investigators tried to establish how 52 members of the anti-Tehran group died over the weekend.

The deaths of the members of the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), confirmed by a senior Iraqi UN and Iraq probe deaths of 52 Iranian exiles at camp security officer, were met with international condemnation. But the UN and Western governments have been careful not to assign blame amid wildly conflicting narratives.

Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki set up an inquiry in the aftermath of the deaths, with findings due in the coming days, and a UN team visited the camp in Diyala province near the border with Iran to try to establish what happened.

“This morning, we entered Ashraf and found 52 bodies in one place,” a senior police officer who was part of the Iraqi premier’s investigating committee said.

The officer, who did not want to be identified discussing the inquiry, said investigators found a “huge amount of TNT and explosive materiel inside cars, houses and heavy machinery”. He said 42 members of the PMOI were still alive, but accused them of not cooperating with investigators by refusing to hand over corpses and moving bodies from their original locations.

The officer claimed the deaths were probably caused by infighting within Ashraf. His account is sharply contested by the PMOI, however, which charges that Iraqi forces entered Ashraf, killed 52 of its members and set fire to the group’s property and goods.

It said Iraqi forces had carried out a “massacre” and the group’s members at Liberty, another camp near Baghdad, began a hunger strike yesterday, a spokesman said. “The residents will continue their hunger strike until the full cessation of killings in Ashraf and the release of all hostages, and until the resolution of the issue of security for the residents of Ashraf and Liberty,” a PMOI statement said.

Iraqi officials insisted that no soldiers entered Ashraf, and said explosions were triggered by mortar fire or the detonation of a barrel of oil or gas.

The UN team that visited the camp was due back in Baghdad soon, but mission spokeswoman Eliana Nabaa said no further information was likely to be released until later in the week.

“There was a mission that went (to Ashraf) a little bit earlier to see what they can do there,” Eliana Nabaa, spokeswoman for the UN mission in Iraq, said. “They will try to determine the facts.”

The violence was condemned by the UN’s refugee agency, which is charged with relocating the group’s members outside Iraq, and the US State Department, but neither assigned blame for the unrest.

London-based Amnesty International, meanwhile, noted that the events were “disputed”, and called for an impartial inquiry.

September 3, 2013 0 comments

Iraq

Iraq denies halting services to MEK

Iraqi authorities deny allegations of shutting off power and water to Camp Ashraf

MEK, an Iranian dissident group, has accused the Iraqi authorities of cutting off water and electricity to a contested northern camp used by its members, a charge the Iraqi government denied Sunday.

The dueling accounts over services are the latest twist in a long-running dispute between the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq dissident group and the Iraqi government over Camp Ashraf, a Saddam Hussein-era community in northeast Iraq that the exiles never wanted to leave.

The dissident group, known by the acronym MEK, alleges that Iraqi authorities shut off power and water supplies to Camp Ashraf on Aug. 10. It claims that Iraqi forces are hauling off parts of the camp’s water system, and says some of the roughly 100 residents are becoming dehydrated inside the camp from a lack of water.

Georges Bakoos, who oversees the MEK issue for the Iraqi government, dismissed the dissident group’s allegations as “propaganda.” He acknowledged there are occasional power cuts at the camp but said they are no different as those in other parts of Iraq.

“I can assure you no order was given” to cut off supplies, he said. Iraqi officials are, however, moving ahead with court proceedings to evict the Camp Ashraf holdouts, possibly as soon as in the next few weeks, Bakoos said.

Most of Iraq lacks a steady supply of electricity. The power supply grows even spottier when demand spikes during the sweltering summer months.

A spokesman for the MEK, Shahriar Kia, said late Sunday that authorities had agreed to provide “limited hours of water and electricity” after more than two weeks of what he described as a total cut of the services.

The MEK is an opposition group to Iran’s clerical regime that fought alongside Saddam’s forces in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Several thousand of its members were given sanctuary at Camp Ashraf. The group renounced violence in 2001 and was taken off the U.S. terrorism list last September.

Iraq’s current Shiite-led government, which has strengthened ties with neighboring Shiite powerhouse Iran, considers the MEK’s presence in Iraq illegal and wants its followers out of the country. It has been working with the United Nations to resettle MEK members, but the process has been slow.

The spokeswoman for the U.N. mission to Iraq, Eliana Nabaa, said U.N. officials are not on the ground at Camp Ashraf and could not confirm the claims about the power and water cuts.

“We take it seriously and are in constant touch with the government of Iraq, and continue taking it up with them to make sure that delivery of Camp Ashraf residents’ humanitarian needs is secured,” she said.

More than 3,000 MEK members who once lived at Ashraf reluctantly relocated to a former U.S. military base near Baghdad last year. It is meant to be a way station for the exiles while the U.N. works to resettle them outside Iraq.

Two raids by Iraqi security forces on Camp Ashraf before residents were transferred to the Baghdad camp left more than three dozen people dead.

The Baghdad-area camp, known as Camp Liberty, has since been targeted by militants in rocket attacks that have killed 10 people and injured many more, according to the MEK.

A total of 162 MEK members have been resettled abroad so far, mostly in Albania.

By ADAM SCHRECK

August 26, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Homeland Security Made in Israel

If there should happen to be an al-Qaeda attack in Calhoun County Alabama, Sheriff Larry Amerson will presumably know what to do. That is because he and a number of colleagues in law enforcement have received paid trips to Israel to learn how to deal with the terrorist threat. The Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) sponsors a Law Enforcement Exchange Program “in order to learn how to better protect the U.S. communities from terrorist attacks.” The program takes law enforcement officials from the United States and sends them to Israel for training in the “strategies and techniques perfected by Israeli law enforcement.” Amerson, past president of the National Sheriff’s Association, made his trip in 2012. Along the way, he reportedly benefited from a “greater understanding of the situation in Israel as it relates to terrorist threats.” JINSA also hosts conferences in the U.S. where Israeli officers are brought over to brief American law enforcement officials.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is also involved in the effort to indoctrinate the U.S. law enforcement community. Its website’s Homeland Security Monitor chronicles numerous meetings between Israeli intelligence and police officials and their U.S. counterparts, to include numerous trips to Israel to learn from the masters of the craft about various aspects of security, including controlling borders and airports. Even firemen have made the journey, presumably to learn how a fire in Israel differs from a fire in the United States.

Ironically, American law enforcement and emergency services are every bit as capable as those in Israel and really have nothing to learn. The difference in practice is that Israel uses extensive profiling to identify threats, which means Arabs are regularly stopped and questioned. Exposure to that dubious technique is often paid for by the U.S. taxpayer as much of the travel to Israel is funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which provides billions of dollars in training grants to cover the expenses. Marc Kahlberg of International Security Consulting offers a package that is called “Eye of the Storm.” He promises “an exclusive learning tour into the heart of Hebron. You will have the opportunity to see first-hand how the police there are dealing with a daily volatile situation. You will feel the adrenalin, but be completely safe and will be the guests of the Israeli Police Commander.” As Hebron is the largest Arab city on the West Bank with a population of 250,000 that against its will hosts an illegal Israeli settlement of 1,000 protected by the police and army, it promises to be an interesting experience.

It has been reported that when the United States was attacked on 9/11 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pleased because he understood that Washington and Tel Aviv would now be joined at the hip in their mutual response to what Israel has been defining as terrorism. When Netanyahu spoke before congress shortly afterwards he said “We are all targets” before engaging in a number of meetings instructing Washington regarding what must be done. Netanyahu’s Israel succeeded beyond its wildest dreams, exploiting the incident to such an extent that the United States has adopted wholesale Israeli perceptions of Middle Eastern politics. As Scott McConnell has observed, there exists “a transmission belt, conveying Israeli ideas on how the United States should conduct itself in a contested and volatile part of the world. To a great extent, a receptive American political class now views the Middle East and their country’s role in it through Israel’s eyes.”

Beyond that political assessment, the Israel-terrorism nexus operates on a number of levels. It has been sometimes noted that the United States has adopted the Israeli model to deal with terrorism, so much so that American politicians sometimes consider Israel a component of U.S. national security. Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s website included “Israel” under the category “Homeland Security.”

The federal bureaucracy has also been changed to accommodate the new reality. Since the Clinton Administration, every senior diplomat or official dealing with the Middle East region has had to pass through a vetting process to ensure full support of and deference to Israeli interests, which include its view of the terrorist threat. Non-compliance is career ending. Chas Freeman, who was named to head the National Security Council in 2009, was quickly forced to step down when it was determined that he was not sufficiently pro-Israel.

Since 2001, many senior appointees throughout the federal government have gone one step farther, no longer making any effort to hide their strongly pro-Israel sentiments. Witness the ascendancy of Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, William Boykin, and Eric Edelman at the Defense Department under George W. Bush. Given the openly expressed identification with Israel at the Pentagon and National Security Council it is no surprise that Washington and Tel Aviv appear to align completely on how to combat terrorism. Both claim the right to engage in preemptive warfare and to assassinate people in other countries without any transparent legal process. Both operate lethal drones to kill suspected militants on the ground, both have engaged in torture, and both operate high security prisons containing numerous suspects who are described as terrorists but who have never been and quite likely never will be tried. Many of the detainees have been confined for years and will undoubtedly die in prison without ever being charged with a crime. Some of them are surely innocent.

The Israeli-American model for dealing with terrorism is itself unusual. Historically speaking, countries that have been plagued with a terrorism problem have focused on countering that specific threat without seeking to expand the conflict. But that has not been the case for post 9/11 America, with George W. Bush grandiloquently proclaiming a global war on terror which was later euphemized into a “global freedom mission” under Bush and as “overseas contingency operations” under Barack Obama. Bush set the United States up as an international policeman with the rest of the world relegated to being either “with us or against us.” Israel meanwhile set the framework for the program, defining the terrorist threat against itself and Washington as “radical Islam,” a phrase that has been readily picked up by American politicians and the media. Radical Islam implies a worldwide struggle that is frequently conflated into a complete rejection of political Islam and suspicion regarding the intentions of anyone who is a practicing Muslim, a predisposition that is playing out currently vis-a-vis Egypt.

Israel has also done much to name the players and define the playing field. The hypocrisy of the process is evident when groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are thereby identified by Washington as “terrorists” even though they do not threaten the United States and see themselves as national liberation movements for the Palestinian and Lebanese people. Meanwhile, groups like the Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK), which have actually killed Americans, have been removed from the State Department list because they are perceived as enemies of the regime in Iran and are therefore by extension friends of Israel and its allies in Congress and the media.

Less visible is Israel’s hand in shaping and profiting from the domestic agenda against terrorism, which is where Sheriff Amerson comes in. The Lobby and its friends are intent on projecting a positive image of Israel as a bulwark against terrorism and the “only democracy in the Middle East.” The disparate groups that make up The Lobby are active in creating the tie that binds regarding the perception of terrorism on the ground and they do it through exchange programs and the actual involvement of Israeli security companies and contractors in the lucrative homeland security marketplace. Israel is a militarized state and the United States over the past twelve years has also moved in the same direction vis-a-vis its own police forces, a development that again reflects the priorities of national and local governments and the predilection to deal with the perceived terrorism threat through the use of overwhelming force and intimidation. New York City’s unconstitutional “stop and frisk” police activity is a preemptive doctrine modeled on Israeli counter-terrorism practice and it should be no surprise that the New York Police Department has an overseas office in Tel Aviv.

It has been noted that the terrorism threat itself is greatly exaggerated, with more Americans killed by falling television sets than by terrorist action, but this has not stopped the proliferation of state level departments of homeland security, fusion centers for sharing information, and the introduction of consultants and security service providers at all levels. Much of the activity is either wasteful, redundant, or completely unnecessary. America’s seventy-two fusion centers, where many of the Israeli contractors and advisers wind up, have been denounced in a Senate report as useless, ineffective, and frequently engaged in spying on American citizens, particularly Arabs, but also including anti-abortionists and Ron Paul supporters.

This effort to turn a buck from the woefully mismanaged Department of Homeland Security is multifaceted. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that fully 97% of DHS discretionary grants are given to Jewish organizations even though Janet Napolitano has admitted that there is no “specific, credible threat” against Jewish targets. And the flow of money is combined with similar efforts being undertaken by other elements in the Israel Lobby to influence opinion and create an American national consensus unshakably favorable to Israel. The Israeli arms and security industry, which is partially “covert” so it can sell to countries and rulers on arms embargo lists, is a partner to the process. It is now the fourth largest weapons exporter in the world, behind only the U.S., Russia, and France. It has 6,800 licensed arms and security services providers, making it the largest industry in Israel. Israeli companies can and do bid on federal and local government contracts in the U.S. and they are also able to export their products freely to America thanks to the Israel-United States Free Trade Agreement of 1985 and the Counterterrorism Cooperation Accord Between the Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the United States of America of 1996. This direct involvement of Israel in American security has been recently expanded through passage of 2012’s United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act.

Israeli companies dominate the international airline security industry, frequently doing double duty as the covert, local Mossad station, but their failures are better known than their successes, including the case of the Nigerian underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who was ultimately detected by an alert passenger. Israeli technology companies also produce many of the devices used by police departments and the FBI to tap telephone conversations and record call data. And the employment of their high tech telecommunications equipment comes at a national security price as, for example, they exploited a back door in the technology to listen in to White House phone conversations during the Clinton Administration.

Israeli contractors and companies dot the homeland security landscape but only rarely attract any attention. One notable exception to that rule was the 2002 attempt by New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey to appoint an Israeli Golan Cipel, who was also his lover, as his Homeland Security adviser. The companies sometimes boast about their role in the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank. They claim to provide what they describe as “real” experience and expertise based on their recurring conflict with their Arab neighbors. They often combine that narrative with proselytizing their point of view about the politics of the Middle East. The Israel Law Center (Shurat HaDin) is currently offering an October “Israeli Adventure of a Lifetime – the Ultimate Mission to Israel,” which includes meetings with Mossad officials, observing a trial of a Hamas terrorist, riding an ATV on the Golan Heights, and a briefing by Israeli soldier heroes, all experienced while residing in five star accommodations. It is something like Disneyland with guns and real live Arabs to shoot at.

If one starts looking, scores or even hundreds of Israeli companies and consultants pop up nearly everywhere in U.S. national security while a search of the Israel-America Chamber of Commerce website did not identify even a single American security company operating in Israel attempting to obtain Israeli government and private sector contracts. Israel’s Security Solutions International offers U.S. taxpayer funded training courses using “Israeli veterans” as instructors. Defense contractor Elbit Systems is providing spy towers on the Arizona border with Mexico. Magal Security Systems, which has four subsidiary companies in the U.S., has a contract for security at American nuclear power plants. Rozin Security Consulting provides security at Mall of America, using its trademarked Suspicion Indicators Recognition and Assessment System, which is basically profiling. Global Security International, with offices in New York City, offers consulting services relating to counter-terrorism operations.

The broader question American taxpayers should be asking themselves is whether the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on national security is money well spent. Israel has a vested interest in making the terrorist threat appear more real than it actually is and also to present itself as the only reliable partner of the United States in the war against global terror. It also profits substantially as its companies and former security officers have exploited their “real experience” credentials to entrench themselves in U.S. homeland security at all levels. With the aid of the domestic Israel Lobby, Tel Aviv has become adept at selling a product, which includes the fals depiction of Israel as the victim in the Middle East. This victimhood has apparently obtained traction in the United States, where politicians and the mainstream media persist in describing the nation with the world’s largest economy and most powerful military and security forces as somehow threatened. As a result, as Professor Steven Walt has described it, Washington is “chasing spooks and ghosts all over the world,” convinced that it is “very, very vulnerable.” Israel has certainly done its best to encourage that mindset.

Philip Giraldi,

August 24, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Filner’s friends, the Iranian MEK

So, exactly why did Mayor Filner rush off to Paris in June with little notice and less information about his purpose for going there? Filner’s friends, the Iranian MEK

Who or what had the clout to demand our mayor drop everything and appear in Paris forthwith?

The mayor’s staff did aver that a teeny part of the trip was to promote employment in San Diego through some vague ooh-lah-lahing in gay Paree.

That transparent dodge is laughable.

I hereby enter a California Public Records Request that the city announce any job, other than additional law-enforcement investigators, that resulted from that Gallic escapade.

The answer to those first two questions seem to be, in this order, Mr. Masoud Rajavi, and his Marxist-Muslim organization known as the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (translated “the people’s army) now known internationally as the MEK.

We get our first hint of all this by looking at the name of the organization that purportedly paid for this trip and a prior one.

The original report was that the trip was paid for by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, a self-described IRS 501(c) authorized contributor.

And his purpose for going was ostensibly to attend a rally of the National Council of Resistance to Iran.

Yeah, right! Why would our mayor be required at their rally?

Too bad for that liar. The U-T Watchdog had the temerity to check with the IRS and found no such named organization in their files.

That didn’t faze the National Council’s representative because he is a practitioner of “taqiyya” the Islamic principle that one may lie about anything as long as it promotes his cause.

Sounds exactly like the American political left of which Mr. Filner is a card-carrying cardinal.

Oh, and there was no rally. Nor did Mayor Bob attend one of the city-related conferences that was the nominal rationale for the trip.

So what was really going on?

An easy check of open Internet sources, along with insight from some Iranian friends, paints a clear picture of Filner’s sinister conduct toward not only his city but his country.

Bob Filner is what used to be called a “red-diaper baby.”

These were the children of active communists.

Bob’s dad was Joseph Filner a senior official with the Communist Party of Pennsylvania.

Filner pere and his fellow Pittsburgh communist buddies were rewarded by the Soviet state with a franchise to market and otherwise dispose of Russian national assets while laundering Soviet currency making themselves wealthy, while millions of others suffered privation and death in the Soviet gulags.

The Filners, pere et fils, ought to be ashamed of their ill-gotten wealth.

Bob did not stray far from the political tree. He is a long-time member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

As a member of Congress, he helped found and was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus created by the DSA.

The Progressive Caucus is now chaired by Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to the Congress.

Former Rep. Allen West was the only member brave enough to call them what they are: “…nearly all communists.”

Muslims and godless communists have nothing in common except their hostility to capitalism and democracy, so they make fine bedfellows for the time being.

When that nitwit Jimmy Carter ceded Iran to the Islamic terrorists and threw our secular ally Shah Reza Pahlavi under the Muslim juggernaut, he opened the country up to a vicious internal power struggle between the two major forces that brought the shah down.

One force was headed by the eventual winner, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Shia Islamists.

They defeated Maroud Rajavi, the founder and leader of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, supposedly a Marxist-Muslim Party but actually the Soviet Communist proxy that was attempting to bring Iran within the Soviet ambit.

When the battle was over, Khomeini assured the peace by murdering a reported 6,000 MEK members in one night of terror.

That may be why there are hundreds of MEK members hiding in the United States under the organizational name given as the donor for Filner’s trip.

Any wonder that Rajavi, too, moved out of Iran? But where does he live now? You guessed it, Paris.

And that is who was able to and did have the clout to summon our mayor, on short notice, to appear at his residence in Paris to deal with a problem among the MEK and the U.S. Department of State, and the E.U. Foreign Affairs Office.

Once summoned, Filner had to attend because the MEK leader commands his respect, but also knows all there is to know about Filner and his work on behalf of the communists not only in the United States, but also throughout the Middle East.

The MEK was listed as a terrorist organization for many years because of its front-man status for the Soviets.

When the Soviet state collapsed because of the inherent flaw in socialism, the MEK was left without a sponsor.

No doubt they submerged their hatred for the “Great Satan” long enough to begin currying favor with the United States by providing intelligence about the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for being allowed to “come in out of the cold.”

How many tax dollars did Filner broker for the MEK in exchange for their help against their own old enemies?

It is likely that some fallout from this political back flip required Filner’s urgent attention.

Filner is likely helping this butcher’s organization through his ties to Muslim activist Keith Ellison and the rest of the DSA, oops I mean his Progressive Caucus colleagues.

I doubt if our chief of police knew any of this when he supposedly insisted that two of our officers, on our taxpayer’s dime, accompany Filner.

Did the chief know about Filner’s ties to the MEK and the danger that entailed anywhere in Europe where Iranian agents would have no trouble hurting our officers while trying to get at Filner?

In addition to Filner’s sexual peccadilloes, he hates everything decent Americans stand for and has spent his life trying to undermine our freedom and way of life.

Filner must be the master political charlatan to hide his MEK buddies and his lust for women from the thousands that voted for him in this last election.

Stirling, a former U.S. Army officer, has been elected to the San Diego City Council, state Assembly and state Senate. He also served as a municipal and superior court judge in San Diego. Send comments to larry.stirling@sddt.com. Comments may be published as Letters to the Editor.

By Larry Stirling, sddt.com

August 24, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

60 years after the 1953 coup, US back the MKO

An unhappy 60th birthday: The CIA coup of 1953 still resonates in Iran. Operation Ajax remembered

Mohammed Mossadeq under arrest in 1953.To disseminate [views of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq as a fanatic], the British press attaché in Tehran sent his counterpart in Washington "a steady supply of suitable poison too venomous for the BBC." The Washington attaché reported American columnists made "good use of this poison." He boasted he even helped them write some their pieces on Iran. Drew Pearson—the venerable dean of American journalism and lead columnist for the Washington Post—circulated a completely fabricated story about how Fastemi, Mossadeq’s right hand, had multiple convictions of embezzlement and jury tampering. […] Stewart Alsop and his brother Joseph—both leading columnists for The New York Herald—warned that unless the United States took a firm stand, "all the little Musaddiqs would be tempted to cause trouble."—Ervand Abrahamian in The Coup: 1953, The CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations, p. 100

••• •••

It would make a great movie. But a tad different than Argo.

Straightforward plot. Characters bigger than life. Stunning success against difficult odds after initial failure.

At the behest of two of the most powerful brothers in U.S. history, the aristocratic grandson of a famous president engineers a coup d’etat against a secular, democratically minded reformist leader and replaces him with a pro-Nazi prime minister overseen by a spoiled, craven monarch who proceeds to keep democracy at bay, the oil flowing and the torture chambers full for the next quarter century, after which he is ousted only to be replaced by a theocratic regime. From this flows the most devastating example of blowback America has ever felt. Blowback that continues today. Blowback that has contributed to internal wrangling within three U.S. administrations between those who choose not to make war beyond sanctions and assassinations and those who want to go full out.

Unfortunately, all this is not a script being pitched to a Hollywood studio. It is history. Operation Ajax. Planning and control: CIA. Partner: MI-6. Target: Iran. The date: Aug. 19, 1953. Objective: Its oil, its near-Soviet locale and overthrow of its democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadeq, to be replaced by a weak-willed wastrel, the hereditary monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

No short commentary can possibly do justice to any complex subject, and the Iranian coup and its fall-out is no exception. Condensing inevitably damages nuance. Interpretation across cultural divides cannot help but get many little matters and some essential ones wrong. Despite these pitfalls, however, it’s important for Americans to understand how the policies conducted before 85 percent of the U.S. population and 95 percent of the Iranian population were born still has a serious impact and creates perils today.

After all, it’s a rare month that goes by without saber-rattling from some high-up U.S. politicians about the need to use U.S. firepower to "fix" Iran. Tactics aside, there is bipartisan consensus in the heights of U.S. foreign policy circles for curtailing Iran, particularly what is usually labeled its "nuclear ambitions." While conventional war, the bomb-bomb-bomb Iran approach has been so far avoided because that still remains a last resort of the bipartisan consensus, other attacks on Iran have continued, including by means of Stuxnet, the cyber-weapon built by the National Security Agency together with CIA and Israeli intelligence and used to temporarily cripple the uranium enrichment operations in Natanz, Iran. There are, in addition, assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists by the Iranian terrorist organization Mojahedin-e-Khalq assisted with funding and training assistance of America’s ally Israel.

by Meteor Blades , Daily KOS

August 22, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Prof. Wilkerson: U.S. move to delist the MEK very hypocritical

Supporting Terrorists Is Not A New Policy For The U.S.: Prof. Lawrence Wilkerson

Iran Review Exclusive Interview with Lawrence Wilkerson

The election of Dr. Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s 7th president renewed hopes around the world that a new era of Lawrence Wilkerson interaction and cooperation between Iran and the international community will begin soon. The government of “prudence and hope” promised to improve Iran’s foreign relations and find a negotiated solution to Iran’s nuclear stalemate after almost one decade of confrontation and dispute.

Iran has had no official ties with the United States for nearly 3 decades, and relation with the U.S. has always been a controversial and contentious point in Iran’s foreign policy. President Rouhani has pledged to find a way for settling the disputes with the United States, if the officials in the White House and Congress recognize and admit that talks based on mutual respect and on equal footing should replace the language of sanctions and threats against Iran.

In order to investigate the future of Iran-U.S. relations, Washington’s approach toward Iran following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the White House’s reactions to the election of President Rouhani in Iran’s June 14 presidential elections and the missed opportunities of reconciliation between Iran and the United States, Iran Review conducted an interview with Lawerence Wilkerson, political scientist, former U.S. Army Colonel and chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Wilkerson has been a vocal critic of the U.S. foreign policy after stepping down and has written several articles and taken part in different interviews rebuking the Iraq War and the United States’ tacit and implicit sponsorship of global terrorism.

Prof. Wilkerson kindly accepted our request for an interview and responded to some of our important questions. What follows is the text of the interview.

Q: In his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush talked of an Axis of Evil which stretches from North Korea to the Middle East and encompasses Iran and Iraq. He called Iran a threat to the international peace and security. This is while Iran’s former president Mohammad Khatami who was a reformist figure with a reconciliatory foreign policy which was based on détente and easing the tensions with the West had cooperated with the United States and the EU on a number of issues and his promotion of the idea of the Dialogue of Civilization was embraced internationally. Don’t you think this branding Iran a member of the so-called Axis of Evil was a strategic mistake by President Bush?

A: This was a strategic mistake if the strategic objective one imagines the U.S. pursuing is advancing the fundamental interests of the U.S., its allies, and friends in the world and, importantly, if one’s overall objective is world peace. It was not a strategic mistake if the strategic objectives of the U.S. were turmoil in western Asia, support of Israel’s continued aggression, increased U.S. control over the region’s oil reserves, and a state of perpetual war. Two of the three members of the Axis harbor close to a quarter of world oil reserves; Israel’s aggression has not ceased—indeed, it has increased; and the region is in turmoil. The U.S. is in an interminable state of war. The Axis of Evil speech helped to achieve these results. Some people in the U.S.—and Israel—wanted these results.

Q: So you think certain extremist elements in Washington and Tel Aviv benefit from confrontation between Iran and the United States. What about the state of bilateral relations between the two nations under President Khatami? He had signaled his willingness to engage in bilateral negotiations with the United States when he was in power. He was one of the first world leaders who sent a message of condolences to the U.S. government following the 9/11 tragedy. However, it seems that President Bush was not willing to react positively as he turned down Khatami’s message. Can we consider President Bush guilty for the failure of the attempts to bring Iran and the United States to the negotiation table?

A: President George W. Bush was not sufficiently knowledgeable to have contrived to produce failed diplomatic circumstances with Iran. His Vice President, Richard Cheney, worked to produce this failure. Cheney maintained an adamant policy that there would be no negotiations with Iran. He sold this policy to the unwitting President. Later, in 2003, when there was again an opportunity to start meaningful negotiations with Tehran, Cheney had captured the entire government with his views. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell opposed the Iranian initiative in 2003. See my answer to your question number one: Cheney is one of those who wanted the results I have described in my answer.

Q: It’s widely believed that the CIA had close ties with the Afghan rebels in 1990s that later on formed and shaped the inner circles of Al-Qaeda and Taliban. Some political scientists cite evidence showing that the United States had supported the Afghan Mujaheedin to fight the Soviet forces in 1990s. Do you deny the view that the U.S. intelligentsia furtively provided arms and dollars to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks?

A: I do not deny it at all. The U.S. is as much responsible for the Mujahidin who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan as any other factor. The CIA term for this sort of activity is “blowback”. What it means, simply, is that secret actions taken by the CIA in one period, come back to haunt the U.S. in a later period.

Q: Prominent investigative journalists and political commentators Seymour Hersh and Glenn Greenwald have released reliable evidence that CIA, with the help of Israel and Saudi Arabia, has been providing arms, ammunitions and financial support to the exiled anti-Iranian terrorist cult Mujahedin-e-Khalq in the past 10 years in a bid to impose political pressure on Iran. Do you confirm these clandestine and underground ties?

A: I cannot confirm these ties because I have not had an active security clearance since 2005. However, if I were a betting man, I would bet that what Hersh and Greenwald asserted is correct.

Q: Let’s get to the next question. The U.S. played its last card in 2012 by removing the name of MKO from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. What’s your viewpoint on this controversial decision? Isn’t it a dualistic and somewhat hypocritical approach toward terrorism and human rights?

A: The U.S. move to delist the MEK was a very hypocritical move—and even a very stupid move. It was based on a passionate but irrational dependence on Israel, large amounts of money changing hands, and an utterly unreasonable desire to punish Iran through any means possible. The MEK are bloodthirsty terrorists. But the U.S. harbors Luis Posada Carrilles in its very midst, the terrorist responsible for bringing down a Cuban airliner in 1976 and killing everyone on board, and for bombing Havana hotels in 1997. So supporting terrorists is not a new policy for the U.S.

Q: One question on the growing wave of Islamophobia in the United States. The Muslim minority in the United States has been under a lot of pressure in the past years, and it’s widely believed that the Bush administration, with his fierce anti-Islamic rhetoric, contributed a great deal to the promotion of Islamophobia and the portrayal of Muslims as a fanatic and extremist group of people. The Muslims have been denied their basic rights in the West following the 9/11 attacks, and were shown as terrorists who want to debilitate the Western democratic values. What’s your take on that?

A: I don’t believe President Bush was that unwise; in fact, he went out of his way to state publicly that the U.S. was not at war with Islam. However, other people in the U.S.—some of whom are quite wealthy—began a campaign to denigrate Islam and Muslims in general. They made movies, ran public advertising, and gave talks aimed at vilifying Islam and Muslims. They are still doing it. Many of these elements are connected directly with right-wing elements in Israel. I believe they are also connected to people such as Richard Cheney and Karl Rove.

Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the United States’ reaction to Iran’s 2013 presidential elections? Have the U.S. statesmen and Congressmen received the message the Iranian people intended to impart by electing a reform-minded, moderate president?

A: The U.S. Congress has been sending mixed messages. More than one hundred members recently sent a letter to President Obama that asked him to take this opportunity of a new Iranian president to achieve a diplomatic solution to U.S.-Iran concerns. At the same time, more than two-thirds of the Congress voted to increase sanctions. The U.S. Congress, like Iran’s majlis , does not seem to know what it wants. But, that said, its collective actions have been more damaging than helpful over the past several years.

Q: As you correctly mentioned, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on July 31 that imposed new sanctions on Iran’s oil, mining and automobile sector. Wasn’t this hasty decision detrimental to the forthcoming nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1, especially given that President Rouhani hasn’t even appointed his nuclear negotiation team and his foreign minister is yet to receive a confidence vote from the Parliament (Majlis)? Of course the new round of sanctions undermines President Rouhani’s efforts for resolving Iran’s nuclear standoff in a peaceful manner. What’s your viewpoint on that?

A: I agree. Most actions of the U.S. Congress have been decidedly unhelpful.

Q: And finally, what’s your prediction for the future of Iran-U.S. relations in President Rouhani’s administration? What steps should the U.S. take in order to defuse the tensions, and what confidence-building measures should Iran adopt for more transparency in its nuclear activities?

A: The U.S. should make substantive sanctions-relief [as] a major negotiating point. In return for such relief, Iran should allow the IAEA to examine thoroughly its past actions to create a nuclear weapon, stop enhancing uranium above 5%, send out of country or use itself in a short, IAEA-supervised period of time all on-hand uranium enhanced above 5%, agree to a rigorous inspection regime by the IAEA for at least 5 years, or until the international community is satisfied with the strictly civilian nature of Iran’s nuclear program, and strive to live within the parameters of the NPT, safeguards agreement, and additional protocols. The U.S. should start off negotiations by recognizing Iran as a member of the community of nations with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto. The U. S. should also state that its overall objective vis-à-vis Iran is not regime change. Once these opening moves produce success, all issues should be on the table, from support of terrorism to the situations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

My prediction, however, for the upcoming talks is that because of Iranian intransigence and U.S. obduracy—and, with regard to President Obama, a decided lack of political and moral courage—no meaningful success will be achieved. There is simply too much mistrust and there are too many people—on both sides—who are heavily invested in the failure of negotiations. There are people in Iran and people in the U.S. who do not want a diplomatic solution. There are also such people in Tel Aviv.

Kourosh Ziabari is an award-winning Iranian journalist and media correspondent. He writes for Global Research, CounterCurrents.org, Tehran Times, Iran Review and other publications across the world. His articles and interviews have been translated in 10 languages. His website is http://kouroshziabari.com

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari, Iran Review

August 22, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Obama-Al Qaeda-MEK Connection

British puppet President Barack Obama has entered into an alliance with two of the world’s leading terrorist organizations — Al Qaeda and the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) — in his zeal to overthrow the present governments in Syria and Iran. The Obama-Al Qaeda marriage of convenience is particularly deep and it centers on the drive to overthrow the Bashar Assad government in Damascus, through an armed opposition.

U.S. intelligence agencies are aware that the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) has no actual military capabilities inside Syria, and consists largely of a group of defectors from the Syrian Army who are safe-housed on military bases inside Turkey. All of the significant military actions targeted at the Syrian government have been carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists, who have infiltrated the country from Iraq. The suicide bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, the assassinations of Syrian government and military officials, and the sabotage of pipelines and other infrastructure have all been carried out by Al Qaeda. Despite widespread evidence in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies, President Obama continues to join hands with the new Al Qaeda head, Ayman al-Zawaheri, in calling for the violent removal of President Assad from power.

The idea that the President of the United States is so blatantly in bed with the terrorists who carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 should be sufficient grounds for his immediate removal from office, under the impeachment provisions of the U.S. Constitution or Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Last year, following the U.S. Navy SEAL Team killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden, President Obama did cartwheels to claim credit for the act. Now, he is allied with the very same 9/11 perpetrators in pushing for a war in the Persian Gulf that will rapidly expand into a global thermonuclear confrontation with Russia and China.

– The British role –

As well-documented in Executive Intelligence Review, the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 were carried out with the full support of the Anglo-Saudi Al Yamamah apparatus. Under the Al Yamamah oil-for-arms deal, launched in 1985 and continued through to the present, British intelligence and the Saudis created a string of offshore covert operations funds, which directly financed the 9/11 attacks. Al Yamamah funds, in excess of $2 billion, were funneled to Saudi Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, and at least $50,000 of those funds went to the San Diego-based team of 9/11 hijackers. A Joint Congressional Select Committee, probing the 9/11 attacks, established evidence of the Bandar-Al Qaeda funding, but the 28-page chapter detailing this evidence was suppressed by the George W. Bush White House. At the start of his administration, President Obama promised family members of the 9/11 victims that he would release the 28 pages, but he never kept his promise, and moved to further suppress the evidence of Al Yamamah angle on the attacks, thus protecting his British masters along with the Saudi Royals.

To this day, former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who co-chaired the Congressional probe, insists that the cover-up of the Saudi Monarchy’s complicity in the attacks must be exposed publicly.

President Obama’s embrace of the 9/11 terrorists, after the fact, constitutes a scandal of enormous proportions for this Administration, and underscores further the hypocrisy of Obama’s efforts to exploit the bin-Laden assassination, while he colludes with the remnants of Al Qaeda.

The same is true of the President’s collusion with the Mujahideen e-Khalq, an Iranian terrorist group that has been on the U.S. State Departments list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations since its inception in 1997. MEK assassinated a number of U.S. military personnel in Iran in the 1970s, actively participated in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and then fled to Iraq and allied with Saddam Hussein, after they were purged from the Islamic Republic leadership. In recent weeks, MEK has been linked to the assassinations of Iranian scientists. This week, the Bangkok Post revealed that Thai authorities believe that MEK terrorists were behind foiled attempts to attack Israeli officials. Those attacks were loudly blamed on the Iranian government, and fed the drive to launch military action against Iran.

While the Obama Administration has attempted to keep a distance from the assassinations and bombings and other acts of sabotage inside Iran over the past two years, MEK has been protected by U.S. military forces at Camp Ashraf inside Iraq, ever since the U.S. invasion of that country in March 2003.

by Jeff Steinberg – larouchepac

August 22, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US hostility to independent governments shows in support for terrorist MKO

Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Randy Short, with the Black Autonomy Network Community Organization, about the US Central Intelligence Agency publishing a document that confirms Washington’s role in the 1953 coup against the democratically-elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Dr. Short, first of all tell us what this revelation, this acknowledgement means in terms of the US position on Iran and in terms of relations between the US and Iran?

Short: Well hopefully it means it’s good, it’s a token step but I need to remind people just to assure as they are acknowledging what they did in 1953 here sixty years later they are still supporting MKO, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization as well as Jundullah which are terrorist organizations that do many things so much as CIA covert activities globally but there is always room for hope and God at least.

Press TV: We were speaking with political commentators about this here in Iran Dr. Short and they were telling us that this kind of warfare initiated by the US against Iran which we can say at least in the modern times started with that coup, has now developed into various attacks including cyber warfare, economic sanctions, etc.

So do you think that the United States is not willing to put aside this kind of animosity toward Iran that it has because it is not interested in developing relations with Iran?

Short: Well I believe that they want relations with Iran but with a government like the former Shah, Pahlavi. They do not want an independent self-determining government that doesn’t want to be a colony. It is the same way they had the coup in Egypt, they have animosity towards governments that do not want to be essentially slaves to their sociopolitical economic interests.

So I think they want relations but they do like to have it with an MKO type government versus what you have.

Press TV: And before we leave you, there is a question on the public knowledge in the United States concerning this coup that has now being acknowledged by the CIA and the US government.

A lot of people when it comes to the US and Iran relations think of the hostage crisis and how that created a crisis in the ties but how much public knowledge is there in the US about the attempts that the US has made against Iran including this coup which has led to a lot of mistrust among Iranians towards the United States?

Short: Well we need to remember that the hostage crisis was a very rational response by progressive Iranian students who did not want United States to try to have a coup against Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution.

This is one thing that the Americans do not know that the Iranians had studied the revolution or I should say the coup against Mosaddeq in 1953 and did not want a repeat in 1979. So this is something that is not understood.

I do not think that the American public is educated about Iran and that is deliberately so because Iran stands up to Zionism, for example Ayatollah Khomeini started al-Quds Day and so forth.

So I believe the Iranian society and the people have been so demonized by the media here and so people know very little or they only know what has been fed to them which is poisoned to not really understand the people there.

Let us hope that that changes. But it is ironic that you had an entire Iranian airliner shot out of the sky by the Vincennes, one of America’s ships and most Americans do not know about that but they know about the hostages, all of them were returned home alive and yet the Iranians who are the victims all the time of sanctions, terrorism, wars, so nine hundred fifty thousand died due to a proxy war that Saddam Hussein waged against Iran for the United States.

Americans don’t know that. Americans don’t know even about African-Americans people like me in their own country because we are very parochial. The education here continues to decline and in fact in many places education is in recession. They are running away, they are closing schools.

So I don’t think that they really know and that is how the American people rule through their ignorance of geopolitical and historical events and so they do not understand and this is a game to control them that they do not know, that they do not understand that they not see that perhaps people in the world who are protesting or upset it is because they want freedom.

They don’t hate Americans because we are free. They dislike America

for impeding their right to choose their own path to freedom.

August 21, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Bad Precedent and Bad Faith

Part I — Hedges v. Obama

Back in January of 2012 former war correspondent Christopher Hedges and others, including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and specifically the Act’s Section 1021(b)(2), which allows for indefinite detention by the U.S. military of people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States." This detention denies those held of the ability to "contest the allegations against them because they have no right to be notified of the specific charges against them."

In this suit filed by Hedges et al., the issue in question was the vagueness of the terms "substantially support" and "associated forces." For instance, could this vagueness lead to apprehension and detention of journalists who publish interviews with members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban? Could it lead to the same treatment against political activists protesting U.S. policies against these or "associated" groups?

The case, now designated Hedges v. Obama, was initially heard in New York District Court by Judge Katherine Forrest. The plaintiffs claimed that the NDAA violated the 1st (free speech), 5th (due process as well as the stipulation that people must be able to understand what actions break the law) and 14th (equal protection) Amendments to the Constitution. To address the question, Judge Forrest asked the government lawyers if they could assure the court that the activities of the plaintiffs would not result in indefinite detention under the act. If they could give such assurances it would, as far as the judge was concerned, eliminate the plaintiff’s "standing" to challenge the law.

The government lawyers refused to give those assurances, and as a result, the judge concluded, "The definitions of ‘substantially supported’ and ‘associated forces’ were so vague that a reporter or activist could not be sure they would not be covered under the provision." This, in turn, would result in what the plaintiffs considered a "chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press." Therefore, in September 2012, the Judge granted a permanent injunction against the practice of indefinite detention as put forth in NDAA.

There is no evidence that the U.S. government ever complied with this injunction, and its lawyers immediately appealed the ruling to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. When the case was heard in this court, the U.S. Justice Department suddenly came up with the assurances it refused to give only weeks before. In part it was because of these assurances that the appeals court decided to overturn Forrest’s ruling and grant a permanent stay of her injunction. In one of its interim rulings, the appeals court observed, "Since the U.S. government has promised that citizens, journalists, and activists were not in danger of being detained as a result of NDAA, it was unnecessary to block the enforcement of 102 (b)(2) of the NDAA."

However, as Carl Mayer, the lawyer for Christopher Hedges, had noted earlier, "The government has not put in any evidence. They just keep making these broad assurances. It’s all a ‘trust us’ proceeding." And trust them is exactly what the appellate judges did. The appeals court’s final ruling in favor of the government was given on 17 July 2013.

Part II — Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

One can seriously ask, is any government that trustworthy? Particularly those governments that see themselves at endless war with shadowy enemies and which claim the need for "broad executive war powers" to wage the struggle. One of the reasons that the rule of law is so important is just because there must be limits to behavior for everyone, including the rule makers. Usually the rules that hold governments in check are set forth in constitutions. Laws formulated by branches of U.S. government should explicitly comply with the U.S. Constitution, not just promise to do so.

Despite the naive faith of the Second Circuit judges in the verbal assurances of government lawyers that the NDAA will be enforced in a constitutional manner, there is evidence that such assurances cannot be trusted. Government personnel seem not to have enough objectivity and simple common sense for trust to be placed in them. For example, consider the 2010 case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.

This case was argued before the Supreme Court in January 2010 and challenged that part of the USA Patriot Act, which prohibits "material support" to groups designated terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. Just as "substantially support" and "associated forces" are too vague for Hedges and his fellow plaintiffs, so was "material support" too vague for the Humanitarian Law Project.

The HLP was seeking to interact with alleged terrorist groups such as the Kurdistan Workers Party of Turkey so as to "help the group enter into peace negotiations and United Nations processes." In other words, the HLP wanted to help lead such organizations away from violence and toward nonviolent strategies. Could this be construed as giving "material support" to terrorists? The Obama Justice Department, in striking disregard of common sense, argued that it was indeed material support and thus a criminal venture. And, as it turned out, in its June 2010 decision, the Supreme Court agreed.

This was not just an intellectual exercise in front of the highest court of the land. The resulting Supreme Court decision quickly assumed real-life significance. Within three months of its decision, the FBI was raiding homes in Chicago and Minneapolis, confiscating computers and files, because they suspected some undefined connection between the residents and various alleged Colombian and Palestinian terrorist groups. The FBI cited Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project as legal justification for their actions.

In addition, enforcement of this law turned out to be blatantly selective. In January 2011 civil rights lawyer David Cole, who represented the HLP before the Supreme Court, noted that well-known political figures, such as former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former head of homeland security Tom Ridge, had committed felonies when they publicly spoke in support of the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian designated terrorist group that happened also to be in opposition to the current Islamic government of Iran. The FBI has not, nor will it, raid their homes.

Part III — Conclusion

Under these circumstances, anyone who accepts at face value the assurance of government lawyers that laws such as the Patriot Act and NDAA will conform to the Constitution and not walk all over one’s civil rights should, as the old saying goes, have their head examined.

What we have in the Hedges v. Obama case is yet another very bad precedent. As Judge Forrest had pointed out, "Courts must safeguard core constitutional rights." The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court, clearly not applying the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) to this situation, has sold out that obligation for a handful of dubious promises. Recent history provides no confidence that such promises are given in good faith. No, it is bad faith we are witnessing here. The government lawyers should hang their heads in shame for obviously undermining the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. It just goes to show there are always those, be they soldiers, police, or lawyers who will simply follow orders no matter what the consequences.

Toward the end of this whole unseemly process someone pointed out that President Obama has consistently asserted that he is against the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens even though his Justice Department has always supported keeping the detention clause of NDAA in place and operative. Maybe the president is simply playing a double game and lying to the voters. Lying is certainly part of the politician’s toolbox.

On the other hand, maybe Obama is conflicted but dwells in an environment where it is politically "necessary" to be seen as a tough guy, lest the Republican warmongers gain an edge. How much difference does it really make? As it stands now, in terms of civil liberties there is not much "daylight" between Obama’s practice and the past behavior of neoconservative vulgarians such as George W. Bush. "If it swims like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

By Lawrence Davidson ,

August 18, 2013 0 comments

USA

Engaging with Iran’s New President

The confirmation of Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s sixth president on August 4 will provide an opportunity for renewed engagement between Western governments and the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, the background and character of Rouhani raises pertinent questions regarding the type of engagement that his election calls for.

Educated at both the hawza ‘ilmiya in Qom and Glasgow Caledonian University, Rouhani has had a blend of classical Islamic tutelage and worldly engagement. His background is quite conventional. Many religious scholars in Iran often pursue secular educations simultaneously with their religious studies. The notion that Iran’s politicians are either radicals or moderates is based on the incorrect assumption that there is no middle-way in Iranian politics. This assumption guides the equally misplaced notion that either Rouhani’s worldview is narrowed by a ‘conservative’ religious establishment, or that his secular education and his calls for increased civil-liberties make him more ‘liberal’.

Without categorizing Rouhani politically, the West needs to engage with his government based on its actions. In 2001, then US President George W Bush listed Iran as part of an ‘axis of evil’. Paradoxically, this was shortly after the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) took part in a joint operation with US forces in Afghanistan against the Taliban. The episode illustrates how large-scale gestures can go ignored and only with hindsight be fully recognized as significant. Similarly, former Iranian presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-97) and Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) both found themselves isolated internationally at crucial points of their tenures. Only later – and during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-13) – were they reputed in the West as relatively moderate leaders.

What gestures could Rouhani realistically make in the short-term? He could offer to share more information on Al-Qaeda operatives that are detained in the country – an area where there is already a solid foundation for enhanced cooperation. ‘Secularizing’ the Supreme Leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons proliferation and possession in ordinary legislation would also be significant. In return,

The policy of engaging Iran today consists of alleviating some sanctions in the event that Iran concedes completely on the nuclear issue, or increasing economic and political pressure. Maintaining the current course would allow Rouhani very little room to manoeuvre. If the US and EU engage with the next government on the premise that Rouhani will tolerate this status-quo, or will proactively seek to challenge the Supreme Leader’s authority, then the opportunity for engagement will be lost. Enthusiasm for Iran’s new government must therefore be tempered by a realistic assessment of the nature of political change in Iran: where Rouhani might attempt to build trust and how the West can respond. This is important for it might be some time before another ‘Rouhani’ emerges.

Rouhani’s background as a cleric and as the Supreme Leader’s confidant should not be misread as obstacles to change. Western governments should instead take full advantage of these facts: they now deal with a leader who understands their perspectives and is well placed to assure Ayatollah Khamenei that a nuclear deal is in the Islamic Republic’s best interest. Political change in Iran has always been a gradual project of negotiation and renegotiation under the ruling Islamic framework, and this applies to identifying ‘national security’ priorities. Change will happen in Iran, including in its conduct of diplomacy, but not necessarily in the linear fashion some expect.

For the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic, foreign officials – including heads of states – were invited as guests to the inauguration of the president. It might be that initial small steps – and the recognition that both sides will be taking them – will lead to a more comprehensive settlement between Iran and the West.

Friday 2 August 2013

by Sasan Aghlani, Research Assistant, International Security, chathamhouse.org

August 15, 2013 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts