The Third View on Mujahedin Khalq

How the Iran-Nuke Crisis Was Hyped

A prized weapon in the U.S. geopolitical arsenal is “information warfare,” the ability to promote false or misleading information to heighten the pressure on an adversary, often using supposedly neutral UN agencies as a front, as may have happened on Iran’s nuclear program, reports Gareth Porter.

In a critique of the handling of the Iran file by the International Atomic Energy Agency, former IAEA Director General Han Blix has called for greater skepticism about the intelligence documents and reports alleging Iranian nuclear weapons work and warned that they may be used to put diplomatic pressure on Tehran.

In an interview with this writer in his Stockholm apartment late last month, Blix, who headed the IAEA from 1981 to 1997, also criticized the language repeated by the IAEA under its current director general, Yukiya Amano, suggesting that Iran is still under suspicion of undeclared nuclear activity.

Blix, who clashed with U.S. officials when he was head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq from 2000 to 2003, said he has long been skeptical of intelligence that has been used to accuse Iraq and Iran of having active nuclear-weapons programs.

“I’ve often said you have as much disinformation as information” on alleged weaponization efforts in those countries, Blix said.

Referring to the allegations of past Iranian nuclear weapons research that have been published in IAEA reports, Blix said, “Something that worries me is that these accusations that come from foreign intelligence agencies can be utilized by states to keep Iran under suspicion.”

Such allegations, according to Blix, “can be employed as a tactic to keep the state in a suspect light — to keep Iran on the run.” The IAEA, he said, “should be cautious and not allow itself to be drawn into such a tactic.”

Blix warned that compromising the independence of the IAEA by pushing it to embrace unverified intelligence was not in the true interests of those providing the intelligence.

The IAEA Member States providing the intelligence papers to the IAEA “have a long-term interest in an international service that seeks to be independent,” said Blix. “In the Security Council they can pursue their own interest, but the [IAEA] dossier has to be as objective as possible.”

In 2005, the George W. Bush administration gave the IAEA a large cache of documents purporting to derive from a covert Iranian nuclear weapons research and development program from 2001 to 2003. Israel provided a series of documents and intelligence reports on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons work in 2008 and 2009.

Blix’s successor as IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, recalled in his 2011 memoirs having doubts about the authenticity of both sets of intelligence documents. ElBaradei resisted pressure from the United States and its European allies in 2009 to publish an “annex” to a regular IAEA report based on those unverified documents.

But Amano agreed to do so, and the annex on “possible military dimensions” of the Iranian nuclear program was published in November 2011. During the current negotiations with Iran, the P5+1 (U.S., UK, Russia, China, France plus Germany) has taken the position that Iran must explain the intelligence documents and reports described in the annex.

The provenance of the largest part of the intelligence documents — the so-called “laptop documents” — was an unresolved question for years after they were first reported in 2004 and 2005. But former senior German foreign office official Karsten Voigt confirmed in 2013 that the Iranian exile opposition group, the Mujahedeen E-Khalq (MEK), gave the original set of documents to the German intelligence service (BND) in 2004.

The MEK has been reported by Seymour Hersh, Connie Bruck, and a popular history of the Mossad’s covert operations to have been a client of Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, serving to “launder” intelligence that Mossad did not want to have attributed to Israel.

Blix has been joined by two other former senior IAEA officials in criticizing the agency for its uncritical presentation of the intelligence documents cited in the November 2011 annex. Robert Kelley, the head of the Iraq team under both Blix and ElBaradei, and Tariq Rauf, the former head of the Agency’s Verification and Security Policy Coordination Office, have written that the annex employed “exaggeration, innuendo and careful choice of words” in presenting intelligence information from an unidentified Member State of the IAEA on the alleged cylinder at the Parchin military facility.

Blix said he is “critical” of the IAEA for the boilerplate language used in its reports on Iran that the Agency is “not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities….”

Blix added that it is “erroneous” to suggest that the IAEA would be able to provide such assurances if Iran or any other state were more cooperative. As head of UNMOVIC, Blix recalled, “I was always clear that there could always be small things in a big geographical area that can be hidden, and you can never guarantee completely that there are no undeclared activities.”

“In Iraq we didn’t maintain there was nothing,” he said. “We said we had made 700 inspections at 500 sites and we had not seen anything.”

Blix emphasized that he was not questioning the importance of maximizing inspections, or of Iran’s ratification of the Additional Protocol. “I think the more inspections you can perform the smaller the residue of uncertainty,” he said.

Consortium News,

Gareth Porter, an investigative journalist and historian specializing in U.S. “national security” policy and was the recipient of the Gellhorn Prize for journalism in 2012. His latest book is Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. [This article first appeared at LobeLog.]

December 24, 2014 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Guess who credits the Mossad with producing the ‘laptop documents?’

Evidence mounts pointing to the Mossad as the source of dubious claims about Iran’s uranium enrichment program contained in the ‘laptop documents’

In the United States and Europe, it is unchallenged in political and media circles that intelligence documents purporting to be from a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program for which the IAEA long demanded an Iranian explanation are genuine.

Photo: Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Minister Rafi Eitan (2nd L), who was a member of the Mossad team that captured Adolf Eichmann in Argentina in 1960, look at objects displayed at an exhibition at the Knesset in Jerusalem on 12 December, 2011(AFP)

But evidence has continued to accumulate that the documents – sometimes called the “laptop documents” because they were said to have been on a laptop computer belonging to one of the participants in the program – were fabricated by Israel’s foreign intelligence agency (Mossad). We now know that the documents did not come from an Iranian participant in the alleged project, as the media were led to believe for years; they were turned over to German intelligence by the anti-regime Iranian terrorist organisation, Mujahedeen E Khalq, (MEK). I first reported this in 2008 and have now confirmed from an authoritative German source in my book on the Iran nuclear issue. The MEK was well known to have been a client of the Mossad, serving to launder Israeli intelligence claims that the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves.

Although it has never been mentioned in news media, former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General, Mohamed El Baradei recalled in his memoirs that he was doubtful of the authenticity of the documents. “No one knew if any of this was real,” he wrote in reference to the laptop documents. Another former senior IAEA official told me, “It just really didn’t add up. It made more sense that this information originated in another country.” And as I have detailed in articles and in my book, key documents in the collection bear clear indications of fabrication.

Support for that virtually unknown part of the Iran nuclear story has come from a surprising source: a popular Israeli account, celebrating the successes of the Mossad’s covert operations. “Mossad: The Greatest Missions of the Israeli Secret Service,” first published in Hebrew in 2010, and then published in English in 2012, was Israel’s best-selling book for months in 2010. But not only does it acknowledge that it was indeed the MEK that delivered the documents, it also suggests that at least some of the documents came from the Mossad.

The co-authors of the book are far from critics of Israel’s policy toward Iran; One of the co-authors, Michael Bar-Zohar, is a well-connected former member of the Israeli Knesset and former paratrooper, who had previously written an authorised biography of Shimon Peres, as well as the biography of Isser Harel, the Mossad chief who presided over the kidnapping of Adolph Eichmann in Argentina.

Much of what Bar-Zohar chronicled in the book had already been reported earlier by Israeli journalists – especially Ronen Bergman of the daily Yedioth Ahronoth. In fact, Bergman accused Bar-Zohar of plagiarising his articles for much of the book, while changing only a few words.

But one thing that Bar-Zohar and co-author Nisham Mishal did not get from other Israeli journalists, was the role of the Mossad in regard to the laptop documents.

Although they do not flatly state that the Mossad was the source of the documents, they certainly lead the reader to that conclusion. They begin by establishing the fact that the MEK was fronting for the Mossad in its revelation in August 2002 of Iran’s first enrichment facility at Natanz. The CIA, they write, “appeared to believe that the Mossad and the British MI6 were feeding MEK intelligence they had obtained, using the Iranian opposition as a hopefully credible source”. And they explicitly confirm CIA’s suspicions. “According to Israeli sources,” they write, “It was, in fact, a watchful Mossad officer who had discovered the mammoth centrifuge installation at Natanz.”

Other sources, including Seymour Hersh and Connie Bruck have reported that the MEK got the intelligence on Natanz from the Israelis, but theirs is the first explicit acknowledgement attributed to an Israeli source that the MEK had revealed Natanz on the basis of Mossad intelligence. What the Israeli co-authors do not say is that the Mossad was simply guessing at the purpose of Natanz, which the MEK mistakenly called a “fuel fabrication” facility, rather than a centrifuge enrichment facility.

Turning to the laptop documents, they make it clear that western intelligence had indeed obtained the documents from the MEK and suggest that the MEK got them from somewhere else. “The dissidents wouldn’t say how they had gotten hold of the laptop,” they write. They again frame the question of the origins of those documents in terms of CIA suspicions. “[T]he skeptical Americans suspected that the documents had been only recently scanned into the computer,” they write. “They accused the Mossad of having slipped in some information obtained from our own sources – and passing it to the MEK leaders for delivery to the West."

Bar-Zohar and Mishal steer clear of any suggestion that the Mossad fabricated any documents, but their account leaves little doubt that they are convinced that the Mossad should be credited for the appearance of the documents. Their approach of referring to US suspicions, rather than stating it directly, appears to be a way of avoiding problems with Israeli military censors, who often clamp down on local reporting on sensitive issues while allowing references to foreign reports.

The authors further suggest that the Mossad was behind information later released by the MEK on Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Iranian physics professor said to be shown in the laptop documents as the man in charge of that purported Iranian nuclear weapons research program. The MEK disclosed such personal details as Fakhrizadeh’s passport number and his home telephone number. But the Mossad chroniclers write: “This abundance of detail and means of transmission leads one to believe that, again, “a certain secret service” ever suspected by the West of pursuing its own agenda, painstakingly collected these facts and figures about the Iranian scientists and passed them to the Iranian resistance.”

I asked Bar-Zohar’s research assistant, Nilly Ovnat, whether he had Israeli sources for those statements relating to the MEK and the laptop documents. She responded by e-mail: “Professor Bar Zohar had other sources for most of the material concerning MEK and Natanz [and the] laptop, yet they could not be mentioned and cannot be discussed.”

Bar-Zohar and Mishal are little concerned with whether the Mossad’s laptop caper involved fraud or not. They obviously view the Israeli intelligence agency’s use of an Iranian exile group to get out documents that had been central to the international sanctions regime against Iran as a great triumph. But whatever their reasons, their book adds another layer to the growing body of evidence showing that the Bush administration and its allies hoodwinked the rest of the world with those documents.

– Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national security policy. His latest book, “Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare,” was published in February 2014.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

December 20, 2014 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Wrong prism to view Iran

During the last two years a number of opinion pieces have appeared in The Hill against Iran. These articles serve the interests and are written by the members and affiliates of a terrorist group known as the Mujahedeen-Khalq Organization (MEK). This group goes by various other names such as PMOI and NCRI and has an elaborate set of front groups and astroturf operations designed to allow them to operate in the U.S. while they were designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. Department of State and to create the illusion that they are part of some larger network of groups who are loyal to them.

These articles contain too many falsehoods and fabrications to address in one response, however, they are aimed at tarnishing the image of Iran and attacking the ongoing efforts to reach a final status agreement regarding the nuclear issue. The prospect of peaceful diplomatic conflict resolution frustrates those like the MEK who thrive on global volatility and need conflict in order to convince countries and interests to consider them needed and look past who they are. These articles also seek to create the impression that they are popular inside Iran. Many have refuted this and the State Department called them a “repressive cult despised by most Iranians and Iraqis.”

This group’s decades’ long history of terrorism against Iranian civilians is well documented by many including government institutions like the State Department and media outlets around the world. This group conspired with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War even as Saddam was using Chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds. They then became Saddam’s private militia and participated in the brutal suppression of the Kurds in the early1990s.

When the Washington Times recently wrote an article on them, the experts that the Times approached were unwilling to speak on the record. One told them that “it was unthinkable to speak openly against the NCRI because doing so would result in ‘death threats from this group.’”

Additionally, human rights groups have catalogues their cultic totalitarian disposition noting practices such as mandatory divorce so members can dedicate more time to the cause and their vast extrajudicial compound prison system.

This group only recently managed to have themselves removed from the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations after a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign, which the Rand Corporation characterized as “cultic practices” and “deceptive recruitment”; an effort that they continue today in The Hill. We understand that positions expressed in opinion articles published by The Hill do not necessarily represent those of the publishers, but we are confounded as to why your publication would make its coveted platform so routinely available to the propaganda of a terrorist cult or its bought off the rack series of front groups and shills.

The concept that this group would be capable of some sort of positive contribution to Iran’s future or U.S. policy towards Iran is greatly offensive to the Iranian people and the group’s many victims and their families.

Hamid Babaei,

Babaei is counselor and head of the Press Office for the Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN.

December 15, 2014 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Dear Washington: Kick Out This Iranian Militant Cult

In the war of words on Iran’s domestic issues and controversial nuclear program, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) always is front and center to condemn the country. The MEK is known by many monikers: the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI), Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), but is best known by the multifaceted National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Through social media, the group spams most Iran-related hashtags with their propaganda, bankroll prominent U.S. officials to advocate on their behalf as the “democratic alternative” to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and even re-opened an office a block from the White House where they hired former Senator Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) as their legal representative.

None of these points would be problematic if it weren’t for the fact that the European Union and United States formerly designated the Iraq-based MEK as a terrorist organization for its past activities. What makes this realization peculiar is the very people in Congress that cozy up to the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi, by calling for staunch sanctions–sometimes even war–on Iran due to its nuclear program and particularly human rights violations, seem to turn a blind eye to the activities of the totalitarian cult of Marxist-Islamist Iranian dissidents we know today as the MEK.

The amount of misinformation circulated by their public relations is disturbing and it’s time to expose their true nature.

Not A Champion of Iranian Women

To this day, the followers of the Mojahedin-e Khalq and its apologists dismiss it is a cult and continue to refer to their group as a “deeply democratic organization whose guiding principle on all issues is referendum and discussion until a consensus is reached.” Despite denials, its conduct tells otherwise as cited by a RAND report: deceptive recruitment, emotional isolation, extreme degrading peer pressure, forced labor, imprisonment, lack of exit options, sexual control, sleep deprivation, and physical abuse.

Maryam Rajavi’s marriage to one of the original founders of the MEK symbolized the transformation from an organization to a “cult of personality.” With the money provided by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein–they formed an alliance due to a deep disdain for the Iranian regime–to “construct self-sufficient camps” which included: medical clinics, prisons (also known as “reeducation centers”), schools, and training centers, in order for the population not to engage with outside society. Additionally, prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, members of the Mojahedin carried cyanide tablets around their neck to avoid capture. Self-immolation and suicide reportedly are a popular form of political protest amongst members.

With knowledge of this publically available, it is difficult to take them serious. But what is truly an affront to women is when Rajavi and her supporters claim they offer a better alternative to the current women’s rights situation in in Iran.

In a recent op-ed for The Hill, Soona Samsami a representative of the NCRI expresses:

“Rajavi has outlined a Ten Point Plan for Future Iran, which says, ‘We believe in complete gender equality in political, social and economic arenas. We are also committed to equal participation of women in political leadership. Any form of discrimination against women will be abolished. They will enjoy the right to freely choose their clothing.’”

Even though the group promotes leadership positions for women, in order to impose “military” regulations on its members, the MEK forces them not only to move into gender-segregated compounds, but also cut ties with family and friends–both inside and outside of the commune. They even require members to divorce their spouses and to live a life of celibacy. It is presumed that love for family and significant others would be replaced with love for the Rajavis.

Last but not least, when it came to attire for women, journalist Elizabeth Rubin notes:

“Everywhere I saw women dressed exactly alike, in khaki uniforms and mud-colored head scarves, driving back and forth in white pickup trucks, staring ahead in a daze as if they were working at a factory in Maoist China.”

Iran’s women rights record is problematic, but this is not and should never be considered the alternative, even momentarily.

Listen To Iranians

While Samsami says “Young women in Iran find true inspiration in the main opposition” that is Maryam Rajavi, the group has not won an audience with the Iranian people at home in Tehran.

Not only has the Mojahedin-e Khalq lost its support because of its alliance with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s–an insult to the Iranian people’s nationalism–but also for its position against Iran’s nuclear program, something the average Iranian sees as their legitimate right. Many Iranians convey the group is “worse than the mullahs” or along the lines of what some Iranian democracy activists claim that “if it had had the chance, [the MEK] could have become the Khmer Rouge of Iran.”

With that in mind, there is no chance the MEK could win over the Iranian people if a potential regime change took place–something various legislators in the United States need to recognize.

It’s time the MEK’s blind proponents see them for what they really are: a sham.

Holly Dagres,

December 14, 2014 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Rajavi’s Cyber Army: The MEK’s Twitter Legions

When confronting the Mujahedeen/Mojahedin Khalq, or MEK, MKO, etc, a crucial aspect of it which has been repeatedly overlooked, is its online activities. While there is an abundance of information and readily available studies revealing the cultic nature of the group (which the neocons consistently ignore) and the “limited exit options” (to put it mildly) it offers the members once entering the organisation, few have stopped to point out another aspect of this bizarre organisation – maybe because the knee-jerk reaction of many expat members is to brand them an “agent of the mullahs”.

The public face of the faux-dissident group is, of course, the charismatic, beaming face of Maryam Rajavi. She is an impressive orator, conversant not only in her native Persian, but also in fluent French and English, and supremely confidant, an impressive saleswoman for any group. Her ostensible support for democracy, coupled with these factors, makes supporting her and her organisation more than tempting for many western politicians, who simply see the enemy of their enemy as an immediate friend.

Online, Mrs Rajavi would appear to be just as vibrantly abuzz with followers and interest as she tries to portray herself to be offline. She has several Twitter accounts which ceaselessly promote her statements and messages, which are posted on several different websites (just in case you didn’t see the first few million posts emphasising them) on the MEK’s official website (which is of course, mojahedin.org), on the website for the unofficial MEK political wing (the ‘National Council of Resistance’), and on her own personal website. Translations are in English, French, Farsi and Arabic.

For someone who hasn’t exactly won Hassan Rouhani’s seat yet (although her and her husband have had a damn good try), her website gives the impression that, far from leading an organisation widely hated by Iranians, she’s halfway there – a multitude of tabs are devoted to her views, works and statements, photographs of crowds of supporters bearing the images of herself and her husband appear, she is shown in videos sitting and giving statements, you name it. Her branch of the “resistance”, in reality, has more presence among the diaspora than within Iran.

It’s when you start looking at her most basic of platforms, namely her English language Twitter profile, that something first strikes you as amiss. Some tweets are clearly posted by Maryam Herself, others possibly posted by her staff. Not that there’s anything wrong with that of course.

But take a look at those retweeting her, and those who very occasionally reply; those who can reply and challenge her views without being blocked after a period of time, that is. 90% of those retweeting her are accounts with nearly identical features.

Of course, when on the internet, like-minded people, especially those who strongly support parties or causes, will naturally act in a like-minded way; changing their pictures to similar ones, using similar backgrounds and slogans, etc.

But these accounts are literally identical in almost every respect. Similar pictures, similar slogans, similar lack of any personal touch whatsoever, and all devoted to either retweeting or paraphrasing Mrs Rajavi’s every word.

Don’t believe me? Check this one, ‘royaraha’, for example. This account has no description, a bland background of flowers with the avatar of a horse, 86 followers and devotes all its time to retweeting; the vast majority of its retweets are retweeting… Other accounts, also automaton-like. Then there’s another, Nakba Nejati, with an avatar of a killed MEK member, exactly 86 followers, no description, and devotes all its time to retweeting Maryam and other like-minded accounts; many, again, also automated. Here’s another, with the bland stock image of a bird, which is exactly the same as the previous two. Here’s another… and another… and another. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of these accounts; some bearing pictures of Maryam Rajavi in abundance, some not. Some with descriptions praising the Rajavis and the MEK/NCRI, some without, yet with avatars depicting the two, and acting in exactly the same manner.

Long story short; Maryam isn’t retweeted by hundreds of adoring fans, but by hundreds (if not thousands) of seemingly automated accounts (“bots”, to internet-savvy types) save for the occasional account which may or may not be operated by the person they claim to be – like-minded activists, neocons and right-wing types who seem to genuinely want to believe in the group, etc. It was well known that the MEK has a very limited following within Iran, but I didn’t imagine that it was so irrelevant to the Iranian political climate that even the tweets of the leaders would need propping up with more falsehood and lies.

A shot of one of the automated accounts, frantically/automatically dedicated to retweeting Maryam.

To make matters worse, many of the MEK accounts are using the names, images, and personas of MEK members killed by the Iraqi and Iranian regimes. In other words, not only has the MEK thoroughly milked them for their ‘blood and breath’ (MEK members have to swear to give their breath to Massoud Rajavi, and blood to Maryam Rajavi) during their lives, but it continues to use them to further an agenda when they’re dead, too. Avatars of many of the accounts depict dead members, with one even seemingly using a screenshot from a ‘martyrdom’ video! One was also ostensibly ‘in memory’ of a fallen activist… Only to spend all its time retweeting Maryam & frantically retweeting ‘friends’ and fellow ‘martyrs’.

Here’s yet another account…

A possible source of these various cloned accounts becomes obvious when some wider reading is done. According to Iran Interlink, former MEK fighters resettled by the MEK in Albania and other nations continued to be harassed by the group into doing its bidding, and had to once again attempt to escape them, even though they had long since left the prison camp of Ashraf (named after Rajavi’s deceased wife). They were asked to ceaselessly post online propaganda for the group, despite no longer being members:

According to Iran interlink, Several Iranian residents in Europe who have contact with their friends in Tirana are now reporting that the MKO agents are exerting huge pressure on the disaffected members, who have been moved to another building block, to sign a petition against these fifty nine people and denounce them as “agents of the regime”. The MKO agents make efforts to buy the recently defected individuals in Albania back to the cult. Except for a few who have money from their families the rest must rely either on $200 per month from the UNHCR or alternatively the MEK will give them $500 per month on condition they work on the internet (to promote the MEK) and not work against them in any way. They threaten the refugees to death if they do not cooperate with them.

Thus, it seems like yet another vile twist has been added – that the MEK forces its mistreated members, which have ostensibly been freed from its grasp, to blindly retweet and comment ceaselessly online, from countries where they should be at last living in freedom and dignity, in support of the group which held them captive for so long.

It may not surprise those familiar with the MEK at all. Its policy of renting/coercing supporters into staging public acts of fealty (to the point of instructing members to set themselves alight in the streets should their beloved leaders come to any harm) comes in a variety of forms. To ensure that Maryam Rajavi’s annual mass “all for freedom” gathering doesn’t turn out to be a sparsely-populated washout, the MEK offers to bus willing students, activists, and anyone it can cajole into coming along – by offering them a “free” holiday to Paris, with all expenses paid, on condition that they come to the gathering to make its size seem impressive. The testimony of Alina Alymkulova, a Kyrgyz student, contains an overview of their methods. Here’s an outtake:

I arrived at a bus station in Prague along with a friend, a fellow student from Kyrgyzstan. Just as the trip organizer said last night, there were eight buses waiting to take us to Paris.

Most of the “protesters” were young and obviously students like me. I met many Russians, Ukrainians, Czechs, and students from Asian countries who were all recruited via the Internet.

More than an hour later we were still at the bus station. People kept coming. It was cold and rainy, and some people began to drink alcohol to keep warm. Some others started to chant slogans: “Freedom to Iranian parrots!” and “Organizers should bring beer!”

I approached two Russian girls to see if they might have a better idea about the purpose of our trip. “To defend the rights of Iranian women,” said one of the girls. “To meet handsome Frenchmen,” said the other. “Who cares about Iranian women?“

As we can see, the MEK offers “limited exit options” not only to its own imprisoned members in Camp Liberty, but also to anyone attending its large “gathering” (drawn more from foreigners than Iranians) in the free world too.

1:16 p.m.: The buses took us to some strange place not far from Charles de Gaulle Airport. We were given papers explaining where to go and what to do. Cameras were not allowed. As we exited the bus, I resigned myself to the idea that running away was not an option — people were guarding the area.

In another instances, for demonstrations around Europe and America, the MEK has paid an array of people – from miscellaneous citizens to beggars – to go to their demonstrations and don disconcerting t-shirts showing pictures of the would-be Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu, in order to beef up the size of their demonstrations.

An African-American beggar, part of the MEK’s rented crowd at a demonstration in front of the UN headquarters in New York. When asked about why she was there, she claimed that she was offered “20 dollars and a meal”.

It isn’t just the demonstrators who are often hired to go to these events either. Speakers are paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak on behalf of the group for as little as a few minutes. The MEK’s speakers in the past have even included figures such as former New York Mayor Rudi Guliani, former house speaker Newt Gingrich, and Vermont Governor Howard Dean. In other words, neocons who see the enemy of their enemy (the Iranian regime) as a firm friend. According to CSM, their methods of hiring speakers are as follows:

“‘Your speech agent calls, and says you get $20,000 to speak for 20 minutes. They will send a private jet, you get $25,000 more when you are done, and they will send a team to brief you on what to say.’ . . . The contracts can range up to $100,000 and include several appearances.”

Such big money seems to have been crucial in the de-listing of the group as a terrorist organisation (it was backlisted in 1997) in September 2012 by Hilary Clinton, then Secretary of State.

An Iranian flag, thrown in the bin by someone at Rajavi’s “gathering”. Presumably by one of the hired “demonstrators”.

Former Pennsylvania governor Rendel, among others put under investigation for receiving money from the MEK prior to delisting, may have received up to $150,000 for around eight appearances. True to form, the bottomless pockets of the MEK were not only filled by the diaspora, but largely from of payments dished out by the then-genocidal war chest of Saddam Hussein. Israel too, has used the MEK as mercenaries, in exchange for MEK assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. Funding has also come from the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which previously used the MEK as auxiliaries with which they hoped to carve up Iran, should the MEK’S charge of the Rajavi brigade have been successful in 1998.

In short, as long as the MEK continues to have no traction within Iran, no amount of bots will save it from the murderous irrelevance that it increasingly finds itself plunged into.

Ben Allinson-Davies, Unfettered Freedom For All!

December 4, 2014 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Islamic State (ISIS) is “America’s Dream Rebel Army”

US policy paper reveals desire for construction of full-scale extraterritorial army to invade Syria. Such an army is being built in Iraq and Turkey and it’s called “ISIS.”

The corporate-financier funded and directed policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, has served as one of several prominent forums documenting and disseminating US foreign policy. It would host in part the architects of the so-called “surge” during the nearly decade-spanning US occupation of Iraq, as well as battle plans for waging a covert war against Iran now well under way.

Part of this covert war against Iran involved the arming and backing of listed terrorist groups, and in particular, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) which has killed US servicemen, American civilians, as well as countless innocent Iranians over the decades. Among those signing their name to this plan found within Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report, was Kenneth Pollack. Now, in efforts to overthrow the government of Syria, also a stated and integral part of undermining, isolating, and destroying Iran, Pollack has revealed another element of the plan – to create a full-scale proxy military force outside of Syria, then subsequently invading and occupying Syria with it.

In the report titled, “Building a Better Syrian Opposition Army: How and Why,” Pollack cites the so-called “Islamic State” or “ISIS” as the ultimate impetus for expanded US intervention. However, upon looking at Pollack’s proposal, it merely looks as if the US is using ISIS as a pretext to more overtly intervene in order to overthrow the government of Syria – not in fact neutralize ISIS.

After a considerable preamble assuring readers that the aim of creating a “better Syrian opposition army” would exclude sectarian extremists and result in the same “success” the US had in training the Iraqi army, the document explains:

…building a new Syrian army is best not done in Syria itself. At least not at first. The program would need the time and sanctuary to perform the necessary training, reorganization, sorting and socialization into a new Syrian army without the distractions and pressures of Syria itself. The Saudi offer to provide facilities to train 10,000 Syrian opposition fighters is one of reasonable possibility, although one of Syria’s neighbors would probably be preferable. Jordan already serves as training ground for America’s current training program and it would be an ideal locale to build a real Syrian army. However, Turkey could also conceivably serve that purpose if the Turks were willing.

Clearly, not only is this already being done as admitted by Pollack himself, it is being done on a scale already eclipsing Pollack’s alleged plan – the only difference is it is being done through the use of sectarian extremists – not the imaginary, nonexistent secular professionals Pollack uses as a marketing gimmick to sell this scheme.

More tellingly, Pollack’s plan continues by stating (emphasis added):

In addition to being armed, trained and officered like a conventional military, a new Syrian army would also have to be equipped like one. That would mean not just small arms and crew-served weapons, such as the United States and its allies are already providing, but heavy weapons and logistical support. Like the Croats and Bosniaks, a new Syrian army will need the wherewithal to defeat both the regime and the Islamist extremists. That will require tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, surface-to-air missiles and the like to match the regime’s own heavy weapons—and so eliminate the firepower imbalance that the regime’s forces have employed to such advantage so far.

Surely, Pollack’s plan will never materialize in any practical dimension – however it may be possible to use such a marketing ploy to pour more resources into both the ongoing proxy war against Syria and Iran in general, and more specifically into the terrorist battalions already being armed, funded, trained, equipped, and sent off from Jordan and Turkey into Syrian territory. Handing advanced weapon systems into the hands of front groups consisting of intentionally ineffectual, immensely corrupt, incompetent US proxies is as good as handing the weapons directly to ISIS – and of course – this is precisely how the US is building its actual “new opposition army” – namely, in the form of ISIS itself.

Removing Pollack’s rhetoric about secular professionals, and inserting “ISIS” reveals Pollack’s paper as the actual already ongoing plan to overrun not only Syria, but pro-Iranian factions in Iraq, and perhaps even Iran itself. ISIS is a massive mercenary army trained and funded abroad by the US with its support laundered via Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey, staged along Syria’s borders in both Jordan and Turkey, and acquiring an impressive arsenal just as what is required in Pollack’s plan to enter into and overthrow the government of Syria – minus eradicating extremists of course.

Even a cursory look at ISIS’ holdings across the region reveal ratlines leading into NATO-member Turkey’s territory and all along the Turkish-Syrian border where news outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post have reported for years the CIA had been operating – unloading billions in aid, gear, weapons, and even vehicles to militants fighting within Syria.

Headlines over the past 3-4 years including, “C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition,” “First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA ‘on way to battlefield’,” “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” and “Official says CIA-funded weapons have begun to reach Syrian rebels; rebels deny receipt,” reveal precisely how ISIS acquired its vast resources.

ISIS is organized on a professional level precisely as described by Pollack, most likely the result of US military advisers and their counterparts in Saudi and Qatari special operations. ISIS is also heavily armed precisely as was required by Pollack’s plan. They now possess an impressive and ever growing arsenal of weapons including tanks, missiles of all kinds, artillery, and even a small collection of aircraft including Russian warplanes and American helicopters.

The New York Times, after years of reporting on the CIA’s delivery of weapon systems to “moderate” militants, now laments of ISIS’ possession of advanced anti-air missiles. In its article, “Missiles of ISIS May Pose Peril for Aircrews in Iraq,” it reports:

Syrian rebels have amassed multiple Manpad models since 2012, and the Islamic State has generally had little trouble acquiring any weapon used by Syrian rebels either through purchase or capture, military analysts say.

Iraqi troops – the result of what Pollack claims as an American “success” – have also augmented ISIS with precisely the weapons needed for Pollack’s dream “opposition army.” No less than 30 M1 Abrams main battle tanks have fallen into ISIS’ hands.

Prolific Neo-Conservative propagandist Michael Weiss in the Wall Street Journal attempts to downplay the implications of such weapons falling into ISIS’ hands by stating in his op-ed titled, “Exploiting the ISIS Vulnerabilities in Iraq – The terrorists’ heavy military equipment is hard to maintain, easy to target from the air,” that:

Today, we estimate that ISIS has less than a total of 30 working M1 Abrams tanks and howitzers that are either self-propelled or towed behind trucks (based on our knowledge of how the Iraqi army is equipped and what divisions were in the north). These are the weapons that gave the Islamic State the advantage over the Peshmerga in recent firefights. Yet ISIS does not have the highly trained maintenance crews that are necessary to keep these weapons in good working order. The same problem exists for its armored Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected personnel carriers. Without maintenance, these captured U.S. vehicles and weapons will break down.

Only, ISIS’ Saudi, Qatari, and Jordanian sponsors most definitely do possess the highly trained maintenance crews necessary to keep these weapons in good working order – since these despotic regimes each in turn possess a large number of exactly these weapon systems purchased from the United States itself. If the Saudis in particular, can fund, train, and arm ISIS with small arms and missiles, how difficult would it be to supply them with spare parts and properly trained maintenance crews? Turkey also maintains a number of US weapon systems, and possesses the ability to maintain modern battle tanks if not the M1 specifically – and is already harboring, supplying, and backing ISIS – another inconvenient truth challenging Weiss’ attempts to mislead readers.

In fact, Pollack’s “proposal” appears more like an after-action report. ISIS is the “better Syrian opposition army” the West has sought all along. That is probably why attempts by the US to “fight” ISIS appear half-hearted and why those the US is supposedly “saving” from ISIS see Western intervention as more of a threat than ISIS itself believing it is designed simply to prolong ISIS’ existence in the face of growing and increasingly more formidable indigenous opposition.

Any provisions to build Pollack’s “army” will undoubtedly end up only bolstering ISIS and its affiliates – just as military aid policymakers like Pollack at Brookings advocated for the arming of “moderates” resulted in the creation of ISIS in the first place. While the US desperately attempts to disown responsibility for ISIS’ creation and perpetuation through an unconvincing propaganda campaign, false flag terror strikes against the “homeland,” and a series of increasingly ludicrous, orchestrated strawman victories in Iraq and Syria – Damascus, Baghdad, and Tehran are leading the real fight against ISIS.

The US apparently plans on protecting ISIS for as long as possible under the guise of being the sole force “fighting it,” while ISIS consolidates and moves on Western designated targets. In the process of “fighting” ISIS, the US is managing to destroy Syrian infrastructure and defenses. The US, however, has failed in attempts to exclude Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian forces from countering the ISIS threat and now the region is witnessing a race between ISIS’ inevitable destruction and America’s attempts to topple Damascus before ISIS vanishes from its geopolitical toolbox.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

globalresearch.ca

November 13, 2014 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Women of Iran, Washington just doesn’t get it

Discovering Iran

Iran Trip: September – October 2014

Marcel Proust said: “The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.” During the past two decades, I visited Iran on numerous occasions staying 10-14 days at a time. This time around, I stayed for 2 months and, heeding Proust, I carried with me a fresh pair of eyes. I discarded both my Western lenses as well as my Iranian lenses and observed with objective eyes. It was a formidable journey that left me breathless.

Part I – Women of the Islamic Republic of Iran

It is hard to know where to start a travel log and how to describe a newfound world in a few pages. However, given the obsession with the status of women, it is perhaps appropriate to start with the women in Iran as I perceived them.

Western media with help from feminists and Iranians living outside of Iran portray Iranian women as being “oppressed”—foremost because women in Iran have to abide by an Islamic dress code: hijab. Yes, hijab is mandatory and women choose to wear either a chador or a scarf. But what is crucial to understand is the role chador played pre-1979 versus the post Revolution era.

Prior to the 1979 Revolution, the chador was indicative of a thinly veiled caste system. While a few distinguished women of high socio-economical background chose to wear the chador, the rest, the majority of Iranian women, were simply born into the habit. In short, the socio-economically disadvantaged wore the pre-1979 chador. In those days, the chador was a hindrance to a woman’s progress; she was looked down at and frowned upon. She could not move forward or up. She was oppressed. But Western feminists were blind to this oppression. After all, the Shah was modern and America’s friendly dictator.

The Revolution changed the status quo and chipped away at the caste system. A revolution, by definition, is a complete change in the way people live and work. And so it is with the Iranian Revolution. The post 1979 chador is no longer an impediment to a woman’s future. Today’s Iranian woman, the same (formerly) less privileged class, has found freedom in her chador. She has been unshackled and she marches on alongside her (formerly) more privileged colleagues. This emancipation is what the Western/Westernized feminists see as oppression.

I myself come from yesterday’s tiny minority of “privileged” women, far too comfortable in my “Western” skin to want to promote hijab, but I will not allow my personal preferences to diminish the value of the progress made because of hijab. The bleeding hearts from without should simply change their tainted lenses instead of trying to change the lives of others for Iranian women do not need to be rescued, they do not follow—they lead.

On two separate occasions I had the opportunity to sit and talk with a group of PhD students at Tehran University’s Global Studies Department. Frankly, these young women charmed me. Their inquisitive and sharp minds, their keen intellect, their vast knowledge, their fluent English, and their utter confidence dazzled me. Western feminists would consider them “oppressed”. Seems to me that feminism needs rescuing, not Iranian women.

The inordinate success of women goes vastly beyond education; they participate in every aspect of society: motherhood, arts and sciences, high tech, film and cinema, research, business, administration, politics, sports, armed forces, bus and taxi drivers, fire-fighters, etc. Women’s active role in society is undeniable. What I found tantalizing was their role as cultural gatekeepers.

Women – The Cultural Warriors

Cultural imperialism is part and parcel of neocolonialism. The eradication of an indigenous culture and replacing it with a hegemonic one enables the hegemon to exert influence on the subject nation—to own it. And women are the nuclei. They hold the family together and pass on traditions. To this end, in every colonial adventure, regardless of geography, women have been the primary targets (i.e. victims of rescue). Iran has been no different. While some have indeed abandoned their culture in order to embrace that of another, the vast majority have resisted and fought back with authentic Iranian tradition.

One group of these cultural warriors left a deep impact on me. I attended a dance ensemble at the famous Roudaki Hall (Talar Roudaki). Girls aged 6 to 18 sent the packed hall into a thunderous applause when they danced to various traditional songs from around the country. Their dance was not MTV stuff. It reflected the beauty and purity of an ancient culture. Their movements and gestures were not intended to be seductive, they were graceful and poetic ushering in the ancient past and bonding it with the present, strengthening it. These were the women of Iran who would guard Iran’s precious culture and traditions against modern, Western culture deemed central to ‘civilization’ and ‘freedom’ by Western feminists.

It is not my intention to give the false impression that every woman in Iran is happy, successful, and valued. Like any other society, Iran has its share of unhappy, depressed girls and women. It has its share of women who have been abused and betrayed. It has its share of girls and women who turn to drugs, prostitution, or both. I came across these as well. I also noted that laws in Iran do not favor women, be it divorce, child custody, or inheritance. Yet women have leapt forward.

Part II – Esprit de Corps: Washington Just Doesn’t Get It

Numerous visitors have travelled to Iran and brought back reports describing the landscape, the food, the friendliness of the people, the impact of the sanctions, and so forth. For the most part, these reports have been accurate—albeit incomplete. I do not want to tire the reader with my observations on these same topics; rather, I invite the reader to share my journey into the soul of the country—the spirit of the Iranian nation.

Washington’s missteps are, in part, due to the simple fact that Washington receives flawed intelligence on Iran and Iranians. This has been a long-standing pattern with Washington. Prior to the 1979 Revolution, a plethora of US personnel lived in Iran. Thousands of CIA agents were stationed there. Their task went beyond teaching torture techniques to the Shah’s secret police; they were, after all, spies. In addition to the military personnel that came in tow with the military equipment sold to the Shah by the U.S., there were official US personnel who worked at the American Embassy in Tehran. None got it.

They all failed miserably in their assessment of Iranians. These personnel were simply too busy enjoying a lavish lifestyle in Iran. As the aforementioned travellers have all repeated, Iran is beautiful, the food scrumptious, the people hospitable. These personnel attended parties thrown by those close to the Shah (or other affluent Iranians) and lived the kind of life they could not have dreamt of elsewhere. American ambassadors doled out visas to the lazy kids of these same families who would not have otherwise been able to make it to the US under normal student visa requirements.

These same Iranians, the privileged elite, provided Americans in Iran with intelligence—inaccurate, flawed information that was passed onto Washington. Washington was content. After all, why doubt your friends, and how could possibly the secret police trained by CIA not get the facts right? To this end, Washington believed Iran would remain a client state for the unforeseen future. The success of the revolution was a slap in the face, but Washington did not alter course.

For the past several decades, Washington has continued to act on flawed intelligence. Today, it relies on the “expertise” of some in the Iranian Diaspora who have not visited Iran once since the revolution. In addition to the “Iran experts”, Washington has found itself other sources of ‘intelligence’, foremost; the Mojahedeen Khalg (MEK) terrorist cult. This group feeds Washington information provided them by Israel. Previous to this assignment, the cult was busy fighting alongside Saddam Hussein killing Iranians and Kurds. Is it any surprise that Washington is clueless on Iran?

What Washington can’t fathom is the source of Iran’s strength, its formidable resilience. Thanks to its ‘experts’, and the personal experience of some visitors, Washington continues to believe that the Iranian people love America and that they are waiting for Washington to ‘rescue’ them from their government. No doubt Iranians are generous, hospitable, and charming. They welcome visitors as guest regardless of their country of origin. This is part and parcel of their culture. They also believe a guest is a ‘blessing from God’—mehmoon barekate khodast. Karime khodast. But this is where it ends.

While the Iranian people love people of all nationalities, including Americans, they see Washington for what it is. Over the past decades, Washington and its policies have adversely affected virtually every single family in Iran. These include those whose dreams and hopes were shattered by the CIA orchestrated coup against their nascent democracy and its popular leader, Mossadegh. Later, lives were turned upside down the Shah’s CIA/Mossad trained secret police arrested, brutally tortured, killed or simply made disappear anyone who dared venture into politics. Thanks to America’s staunch support, these stories never found their way to the papers. And then there are the millions of war widows and orphans, the maimed soldiers, the victims of chemical weapons supplied to Saddam Hussein by America to use against Iranians while the UN closed its eyes in an 8-year war. Not to forget the victims of American sponsored terrorism, and sanctions. Millions of Iranians have first hand experience of all that has been plagued upon them by Washington.

It is these victims, their families and acquaintances that fight for Iran’s sovereignty, that are the guardians of this proud nation. They are the source of Iran’s strength. Victor Hugo once said: “No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.” There simply is no army on earth which can occupy, by proxy or otherwise, the land the people have come to believe belongs to them not by virtue of birth, but because they have fought for it, died for it, kept it from harm.

I met many such families; one in particular was more memorable. During the Shah’s regime, this family worked on my father’s farm. The father and his sons worked the farm and the mother helped around the house. In those days, this family and future generations would have simply continued to work on the farm, remain ‘peasants’ with no prospects for the future. But the revolution rescued them.

Shortly after the revolution, the war started. The boys in the family all went to war. One uncle lost his life to chemical warfare. The rest survived – and thrived. They got themselves free education provided by the same government America wants to dislodge. One of these boys, the man I met after some 35 years, Kazem, once condemned to be a ‘peasant’, had become a successful businessman. I spent hours talking to the family and to Kazem in particular. What impressed me was not just his affluence and his success in business, but the wisdom that only comes with age, and yet he had acquired it in youth. He had intellect and dignity. A gentleman, I found his knowledge of global affairs to be superior to most one would meet at a college in the US. He had experienced war and witnessed death. Iran belonged to him. He would fight for it over and over without hesitating to die for it.

This is the Iran the Diaspora has left behind, the Iran that is unknown to them. This is a far superior country than the one I left behind as a child and visited throughout the years. Iran’s guardians, its keepers, are all Kazems. It has been said that the strength of an army is the support of the people behind it. The whole country is that army. As Khalil Gibran rightly observed: “Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars.” With every wrong policy, America adds to the scars, strengthens the character and spirit of this unbreakable nation. This is what Washington is not able to grasp.

Foreign Policy Journal

November 9, 2014 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Think helping to fight ISIS will get you off terrorist list? Think again

The role of Syrian Kurds in the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State has prompted calls for the removal of an affiliated Kurdish guerrilla group from the U.S. blacklist, bringing fresh scrutiny to a terrorist-designation process that some critics call arbitrary and outdated.

So far, the U.S. government’s response to the fighters of the Kurdish Workers Party, the PKK, could be summed up as: Thanks for the help, but you’re staying on the list.

Shedding a U.S. foreign terrorist designation is a long and complicated undertaking – a feat accomplished by just a handful of the dozens of groups that have landed on the list since its inception in 1997. A designation means that a group has earned the dubious label – and economic sanctions – of being named a “tier-one” foreign terrorist organization. Tier-two members are banned from entry to the United States; tier-three groups are undesignated but closely monitored.

Several organizations have languished on the State Department’s tier-one list even though they’re essentially defunct, with their leaders killed, jailed or engaged in peace talks with the governments they once attacked. Others on the 59-member list have been weakened but are still considered threatening. And, of course, there are the active, high-profile groups that in American minds are synonymous with terrorism: the Islamic State, al Qaida and Hezbollah, for example.

Those three, as well as the PKK, are among a half-dozen U.S.-designated groups now involved in the conflict over the Islamic State’s cross-border fiefdom. The battle is stirring up an unprecedented soup of militants, with five tier-one terrorist groups – both Sunni and Shiite Muslim – on the same side as the United States against the Islamic State, itself a designee. The Obama administration’s unsavory de facto partners against the Islamic State include the Lebanese militants of Hezbollah and the Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of al Qaida.

It’s a fairly unique set of circumstances. The closest you have is Af-Pak,” said a State Department official involved in designations, referring to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He spoke on condition of anonymity so as to freely discuss the sensitive topic. “But even there the groups are mostly working cooperatively. Here, you see them at direct loggerheads.”

It’s that opposition to the Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL, that the PKK is hoping to leverage in order to wriggle off the tier-one list. The group has waged a guerrilla war for Kurdish rights in Turkey for 30 years and was blacklisted in the United States more than a decade ago. The PKK is closely affiliated with the group known as the PYD, whose fighters are on the front line of the ferocious battle to keep the Islamic State out of Kobani, a Syrian Kurdish town on the border with Turkey.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson even used the group’s fight against the Islamic State recently to rebut claims from Republicans in Congress that terrorists had been caught crossing the Mexican border; Johnson said the four men in question had claimed membership in the PKK – “an organization that is actually fighting against ISIL and defended Kurdish territory in Iraq.”

U.S.-Turkish relations already are fraught, with Washington trying to nudge Ankara toward a more active role in the anti-Islamic State coalition. That task would become only more difficult were the United States to de-list a top enemy of the Turkish government. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made it clear this month that he wasn’t pleased with recent American overtures to the Syrian Kurds, sowing anger in Washington as lawmakers demanded to know which side Turkey, a NATO ally, was on in the war against the Islamic State.

A U.S. diplomat met with a leader of the PYD for the first time last month, ending a longtime U.S. policy of steering clear of the group because of its PKK ties. The State Department has played down the meeting as exploratory and stressed that, under U.S. law, the PYD and PKK are separate entities, though “we’re certainly aware” of the connections, as a spokeswoman put it.

The State Department designations official said that tier-one groups are reviewed every five years and that the PKK was just reassessed in 2013, with a determination that it still belonged on the list. That makes it difficult, he said, to find legal grounding for a fresh assessment so soon. He said there was no de-listing effort under way, despite lobbying that notes the Syrian Kurdish fight against the Islamic State.

“The idea that ‘This group’s being very helpful against ISIL so we should remove the designation’ – that wouldn’t merit a sufficient case, in our view, for de-listing,” the official said.

The main criticism of the process is the seemingly arbitrary way that groups get on and, more rarely, off the list.

Why, for example, is Nusra Front designated when Ahrar al Sham, another militant jihadist group in Syria with alleged al Qaida connections, is off the list? Or take the case of Iranian-backed Shiite militias that once waged a deadly insurgency against U.S. forces in Iraq – Kata’ib Hezbollah was designated, but an equally egregious group, Asaib Ahl al Haq, wasn’t.

In both cases, officials have said that designation possibilities were floated but vetoed because national security officials determined that it was more useful to keep them off the list. In the case of Asaib Ahl al Haq, the Iraqi and Western authorities released more than 400 members – including the leader – in negotiations that resulted in the release of British hostage Peter Moore in 2010.

While the State Department official wouldn’t address Asaib or other specific cases, he acknowledged that adding a group to the list is “an extremely interagency process,” with an element of horse trading as national security officials weigh the benefits and costs of a designation. The final step is the personal approval of the secretary of state.

“There could be any number of reasons a designation is denied,” the official said. “Sensitive law enforcement equities, intel equities and diplomatic priorities – those can all be reasons a designation doesn’t go forward.”

Though Americans are most familiar with the Arab and Muslim factions on the list, the roster is diverse and truly global, including the Japanese religious cult behind a deadly chemical attack on the Tokyo subway and two separate splinter groups from the old Irish Republican Army, or IRA.

Latin America’s longest-running war involves another longtime member of the terrorist list – the FARC, a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group that’s been weakened considerably in recent years and is now engaged in peace talks with the Colombian government under the auspices of Cuba.

Also on the list is Shining Path, the Peruvian communist guerrillas who launched a string of massacres, bombings and assassinations in the 1980s. Another perennial is ETA, the Basque separatists who for more than four decades have targeted Spain’s political class and tourism industry with bombings and assassinations.

The LTTE, better known as the Tamil Tigers, remains on the list, even though the guerrilla organization that gained notoriety for its suicide attacks was defeated by Sri Lankan government forces in 2009 and has been declared finished.

Europe’s second-highest court ruled this month that the European Union’s decision to place the Tamil group on a list of terrorist organizations was procedurally flawed and must be annulled, according to news reports. The Tamil Tigers had challenged the EU’s decision in 2006 to blacklist the group and freeze its assets, perhaps the harbinger to a similar campaign in the United States.

That was the path taken by the Mujahedin e Khalq, or MEK, a deep-pocketed Iranian dissident group that ran by far the most ambitious campaign to get off the terrorist list. After legal victories in Europe, the group hired top lawyers and paid high-profile speakers tens of thousands of dollars a pop to raise awareness of the MEK cause in the United States.

A Washington lobbying firm received nearly $1 million to work on getting the MEK off the terrorist list, according to an investigation of the group’s payouts by the British newspaper The Guardian. The MEK cultivated an image of a pro-democracy, Western-friendly supporter of the ouster of Iran’s theocratic government; detractors describe it as a cult-like militant group with only fringe support among ordinary Iranians.

Over time, so many retired generals, politicians and Cabinet members began agitating for the MEK’s removal from the blacklist that the Treasury Department investigated whether the officials were providing illegal support to designated terrorists.

In the end, the group’s litigation forced the hand of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In 2012, she faced a court-imposed deadline: Either justify keeping the group on the list or approve a removal. She chose to de-list the group.

By then, officials have said, the MEK no longer met the key criteria for designation and, more importantly, removing the label gave the United States more room to intervene to protect the group’s Iraq encampment from the crackdowns of the Iran-friendly government in Baghdad.

But the official line that lobbying played only a small role in the MEK’s de-listing rings hollow when that case is compared with other designees who slipped from the headlines years ago. One seemingly outdated presence is Abu Nidal, the Palestinian guerrilla group whose eponymous founder was shot and killed in muddy circumstances in Iraq in 2002. Even the State Department’s annual terrorism review calls the group “inactive.”

Abu Nidal was last reviewed in 2009, so it’s due a fresh assessment, the State Department official said. Without speaking to specific cases, he added that groups that might appear benign to the general public sometimes are still engaged in activities that the U.S. monitors through classified channels.

“There’s a rationale for keeping on groups that might seem defunct,” he said, “and it’s not just based on unclassified information that’s available to the public.”

Hannah Allam, Tribune

November 6, 2014 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Who are the “Iranian dissidents?” US media promotes bizarre terrorist cult

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst from New York City and is an activist with the International Action Center and Workers World Party. He has worked against police brutality and mass incarceration.

The forgotten history of a group of “Iranian dissidents” being promoted in Western media shows the hypocrisy US media promotes bizarre terrorist cult of the so-called “War on Terror.”

The Associated Press published an article entitled “Iran Dissident: Tehran Continues Nuke Arms Work” earlier in October. The piece quoted Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) members, who insist that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The claims are rather fantastic, as the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have always declared extreme opposition to nuclear weapons, and endless inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirm that Iran is not pursuing them. Iran has every right, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. These facts are largely unknown to the US public, and absent from discussion of Iran in the mainstream press.

The AP’s news report is not the only place the MEK has been given such polite treatment in the Western press. On September 17th, when the French government dropped money-laundering charges against the organization, the headlines reporting the case continued to refer to its members as “Iranian dissidents.” The articles in Bloomberg News and The Wall Street Journal contained nothing about what this “Mujahadeen-e-Khalq” organization is – or what kind of activities it has engaged in.

The most extreme example of hypocritical treatment for this organization comes from Murdoch-owned, ideologically neoconservative FOX News. FOX News hosts and commentators are known for stirring up rumors of US President Barack Obama’s alleged links to Marxism and Islamic radicalism. Recently, FOX News host Megyn Kelly interviewed Professor William Ayers, demanding to know why he wouldn’t “take responsibility” after she listed various terrorist acts she claimed he was involved in. Kelly also recently berated Ward Churchill, Native American Professor at the University of Colorado, claiming words he wrote in a 2001 essay emotionally harmed the families of 9/11 victims.

However, on June 16, FOX News anchor and senior correspondent Eric Shawn sat down across from an actual, self-proclaimed “Islamic Marxist” named Maryam Rajavi, who is linked to the death of thousands of innocent civilians in Iran, as well as many Americans, who were killed by the MEK in the last few decades. While facing this real life, violent terrorist extremist, the FOX anchor threw softballs. He allowed the spokesperson for MEK to spew her rhetoric against the Iranian government without interruption. In his questions, Shawn even compared Rajavi to the resistance forces that fought the Nazis.

If cable news viewers and consumers of US print media knew who these “Iranian dissidents” actually were, they would begin to ask some serious questions about US foreign policy.

What is the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq?

The Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (People’s Army of God) organization was founded in the 1960s as a student group opposed to the Shah. It eventually began work toward achieving its aims with isolated acts of violence such as assassinations, bombings, and kidnappings. Its beliefs included a bizarre mixture of Islam and Marxism. One of the group’s primary beliefs is in the brilliance of its founder and leader, Massoud Rajavi, who is worshipped in a cultish manner. At recent rallies in France, for example, placards carried by MEK members contained the simple slogan “Massoud Rajavi Is Our Leader.” Massoud Rajavi’s location is unknown, and he has not made a public appearance since 2003. Rajavi’s spouse, Maryam Rajavi, now acts as the primary public representative of the group.

In its early years, MEK primarily targeted people from the United States. The group attempted to kidnap the US ambassador to Iran. It carried out an attempted assassination of a US Air Force General. In 1976, the organization attacked a car and killed the three American hotel employees inside. These terrorist acts were done in the hope of damaging the US backed Iranian monarchy.

However, it was not the isolated acts of adventurist violence from MEK members, but a rather broad explosion of popular resistance that toppled the US-backed Shah in 1979. After Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979, when it became clear that the MEK would not become the new ruling party, the organization responded with a vicious bombing campaign against the new government. In 1981, the group bombed a meeting of the Iranian Republican Party, killing 72 people, including many high-ranking government officials.

During the Iraq-Iran War, the group became very friendly with Saddam Hussein. With money pouring in from the Iraqi regime, the group formed an armed outfit called the “Iranian National Liberation Army.” They went through Iran committing war crimes, hoping that they could secure victory for the US-backed Iraqi invaders that used chemical and biological weapons against Iranian civilians.

In one particularly brutal war atrocity, the MEK group killed nearly all the residents of a village called Islamabad-e Gharb. The group staged this cowardly attack on July 26th, 1988 – six days after Imam Khomeini had announced he was accepting a ceasefire with Iraq.

The number of innocent civilians slaughtered by the MEK or its various front groups such as the Iranian National Council of Resistance, is likely to be in the tens of thousands, if you include the number of civilians killed during the bombing campaigns, the number of people MEK linked groups slaughtered during the Iraq-Iran War, and the number of victims of MEK terrorism against Iran throughout the 1990s and up to today. Human Rights Watch has issued condemnations of the group for routinely torturing those it holds captive.

The internal workings of the group are equally frightening. A Human Rights Watch report from 2005 describes how, within its various bases and camps, the group subjects members to summary execution for violations of its bizarre regulations and practices. According to ex-members of MEK, it functions as a very dangerous cult. All members are required to divorce their spouses, as family life is considered a distraction from the cause of overthrowing the Iranian state. The words of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi are interpreted as divine and infallible, and members are encouraged to seek martyrdom to advance the ideological and religious goals.

The coddling of dangerous extremists

Frequently, Iran is declared to be a “state sponsor of terror” by US officials and media outlets. However, it is leaders of the United States that are currently promoting the cause of the dangerous and violent MEK.

Hillary Clinton played an important role in removing the group from the official state department list of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City, promotes its cause by acting as MEK’s spokesman. Tom Ridge, former head of the Department of Homeland Security, has played a similar role for the group. Very few US media commentators have highlighted the irony of “America’s Mayor” embracing a group of “Islamic Marxist” militants – and the truth about MEK and its relationship with figures in Washington DC is largely unknown.

Occasionally, US officials will try to justify the coddling of this group of violent extremists with vague claims that it “renounced violence.” However, the group is very open about continuing its armed underground activities inside the Islamic Republic of Iran. Reports indicate that it was members of MEK, in cooperation with the Mossad that assassinated scientists working on Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program in 2012.

While MEK denies it works with the Israeli government, a fact that should shatter the credibility of anyone claiming to be an “Islamic Marxist,” the truth was leaked to NBC by the Obama Administration.

The US press largely treats MEK like romantic pacifist freedom fighters. In her interviews, Maryam Rajavi seems frighteningly confident that she will be successful and her organization will someday come to power.

In her interview with FOX’s Shawn, she said, “I am confident the mullah’s religious dictatorship will not last and will be overthrown.” In the interview, a woman who oversaw the slaughter of thousands compared herself to Jefferson, Lincoln, and even pacifist civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. FOX’s Shawn sat in front of her nodding, never questioning her words or intentions.

If one looks at Libya after the US/NATO “regime change,” or the state of Syria after four years of US-funded civil war against the government, it should be clear what “regime change” in Iran will mean. The fact that the US media is openly promoting extremists like MEK – and their fantastic claims about nuclear weapons – should be a warning call to all who would support US efforts in the region.

The promises from US officials of “stability” made before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the overthrow of Gaddafi, never materialized. Instead, the various US- and NATO-installed collaborators and extremists turned their guns against each other. With chaos and destruction in the region, the US and Israel remained secure in their control of the oil profits and world markets.

The poster children for the US/Israeli crusade against the Islamic Republic, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi are hardly capable of bringing peace and stability. The MEK is much like ISIS in Syria, or the US-backed insurgents in Libya. They are bloodthirsty extremists who would destroy Iran’s existing stability and independent economic development, replacing it with chaos, destruction, and death.

The promotion of such extremists, who unleash violence and chaos, fits perfectly with the realpolitik strategy laid out by former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski “The Grand Chessboard,” p. 40)

The program of the United States and Israel for the Middle East is permanent civil war, chaos, and death. Part of implementing this program is the rallying cry of “regime change in Iran,” and the promotion of violent terrorists who oppose the Islamic Republic.

Caleb Maupin,

October 21, 2014 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MEK: US War on Iran Takes Bizarre Turn

It is not merely hyperbole when it is said the US created terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the so-called “Islamic State.” It is documented fact. The current conflict in the Middle East may appear to be a chaotic conflagration beyond the control of the United States and its many eager allies, but in reality it is the intentional, engineered creation of regional fronts in a war against Iran and its powerful arc of influence.

It is not Western policy that indirectly spurs the creation and perpetuation of terrorist organizations, but in fact, direct, intentional, unmistakable support.

This support would manifest itself in perhaps the most overt and bizarre declaration of allegiance to terrorism to date, US Army General Hugh Shelton on stage before terrorists of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) and their Wahabist counterparts fighting in Syria, hysterically pledging American material, political, and strategic backing. MEK was listed for years by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, but has received funding, arms, and safe haven by the United States for almost as long.

General Hugh’s speech titled, “Making Iranian mullahs fear, the MEK, come true,” was most likely never meant to be seen or fully understood by Americans. In titled alone, it is clear that US foreign policy intends to use the tool of terrorism to exact concessions from Tehran. If the true nature of America’s support for terrorist organizations like MEK were more widely known, the current narrative driving US intervention in Iraq and Syria would crumble.

MEK Has Killed US Servicemen, Contractors, and Iranian Civilians For Decades

MEK has carried out decades of brutal terrorist attacks, assassinations, and espionage against the Iranian government and its people, as well as targeting Americans including the attempted kidnapping of US Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II, the attempted assassination of USAF Brigadier General Harold Price, the successful assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations of Colonel Paul Shaffer and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, and the successful ambush and killing of American Rockwell International employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard.

Admissions to the deaths of the Rockwell International employees can be found within a report written by former US State Department and Department of Defense official Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. on behalf of the lobbying firm Akin Gump in an attempt to dismiss concerns over MEK’s violent past and how it connects to its current campaign of armed terror – a testament to the depths of depravity from which Washington and London lobbyists operate.

To this day MEK terrorists have been carrying out attacks inside of Iran killing political opponents, attacking civilian targets, as well as carrying out the US-Israeli program of targeting and assassinating Iranian scientists. MEK terrorists are also suspected of handling patsies in recent false flag operations carried out in India, Georgia, and Thailand, which have been ham-handedly blamed on the Iranian government by the United States and Israel.

MEK is described by Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh as a “cult-like organization” with “totalitarian tendencies.” While Takeyh fails to expand on what he meant by “cult-like” and “totalitarian,” an interview with US State Department-run Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty reported that a MEK Camp Ashraf escapee claimed the terrorist organization bans marriage, using radios, the Internet, and holds many members against their will with the threat of death if ever they are caught attempting to escape.

US Has Been Eagerly Supporting MEK Terrorists For Years

Besides providing MEK terrorists with now two former US military bases in Iraq as safe havens, the US has conspired to arm, fund, and back MEK for years in a proxy war against Iran.

Covert support for the US-listed terrorist group Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) has been ongoing since at least 2008 under the Bush administration, when Seymour Hersh’s 2008 New Yorker article “Preparing the Battlefield,” reported that not only had MEK been considered for their role as a possible proxy, but that the US had already begun arming and financing them to wage war inside Iran:

The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. “The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.” He added, “The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.

More recently, the British Daily Mail published a stunning admission by “US officials” that Israel is currently funding, training, arming, and working directly with MEK. The Daily Mail article states: Seymore Hersh in an NPR interview, also claims that select MEK members have already received trainingin the US.

U.S. officials confirmed today that Israel has been funding and training Iranian dissidents to assassinate nuclear scientists involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Washington insiders confirmed there is a close relationship between Mossad and MEK.

In 2009, an extensive conspiracy was formulated within US policy think-tank Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, proposing to fully arm, train, and back MEK as it waged a campaign of armed terror against the Iranian people. In their report, they openly conspire to use what is an admitted terrorist organization as a “US proxy” (emphasis added):

“Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.”

Besides US Army General Hugh Shelton, other prominent US politicians to literally stand before crowds of baying MEK terrorists and their supporters include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean, Tom Ridge, John Lewis, Ed Rendell, former ambassador John Bolton, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, retired General Wesley Clark, Lee Hamilton, former US Marine Corps Commandant General James Jones, and Alan Dershowitz. US Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi would also stand in front of MEK terrorists to deliver to them an Iranian New Year “greeting.”

Blind Lust for Global Hegemony is Leading America Over a Cliff

What it says about American foreign policy, to trick US servicemen and women into dying in far off lands to “fight terrorism” when US politicians in the highest positions of power openly pledge support to terrorism – using it as a battering ram against its enemies abroad, and failing to topple them by proxy, using their own terrorist hordes as a pretext for direct military intervention to do so – is that such policy is underpinned by nothing more than blind lust for power, wealth, and influence in senseless pursuit of global hegemony. There is no guiding principles of peace, stability, democracy, freedom, or any confining principles of humanity that prohibit US foreign policy from exercising the most abhorrent practices in order to achieve its goals.

Failure to identify these interests blindly chasing hegemony at the cost of global peace and prosperity leads not only America over a cliff into a ravine of madness, but the entire world as well. That a US general can stand before terrorists even as the US bombs two nations in the name of fighting terrorism, is but a glimpse into this madness.For America and the Western aligned nations and interests caught in its orbit, there is no future. Chasing hegemony for the sake of hegemony alone leaves no room for actual progress. When anything and everything obstructing the path to hegemony is seen as an “enemy” to be destroyed by any means necessary, that includes setting aside resources and attention to solving some of the most pressing issues of our time – health care, infrastructure, education, better jobs, peace, and prosperity. All of these are seen as obstacles toward hegemony, and the very same interests standing before MEK terrorists pledging America’s resources to their campaign of terrorism against Iran, are the same interests calling for and implementing austerity upon the American people to continuously fuel its foreign adventures.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

NSNBC.me

October 18, 2014 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts