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

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MKO- Israeli mutual Services

The Mujahedin Khalq Organization and its propaganda arm, National Council of Resistance resorting to all means to convince their narrow-minded audience that “moderation in Iran is a mirage”. As a matter of fact the audience for the MKO mostly includes neo-conservative warmongers especially American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that has recently pushed a bill to impose more severe sanctions against Iran’s oil exports. AIPAC actually follows Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu who calls the Iran’s newly elected President Hassan Rouhani a” wolf in sheep’s clothing”. And MKO is completely in line with its western masters in their animosity against the Iranian nation.

Less than a month after the election of Dr. Hassan Rouhani as the Iranian president the MKO propaganda claimed evidence of what he called a hidden nuclear site under mountains near Tehran. The news was nothing except some satellite photos that did not attract much attention. The images did not appear to constitute hard evidence to support the assertion that it was a planned nuclear facility, according to Reuters.[1] The group also claimed that the recently elected president Hassan Ruhani, a former nuclear negotiator, had a “key role “in the program on several occasions, reported the AFP.[2]

The MKO’s so-called revelations on the Iranian nuclear program go back to 2002, when they published information on Natanz Uranium facility. Their report was soon come out to be leaked to them by Israeli Intelligence sources. In 2004, the American prominent journalist Seymour Hersh reported that IAEA official had told him that the information on the Iranian nuclear site had come from Israeli Intelligence, Mossad.[3]

The long time cooperation between the MKO and Israel is not restricted to spying operations. The mutual advantage they grant each other also include the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Following the assassination of Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan Richard Silverstein cited from his “own confidential Israeli source” who confirmed that “the murder was the work of the Mossad and MEK – he had previously asserted that Israel was utilizing the MKO operatives for the killing of other Iranian scientists Majid Shahriari and Massoud Ali Mohammadi. [4] Also, Richard Engel and Robert Winderm of NBC Television quoted US officials that the attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.”[5]

The most recent account on MKO-Israeli connections – meanwhile the oldest link between them – was published by Gareth Porter, the investigative journalist at IPS (Inter Press Service). Porter reported last week that “Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman based his 2006 warrant for the arrest of top Iranian officials in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 on the claims of representatives of the armed Iranian opposition Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK).”[6]

Based on Porter’s investigations, "the document which is available in English for the first time shows that Nisman’s only sources to accuse Iranian officials of Argentine Israeli Mutual Association bombing were members of the MKO". He calls Nisman’s 900-page arrest warrant a “rambling”,” repetitious” report that cites statement of four members of the terrorist National Council of resistance (NCR).

While Nisman describes MKO agents’ testimonies as “completely truthful”, Porter dismisses MKO’s claims as traditionally false. “The record of MEK officials over the years, however has been of putting out one communiqué after another that contained information about alleged covert Iranian work on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons”, states Porter,” nearly all of which turned out to be false when they were investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).”

Denouncing Nisman as a pro-Israel figure who “has long been treated in pro-Israel, anti-Iran political circles as the authoritative source on the AMIA bombing case and the broader subject of Iran and terrorism” Porter concludes that he is indeed “playing a political role on behalf of certain powerful interests rather than uncovering the facts.”[7]

The above mentioned facts – that are probably a few of numerous secret ties between the MKO and Israel – demonstrate that mutual interests make mutual services. The ugly truth is that the Zionist – Mujahedin nasty alliance in spying and murdering would be called terrorism only if the targeted victims were western citizens.

By Mazda Parsi.

References:

[1] Reuters, Exiled dissidents claim Iran building new nuclear site, July11, 2013

[2] AFP, Iran exile group claims evidence of hidden nuclear site, July11, 2013

[3] Porter, Gareth, Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing relied on MEK, August7th, 2013

[4] Engel, Richard & Windrem, Robert, Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, US officials tell NBC News, February 9th, 2012

[5] Silverstein, Ricahrd, Israeli Source: Assassination of Iranian Nuclear Scientist Joint Mossad – MEK operation, Tikun Olam, January 10th, 2012

[6]Porter, Gareth, Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing relied on MEK, Inter Press Service, August 7th, 2013

[7] ibid

August 13, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Former Terrorist Group Gets Into Lobbying

As conflict in the Middle East rages on, this week’s Economist called for the West to stop the rise of Iranian power in the wake of Hassan Rouhani’s election as president and worried that “the balance of power between Former Terrorist Group Gets Into Lobbying Iran and the rest of the world has been shifting in Iran’s favour.” Another voice has long been calling for the West — the United States, in particular — to counter the Iranian government. The most visible Iranian exile group in Washington, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, was taken off the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2012 after a robust lobbying campaign and they’ve kept lobbying since shedding the label.

Members of the MEK call for regime change in Iran as “the only option” and see their leader, Maryam Rajavi, as the legitimate successor to the seat of power. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, have been especially receptive to these claims, and not without some convincing: the MEK has invested heavily in getting members of Congress to see things its way.

This should sound familiar. Ahmed Chalabi was the head of the Iraqi National Congress when he pushed for the U.S. government to depose Saddam Hussein in 2003. His group’s coordinated calls for regime change led to a fruitless pursuit for weapons of mass destruction and large-scale distraction from the concurrent war in Afghanistan. So when an Iranian opposition group purports to be the preeminent resistance-in-exile, worthy of the spoils in the scenario of the Iranian government’s downfall, regarding the group’s ambitions with suspicion is only prudent.

Especially when nobody knows where the MEK gets its money.

The MEK is the main branch of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which was founded in 1981 in Tehran, according to the NCRI’s website. Penetrating their records has proven difficult. A 14-page Christian Science Monitor report from 2011 provides the most detail about who pays for MEK’s events and campaigns, but even that reporting only shows that the funding comes from various shell organizations around the country. That hardly answers the question.

According to a form submitted in compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act in May, the NCRI is registered as a foreign principal under Rosemont Associates, LLC. That company is owned by Robert G. Torricelli, a former Democratic U.S. senator from New Jersey. A man who picked up the company phone on Thursday morning wasn’t keen on chatting, and a receptionist who answered another call later that afternoon said Torricelli wasn’t in.

According to his company’s FARA filing, the NCRI pays Torricelli $420,000 per year for his services, which include lobbying executive and legislative branch officials. They also gave him $34,975 in March for speeches he gave in Europe.

Torricelli’s not the only former U.S. official to receive huge sums in exchange for lobbying and speeches on MEK’s behalf. Indeed, lavish compensation was the backbone of MEK’s effort to get off the State Department’s terrorist watch list, according to the Monitor report.

So where does the group get all this money? On another FARA form, this one submitted in April, the NCRI says it is not financed or subsidized by a foreign government, foreign political party, or other foreign principal. And since the U.S. has certainly never engaged in, or heard of, providing covert funding to militant opposition groups abroad, it’s safe to take these documents at face value. (Not.)

Wherever the funding and organizing comes from, MEK advocates are making good use of it. Groups of lobbyists who hail from the MEK-affiliate groups roam the halls in groups and eat in the Rayburn cafeteria every day. A Democratic staffer whose office is in Rayburn said, “They are here constantly. I probably see them every day.”

In March, MEK advocates appeared at a photo exhibit in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill for women and girls in Afghanistan. They invited me to attend their then-upcoming Persian New Year celebration, which was set to take place in the same building a few days later. I didn’t go — but if I had, I’m sure the hors d’oeuvres would have been top-notch.

Julie Ershadi is a writer based on Washington, D.C. Capitol image courtesy of Big Stock Photo.

by Julie Ershadi ,Americas Future

August 11, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing Relied on MEK

Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman based his 2006 warrant for the arrest of top Iranian officials in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 on the claims of representatives of the armed Iranian opposition Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK), the full text of the document reveals.

The central piece of evidence cited in Nisman’s original 900-page arrest warrant against seven senior Iranian leaders is an alleged Aug. 14, 1993 meeting of top Iranian leaders, including both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and then president Hashemi Rafsanjani, at which Nisman claims the official decision was made to go ahead with the planning of the bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA).

But the document, recently available in English for the first time, shows that his only sources for the claim were representatives of the MEK or People’s Mujahideen of Iran. The MEK has an unsavoury history of terrorist bombings against civilian targets in Iran, as well as of serving as an Iraq-based mercenary army for Saddam Hussein’s forces during the Iran-Iraq War.

The organisation was removed from the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist groups last year after a campaign by prominent former U.S. officials who had gotten large payments from pro-MEK groups and individuals to call for its “delisting”.

Nisman’s rambling and repetitious report cites statements by four members of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which is the political arm of the MEK, as the sources for the charge that Iran decided on the AMIA bombing in August 1993.

The primary source is Reza Zakeri Kouchaksaraee, president of the Security and Intelligence Committee of the NCRI. The report quotes Kouchaksaraee as testifying to an Argentine Oral Court in 2003, “The decision was made by the Supreme National Security Council at a meeting that was held on 14 August, 1993. This meeting lasted only two hours from 4:30 to 6:30 pm.”

Nisman also quotes Hadi Roshanravani, a member of the International Affairs Committee of the NCRI, who claimed to know the same exact starting time of the meeting – 4:30 pm – but gave the date as Aug. 12, 1993 rather than Aug. 14.

Roshanravani also claimed to know the precise agenda of the meeting. The NCRI official said that three subjects were discussed: “The progress and assessment of the Palestinian Council; the strategy of exporting fundamentalism throughout the world; and the future of Iraq.” Roshanravani said “the idea for an attack in Argentina” had been discussed “during the dialogue on the second point”.

The NCRI/MEK was claiming that the Rafsanjani government had decided on a terrorist bombing of a Jewish community centre in Argentina as part of a policy of “exporting fundamentalism throughout the world”.

But that MEK propaganda line about the Iranian regime was contradicted by the U.S. intelligence assessment at the time. In its National Intelligence Estimate 34-91 on Iranian foreign policy, completed on Oct. 17, 1991, U.S. intelligence concluded that Rafsanjani had been “gradually turning away from the revolutionary excesses of the past decade…toward more conventional behavior” since taking over as president in 1989.

Ali Reza Ahmadi and Hamid Reza Eshagi, identified as “defectors” who were affiliated with NCRI, offered further corroboration of the testimony by the leading NCRI officials. Ahmadi was said by Nisman to have worked as an Iranian foreign service officer from 1981 to 1985. Eshagi is not otherwise identified.

Nisman quotes Ahmadi and Eshagi, who made only joint statements, as saying, “It was during a meeting held at 4:30 pm in August 1993 that the Supreme National Security Council decided to carry out activities in Argentina.”

Nisman does not cite any non-MEK source as claiming such a meeting took place. He cites court testimony by Abolghassem Mesbahi, a “defector” who had not worked for the Iranian intelligence agency since 1985, according to his own account, but only to the effect that the Iranian government made the decision on AMIA sometime in 1993. Mesbahi offered no evidence to support the claim.

Nisman repeatedly cites the same four NCRI members to document the alleged participation of each of the seven senior Iranians for whom he requested arrest warrants. A review of the entire document shows that Kouchaksaraee is cited by Nisman 29 times, Roshanravani 16 times and Ahmadi and Eshagi 16 times, always together making the same statement for a total of 61 references to their testimony.

Nisman cited no evidence or reason to believe that any of the MEK members were in a position to have known about such a high-level Iranian meeting. Although MEK propaganda has long claimed access to secrets, their information has been at best from low-level functionaries in the regime.

In using the testimony of the most violent opponents of the Iranian regime to accuse the most senior Iranian officials of having decided on the AMIA terrorist bombing, Nisman sought to deny the obvious political aim of all MEK information output of building support in the United States and Europe for the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

“The fact that the individuals are opponents of the Iranian regime does not detract in the least from the significance of their statements,” Nisman declared.

In an effort to lend the group’s testimony credibility, Nisman described their statements as being made “with honesty and rigor in a manner that respects nuances and details while still maintaining a sense of the larger picture”.

The MEK witnesses, Nisman wrote, could be trusted as “completely truthful”.

The record of MEK officials over the years, however, has been one of putting out one communiqué after another that contained information about alleged covert Iranian work on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, nearly all of which turned out to be false when they were investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The only significant exception to the MEK’s overall record of false information on the Iranian nuclear programme was its discovery of Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility and its Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.

But even in that case, the MEK official who announced the Natanz discovery, U.S. representative Alireza Jafarzadeh, incorrectly identified it as a “fuel fabrication facility” rather than as an enrichment facility. He also said it was near completion, although it was actually several months from having the equipment necessary to begin enrichment.

Contrary to the MEK claims that it got the information on Natanz from sources in the Iranian government, moreover, the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh reported, a “senior IAEA official” told him in 2004 that Israeli intelligence had passed their satellite intelligence on Natanz to the MEK.

An adviser to Reza Pahlavi, the heir to the Shah, later told journalist Connie Bruck that the information about Natanz had come from “a friendly government”, which had provided it to both the Pahlavi organisation and the MEK.

Nisman has long been treated in pro-Israel, anti-Iran political circles as the authoritative source on the AMIA bombing case and the broader subject of Iran and terrorism. Last May, Nisman issued a new 500-page report accusing Iran of creating terrorist networks in the Western hemisphere that builds on his indictment of Iran for the 1994 bombing.

But Nisman’s readiness to base the crucial accusation against Iran in the AMIA case solely on MEK sources and his denial of their obvious unreliability highlights the fact that he has been playing a political role on behalf of certain powerful interests rather than uncovering the facts.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

IPS

August 8, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

People’s Mujahedin or Intel’s Mujahedin

Following the publication of reports on the then Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton’s decision to delist the People's Mujahedin or Intel's Mujahedin Mujahedin Khalq Organization from the US State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations in September 2012, one of the group’s high profile advocates, Congressman Ted Poe welcomed the Secretary’s intention stating that, the group “has been actively working with US intelligence agencies” (!)

”Some believe that one factor to facilitate the MKO’s removal from terror list was the amounts of money paid to groups like the MKO in order to destabilize the Iranian government,” suggested Mohammad Alavi a blogger of anti-MKO Aria Association "before the MKO was delisted, there was legal prohibition to use the group for that goal". He notices that the US Congress has approved a 3 billion dollar budget for influential efforts to overthrow the states labeled as "rebel" by the United State. The money is paid in cash or for example in exchange for the MKO’s social and political activities.

The fact leads us to the conclusion that the speaking fees the neo-con figures received for their speeches in pro-MKO rallies – which mounted from 3000$ to 16000 $ for a ten minute speech– were actually guaranteed by the US intelligence services that have already fed the MKO for its spying operations against Iran!

Indeed, American warmonger efforts to delist the MKO and the NCRI were useful in many ways. The dirty business of the MKO and its sponsors is now legally (!) registered under the guise of Democracy for Iran. The MKO opened its office across from the White House to facilitate such financial deals with its intelligence masters and congressional sponsors.

Following the confessions and reports on large amounts of money circulated and laundered among American donors and sponsors of the MKO ,the group so-called analysts assert that lobbying activities and paying money to Guiliani, Tep Poe ,Kennedy, Michael Mukasey , Bob Filner and … will stop bloodshed in the MKO camps. They claim that it will be a move for the sake of "people" and we should regard such payments as the Blood Money of "people"!

Speaking of “people”, you may remind the group propaganda that the MKO and NCR have not been on the side of “people” for over 35 years; the MKO is stranger to the “ people” of Iran. By regarding the MKO on People’s side, the MKO has to answer many questions over its cooperation with the Israeli and American Intelligence Service and over the 25 years of Massoud Rajavi’s obedience to Iraqi Intelligence chief under Saddam Hussein, General Taher Al Jalil Haboush.

Thus, Labeling the MKO as a popular group and assuming its acts as struggle for people is no honest as well as its paid advocates’ support for “Ashraf” and “Democracy in Iran”. As Michael Rubin former Pentagon official puts, "Mujahedin Alkhalq is a dishonest creepy cult". Even the opposition to Islamic Republic views the MKO as atraitors, spies, terrorists and mercenaries. Based on significant evidences and confessions of the group sponsors, the most meaningful term to address the so-called People’s Mujahedin is "Intel’s Mujahedin".

August 6, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

To be in the terrorist list, or not to be

To be in the terrorist list, or not to be;

This is not the question

Undoubtedly, the MeK leadership is pleased by Ted Poe’s claims about the group collaboration with U.S intelligence agencies. On the other hand, probably, he is sorrowful why media in the U.S did not cover it. To be in the terrorist list, or not to be; This is not the question

Mr. Poe’s statements has being delivered in line with main policy of the MeK, which is closeness to the U.S and gain support from it, and meets two basic components: first, it seeks to hide the undemocratic and Stalinist nature of the MeK organization by pretending that they have renounced violence. Second, seeks to bring up group’s capacity to espionage against Iran, in order to attract U.S authorities’ attention to apply this group.

It is evident that, according to a general security rule, if the MeK was intelligence colleagues with the U.S, the Congressman was not allowed to speak a word about it; furthermore, such an action would be considered as whistleblowing of security secrets and it would yield serious consequences for him.

In fact, Mr. Poe just mentions to the same lies that Rajavi’s remnants through western media propagate against Iran. In other words, his statements are touting for the Rajavi’s gang in the U.S.

The main point in Ted Poe’s statements is that the MeK has renounced terrorism. Such efforts by U.S officials like Mr. Poe to cover up the group’s terrorist nature indicate U.S statesmen reaction against the proposal to recognition of the MeK as a democratic and non violent opposition of the Iranian government. So, once again it becomes clear that despite Rajavi’s illusions, getting out of the U.S terrorist list has changed nothing.

August 5, 2013 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts