USA

Open Letter to the Head Office of the Pentagon

Dear Sir / Madam,

Following the recent news about the possible recruitment, and retraining, of the members of the Mojahedin-e- Khalq (MEK) by the head of the Pentagon, for the purpose of using them against the Iranian regime, created serious concerns within the Iranian communities in general and among the former members of MEK in particular. This guerilla Organization which operates under 125 different titles including Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), National Council of Resistance (NCR) and National Liberation Army (NLA) has a long history of changing hats and riding the waves in different climates that should be known to you after dealing with them for the past two decades.

In our opinion you are well aware of the 1994 State Department report which describes this organization as a terrorist group. The leadership of MEK, the Rajavis, ignored the report at the time since they were being supported and financed by the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and the MEK had total reliance on him. However, after the collapse of the despot they have tried to find a new ally, this time in the West, yet their main obstacle has remained the above mentioned report. In their efforts they knocked at every door and offered every service to reverse and null that classification.

We, as the former members of this group, wish to emphasize that the MEK is founded and based on violent principals and believes in militant solutions even against the current major developments of the International community which tends to be against the terror and violence.

The leadership of the MEK, Mr. Masoud Rajavi and Mrs. Maryam Rajavi and a few major players, has not officially denounced the militant operations and violence which has been the pillar of this organization in the past forty years since the original formation of the MEK. Recently, the Secretary General of MEK, in Camp Ashraf, requested that their status should be reconsidered and their arms, which have been confiscated by U.S Forces in March 2003, should be returned to them.

We also trust that you are well aware of this group’s past anti American activities in Iran during the Shah’s regime in which time the MEK has assassinated the six American Generals, while on a mission in Iran. Many Iranian innocent civilians were also the victims of the MEK terrorist activities inside the country.

In conclusion we feel obliged to assure you that this group will never be considered as an alternative not only for the existing regime but even a mere force of a regime change. Iranians have knowledge of this organizations activities and affiliations and will never bestow their trust on them.

Our sincere advice to you, as informed former members of this organization, is that you should follow the examples available to you. If the people of Iran in their desperate struggle for freedom refuse to ally themselves with a group that has proven not to be trustworthy why should you even consider trying it.

Sincerely,

Pars- Iran

Pars- Iran – December 8, 2006

December 12, 2006 0 comment

USA

US already at war with Iran

The US seems to be using an Iraqi terror group known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) to create instability and commit acts of violence (remember the terror bombings there?) in Iran before going to a full-on war with them, as reported by The Raw Story here. It appears that most of this group has been trained by the CIA.

If you read the article, you’ll see many things that were mentioned in the New Yorker article by Hersh which I mentioned in a previous post, being confirmed. One of them is the fact that the US already has special forces in Iran gathering information on targets and other intelligence.

And what was even more surprising to me, is that I found an article by Scott Ritter published in June 2005, where he was already mentioning that the US was working with the MEK along with more details on that, and where he also mentions the use of drones above Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

His article is also a very interesting read, and again confirms much of the story by Hersh.

When you read the Raw Story article and the one by Scott Ritter, note that both mention that the US already seems to be at war with Iran. Here is a comparison:

Raw Story article (April 2006): “We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY. Asked how long the MEK agents have been active in the region under the guidance of the US military civilian leadership, the UN official explained that the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year and included unmanned drones run jointly by several agencies.

Scott Ritter article (June 2005): The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The diplomatic efforts just seem to be a show to mislead everyone while actual war preparations, and indeed the beginning attacks, are already taking place, similar to the months before the war with Iraq.

In a stunning repeat of pre-war Iraq activities, the Bush administration continues to publicly call for action and pursue diplomatic solutions to allegations that Iran is bomb-ready. Behind the scenes, however, the administration is already well underway and engaged in ground operations in Iran.

Scott Ritter talks about this in more details in his article.

The question that now remains seems to be: When will Bush officially declare the war with Iran on TV?

Karel Donk – April 13th, 2006

December 6, 2006 0 comment

USA

Treacherous Plan Exposed, MKO Moans

Following the revelation of a plan on using the MKO members by Pentagon in Congressional Weekly, moaning and complaining started to rise from both sides of this dirty deal.

On one hand, the Pentagon denied the issue as whole and even admitted the group has mistreated its own members and on the other hand, cult’s spokespersons in Europe tried to cover the issue as if there has been nothing between the group and the Pentagon.

Earlier, Rajavi and his followers stupidly claimed of being independent from Saddam Hussein but when the tapes of their relationships were broadcast they started to deny the facts.

When the spies of MKO reported of when the Iranian military operations were going to start (documents are available from MKO’s own journals), they called it patriotism- like what they do to flatter Americans.

This is not a fault by the people of the world, who believe disloyalty to the nation is called treachery, who can’t say dependence on Saddam Hussein is "independence", who can’t ignore MKO’s readiness for participation in any possible war against Iran.

As stated by the spokesperson of the MKO, no secret service in the world- including Pentagon and others- is going to hire the spies who are ready to work against their nation for free; the fact is that they will use such people as a throwaway handkerchief.

So this is the message to the gang of Rajavi and its spokespersons: don’t try to deny being employed by the Pentagon, because the US officials will be certainly criticized for hiring the most stupid spies of the world.

Irandidban – 2006/11/30

December 4, 2006 0 comment

USA

Pentagon denies employing MKO members by US Army

A report by Congressional Weekly (C.Q) on the employment of MKO members by US army in order to overthrow the Iranian regime was rejected by Pentagon.

In its recent edition, the Weekly quoted a former US official (who asked for anonymity) saying that Secret Agents of US Army were employing the MKO members in Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

According to this former official, employment of MKO members is illegal since the group has been designated as a terrorist organization by US State Department and therefore Pentagon sends them to Israel for training.

Reaction of Pentagon

A former Pentagon spokesman denied this report in an interview with BBC Persian.

"With MKO’s records, we don’t consider it a supporter of human rights and democracy. This organization has also abused its own members," he said.

C.Q has quoted two US officials saying that the US is still seeking regime change in Iran before it can acquire nuclear power.

However, Pentagon spokesman says that the US is not seeking regime change in Iraq.

"The US government follows diplomatic solutions in dealing with Iran’s covert nuclear program and its destabilizing role in the region."

Internal Disagreements

BBC’s correspondent in the Pentagon Adam Brooks says if it’s correct, the report can indicate the existence of disagreements inside the US administration on the issue of Iran.

Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Minister who resigned recently, expanded US army’s secret activities when he was in power.

According to Brooks, according to US laws, Pentagon has more freedom of activities than CIA in doing secret operations.

"The US army feels that according to the country’s laws, it’s able to perform more covert operations than CIA in order to collect intelligence. The army also feels that CIA is not able to collect operational intelligence needed for global fighting against terrorism," he adds.

Brooks points to the appointment of Robert Gates as the new Defense Minister and says the new minister will try to restrict these covert operations.

BBC Persian/Washington – 2006/11/29

November 30, 2006 0 comment

USA

Pentagon Nails the Coffin of MKO

Apart from verifying the accuracy of BBC’s report (that Pentagon dismisses report on employment of MKO members by US army), the conclusion of Adam Brooks, BBC’s correspondent in the Pentagon, at the end of the report is more important than the report itself and reflects a reality the MKO officials have been trying for months to deny. MKO leaders deny this reality in order to force the MKO members, which have no access to the news from outside, stay in Iraq.

What Brooks has revealed is that Pentagon has lifted its support for the MKO and this can be interpreted as the removal of the last obstacle for the expulsion of the group from Iraq. This means that opponents of MKO presence in Iraq should be assured that this terrorist cult has no supporter among US authorities, including Pentagon officials.

BBC quotes former Pentagon spokesman:

"With MKO’s records, we don’t consider it a supporter of human rights and democracy. This organization has also abused its own members."

Some may say that recent stance by Pentagon is something that has been expressed by US officials before, or they may consider it as a cover for Pentagon’s secret operations. But the fact is that C.Q’s report was prepared in order to make the Pentagon- which is accused of supporting and using terrorist MKO- state its clear stance on the issue of MKO after recent changes in the department and its policies in Iraq.

BBC even goes further and gives assurance on the issue by stating that the new Defense Minister will restrict covert operations and this means that no one will be able to support the MKO anymore.

It can be said that the new approach by the Pentagon means that efforts for keeping the MKO in Iraq have all failed and that Iraqi officials have succeeded in pursuing their decision (on expelling the group from Iraq).

However, why the remnants of Rajavi, being aware of these developments, still try to censor the news for the MKO members?

An important factor that should be considered with much care is that from now on the MKO will be directed by CIA.

This issue will be discussed in the near future.

Irandidban – 2006/11/29

November 30, 2006 0 comment

USA

Release the Iran NIE! and Hoaxster Hoekstra

According to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the October 9th edition of the American Conservative magazine, the Bush administration is withholding a new CIA National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.

“The United States government’s intelligence community has prepared a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, but the White House has decided that it is not “finished” yet and has decided to postpone any decision on issuing it until after the November elections. NIEs are the government’s document of record on international issues that confront the United States and they are supposed to be both impartial and definitive. Vice President Cheney’s office has reportedly objected to many of the conclusions in the draft Iran NIE, or, more to the point, to the lack of any conclusions that he would welcome.

“The draft document indicates that there is no solid intelligence confirming that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, contradicting many recent statements made by the Administration. It also states that Iran exercised virtually no control over Hezbollah in the recent fighting in Lebanon and that there is little to no confirmed information supporting the often cited contention that Iran is arming the militias and insurgents in neighboring Iraq. The report ruefully observes that there are plenty of weapons floating around inside Iraq without any assistance from Iran, though it does note, without hard evidence, that Iran could have provided some bomb making expertise and possibly sophisticated timers and detonators to the insurgency’s arsenal. For what it’s worth, most US intelligence officers working on Iran believe that Tehran is concealing a weapons program even if the hard evidence is lacking.”

The people of the Unitary Executive State of America[.pdf] have a right to know what that NIE says now, before the mid-term elections. Before the next war.

The rest of the piece is regarding Pete “Hoaxter” Hoekstra and Capital Hill staffer Vaughn S. Forrest’s visit with Manucher Ghorbanifar’s sock-puppet, Fereidoun Mahdavi, in Paris, which Larisa Alexandrovna also covered for RawStory earlier this week. Giraldi writes:

“The House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra has been receiving information reports from an Iranian exile source in Paris who is believed to be Fereidoun Mahdavi, a close associate of discredited Iran/Contra fabricator Manucher Ghorbanifar. Hoekstra, who has stated his contempt for the US intelligence community, has been using Vaughn Forest, a well-known Hill staffer who has a reputation for right-wing activism, as a channel to the Ghorbanifar circle. Hoekstra recently made a trip to Paris with Forest to meet the source who has been providing information on Iranian intentions in the nuclear field that CIA and DIA analysts consider to be largely fabricated. Unfortunately, some of these reports have been stove-piped to Vice President Cheney’s office through the Pentagon’s Abe Shulsky, who heads up an “Iranian Directorate”, an office that replicates the disbanded Office of Special Plans that was previously used as a clearinghouse for fabricated and speculative exile reports on Iraq. The Ghorbanifar information is also disseminated to the intelligence community from Hoekstra’s House Intelligence Committee. Ghorbanifar and his associates have no access to genuine information about Iran, often just repackaging media reports and propaganda handouts from the Paris-based Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK), a Pentagon protected Iranian exile group that is on the US State Department’s list of terrorist groups. Ghorbanifar and Mahdavi are also reported to be the sources of Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon, who advocates pre-emptive war against Iran. Weldon has written a sensational and factually challenged book on Iran that describes Tehran as the number one threat to world peace, a line that is curiously similar to that being promoted by the Israeli lobby AIPAC.”

October 18th, 2006 – in News by Scott Horton

November 26, 2006 0 comment

USA

Movers and Shakers of U.S. Foreign Policy

The Milken Institute is situated in the heart of Santa Monica, Southern California. This ‘publicly supported independent economic think tank’ which has received a landmark multi-year grant from the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles to help the ‘independent’ research of Milken realize its goal of establishing Israel as one of the top 10 countries in terms of quality of life and GDP per capita[i], was hosting author and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Max Boot on November 9th. He was launching his new book "War Made New: Technology, Warfare and the Course of History – 1500 to Today". My interest in attending was to hear his strategy on Iran.

Max Boot was introduced as one of the top 500 most influential people in the making of US foreign policy, it came as a jolt to hear him redefine America’s national interest and find myself having to re-learn the definition of ‘enemy’. What was alarming was that with the exception of a couple of gifted Iranian friends, the crowd did not find his remarks contentious.

The mesmerized audience was happy to accept that an ‘enemy’ was anyone who fought back when his/her country was invaded. Using 21st century terminology ‘Jihadist’, he was referring to the 1859 invasion of Sudan by the British and the ease with which the crazy ‘jihadist Mahdi’ and his followers were gunned down without any fear of repercussion that the enemy, the terrorist Sudanese, would follow the good guys who had gone to Sudan to invade the country, back to England. Of course, these days with open borders this posed a problem. The same theory applied to the Algiers, according to Max, it was so easy back then to kill the ‘enemy’ without fear of ‘enemy Jihadists’ retaliating. I was left with a clear picture of an enemy – one who resisted occupation of his/her country.

Max Boot was talking about Iraq, but I believe he had Israel at heart and he was moving on to Iran.

Obviously he was pleased with the sectarian violence and the civil war in Iraq. Having admitted that he was totally oblivious of the Iranian culture, he was endorsing using the terrorist group Mojahedeen-e-Khalg (MEK) currently being trained in Iraq to break up Iran in a similar fashion in order to weaken the central government. He proudly shared his knowledge that Iran was only 51% Persian and the remainder 49% despised being under the Persian dominance. A bold statement for a man who pleads ignorance about Iranian culture! Grinning ear to ear, he had come up with the magic solution to stop Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from giving weapons to the insurgents in Iraq.

Having sat through his talk and a host of irrelevant questions, finally the microphone found its way to me.

I told him that maybe the book had prevented him from keeping current, but according to BBC on line[ii], the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction auditor has reported that KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton is arming the insurgents and not Iran. More than 14,000 weapons supplied by Halliburton destined for the Iraqi government found their way to the insurgent groups after Pentagon lost track of them!

The look of impatience and annoyance crept to his cheeky face; he was anticipating more insolence from my corner..

I reminded him that America had lost over 3000 lives fighting a ‘war on terror’, it had spent over $3 trillion dollars (I did not even mention the poor Iraqis), and here he was suggesting that we co-opt a group listed on the State Department’s foreign terrorist organization (FTO), when in fact we had been down that road in the past when we helped arm the Mujahedeen and train Osama ben Ladin. The consequences of that little venture came back to haunt us on 9/11. Why would he even contemplate putting America’s credibility on line, and make the possibility of another 9/11 feasible.

I was also curious to know why he defined the ‘jihadist, terrorist enemy’ as someone who wanted to defend his country – I was confused on that one. I wandered if Islam was a factor – even in 1859.

I suppose I should not have asked such a dumb question from such a smart man. After all, he is in Washington and I am in Salt Lake City. His beautifully articulated response, as if rehearsed often times before, was that the fascist Stalin was an ally of the US during World War II, so even if ‘we detest the MEK, we should use them to forward our national interest’.

I am not a history scholar, but I had read that the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 prompted the United States to see the Soviet Union as an embattled country being overrun by fascist forces, and this attitude was further reinforced in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. They joined forces to fight their enemies in spite of difference in ideology. The MEK terrorist group who have killed Americans are the enemy, not only in the context of having taken American lives, but in the broader sense of America’s ‘war on terror’.

He also said the mistake we made in Afghanistan was to leave too quickly. Puzzled, I thought does he intend for the US to go into Iran after the MEK and stay there – colonize or what? I never got the microphone back to ask these disturbing questions, nor did he explain what he meant about ‘jihadist, terrorist enemy’ – I suppose if America sent the MEK to Iran and nationalist Iranians fought them, which every single Iranian would, man, woman, child, young and old, they would all be labeled ‘jihadist, terrorists’ – what an irony to call a nationalist a terrorist for fighting terrorists!

Max Boot confidently announced that ‘it is in our national interest’ to disintegrate Iran and start a war using the MEK. He is not without influence. In the forum at the Milken Institute, attended by rich folks ready to write checks in praise of his clever ideas and ideals, an audience of 99% Jewry, whose national interest was Max referring to?

He did speak of America’s failure in the Iraq war, but did it serve Israel? With the disintegration of the threat from Iraq, over 650,000 dead Iraqis, the United States illegal invasion, its use of torture, the violation of the Geneva Conventions, and the world’s focus on the war there, more than any other time Israel seems to have a carte blanche to massacre its neighbors and expand its illegal occupation of Gaza.

Having convinced America to attack and destroy Iraq, ‘independent’ institutions that serve Israel’s interests, are now persuading the White House to destroy Iran, with no regard for the country that has stood staunchly behind Israel – America itself. America has repeatedly put its moral credibility and its national interest on line for Israel, thanks to Milken and similar think tanks, persuaded by influential people like Max Boot. And the people of Middle East pay the price.

Without a doubt, in the very near future, Americans will wake up with a jolt and realize that they have paid the heftiest price of all. Their White House can no longer make a decision without Israel’s blessing. They will recognize that gone with the lives of their sons and daughters, is their reputation, and they have become a nation both morally and fiscally bankrupt only to enable the growth of an unstoppable fiend in the Middle East. Armed with nuclear weapons backed by American policy makers, the ugly face of this fiend may well turn on the US if the next veto is denied, or if peace in the Middle East is chosen over another bloody and senseless war. That will be the real Armageddon.

——————————————————————————–

[i] http://www.milkeninstitute.org/research/research.taf?cat=israel

[ii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6114132.stm

By: Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich – Payvand’s Iran News – 11/15/06

November 16, 2006 0 comment

USA

A Look at the Report of Gates-Brzezinski

"When the US President George Bush suddenly announced the removal of his Defense Minister, many of the experts were not surprised of the change, but they were surprised by President’s nominee "Robert Gates". Gates has been advocating the talks and relations with Iran. Two years ago in the summer, beside then the National Security Advisor of the White House, he headed a group that sought opening dialogue with Iran. Part of this group’s report said that lack of relationship with Iran and lack of presence in this country for a long time would deeply hurt US’s understanding of domestic and regional developments. This, in turn, restricts Washington’s influence in the Middle East; there’s no need to wait for full coordination between the two countries before starting the dialogue." (Radio Farda)

This very report from Radio Farda mentioned that the members of Mojahedin-e Khalq should be either extradited to Iran or be exchanged with Al-Qaeda members held captive in Iran.

The report was based on the experiences of relations between Iran and American as well as a very pragmatic view on Iran. Neocons couldn’t understand this report and ignored it wholly.

It seems that tasking James Baker with the preparation of a report on Iraq’s situation was not simply an act of propaganda, but there was really a need to change the strategy in Iraq. Nomination of Gates for the Ministry of Defense proves that the White House is determined to conduct these changes. Although the Neocons are still insisting on their slogans, it seems that they have no choice except accepting these changes.

In this way, the extradition or exchange of MKO members is possible because:

– US’s efforts to transfer them to a third country have failed,

– The US has remained silent on Iraqis’ decision to expel the group.

So, with respect to the changes in the policies of US military in Iraq, we should expect real developments in the situation of Mojahedin-e Khalq.

Irandidban – 2006/11/11

November 14, 2006 0 comment

USA

The US should Quit Selective Approach

In an article titled "Nuclear Energy Crisis" published on "Sout al-Iraq" website, Canada-based Iraqi author "Qasem Mohammed al-Kafayee" points to the issue of the MKO’s presence in Iraq under the protection of US forces and says:

"What’s the justification of Americans for keeping these terrorists in Iraq, while Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar have rejected US’s request to accept these terrorists in their soil?"

"If the US really wants to find a proper solution for these terrorists, it should prove its goodwill by returning the elements of this group to their homeland and coordinate the issue with Iranian officials to guarantee the safety of these people. We ask our new government not to allow others to dictate their orders on Iraq; orders that include hosting criminal forces such as the MKO and …," he adds.

Qasem Mohammed also declares: "There’s no political modesty in US policies. They created al-Qaeda and have common interests with the group. How is that they put the MKO in terror list on one hand and support it in a third country on the other?

Hereby, we ask the US to understand the concept of political modesty, observe and use it. Iran, as a neighbor, benefits from security and stability in Iraq but the US observes no moral human standards."

Sout al-Iraq, September 19, 2006

September 21, 2006 0 comment

USA

The End of MKO’s Historical Opportunities

Three important events took place in recent weeks, every one of which could have significant impacts on the situation of terrorist MKO so that they could even lead to the removal of this group’s name from terror list (by the US) if they were considered an important element in Iran’s political scene.

These events were as follows:

1. The focus of different US agencies and parties on Iran,

2. Western countries’ decision to deal with Iran’s nuclear issue in the UN Security Council,

3. Crisis in the Middle East and the invasion of Israel to Lebanon.

Also, with a lower level of importance, US’s failure to advance its goals in Iraq can be added to these events.

* The focus of different US parties on Iran

Different parties in the US (including democrats, republicans and Neo-conservatives) began strong efforts during recent months to prove their views on Iran and used different Iranian figures and movements to convince the administration about the way to confront Iran.

State Department held a meeting and invited a number of reformists and student activists to discuss the issue of Iran. Although some of these people refused to participate in the meeting because they were concerned it might have a negative impact on their fame in Iran, the meeting was held with the participation of unimportant figures, which indicates the existence of an approach on Iran in the US administration. This approach calls on the US administration to be realistic about Iran.

Also, Enterprise Institute, represented and respected by many of Republicans and Neo-Conservatives, expressed its own solutions for the issue of Iran, which include "sanctions, targeting Iranian nuclear sites, trying to change the regime through the support of democratic forces inside Iran and creating a revolution".

Ledeen, of course, questions each of these solutions. On sanctions, he believes that it can’t change the regime and that long-term economical sanctions against Iran will be fruitless.

Although he himself proposes measures targeting of Iranian installations, he thinks it will unify Iranians against the US; he also reminds that Americans’ information on Iran after the revolution of 1979 has been bad and that one should not be optimistic about planning a military operation on the basis of current information.

About supporting Iranian opposition to create a revolution, Ledeen admits that no one knows if a revolution will be successful, and- in the case of success- stable, in Iran.

Ledeen says the US lacks enough intelligence and power to attack Iran and emphasizes on a good and strong relationship and establishing radio and TV channels against Iran.

On the other hand, IPC (Iran Policy Committee)- which is comprised of a number of figures close to Neocons in Washington- has again asked the Bush administration to use 3800 MKO members to put more pressure on the Islamic Republic.

Totally, the whole views and ideas of different parties in the US can be summarized in a line, one end of which proposes negotiations and relations with Iran and the other suggests wide military action. However, what concerns the MKO in this issue is that they have no place in proposals (on the table of US administration) and that they are not worthy to be invested on.

In the US, the only agencies that like to use this group as a tool, and in short time (and not as an alternative), are CIA (although it believes the group should not be delisted) and Pentagon.

* Western countries’ decision to deal with Iran’s nuclear issue in the UN Security Council

MKO tried to take advantage of Iran’s nuclear issue, therefore it played the game of claiming to have credible knowledge on Iran; they believed that the best case scenario for them is that Iran’s nuclear case is dealt with inside the UN Security Council. They welcomed the referral of Iran’s case to UN Security Council because they feared the continuation of negotiations between Iran and the Western countries for they know that such negotiations will lead to more restriction of their group. But in a long-term perspective, they believed that UN Security Council paves the way for a military action on Iran. With this, they hope the US will change its policies, delists their group, rearms them and uses them in its fight with Iran.

But the US has shown that in Iran’s nuclear case, it’s more looking for political pressure; this can also be found in the US’s new turn toward European policies. So, giving points to a terrorist group has no place in such a policy.

* Crisis in the Middle East and the invasion of Israel to Lebanon

When Saddam Hussein opened his arms to the MKO and used them in the war against Iran, he wanted the Iranian side to understand that he couldn’t stand Iran’s support for Iraqi opposition groups and that he was also trying to balance the powers.

Although his support for a group like the MKO (in comparison with Shiite and Kurdish parties that represent a huge part of Iraqi population and were supported by Iran) was nothing, it apparently justified the balance of powers.

Now that the US is strongly supporting Israel and accuses Iran of supporting Hizballah, MKO tries to appear as a force that can counter Hizballah so that the US may choose them for its confrontation with Iran.

MKO supporters in the US had also suggested the use of MKO to control Hizballah activities, but the MKO is too discredited to be taken seriously by the US administration.

Situation in Iraq is similar. While the MKO, recognizing the US sensitivity about Iran’s influence in Iraq, introduces itself as a dam against Iran, the position of Americans (designating the MKO as terrorist and restricting its members in Camp Ashraf) has not changed; to show their satisfaction with recent decision of Iraqi government on MKO, Americans preferred to stay silent.

The whole factors and parameters mentioned above have created opportunities that should be viewed as best chances from MKO’s viewpoint; however, these very opportunities couldn’t change the status of MKO and save them from the limitations and restrictions.

The failure of such opportunities shows the historical death of this group. A group that is ready to do anything possible for the US, but it’s still being ignored.

Irandidban – 2006/07/1

August 2, 2006 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts