USA

US anti-terrorism campaign suspicious

A senior Iranian official has questioned the United States’ honesty in claiming that it intends to combat terrorism, citing Washington’s record of supporting terrorist groups.

In a meeting with Iraqi Oil Minister Adel Abdul-Mehdi in Tehran on Wednesday, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani pointed to the US’s support for the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the Iraqi imposed war on Iran in the 1980s, saying, “The intention of this country (the US) in its claim to fight terrorism is suspicious and untrustworthy.”

The MKO is listed as a terrorist organization by much of the international community and has committed numerous terrorist acts against Iranians and Iraqis.

Out of the nearly 17,000 Iranians killed in terrorist attacks since the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, 12,000 have fallen victim to the acts of terror carried out by the MKO.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Shamkhani termed unity and solidarity among Iraqi people, officials, armed forces and religious clerics as the main contributing factor which will help the nation overcome the terrorist groups currently wreaking havoc on the country.

Iraq has faced brutal violence by the ISIL across the country’s north and west since early June. The ISIL terrorists have threatened all communities, including Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians and Izadi Kurds, during their advances in Iraq.

The Iranian official expressed the Islamic Republic’s support for the Iraqi nation and government, calling for the further expansion of all-out ties between the two countries.

"As in the past, the Islamic republic of Iran will stand by Iraq and strive to enhance its strategic relations in favor of regional security and stability," he said.

The Iraqi minister, for his part, praised Iran’s support for Iraq in its fight against terrorism, saying that different Iraqi parties and groups are willing to forge closer cooperation with the Islamic Republic.

Pointing to both countries’ great economic potential, Abdul-Mehdi called for the promotion of Tehran-Baghdad cooperation in the energy sector.

October 25, 2014 0 comments

USA

Open Letter of 57 victims of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Terrorist Cult to Obama

To Barak Obama, President of the United States of America

Dear President Obama,

We are a group of ex members of the People’s Mojahedin Khalq Organization (PMOI aka MEK, MKO, NCRI), who have been victims of this terrorist cult. We read your far reaching speech in the State Department Web site on September 10, 2014. We would like to express our highest appreciation and admiration for the deep understanding of the issue of terrorism and cults in the Middle East region shown in your speech.

You have precisely addressed the real roots of the formation of al-Qaida and ISIS, and expressed your deep sorrow for the barbaric crimes committed against innocent women and children by the terrorist ISIS in Iraq. You also mentioned their barbaric collective summary executions of soldiers.

Mr President,

The unfortunate existence of terrorist cults in the Middle East region and their anti-human behavior is a deep wound that its healing is only possible by preventing them from recruiting and from gaining financial, military and political power.

The al-Qaida and ISIS experience proves that the free world should be proactive rather than reactive, and such terrorist cults should be degraded and ultimately destroyed before the people of the world and the region especially women and children start paying the heavy price with their lives.

Therefore as you have mentioned, “these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage.” There should be a unique and united policy towards all the terrorist cults. There should not be good and bad terrorists as some with the intention of opening room for future terrorist groups to form imply.

We believe there are a tremendous amount of similarities between the ISIS that was described in your speech, and the Iranian terrorist Mujahidin-e Khalq. Indeed, many experts on Iraq and Iran share the view that the Mujahidin in Iraq provide media and logistics support for ISIS.

Some of the common characteristics of the Mujahidin and ISIS are as follows:

1. The Mujahidin hide their anti-western and anti-democratic thinking from the general public. While they believe in religious lifelong leadership and Islamic Caliphate and have been practicing it within their cult for years, they pretend publicly to believe in democracy and free elections.

2. Whilst they deeply and strongly believe in armed struggle and the use of violence to achieve their goals, to win their case in a court in Europe, the leaders pretended to be against any violence and armed struggle. Even so, there is still a weapon in their emblem which is a sign that armed struggle is in their ideology.

3. The Mujahidin-e Khalq severely violate human rights. The dissident members were arrested, tortured, jailed in solitary confinement inside their barrack named Ashraf in Iraq and later transferred to Abu-Ghraib prison in Iraq. The Human Rights Watch report published in 2005, about the Mujahidin-e Khalq’s violations of human rights based on the victims’ direct evidence, clearly and strongly condemned their abuse of human rights. The victims are ready to testify to your administration or US Government officials in person. Also the reports of defecting and escaping members in recent years confirms still more the Human Rights Watch report.

4. The Mujahidin, in cooperation with Saddam Hussein’s army participated in the imprisonment and brainwashing and execution of the Iranian POWs in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

5. Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the Mujahidin, ordered compulsory marriages inside their cult after the disastrous military attack on Iran from Iraq in 1988 which resulted in the deaths of 1400 of its members. During these forced marriages hundreds of women who had lost their husbands, had to marry male members not of their choosing.

6. Massoud Rajavi who considers himself as a caliph, a supreme religious and political leader of the people of the world, one year later ordered forced divorce of the Mujahidin families, and he later married himself to all these divorced women.

7. To pave the way toward marrying the divorced women members, he completely destroyed their families by separating even the children from their parents and sent them outside Iraq so there would be no common grounds for the divorced couple to meet or interact. Some of those children, who numbered about 800, aged 7 months to 8 years, were kept in Mujahidin bases in Europe and the USA where they were brainwashed so they would remain obedient and loyal to the cult. Later, clearly against the Geneva Conventions, some of those children aged 15-16 were sent back to Iraq to take part in military operations in which some were killed, and some are still in imprisoned inside camp Liberty. Some of these children have been seriously mentally and socially disordered due to separation from their families.

8. The defected women members of the Mujahidin who have successfully escaped from the Camp in Iraq and been able to reach the west, say that they have been systematically sexually abused by Massoud Rajavi. On the order of Massoud Rajavi and through the administration of Maryam Rajavi women members were forced to undergo needless hysterectomies as a means of destroying any hope they might have of returning to a normal and natural life. Many of such defected women members are ready to talk to any fact-finding body in person.

Dear President,

The Mujahedin was established with the strategy of destroying US led Imperialism. This is our knowledge after some 30 years inside the Mujahidin. Its pretence to be liberal and democratic is a tactic to help them reach power, after which their main strategy can be applied.

As we mentioned earlier in our letter there are no good terrorists, or safe terrorists. All are waiting for their own right time to spread as a cancer in the region or elsewhere.

Apparently the Mujahidin are considered good or safe terrorists so that their high ranking officials such as Mr Alireza Jafarzadeh and Ms Sona Samsami, who used to wear military uniform and commanded military operations, have an office in Washington DC and officially represent the Mujahidin (as their front organization the National Council of Resistance). For your information, Mr Alireza Jafarzadeh had requested in writing (see attached), to commit a suicide attack in order to prove his loyalty to Rajavi.

We wish you success in your fight against all forms of terrorism. We also greatly appreciate and thank you for reading our letter.

Most Respectfully,

1. Rabeae Shahrokhi

2.Nasrin Ebrahimi

3. Khodabakhsh Roodgar

4.Roohola Tajbakhsh

5.parvin Haji

6.Mohammad Hossein Sobhani

7. Alireza Nasrolahi

8.Ali Akbar Rastgou

9.Seyyed Amir Movaseghi

10. Edward Termado

11. Alireza Mirasgari

12: Ebrahim Khodabandeh

13.Ehsan Roshanzamir

14.Majid Roohi

15.Jafar Ebrahimi

16. Saeed Hazrati

17.Ghorban Ali Hosseinnejad

18.Ghafour Ftahiyan

19. Batoul Maleki

20.Homayoun Kohzadi

21.Mitra Yoosefi

22.Zahra Mirbagheri

23. Anne Singelton (Khodabandeh)

24.Ayoub Kordrostami

25.Karim Haghi

26.Masoud Khodabandeh

27. Mehdi Nikbakht

28. Mehdi Ahmadi

29. Ali Ghashghavi

30. Arash Sametipour

31.Mehdi Khoshal

32. Alireza Bashiri

33. Ali Hatami

34. Hamed Sarafpour

35. Naser Rezwani

36.Behzad Alishahi

37. Hamidreza Salmani

38. Shirzad Jalili

39.Milad Ariyaee

40. Karim Gholami

41. Mehrdad Sagharchie

42. Abbas Sadeghi

43.Farzad Frazinfar

44.Mehdi Sojoudi

45. Hamid Dehdar

46. Abdolkarim Ebrahimi

47. Ali Bidi

48.Mahboobe Hamze

49. Hassan Azizi

50. Ali Jahani

51. Mirbaghe Sedaghi

52. Nader Naderi

53.Mohammad Razaghi

54. Saeed Naseri

55. Mahmoud Sepahi

56.Mostafa Mohammadi

57. Mohammad Karami

September 25, 2014 0 comments

USA

America Must Make Its Underlying Intentions Toward Iran Clear

The 5+1 nuclear negotiations will resume in November. Although this is still some time away, analysts, policy writers and diplomats have been busy working to formulate an achievable diplomatic position which will bridge the gaps left at the end of the last session. Here in the UK, we think we know what our position must be. Iran must make concessions on the number of its centrifuges and in exchange sanctions will be lifted within a reasonable time scale. In this respect, the UK falls broadly in line with the American position. But with the opening of the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly next week, and the second visit to New York of Iran’s President Rohani, perhaps this is a good time for the UK to step back and consider exactly what that American position actually is. A side-meeting on September 18 in New York will test the waters on progress. Iran is not optimistic.

This time last year, western powers pinned great hopes on newly elected President Rohani after the painful and acrimonious Ahmadinejad years. President Obama’s unprecedented personal phone call to him was widely welcomed as a parting gesture of goodwill.

So, can we expect a similarly positive welcome this time around? In many ways, Iran has enjoyed a positive year on the world scene, most recently supporting Iraqi Shiite militia in ousting IS from parts of northern Iraq. Iran has also demonstrably complied with the demands on its nuclear program which were set at the end of the last round of negotiations.

But when Rohani arrives in New York this time there will certainly be no roses strewn across his path. America’s tone this time will be significantly different; if not overtly hostile, it is still, conspicuously chilly. Evidence for this comes not in words — the official America line is that diplomacy must be given a chance to succeed — but specific anti-Iran activity clearly demonstrate a truer U.S. position which still engenders ostracism and enmity rather than engagement and diplomacy.

Ratcheting up pressure on a country by raising concerns over human rights abuses is, of course, a standard diplomatic tool. Amnesty International has criticized Iran for weaknesses in the judicial process leading to the executions of a large number of criminals in recent months. But beyond this, Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, became highly critical of an American led campaign which exploited various conferences and forums to pick at the human rights issue like a scab, hoping that it would bleed enough to provoke Iran to respond in anger. Shaheed complained that such actions which deliberately involved him may have actually compromised his impartiality in the eyes of Iran and destroyed his efforts at confidence building to overcome non-cooperation.

But the main indication of bad faith on the American side came when, in spite of widespread warnings and criticism, Congress voted to impose even more sanctions on Iran in the gap between negotiating sessions without waiting for a proper assessment of Iranian compliance with its agreed obligations. Congress argued that since sanctions forced Iran to the negotiating table, this would add leverage to the U.S. position. But there was no evidence of this. Critics pointed out that Saddam Hussein’s regime survived for years under sanctions and only a disastrous war and occupation deposed him. Iran has been under American sanctions for 30 years. What did Congress hope to achieve by adding more? The only interpretation for many was that Congress acted deliberately to provoke Iran to walk away from the nuclear negotiating table.

Iran’s interpretation, which is just as valid as an American view, was that America can only engage in diplomatic relations if its intention is to make concessions as well as extract them from Iran. Iran sees no evidence of this. President Obama is unable to lift sanctions imposed by Congress and clearly a bellicose Congress will not vote to lift sanctions. Indeed one Iranian lawmaker characterized the fresh sanctions as “punishing Iran because Israel lost in Gaza” when Operation Protective Edge achieved none of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s self-imposed objectives.

Now that Iran and Russia have agreed to strengthen energy ties and are looking to create a payment system outside the hegemony of the U.S. dollar, America is slowly waking up to a shifting power balance, arguably of its own making, which signals increasing evasion of the U.S. sanctions regime by countries seeking the economic advantages attached to trading with Iran. Even apart from the problems of Ukraine, Russian and Chinese trade imperatives are unpicking the unity of the P5+1. Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice just traveled to China at his behest to strengthen relations. Germany and France are also weighing the potential economic losses and gains that are imposed on them by the sanctions regime, and may also drift further from the U.S., UK and the silent partner of both, Israel.

Iran has been under sanctions for 30 years but the economy is growing stronger. From a western perspective the Middle East is chaotic and is reaching crisis point with the advent of ISIL. But Iran now enjoys growing influence in the region through the exercise of soft power. Hamas leaders in Gaza are accepting a more political role and have agreed to work with Fatah to create a new Palestinian Authority. Hezbollah has successfully carved out a leading role in the government of Lebanon. This is where we see the hand of Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurdistan and Syria draw ever closer to Iran not only as a natural, but more importantly in the light of perceived American double-standards, as a reliable ally. Iran’s latest use of this influence was used to successfully help Iraqi Shiite militia oust ISIS from various locations in north Iraq. If America’s Iran policy was designed to weaken and isolate the country, it has failed.

Iran certainly feels itself in a much stronger position moving forward.

Ultimately, the real leverage behind a sanctions regime is that it stops short of, but still depends on the ability to follow through with the ultimate threat, war.

It is, however, now possible to state that if Israel, with or without the backing of the United States, could have launched a pre-emptive air strike to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, then it would have done so by now. The truth is, not only does Iran’s military capability render it a daunting foe, but its retaliatory capability would strike deep into American interests in the Middle East. In 2013, Iran successfully guided down an American drone which was then reverse engineered to create a home made version. Only in August, Iran claimed, controversially, that it had shot down an Israeli drone before it left Iranian airspace after it had been tracked flying near the Natanz nuclear power plant.

Also in August, Iran’s Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, announced that the supersonic Khalij-e Fars (Persian Gulf) ballistic missile has gone into production. Although Iran describes this as a defensive weapon, the Pentagon is reportedly concerned about Iran’s reach into the Persian Gulf where U.S. warships would be vulnerable.

The crisis in northern Iraq must prove a salutary lesson. That Iran can wield soft power in Iraq does not need stating, but that Iran is willing to work in military cooperation with America where they have mutual interests and benefits has been swept under the carpet by ideologues refusing to “give in” to the Iranians. Instead Senator Kerry is off to visit Jordan, whose own citizens threaten turmoil over recent events in Gaza, and Saudi Arabia, whose Wahhabi reach into Iraq amounts to at best an irritant to the majority of Shiites and Kurds, and at worst, amounts to support for IS. Excluding Iran and focusing on Syria only reinforces the perception that this will essentially be an anti-Iran coalition. But the price will be paid not by Iran but the weak Gulf states and western countries where the terrorists may turn next.

Acknowledging this doesn’t mean we have to like it and it certainly doesn’t mean that the west shouldn’t drive a hard bargain over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But it does mean that America needs to rethink its obdurate resistance to this new reality and accept that if it can’t wage war against Iran it will need to engage with the Islamic Republic as is, in the here and now. The days of war and regime change bluster have reached the end of the road.

What all this ultimately means is that when the P5+1 countries sit down together with Iran for the next round of nuclear negotiations, they will do so in a much weaker position, not only because of disunity, but because of what Iranians see as American duplicity. America can only engage honestly in diplomatic relations if its intentions are to make concessions as well as extract them from Iran. Iran sees that American diplomats still do not have a clear mandate to resolve the outstanding issues. Instead it appears more the case that the U.S. wants to try to force Iran to walk away first and claim a Pyrrhic victory.

Certainly the UK cannot formulate a negotiating policy in conjunction with the United States until America makes clear its underlying intentions toward Iran.

Huffington Post

September 23, 2014 0 comments

USA

ISIS a pretext for US-sponsored regime change in Iraq

The ousting of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is part of a broader US plan for Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

Against the backdrop of the war against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Washington has managed to kill two birds with one stone, as the saying goes. Not only has the US removed a political leader who had proven to be problematic due to his opposition to US military presence in Iraq, as well as his staunch support for Syria and President Assad, they have also created the conditions for the dismemberment of the Iraqi state.

The US and its allies are supporting de facto ‘independence’ for the Kurdish region in the north of the country, using the IS as a convenient pretext for openly arming and supporting Kurdish forces. Naturally, one should not look for altruism in Washington’s motives. Rather, this strategy is to benefit western oil companies with dollar signs in their eyes, licking their lips in anticipation of being able to deal directly with Kurdish President Barzani.

Additionally, Maliki’s ouster deprives Syrian President Assad of a key ally, thereby emboldening the IS and the other militants waging war against Syria. It provides further evidence, as if more were needed, that the political future is bleak for any Iraqi leader who dares to break from the script written for him by Washington. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the US and its allies to be the leading force politically in the war against the IS, an organization created by US policy and covert operations in the region.

In the sales and marketing industry, there is a term known as ‘solution selling’ whereby the salesperson either creates or exaggerates a problem, then presents his or her product as the invaluable solution. Indeed, this sort of sales strategy is precisely the approach Washington has taken in the region, and specifically in Iraq.

The IS disease

The IS has only very recently become an internationally recognized epidemic of militant Islamist extremism that must be eradicated at all costs. That international recognition came only when the organization began taking control of territory in Iraq, threatening Western oil and gas interests. While the IS was waging its brutal and vicious war against the Syrian people and government however, the IS was merely an afterthought, simply a group of extremists fighting the ‘brutal dictator’ Assad.

It seems then that the danger of ISIS and the necessity to eradicate it is directly correlative to US interests. Put another way, the IS is a useful tool in Syria and southern Lebanon where it creates chaos to the detriment of Assad and Hezbollah respectively, while in Iraq, the IS is dangerous where it threatens the US client regime in Kurdistan and Western oil interests. But of course, the detail consistently left out of most analysis of the IS problem is the simple fact that it is a creation of US intelligence and its covert war on Syria.

As early as 2011, the US CIA was involved in an elaborate and widespread program to covertly arm militant extremists in Syria in order to overthrow the government of President Assad. As the New York Times and other media outlets reported in 2012, the CIA was working with the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups along the Turkish-Syrian border to funnel weapons, communications equipment, and other military materiel to terrorist groups at war with Damascus. Despite vehement claims by Washington that only ‘moderate rebels’ were receiving such support, it is an open secret that much of those supplies ended up in the hands of then-ISIS, which already by 2012 was beginning to establish itself as a dominant fighting force in the Syrian war.

Perhaps it should then begin to make sense why, when ISIS launched its allegedly ‘surprise’ attack on the critical Iraqi city of Mosul in June, they were so well armed and equipped with everything from matching pickup trucks to anti-tank weapons, RPGs, and a host of other US-made equipment. Naturally, in the days and weeks following the attack, ISIS armed itself even further with confiscated Iraqi military equipment, also provided by the US. So it would be fair to say that, consciously or unconsciously, the United States helped to create and unleash the IS we know today.

No longer simply another militant organization among many, the IS has grown, thanks to US sponsorship, into the premier terrorist fighting force in the region, capable of engaging national militaries (Iraq, Syria) and other well-organized armed groups such as Hezbollah. In effect, the IS has become the enforcer of US foreign policy, a proxy force that furthers the US agenda without any significant US military presence needed. And yet, the IS is presented in the mainstream media as the greatest threat in the Middle East. Why so? Why were they no threat at all in Syria, but have become the great menace in Iraq?

Iraq, Maliki & Western interests

The US waged an aggressive war and occupation of Iraq for nearly a decade for the purposes of establishing a puppet government that would be amenable to Western economic and geopolitical interests. In many ways, that project failed as PM Maliki emerged as a strong, nationalistic leader who was unwilling to accede to the demands of the occupiers.

Washington wanted to permanently base US troops in the country, and Maliki rejected this proposal, demanding the permanent withdrawal of all US forces by the end of 2011. Maliki purged Iraq of the US-sponsored terrorist organization the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) which had waged a decades-long campaign of terrorism against Iran by closing down Camp Ashraf, the base from which the organization operated. Maliki also sacked two key figures in Iraq’s banking establishment, both of whom were close associates of neocon darling, and failed Iraqi presidential candidate, Ahmed Chalabi, thereby earning him the ire of Washington, which sought to maintain its grip on the purse-strings of Iraqi wealth.

But of course, these were by no means Maliki’s only ‘crimes’ in the eyes of the US. He also challenged Western oil companies looking to make massive profits off of Iraq’s vast energy deposits. Perhaps the best-known instance occurred in 2012 when ExxonMobil signed an oil exploration deal with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq. Maliki rejected the validity of the deal, noting that any oil contracts must be negotiated with the central government in Baghdad, rather than Barzani’s US-aligned government in Arbil. Maliki’s spokesman noted at the time that:

“Maliki views these deals as representing a very dangerous initiative that may lead to the outbreak of wars… [and] breaking up the unity of Iraq…Maliki is prepared to go to the highest levels for the sake of preserving the national wealth and the necessary transparency in investing the wealth of the Iraqis, especially oil… [He] sent a message to American President Barak [sic] Obama last week urging him to intervene to prevent ExxonMobil from going in this direction.”

It is no secret that Maliki’s strong-willed resistance to this deal, in addition to his refusal to pay ExxonMobil upwards of $50 million to improve production at one major southern oilfield led directly to the oil company pulling out of the lucrative West Qurna-1 project. Essentially then, Maliki took on the very powerful oil corporations (BP is no friend of Maliki either), seeking to get a better deal for Iraq. It would be safe to assume that the endemic corruption in Iraq would have made it easier for Maliki and his associates to enrich themselves by skimming off the top and/or receiving payouts from other oil interests. However, this is secondary to the primary ‘crime’ of challenging the hegemony of oil companies in Iraq.

And it is here that we see quite clearly why the US has been so keen on protecting their Kurdish puppet government, which really should be understood as a ruling clique centered on President Barzani and ex-President of Iraq Talabani, their families, and cronies. Since as early as 2011, Western oil companies sought to bypass Maliki and the legal government in Baghdad by making independent deals with the Kurds. Not only did they not want to pay the taxes that would be used to fund the recovery of Iraq from more than a decade of war, they attempted to play the Iraqi and Kurdish authorities off one another in a cynical ploy to more effectively and efficiently exploit the corruption and competition that exists in both.

Of course, it should be noted that the US, Israel, and other Western powers have long maintained very close ties with Barzani and the Kurds. A valid argument could be made that Kurdistan represents a forward base for US military power projection in Iraq and, particularly against Iran. Additionally, Israel has long maintained close ties with Kurdish authorities, both in terms of political support as well as covert intelligence and espionage-related activities. As Israeli scholar Ofra Bengio recently wrote in the pro-US, pro-Israeli publication the Middle East Quarterly:

“From the 1990s on, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) maintained relations with Kurdish officials since ‘pro-Israel Jewish activists viewed support for the Kurds, a small nation struggling for self-determination in a hostile Arab neighborhood, as helping Israel reach out to a natural ally.’ According to Morris Amitay, AIPAC’s executive director from 1974 to 1980, ‘Our Israeli friends always appreciated our friendship with the Kurds.’ Amitay’s son, Mike Amitay, also served as executive director of the Washington Kurdish Institute (WKI) from 1996 to 2005.”

Naturally, the Israeli connection is not strictly a benevolent one. Rather, Israeli intelligence and special forces have been deeply intertwined with their Kurdish counterparts as far back as 2003 and the commencement of the second US war in Iraq (though likely decades before that). As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh noted in 2004:

“The Israelis have had long standing ties to the Talibani and Barzani clans [in] Kurdistan and there are many Kurdish Jews that emigrated to Israel and there are still a lot of connection. But at some time before the end of the year, and I’m not clear exactly when, certainly I would say a good six, eight months ago, Israel began to work with some trained Kurdish commandoes, ostensibly the idea was the Israelis — some of the Israeli elite commander units, counter-terror or terror units, depending on your point of view, began training — getting the Kurds up to speed.”

So, as should be self-evident, Washington’s decision to use military force against ISIS is a cynical ploy to protect intelligence assets, economic interests, and create a nominally independent Kurdish state which will become integrated into the US-Israeli sphere of influence in the region. In order to achieve these strategic objectives, first and foremost, Maliki had to be gotten rid of.

And so, regime change has once again come to Iraq, this time through the backdoor. By arming ISIS in Syria, the US unleashed a monster in Iraq, which it now uses as the pretext for fulfilling the long-standing goal of de facto partition of Iraq. With Kurdish independence robbing Iraq of vital oil resources, it is unlikely that any ruling coalition consisting of Sunnis and Shia will effectively govern the country, regardless of the individuals at its helm. And this is precisely the point. Sadly, in the interests of the West, Iraq will now endure yet another civil war and period of misery and despair. There will be no economic development, no political progress, no peace. Exactly what Washington wanted.

Eric Draitser, RT

(Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com.)

August 19, 2014 0 comments

USA

US turned against Maliki for cleansing Iraq of US sponsored MEK terrorists

The Strange Case of Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki against the Backdrop of the “War” against the Islamic State (IS)

While the world’s attention has been fixated on the rapid advance and conquering of territory by ISIS/ISIL in Iraq, a clear shift has taken place in the rhetoric against, and analysis of, Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki and his government. Though he was praised up and down by Washington while US troops remained on Iraqi soil, in the nearly three years since their exit he has transmogrified into a brutal sectarian autocrat evoking the worst aspects of both Saddam’s regime and that of his Shia neighbors and allies in Iran. What could possibly account for such a dramatic about-face?

The question then becomes: Is it simply that the world has finally taken notice of Maliki’s dictatorship against the backdrop of the war against ISIS/ISIL? Or could it be that the narrative has changed because the US agenda and interests have changed, and thus, so too has the image of Maliki. From democratic representative of the religious/ethnic majority to vicious tyrant bent on the destruction of Sunni and Kurdish minorities, Maliki has undergone a shocking political makeover.

Indeed, Maliki is not the first, nor is he likely to be the last, leader propped up, armed, and supported politically and militarily by the US, only to then become the proverbial “greatest threat to peace and stability in the region.” Such was Saddam’s fate. So too was it the fate of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. And it seems now that Maliki, like countless other would-be US puppets who suddenly discovered their own national interests, has magically become the center of evil in Iraq and the region.

It should be noted that an examination of how the narrative on Maliki has shifted should not be taken as a de facto endorsement of all his actions or policies. Quite the contrary, such an analysis is rooted in an examination of the facts and material conditions, rather than an emotional appeal to “pick a side” and “support the people.” These and other hollow phrases have adorned the writing of many analysts on this issue in recent weeks without thoroughly examining the real forces at play. As such, the hollow phrases turn into shallow analysis which leads to the confusion about Iraq today.

Washington, Tehran, and Maliki’s “Sins”

It should come as no surprise to anyone who is even moderately aware of how US foreign policy and propaganda has historically operated, that the demonization of Maliki is directly linked to the inability of Washington to control him or, to put it another way, his refusal to accept US diktats. Consequently, he has been made into a villain, rather than a leader attempting to establish independent institutions in a country in which all institutions were created by the authority of a military occupation. So, the question then becomes, is Maliki simply trying to consolidate all power to himself? Or has Maliki been attempting to purge his government of US agents, clients, puppets, and other assorted front men? As is so often the case, the answer will lie somewhere in the middle.

To listen to the talking points of the State Department, news pundits, and “security experts,” you’d think that everyone in the Obama administration and the US political elite was in agreement that Maliki is an autocratic dictator. However, Obama himself revealed quite the opposite when the Iraqi Prime Minister came to the White House less than two and half years ago. On December 12, 2011, just weeks before the ultimate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, President Obama stood next to Maliki and made the following remarks:

Today, I’m proud to welcome Prime Minister Maliki — the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq… Iraq faces great challenges, but today reflects the impressive progress that Iraqis have made. Millions have cast their ballots — some risking or giving their lives — to vote in free elections. The Prime Minister leads Iraq’s most inclusive government yet. Iraqis are working to build institutions that are efficient and independent and transparent.

In examining these and other comments made by Obama, and Bush before him, it becomes clear that a tectonic shift has occurred in how Maliki is viewed by Washington. Once seen as a pliable, compliant client regime, Maliki has now become the embodiment of corruption, sectarianism, and lust for power. What could possibly have motivated such a drastic change?

First and foremost are Maliki’s attitudes and policies towards the US occupation and the presence of military and non-military personnel. In fact, it was Maliki’s refusal to grant the US request to maintain US military bases in the country after the withdrawal which prompted the first round of attacks on him and his government. And it was then that the image of Maliki as Iranian puppet truly became popularized, at least in Western media. Indeed, as The Guardian noted at the time,

“The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis.”

Maliki also took the absolutely monumental step of closing down Camp Ashraf and killing or expelling its inhabitants. Far from being a camp for “Iranian political exiles” as Western media have attempted to portray, Ashraf was the base of the Iranian terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an organization supported wholeheartedly by neocons (as well as most “liberals”) in its continued terror war against Iran. Of course, because Maliki dared to cleanse Iraq of these US-sponsored terrorist thugs, he was immediately convicted in the court of US public opinion which described the operation as an assault on Iranian “freedom fighters.” We know all too well what the US means when it describes terrorists as freedom fighters.

And so, by refusing basing rights, refusing to extend immunity and legal protections to US contractors operating in Iraq, and wiping out Camp Ashraf and MEK members, Maliki became a villain. More to the point, it was his refusal to allow Iraq to be used by the US and its allies as a military and political bulwark against Iran that earned him the West’s ire. Far from wanting a “sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq” as Obama eloquently proclaimed, Washington needed the country to remain a client state to be used as a weapon of US foreign policy in the region. By rejecting this, Maliki, almost overnight, became “a dictator.”

But the Maliki-as-dictator meme has become a powerful device for shaping the narrative about Iraq. One of the primary methods of this narrative-building is establishing, and constantly reiterating, that Maliki has consolidated all power to himself by purging his government of political rivals. While there is undoubtedly some truth in the fact that Maliki has sought to sideline certain political figures who were unwilling to “play ball” with his regime in Baghdad, this is only half the story, the only half western media wants you to hear.

The other side of that story is the fact that Maliki was left by the US with a government rife with factions and individuals who represented not Iraq, but Western political and financial interests. One of the patterns to which Maliki’s accusers point as an example of his dictatorship is his purging of key figures in major Iraqi institutions. However, these same accusers never mention exactly who was purged, and why.

One of the principal examples of such purging was Maliki’s sacking of two key figures in the banking establishment in Iraq. Specifically, Maliki dismissed Sinan al-Shabibi, Governor of Iraq’s Central Bank, and Hussein al-Uzri, former head of the state-owned Trade Bank. These dismissals were reported as a power grab. However, for the most part, they fail to mention the critical fact that these two very powerful individuals in Iraq’s financial establishment are very close friends and associates of Ahmed Chalabi. This name should ring a bell for those who have followed the Iraq tragedy for these last twelve years; Chalabi was the darling of Bush, Cheney, and the neocons. A close political ally, Chalabi was originally envisioned by Cheney and Co. as the leader of the new Iraq, an Iraq which would be amenable to US political and corporate interests in the country.

Though Chalabi was rejected by the Iraqi people, and was never able to establish political power for himself at the time, he and his neocon friends were able to embed their people in Iraq’s banking institutions, thereby giving the US effective control over credit in the country. As has always been known, power over finances is de facto political power and authority. So, was Maliki seeking to consolidate all power to himself? Or was he attempting to rid Iraq’s banks of corrupt agents of Western finance capital who had been undemocratically put in place by precisely those same forces who eagerly championed the destruction of Iraq?

Another of Maliki’s grave crimes was taking on Western oil companies looking to make massive profits off of Iraq’s vast energy deposits. Perhaps the most well known instance occurred in 2012 when ExxonMobil signed an oil exploration deal with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq. Maliki rejected the validity of the deal, noting that any oil contracts must be negotiated with the central government in Baghdad, rather than Barzani’s US-aligned government in Arbil. Maliki’s spokesman noted at the time that:

Maliki views these deals as representing a very dangerous initiative that may lead to the outbreak of wars… [and] breaking up the unity of Iraq…Maliki is prepared to go to the highest levels for the sake of preserving the national wealth and the necessary transparency in investing the wealth of the Iraqis, especially oil… [He] sent a message to American President Barak [sic] Obama last week urging him to intervene to prevent ExxonMobil from going in this direction.

It is no secret that Maliki’s strong-willed resistance to this deal, in addition to his refusal to pay ExxonMobil upwards of $50 million to improve production at one major southern oil field, led directly to the oil company pulling out of the lucrative West Qurna-1 project. Essentially then, Maliki took on the very powerful oil corporations (BP is no friend of Maliki either), seeking to get a better deal for Iraq. It would be safe to assume that the endemic corruption in Iraq would have made it easier for Maliki and his associates to enrich themselves by skimming off the top and/or receiving payouts from other oil interests. However, this is secondary to the primary “crime” of challenging the hegemony of oil companies in Iraq. Doesn’t Maliki realize that the US fought a war in Iraq to protect and further the interests of oil companies, among others?

Undoubtedly, Maliki’s greatest sin in the eyes of US-NATO-Israel-GCC has been his steadfast support for Syria and Assad. Maliki refused to abandon Assad when the US-NATO war machine was gearing up to bomb Syria. He loudly proclaimed his support for Assad and his resistance to any attempts to coax and cajole Iraq into allying against him. In this way, Maliki affirmed the alliance of Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Hezbollah against the US-NATO-Israel-GCC axis of power, and in doing so put himself at the top of Washington’s enemies list.

In late 2013, Maliki, along with Assad and Iranian authorities, participated in continued negotiations over the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, which would bring Iranian and Iraqi gas to the Mediterranean via Syria, thereby giving those countries direct, overland access to the European market. Naturally, this was seen as a direct challenge to US ally Qatar and its dominance of the Middle Eastern gas trade to Europe. It should be noted that it is no mere coincidence that the eruption of the war in Syria coincided perfectly with the initial negotiations over the proposed pipeline.

So, rather than a leader defending national interests and attempting to engage in independent economic development outside the hegemony of Western political and corporate powers, Maliki has been portrayed as a corrupt and brutal tyrant bent on destroying Sunnis, Kurds, and anyone else who stands in his way. Might it not have something to do with Maliki not being a willing puppet for a war on Syria?

Almost as an afterthought are still other reasons why Maliki has been demonized. He has purchased significant military hardware from Russia, including attack helicopters, rather than being solely reliant on US military assistance. Maliki allowed Iraqi Vice President Hashemi, a politician known to be close with Qatar and the US, to be indicted and tried for running an assassination-for-hire operation. Maliki moved to reorganize Iraqi political life by breaking some of the deliberately dysfunctional political institutions created by the US occupiers after the initial war. He sought to use loans and credit to rebuild some of the destroyed infrastructure. He refused to allow Shia politics to be the sole territory of the Sadrists and others. These and countless other actions obviously demonstrated to the US and its allies that “Maliki must go,” as they are so fond of saying.

Is the US Really Supporting Maliki?

One of the more pernicious aspects of the coverage of the conflict in Iraq has been the propagandistic talking point from both mainstream and some non-mainstream outlets that the US is “supporting” and “propping up” Maliki. Dozens of articles and interviews have appeared in recent weeks in which experts espouse the notion that the Obama administration is trying to keep Maliki in power. Despite flying in the face of both logic and the facts, this narrative has taken root in many quarters, and has become the basis upon which many have provided de facto support to ISIS/ISIL and the Sunni insurgents allied, however tenuously, with them.

It would seem that those who argue that the US wants to preserve Maliki’s position in Iraq have not been paying attention. Indeed, headlines such as “US leaders want Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki to step down in return for US airstrikes on ISIS: Report” from the International Business Times, or “Iraq must form new government, Kerry warns in Baghdad” from the Financial Times, call into question that very assertion. In fact, it is not Maliki that the US is trying to preserve, it is its own influence in Iraq. This is the point that many so-called experts have utterly failed to grasp; Maliki is not doing what he’s told, so the US wants to put in his place someone who will. And they are using the ISIS/ISIL takeover as a convenient pretext for this sort of regime change.

And whose name keeps coming up in discussion about who the US might want to see replace Maliki? It’s none other than good old Ahmed Chalabi, the same puppet who Bush and Co. tried to install in the first place. Ayad Allawi, another Iraqi politician with close ties to the US, is also on the short list. So, two failed US political proxies are now being promoted as the “democratic” and “inclusive” future of Iraqi politics. It’s enough to make anyone laugh, or be sick.

It is also amusing to hear so-called experts discussing how the US has sent troops to Iraq to help Maliki. Such a superficial analysis reveals a complete lack of understanding of both military matters and the way in which the US operates abroad. The authorization for the deployment of 300 military personnel to Iraq is evidence not of an attempt to save Maliki, but to preserve certain key political, financial, and energy infrastructure for Western interests.

The US is not protecting Maliki, but protecting itself and its investments from Maliki, should he attempt to cling to power. Those troops have been protecting the US embassy, advising key figures in regards to securing the oil fields, and providing protection for foreign oil workers among others. This cannot be mistaken for military support for Maliki, unless of course it is the goal of those espousing this nonsense to convince the world that Maliki is the “US man in Iraq.”

Today Iraq is at war, and in danger of breaking apart. With Islamist militants and Sunni insurgents fighting a war against the government in Baghdad, the country is headed for total collapse and partition. But this war did not start with ISIS conquering Mosul. It did not start with Maliki consolidating power. It began before the last US troops ever left Iraq. It began when Maliki decided that he would not be cowed by US threats and diktats. It began the second Iraq tried to assert itself independently. And for this, Iraq is paying the ultimate price.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

By Eric Draitser

July 6, 2014 0 comments

USA

McGurk talks directly with Mojahedin Khalq in Iraq

[…]The U.S. Embassy also said McGurk visited Friday with members of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the militant wing of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose camp outside Baghdad came under rocket attack last month. The statement said the U.S. diplomat stressed the urgency of relocating the residents of Camp Hurriya to another country.

The dissident group, which opposes Iran’s clerical regime, joined forces with Saddam Hussein’s forces during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, and several thousand of its members were given sanctuary in Iraq. It renounced violence in 2001, and was removed from a U.S. terrorist list last year.

Iraq’s current Shiite-led government, which has strong ties with neighboring Shiite powerhouse Iran, considers the MEK’s presence in Iraq illegal and is eager to get rid of them. The refugee camp is home to about 3,100 people.

January 13, 2014 0 comments

USA

US donates $1mn for resettlement of Mojahedin Khalq in Iraq

The United States plans to provide 1-million dollars for the UN Trust Fund. The fund is tasked with re-settling elements of Mujahedin-e Khalq organization -the M-K-O- who are currently residing at Camp Liberty in Iraq.

The U-S state Department says America hopes other countries will also support the effort. But the Iraqi government as well as many other countries that consider MKO as a terrorist group, say there are no legal grounds for the presence of the M-K-O in Iraq.

Several attacks on Ashraf camp where about 100 members of the anti-Iran terrorist group still live, left 52 dead in September.

The Iraqi government is currently providing protection to the Camp Liberty in Baghdad. The camp hosts some 3,000 of MKO members who were forced to leave camp Ashraf last year.

The Mojahedin-e-Khalq is a terrorist group which was founded in 1960s in Iran. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the MKO took up arms against the Iranian government. The group is responsible for thousands of acts of terrorism and sabotage against Iran. The group also aided former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran.Albania has so far received more than 100 of the MKO members, and Germany is planning to accept about 100 of them. The Iraqi government meanwhile, has called on other countries to contribute for the resettlement program in order to end MKO presence in Iraq.

October 29, 2013 0 comments

USA

The US Fund for resettlement of MKO members

Press Statement

Marie Harf

Deputy Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 24, 2013

The United States welcomes the establishment of the United Nations Trust Fund to support the resettlement of individuals currently residing at Camp Hurriya in Iraq. We are pleased to announce that the United States plans to provide $1 million to the UN Trust Fund. The Administration will continue to work with the U.S. Congress regarding these funds. The United States hopes other countries will also support this important humanitarian effort.

While Rajavi`s group enjoy endless sources of money, the US act to pay the UN for resettlement was quite surprising and seems a bit deceptive to me.

A glance at the group’s propaganda campaigns in Europe and in Iraq proves that money is the last thing that the MEK needs. Here are some examples.

In the annual gathering of the MEK in France in June, thousands of people enjoyed an absolutely free trip to France including meals and housing with the sole condition of attending Maryam Rajavi’s speech.

In the same festival, paid speakers are invited whose rates are some times as high as 40k.

Advertisements (paid) for the event are given to international media to be broadcasted and published.

MEK’s recent campaigns also prove the group is being well financially supported.

Recently an ad was placed and broadcasted by CNN in support of the group’s demands in Iraq. (How much was it? Don’t ask me, ask CNN.)

And in another example, while the Rajavis continuously complain about the situation of their members in Iraq, and claim that the Iraqi government does not allow them to bring goods into Camp Al Hurriyeh (Liberty), photos show that a tremendous amount of purple cloth, billboards, banners and other printed material are being used for their show of protests. It means that they have access to buy whatever they need including propaganda material.

As a former member of the MEK, I always knew that the group is quite rich. Now I am surprised to see that the US wants to donate another million for the group.

The group is rich enough so that if its leaders want, they can easily finance the resettlement of all 3000 people remaining in Iraq.

Arash Pirooz,IranInterlink

October 29, 2013 0 comments

USA

Rand Paul Proposes Silly Constitutional Amendment

Rand Paul Proposes Silly Constitutional Amendment to Apply Laws Equally to Citizens and Government

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced an interesting Constitutional amendment this week:

‘Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

‘Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

‘Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

I view this as a superficial attempt to simultaneously throw red meat to Paul’s libertarian and populist Tea Party followers. First of all, the proposed amendment is unlikely to be successful, given the notorious difficulty of passing Constitutional amendments, which require two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratification by at least three-fourths of the states (or, 38 out of 50).

And secondly, while it may sound nice to say that not even the government will be above the law, that is the system we’re already supposed to have, yet it is largely a farce. Even if this actually became an amendment, it would be mostly symbolic.

The government is constantly breaking the law and taking actions that are clearly illegal for ordinary citizens to take.

To take just one example, the Supreme Court in 2010 decided that “material support” laws Congress passed to criminalize aiding terrorist groups includes “Advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization.” Yet this didn’t seem to apply to scores of current and former U.S. politicians that advocated for and got paid to speak on behalf of the Iranian dissident group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which was on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations until September 2012.

Here’s what former Governor Ed Rendell told journalist Daniel Denvir when confronted about his illegal support for MEK:

“If you indict me, I hope you know, you have to indict 67 other Americans who did the same thing, including seven generals … [who] served in Iraq. You’d have to indict James Jones, President Obama’s first NSC chief adviser, you’d have to indict former Attorney General [Michael] Mukasey, former FBI Director Louis Freeh … the whole kit and caboodle.” That caboodle is voluminous and high-powered, including Tom Ridge, UN Ambassador John Bolton, Rudolph Giuliani and Howard Dean, among others.

Or, take an example straight from the Executive Branch. In September, President Obama unilaterally waived the ban on supplying lethal aid to terrorist groups “to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to ‘vetted’ opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad,” the Washington Examiner reported. If Presidents can simply waive laws they know they’ll soon be in violation of, an amendment like Paul’s is worthless.

Or what about the NSA’s lawlessness under the Executive Branch? Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee and has access to classified information about the NSA’s surveillance practices, said this month that even with the overly broad statutory powers granted to the NSA, “the rules have been broken, and the rules have been broken a lot.”

A recently declassified FISC ruling found that the NSA “frequently and systematically violated” statutory laws governing how intelligence agents can search databases of Americans’ telephone communications and that NSA analysts deliberately misled judges about their surveillance activities in order to get court approval.

Going back a little further, President Bush flagrantly violated the law when he secretly authorized the NSA to perform warrantless surveillance on phone calls, including American communications.

I could go on and on (torture, indefinite detention, war crimes, etc. etc.)

If Paul wants laws to be applied equally, why haven’t I heard him call for indictments against the Obama and Bush administrations, not to mention the leadership of the NSA?

Probably because this is for political show. The truth is, being in the Executive Branch or in Congress is basically a get out of jail free card. If Joe Schmoe steals $50 out of the cash register of his local convenient store, he’ll be in big trouble. If the U.S. government supports terrorism, wages illegal war, and systematically violates the Fourth Amendment in complete secrecy…no problem.

John Glaser,

October 26, 2013 0 comments

USA

U.S. Pledges Support to UN Trust Fund

U.S. Pledges Support to UN Trust Fund for Resettlement of Camp Hurriya Residents

Press Statement

Marie Harf

Deputy Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 24, 2013

The United States welcomes the establishment of the United Nations Trust Fund to support the resettlement of individuals currently residing at Camp Hurriya in Iraq. We are pleased to announce that the United States plans to provide $1 million to the UN Trust Fund. The Administration will continue to work with the U.S. Congress regarding these funds. The United States hopes other countries will also support this important humanitarian effort.

We share the conviction that relocation is the only lasting means of guaranteeing the safety and well-being of those residing at Camp Hurriya. Achieving this goal has become an ever more urgent humanitarian imperative in the aftermath of deadly attacks on Camp Hurriya in February and June of this year, and the horrific attack on individuals at Camp Ashraf in September. We also continue to support the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in their efforts to resettle the residents of Camp Hurriya outside of Iraq.

The United States is actively engaged in working with the international community to move the UNHCR-led relocation process forward. To that end, the Department of State recently appointed Jonathan Winer as Senior Advisor for Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) Resettlement, to oversee our efforts towards resettling the residents of Camp Hurriya to safe, permanent and secure locations outside of Iraq as soon as possible.

October 26, 2013 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts