Dr. Seyed Hossein Mousavian, Habilian Association, August 22 2017:… In Europe, despite the MEK’s influence among some EU parliamentarians, the EU at the highest levels is still staunchly pro-engagement with Iran, with Frederica Mogherini due to attend Rouhani’s inauguration. For the EU to make a sudden turnaround and support a group like the MEK is highly unlikely—especially given their vested economic interests—unless the United States makes …
France is playing a hypocritical and destabilizing game by hosting the MEK (Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult)
Dr. Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. From 1997 to 2005, he was the head of the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council; from 2003 to 2005, he served as spokesman for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the European Union. He is author of “The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir” published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in June 2012. Mousavian earned a PhD in international relations from the University of Kent in the U.K. He holds a master’s degree from the University of Tehran and studied his bachelor at the University of California, Sacramento. Following is a brief interview of Habilian Association with Dr. Mousavian on the current situation of terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq organization (MEK, a.k.a MKO, NCRI, PMOI, etc).
Habilian: Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization’s nature as a terrorist cult has remained the same since its establishment, but it has changed face several times over years. They posed themselves as a Guerrilla group fighting imperialism before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, then they fought against the Iranian government and sided with the country’s enemies, conducting hundreds of terrorist attacks inside Iran, killing thousands of Iranian civilians and officials. And now it’s been a while that they are depicting themselves as a political alternative to Iran’s democratically elected government. Some Western politicians are obviously buying MEK’s new disguise. Do you think with Trump administration at work in the White House, is there going to be a strategic change in U.S. view of the MEK? Do you think it is possible that the U.S. administration reaches a consensus to openly support a group like the MEK? How about the European Union? Please elaborate on your view.
Mousavian: Given the Trump administration’s regime change policy towards Iran, Iranian opposition groups have raced to get the White House’s embrace. At the same time Reza Pahlavi wrote a letter to Trump and did an interview with Trump-outlet Breitbart, the MEK spearheaded anti-Iran and pro-Trump letter campaigns and continued its lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill with increased vigor. At the latest MEK rally in Paris, Trump allies and longtime MEK supporters Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani were present.
It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will openly express endorse for any of these groups, but they may play a role in the administration’s regime change policy, and perhaps factored into Rex Tillerson’s statement that United States will rely on “elements inside of Iran” to bring about a “peaceful transition” of the government.
In Europe, despite the MEK’s influence among some EU parliamentarians, the EU at the highest levels is still staunchly pro-engagement with Iran, with Frederica Mogherini due to attend Rouhani’s inauguration. For the EU to make a sudden turnaround and support a group like the MEK is highly unlikely—especially given their vested economic interests—unless the United States makes a strategic change of its view towards the MEK and brings significant pressure on Europe, such as secondary sanctions, to follow course.
Habilian: From a global security point of view, how are groups like the MEK viewed by security experts? What political future can be assumed for the MEK?
Mousavian: According to numerous independent studies, including by U.S. research organizations such as RAND, the MEK is a wholly illegitimate cult whose existence is entirely reliant on patronage by countries hostile to Iran. Its future depends only on the extent to which it can continue doing the bidding of these benefactors, which nowadays is chiefly Saudi Arabia.
Habilian: Saudi Arabia has apparently joined the club of MEK supporters. Could the MEK-Saudi connection worsen the already chaotic security situation in the Middle East?
Mousavian: Saudi Arabia’s endorsement of the MEK reflects their utterly poor understanding of Iran and Iranian politics. By supporting the MEK, they gain absolutely no bargaining chip or leverage over Iran—if that is the motivation—but only increase the apathy of the Iranian public towards them and thus, make the prospects for successful Iran-Saudi diplomacy more difficult.
Habilian: Could the recent military breakthroughs achieved by Iran and its allies in the region intensify the tension between Saudi led axis and Iran? Especially with the new crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman coming to power soon. Are the Saudis counting on MEK’s experience of perpetrating terrorism in the country to hurt Iran’s security?
Mousavian: The consolidation of control over their territories by the Syrian and Iraqi governments should convince Saudi leaders that their attempts to subvert these governments have failed. Now that Mohammad bin Salman has secured his throne, he would be wise to end these foreign adventures which have entangled his country and cost it dearly and pursue diplomacy.
Habilian: The newly elected French government on one hand seems to prefer better economic and diplomatic ties with Iran and on the other hand they allow a detested group like the MEK to hold rallies and openly call for the overthrow of the legal and democratically elected government in the country. How could this double-standard be justified by French cabinet?
Mousavian: France is playing a hypocritical and destabilizing game by hosting the MEK, a group that has no place in any democratic or civilized society. If France wants to signal to Iran that it is serious about its intention to improve its political and economic relations with Iran, it must stop allowing the group to operate on French soil.
From Iran to Nice, We Must Confront All Terrorism to End Terrorism
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, Huffington Post, July 23 2016:… The MEK’s hands are tainted not only with American blood, but also with the blood of countless Iranians, Iraqis and Kurds. Since Iran’s 1979 revolution, the MEK has been responsible for the deaths of upwards of 17,000 Iranians, including senior officials and ministers. During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK also sided …
From Iran to Nice, We Must Confront All Terrorism to End Terrorism
Seyed Hossein Mousavian
Head of Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council (1997-2005)
MEK’s Terrorism in Iran
In the ‘80s and ‘90s, the MEK was responsible for several terrorist campaigns within Iran, one of which killed some 70 Iranian officials in 1981, including both the president and prime minister at the time.
The Saudi Connection
During my trip to Iran a few weeks ago, I spoke with a senior official about the necessity of improving Iran-Saudi relations. He told me that Iran was willing to engage the Saudis but that Riyadh had devoted itself to a confrontational approach. This official informed me that Iran had detailed intelligence about Riyadh’s financial support to the MEK, which he said had increased 800 percent in the past two years. He also noted that Saudi Arabia would cover the cost of this year’s MEK conference in Paris and that Prince Turki would be present to publicly declare Saudi Arabia’s support.
Saudi Arabia and ISIS
In light of the Nice terrorist attack, the international community should also view the threat from other groups such as the MEK as an interconnected phenomenon. The scourge of terrorismcurrently threatening the whole world can only be alleviated if it is addressed in a holistic way. The Nice truck slaughter — indeed the slaughtering by ISIS in general — and the MEK’s killing of thousands of Iranians are both worthy of our attention and condemnation. The territory the perpetrators of such violence use to plan and launch attacks, as well as the flow of cash, equipment and ideology they draw their support and influence from should all be considered as pieces of the same terrorism “puzzle.” The global terrorist threat simply cannot be solved until all these pieces are recognized as being a part of the same puzzle and dealt with in an effective and simultaneous manner. This means not only increasing security to prevent attacks, but also seriously confronting those who aid terrorism in any way — from the MEK to ISIS.
The West’s Terrorist “Catch and Release” Program
Tony Cartalucci, Global research, April 14 2016:… MEK, it should be noted, is guilty of killing American civilians and military personnel, as well as continuing a campaign of terrorism against civilian and political targets in Iran. Brookings in fact, admits this while proposing the US’ use of the terrorist organization to carry out US foreign policy objectives. If MEK is a suitable candidate for Western sponsorship, why not ISIS? Considering this, and the “coincidental” …
The West’s Terrorist “Catch and Release” Program
Virtually every suspect involved in recent Brussels bombing had been tracked, arrested, in custody – either by European security agencies or the agencies of their allies – but inexplicably released and allowed to carry out both the Brussels attack as well as the Paris attack that preceded it.
So obvious is this fact, that the Western media itself admits it, but simply dismisses the obvious and deeper implications such facts pose by claiming it is merely systemic incompetence.
The Wall Street Journal would admit that the recently arrested “man in the hat” also known as Mohamed Abrini, was also arrested for suspected terrorist activity – allegedly scoping out potential targets in the UK – but also – like his collaborators – inexplicably released. His brother had been to Syria where he fought and died alongside the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS), and Abrini himself too appears to have been in Syria.
The Wall Street Journal’s article, “Brussels Suspect Mohamed Abrini: What We Know,” reports that:
After the U.K., Mr. Abrini traveled to Paris and then Brussels, where he was arrested but then released, according to the two people. But Belgian authorities passed the information about his U.K. trip, including images found on his phone, to the British, the sources said.
Abrini’s case of “catch and release” before carrying out a successful string of deadly attacks across Europe, is just the latest.
West’s ISIS Catch & Release Program
Germany’s largest press agency, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, reported in their article, “Reports: Brothers known to police were among Brussels suicide bombers,” that:
Two Brussels brothers who were known to police are among the suicide bombers who carried out deadly terrorist attacks on the international airport and subway in the Belgian capital, local media reported Wednesday.
[Khalid El Bakraoui] had been sentenced in early 2011 to five years in prison for carjackings, after having been arrested in possession of Kalashnikov rifles, according to the Belga news agency.
His brother, 30-year-old Brahim, had been sentenced in 2010 to nine years in prison for having shot at police with a Kalashnikov rifle during a hold-up, Belga said.
The New York Times, in their article, “Brussels Attack Lapses Acknowledged by Belgian Officials,” would report regarding another Brussels bombing suspect, Brahim El Bakraoui, and his arrest and deportation from Turkey that:
The Belgian justice and interior ministers acknowledged that their departments should have acted on a Turkish alert about a convicted Belgian criminal briefly arrested in Turkey last year on suspicion of terrorist activity, who turned out to be one of the suicide bombers. And the Belgian prosecutor’s office said that person’s brother — another suicide bomber — had been wanted since December in connection with the Paris attacks.
That makes 4 suspects who were known to European security agencies for violent crimes and/or terrorism, with each and every one of them in custody before the attacks unfolded.
For fisheries around the world, the concept of “catch and release” allows anglers to enjoy the fishing experience while preserving the numbers and health of fish populations. The concept of “catch and release” for Western security and intelligence agencies appears very similar – to maintain the illusion of counterterrorism operations, while maintaining the numbers and health of terrorist organizations around the world.
Answering “to what end” the West is allowing terrorists to successfully carry out attacks against Western targets, the answer is quite simple. It allows for the expansion of power and control at home while justifying endless and profitable wars abroad.
The creation and perpetuation of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS by the West and its allies serve another, admitted purpose. In the 1980′s it was admitted that Al Qaeda was created to wage proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In 2011, the US and its NATO and Persian Gulf allies used terrorists linked to Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria in an attempt to overthrow their respective governments.
Today, ISIS serves both as an armed proxy waging full-scale war on the governments of Syria, Iraq, and more indirectly Iran and Russia, as well as a means to threaten and coerce nations around the world.
Political impasses in Southeast Asia revolving around America’s waning influence in the region have been met with the sudden and otherwise inexplicable appearance of ISIS. In one case, Indonesia signed a large rail deal while pursuing other economic and military partnerships with Beijing, before suffering its fist ISIS attack in its capital, Jakarta.
Thailand was likewise threatened by the US of an imminent ISIS attack, amid attempts by Bangkok to uproot the political networks of US-backed political proxy, Thaksin Shinawatra. Bangkok has also shown hesitation to sign the unpopular US-sponsored Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement.
Bangkok was already hit by terrorism last year after returning suspected terrorists to China to face justice against America’s repeated protests. Just months later, groups tied to NATO terrorist front, the Turkish Grey Wolves, carried out a bombing in the center of Bangkok.
ISIS, its counterparts, and peripheral groups like NATO’s Grey Wolves, serve multiple roles for the West. They are a pretext to invade and occupy foreign nations, a proxy army to wage war against its enemies with, and a means of maintaining fear and obedience at home under the auspices of an increasing police state. It is difficult to believe the West could maintain its current foreign and domestic policy without this menace – it has become an integral part of Western geopolitical strategy.
Would a Signed Confession Convince You?
Many are quick to dismiss evidence of Western special interests’ use of terrorists and terrorism to project geopolitical power abroad and maintain control at home. This is despite the admitted nature of the West’s role in the creation and utilization of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the 1980s, and signed and dated policy papers like the Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” document which openly advocated using listed-terrorist organization, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), to wage a proxy campaign of violence against the Iranian people and their government.
MEK, it should be noted, is guilty of killing American civilians and military personnel, as well as continuing a campaign of terrorism against civilian and political targets in Iran. Brookings in fact, admits this while proposing the US’ use of the terrorist organization to carry out US foreign policy objectives. If MEK is a suitable candidate for Western sponsorship, why not ISIS?
Considering this, and the “coincidental” arming and funding of “rebels” in Libya by the US and its allies in 2011 who are now verifiably members of listed terrorist organizations, revelations of US involvement behind the rise of ISIS should come as little surprise.
And beyond mere speculation, a 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report leaked to the public, admits that the US and its allies sought the creation of a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) in eastern Syria, precisely where ISIS now resides.
The US DIA admitted:
If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).
The DIA document then explains exactly who this “Salafist principality’s” supporters are (and who its true enemies are):
The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
All that’s left is for the Pentagon to perhaps, disclose payslips for ISIS leaders or logistical documents regarding US-NATO resupply operations for ISIS along the Turkish-Syrian border – and perhaps even such a disclosure would still not be enough to convince some in the West that the special interests posing as their leaders are complicit in creating not only ISIS, but organizing and ensuring the chaos they cause unfolding at home and abroad wherever and whenever needed.The fact that literally ever Brussels and Paris attack suspect was known to and in many cases detained by Western security agencies before the attacks, yet were released before being allowed to carry out their attacks successfully, proves that the West is enjoying the “experience” of maintaining a war on terror, but like good fishery conservationists, is ensuring the populations of their quarry remain healthy and numerous.