Various media outlets, May 24 2018:… “America is a disloyal, atrocious, criminal, isolated, angry enemy with disloyal, corrupt leaders whose salaries are paid by the Zionists and the MKO [People’s Mujahedin of Iran] terrorist group,” Bagheri said, “This is while Iran as a big nation is faithful to its promises and remains committed to the international laws,” Bagheri said. He added, “Today Iran has reached its peak of power” …
Iran: Corrupt American leaders’ salaries paid by MEK (Pompeo speech unites Iranians)
1- Pompeo’s speech unites Iranian media, politicians
Al-Monitor Staff May 22, 2018
Link to the source
Iranian officials and the normally divided Iranian media have uniformly rejected and ridiculed the May 21 speech by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo outlining 12 demands of Iran that in essence would fundamentally transform the Islamic Republic.
Iran Newspaper, controlled by President Hassan Rouhani’s administration, headlined its article on the speech “The illusions of the newly arrived politician.” The article stated that the speech outlined “Trump’s hostile policies toward Iran.” The Reformist Etemad chose the headline “Pompeo’s delusions” for its front-page story. While the Donald Trump administration is promising unprecedented sanctions against Iran and trying to put pressure on Tehran, Etemad reported, America’s closest allies in Europe are busy negotiating with Iran on how to keep trade and the nuclear deal alive.
The newspaper Javan, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, used its headline to call Pompeo’s speech “bluster.” According to the article, Pompeo had tried to act like Trump in his speech, making 25 false statements. In addition, Pompeo said “Iran must” 15 times. The article charged that when Pompeo was 14, the United States would say what Iran “must” do, and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would say “yes,” but then Iran kicked out the shah. Javan described Pompeo’s 12 demands as “unintentionally listing America’s failures and Iran’s ascending strength.”
Kayhan, whose editor is appointed by the supreme leader’s office and is often the first to attack the Rouhani administration for every perceived and imagined shortcoming, saved its wrath for Pompeo. The headline for its front-page article roughly translates “To hell with Pompeo’s 12” and makes reference to America’s “big mouth.” The article said that Pompeo’s speech, which channels Trump, was a reminder that whenever a country retreats in the face of the United States, Washington only increases its demands of it.
A number of Iranian officials also commented on Pompeo’s speech. In a speech delivered May 21, Rouhani likened Pompeo’s demands to those from George W. Bush’s presidency, adding, “The world will not accept America making decisions for all countries.” On Pompeo, Rouhani said, “That a person who worked in a spy agency for years becomes the secretary of the state and wants to make decisions for all of the countries is in no way acceptable.” Rouhani asked rhetorically, “Who are you to decide for the world and Iran in the field of nuclear energy what Iran must do?”
The Foreign Ministry released a statement responding to what it called Pompeo’s “insulting comments.” It described Pompeo’s speech as an attempt to “divert world attention from America’s illegal action and violation of the nuclear deal.” It also said Pompeo’s speech once again demonstrated America’s “poor intelligence, weak insight and backward analysis” in its decision-making process. It added that those in America who are seeking war “do not know history nor are they able to learn its lessons.” In response to Pompeo’s accusations that Iran supports terrorist groups, the statement countered, referring to the United States “as the father of al-Qaeda, Daesh [Islamic State], the hypocrites [Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, MEK], Jundollah and other takfiri terrorist groups.”
Even the normally soft-spoken Mohammad-Bagher Nobakht, spokesman for the Rouhani administration, struck an unusually harsh tone in his weekly press conference May 22, in light of Pompeo’s speech. Nobakht referred to post-revolutionary Iran in the 1980s, asking rhetorically whether the United States remembers Iran’s foreign policy of “neither East nor West” or the US helicopters that crashed in Iran attempting to rescue US hostages in 1980 or Iran not being weakened by the MEK bombing campaigns. Nobakht expressed incredulity at comments by US national security adviser John Bolton to an MEK crowd that they would be celebrating in Tehran in 2018.
2- IRAN HAS REACHED ‘PEAK OF POWER’ AND SAYS IT’S READY FOR WAR IF U.S. ATTACKS
News week, Tom O’connor 5/23/18 AT 2:04 PM
Link to the source
top Iranian general has warned the U.S. that his forces are prepared for any potential military action as President Donald Trump threatens to escalate his campaign against Tehran.
Major General Iranian Mohammad Hossein Bagheri, chief of staff for Iran’s armed forces, made the remarks to parliament Wednesday as the country braced for further U.S. sanctions. The Trump administration has accused Iran of destabilizing the Middle East through support for foreign militias and developing ballistic missile technology, but Iranian officials have emphasized their commitment to a 2015 nuclear deal that the U.S. withdrew from earlier this month despite international pleas to remain.
“America is a disloyal, atrocious, criminal, isolated, angry enemy with disloyal, corrupt leaders whose salaries are paid by the Zionists and the MKO [People’s Mujahedin of Iran] terrorist group,” Bagheri said, according to the official Iranian National News Agency.
“This is while Iran as a big nation is faithful to its promises and remains committed to the international laws,” Bagheri said. He added, “Today Iran has reached its peak of power” and would not wait for permission to pursue its domestic and regional interests.
Trump’s May 8 exit from the multilateral nuclear agreement, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has triggered further regional instability. Shortly after Trump’s announcement, Israeli jets struck suspected Iranian military sites in Syria, followed by a rocket attack targeting Israeli forces in the occupied Golan Heights. Israel responded with the largest wave of airstrikes against Syria since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
The White House has defended Israel, which is widely believed to be behind a years-long campaign of airstrikes against Iranian and pro-Iran positions in Syria. Countries such as Russia and China, which have joined Iran in backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against rebels and jihadis, have urged both sides to show restraint.
Russia and China, along with France, Germany and the U.K., are signatories to the 2015 nuclear agreement and called on Trump not to abandon it. In the U.S.’s absence, these nations have embarked on extensive negotiations with Iran in an attempt to save the deal as the regional flare-up threatened to erupt into an all-out conflict.
The U.S., which supported the 2011 uprising against Assad that precipitated the seven-year war in Syria, has targeted Syrian government sites in the wake of alleged chemical attacks and has launched airstrikes against pro-Syrian government fighters amid clashes in southern and eastern Syria. After Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed to launch “the strongest sanctions in history” against Iran on Monday, the Pentagon said it was considering “new actions” targeting the revolutionary Shiite Muslim power.
Ismail Kowsari, the deputy commander of the Sarollah Revolutionary Guards base in Tehran, responded to Pompeo’s first major policy speech by calling on Iranians to unite and “deliver a strong punch to the mouth of the American secretary of state and anyone who backs them.”
Despite calls from the U.S. and Israel to withdraw, Iran has said it would remain in Syria as long as the Syrian government welcomed its presence. Tehran emphasized its stance after fellow Assad ally Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Syrian leader that all foreign fighters—including Iranians and those supportive of Iran—should eventually leave as Syria’s armed forces claimed consecutive victories. The Syrian government considers only Russian and Iranian intervention to be legal and has called on the U.S. and Turkey to withdraw their troops immediately.
“This topic is not even on the agenda of discussion, since it concerns the sovereignty of Syria. We cannot let anyone even raise this issue. Those who ask for something like that—and this is definitely not our Russian friends—are considering the possibility of intervention in all parts of Syria, including the support of terrorists in Syria and elsewhere in the region,” Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad told Russia’s state-run Sputnik News.
Mekdad said that the Syrian government “highly appreciates” the contribution of Iranian and Russian forces to the fight against insurgents and said “the United States must stop supporting terrorists and respect Syria’s sovereignty and choice of the Syrian people.”
3- Pompeo’s Iran speech is complete fantasy
CNN, Jonathan Cristol, 2254 GMT (0654 HKT) May 21, 2018
Link to the source
Editor’s Note: Jonathan Cristol is Levermore Research Fellow at Adelphi University and a Senior Fellow at Bard College’s Center for Civic Engagement. Follow him @jonathancristol. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.
(CNN)On Monday morning, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington: “After the Deal: A New Iran Strategy.” Over 26 minutes, Pompeo articulated a strategy that can best be summarized as, “Do everything we say, or we will crush you.” This speech was the first clear articulation of American Iran policy since President Donald Trump effectively withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (a.k.a. “the Iran deal”) on May 12.
Now, self-proclaimed master deal maker President Trump has a new deal in mind for Iran, one that would effectively require Iran to change the very nature of its regime and reverse its core foreign policy principles — deterring the United States, supporting Shias abroad and overturning the regional order.
4- Commander says Iran’s people will punch U.S. Secretary of State in the mouth
Reuters, MAY 22, 2018 / 7:26 AM
Link to the source
BEIRUT (Reuters) – A senior Iranian military commander poured scorn on U.S. threats to tighten sanctions on Tuesday, saying the Islamic Republic’s people would respond by punching U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the mouth.
Pompeo said on Monday Washington would impose new penalties if Tehran did not make sweeping changes, including dropping its nuclear program and pulling out of the Syrian civil war.
Two weeks after President Donald Trump pulled out of an international nuclear deal with Iran, his administration has threatened to impose “the strongest sanctions in history,” setting Washington and Tehran further on a course of confrontation.
“The people of Iran should stand united in the face of this and they will deliver a strong punch to the mouth of the American Secretary of State and anyone who backs them,” Ismail Kowsari, the deputy commander of the Sarollah Revolutionary Guards base in Tehran said, according to the Iranian Labour News Agency.
Limiting Iran’s missile capabilities was one of Pompeo’s main demands.
“Who are you and America to tell us to limit the range of ballistic missiles?” Kowsari said, according to ILNA. “History has shown that with the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, America is the top criminal with regard to missiles,” he added.
Qassem Soleimani, the head of the branch of the Revolutionary Guards that carries out operations outside Iran’s borders, was singled out by Pompeo as a top troublemaker in the Middle East.
Kowsari said that the Iranian people back Soleimani.
“Soleimani is not a single person. The great people of Iran support him,” Kowsari said.
Separately, Iran’s government spokesman said that the plan outlined by Pompeo would exacerbate the public’s hostility to the United States.
“Do the Americans think that the silk glove that they’ve taken out and the iron hand that they’ve extended to the people, a hand that’s backed by Israel and the [Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization], will make Iranian people think that America wants democracy?” Mohammad Baqer Nobakht said on Tuesday, according to state media.
The Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) is an exiled Iranian armed opposition group which has called for the overthrow of the Iranian government for decades.
John Bolton, the U.S. national security advisor, has been a supporter of the MKO, which the Iranian government sees as a terrorist group.
Reporting By Babak Dehghanpisheh; Editing by Andrew Heavens
5- Why Pompeo’s Iran speech was So Outrageous
Farhang Jahanpour, 05/23/2018
Link to the source
Oxford (The Transnational) – Speaking at the Heritage Foundation…, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo practically declared war on Iran. His unprecedented threats against Iran went even beyond what President Trump had said in the past.
Commenting on the speech (full transcript here), JStreet wrote: “With their decision to violate the historic JCPOA arms control agreement, the president and his ‘war cabinet’ have created a strategic disaster of their own making and undone the major accomplishments of the previous administration. They have made the US, Israel and the world less safe.”
Short history of Iran’s nuclear activities: 1957 to the JCPOA
After 12 years of intensive talks, initially between Britain, France and Germany (the EU-3), and finally between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany (P5+1), Iran and the leading world powers reached a landmark agreement. The nuclear deal (officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) was the result of the efforts of the greatest experts in nuclear non-proliferation, including experts from the IAEA and departments of energy and intelligence service of all those countries.
Iran’s nuclear programme had started in 1957 with the help of the United States as a part of the Atoms for Peace program, when a “proposed agreement for cooperation in research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy” was announced.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Mohammad Reza Shah’s government started an ambitious nuclear program. It established the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre in 1967, with a US-supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, which was fueled by highly enriched uranium.
Iran was one of the first countries to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. The NPT allows all member states to engage in peaceful nuclear activity, including full range of processing, so long as they refrain from manufacturing nuclear weapons.
In return, the five recognized nuclear states (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France) promised to move towards the elimination of their nuclear weapons in “good faith”. Not only have they not fulfilled this requirement, on the contrary, they have continued to develop more and more deadly and sophisticated nuclear weapons, and they have also been joined by India, Pakistan, Israel and recently by North Korea.
In 1974, with US backing, the Shah approved plans to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations, producing 23,000 megawatts of electricity. US and European companies competed against each other to help build those reactors.
In 1975, the Erlangen/Frankfurt firm signed a contract worth up to $6 billion to build the first nuclear power station in Bushehr. President Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Iran the chance to buy and operate US built power stations, including a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.
After the Islamic Revolution, all those programmes were suspended, including the Bushehr power station that was nearly complete.
The start of the eight-year long Iran-Iraq war further delayed the resumption of the nuclear program. Eventually, in 1981 during the presidency of the late Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Iranian officials decided that the country’s nuclear development should continue.
They turned to the Western countries that had promised to build reactors in Iran to resume their work, but all of them refused to cooperate.
In 1983, IAEA officials were keen to assist Iran in various aspects of reactor fuel fabrication, chemical engineering and design aspects of pilot plants for uranium conversion, corrosion of nuclear materials, LWR fuel fabrication, and pilot plant development for production of nuclear grade UO2. However, contrary to NPT regulations, the United States directly intervened to discourage IAEA assistance to Iran.
Finally, Iran turned to China, but under US pressure China too dropped her nuclear commerce with Iran.
However, Iran was successful to persuade Russia to complete the Bushehr reactor, which was completed after long delay and at great cost to Iran. Faced with this situation, Iran decided to conduct her own work on nuclear enrichment, in which she succeeded.
The United States imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran and forced other countries to follow suit. Iran was taken to the Security Council, which also imposed crippling sanctions that cut Iran’s oil exports by half and cost Iran billions of dollars in lost revenue.
Iran continued with her nuclear programme and increased the number of her centrifuges, despite threats of war, crippling sanctions, cyber sabotage, the assassination of her nuclear scientists by Israeli agents, etc.
It was only after President Barack Obama agreed that as a member of the NPT Iran was entitled to a peaceful nuclear programme that intense negotiations started, resulting in the JCPOA.
While establishing her right to engage in nuclear activity, Iran accepted the harshest conditions as confidence-building measures. The agreement reduced Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile by 98 percent and restricted the level of enrichment to 3.67 percent.
Given that an enrichment level of more than 90 percent is needed to build a nuclear bomb, the deal makes it impossible for Iran’s uranium to be weaponized.
Under the deal, Iran also reduced the number of its centrifuges from 20,000 to a little over 5,000, far below the number that would be needed for manufacturing a single bomb, even if she wanted to do so. Iran closed the Arak reactor, which was capable of producing plutonium, and agreed to severe restrictions on research and development activities in other facilities.
In short, the agreement made it virtually impossible for Iran to build a single bomb.
Some of Pompeo’s intolerable conditions
1) Pompeo demands that: “First, Iran must declare to the IAEA full account of prior military dimension of its nuclear programme, and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity”.
This is something that was pursued under PMU or Possible Military Use during the talks. The IAEA studied all those allegations, including taking soil samples from Parchin military base where the Israelis had claimed that nuclear activity had been conducted. The IAEA decided that there had been “no diversion” of nuclear material for military use.
Iran has agreed to abandon work on nuclear weapons in perpetuity, and all the talk about so-called “sunset clauses” is baseless. In addition to being a member of the NPT, Iran has also joined the “Additional Protocol”, which requires continuous, unannounced inspections of all her nuclear sites, and she has also given an undertaking never to produce nuclear weapons.
The prohibitions do not stop at the end of the “sunset clauses”, but will continue in perpetuity.
The IAEA that is the only legal body in charge of monitoring the deal has, on eleven separate occasions, certified that Iran has fully complied with the terms of the deal.
2) “Second, Iran must stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing. This includes closing its heavy water reactor.”
Demanding that Iran should stop enrichment goes against NPT rules. As for “never pursuing plutonium reprocessing”, this is precisely what Iran has agreed to do under the JCPOA, and has destroyed her heavy water reactor.
3) “Third, Iran must also provide to the IAEA full unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country.”
This is again another provision of the JCPOA, which the IAEA has used on many occasions.
4) “Iran must end its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt the launching or development of nuclear-capable missiles.”
This is yet another misleading and illegal demand. Like any other country, Iran has the right to defend herself (UN Chater Art 51) and as she is unable to acquire advanced military equipment that the United States has readily sold to all Iranian neighbours, Iran’s missiles are her only means of deterring a military aggression.
Iran does not have intercontinental ballistic missiles as she has limited the range of her missiles to 2,000 kilometres. They are not designed to carry nuclear weapons, and in any case Iran does not have nuclear warheads.
5) Pompeo accused Iran of spreading terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc.
Iran has been fighting against ISIS and other terrorists in Iraq and Syria at the invitation of the governments of those countries. It is up to the Syrian government to ask Iran to withdraw her forces from that country, not for a US Secretary of State to dictate to other countries what they should and should not do.
All experts agree that the mantra of “Iran-backed Houthis” is exaggerated propaganda, as Iran’s contacts with the Houthis and influence over them is minimal.
It is Saudi Arabia and members of her coalition who, with American support, have been bombing Yemen, killing and wounding tens of thousands of innocent people and creating the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe there.
What this is really about: Obsession with revenge and regime change
President Trump and his three senior officials, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani, seem to be preparing the ground for a disastrous war with Iran.
Their hostility towards Iran does not seem to have anything to do with Iran’s nuclear programme, but has everything to do with an obsession for regime change.
Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, Mike Pompeo boasted that “one of the first things the President did is to go build a coalition of [Persian] Gulf states and Israel to help find a platform which could uniformly push back against Iranian expansionism.”(1)
When he was still a member of Congress in 2016, Pompeo called for action to “change Iranian behaviour, and, ultimately, Iranian regime.” (2)
In the past, he has called for strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.(3)
Some of his hostility towards Iran seems to have been based on his hatred of Islam. In 2015, Pompeo, then a Congressman, attacked Barack Obama, who, according to him, took the side of the “Islamic East” in its conflict with the “Christian West”. “Every time there has been a conflict between the Christian West and the Islamic East, the data points all point to a single direction,” he said.
Some of his hostility towards Iran seems to have been based on his hatred of Islam. In 2015, Pompeo, then a Congressman, attacked Barack Obama, who, according to him, took the side of the “Islamic East” in its conflict with the “Christian West”. “Every time there has been a conflict between the Christian West and the Islamic East, the data points all point to a single direction,” he said. (4)
John Bolton is another strong advocate of regime change in Iran.
In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on 15 January 2018, entitled “Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal: US policy should be to end the Islamic Republic before its 40th anniversary”, Bolton condemned the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran as a “massive strategic blunder.”
However, he went on to say that American policy, “should be ending Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution before its fortieth anniversary.”
He continued: “Recognizing a new Iranian regime in 2019 would reverse the shame of once seeing our diplomats held hostage for four hundred and forty-four days. The former hostages can cut the ribbon to open the new U.S. Embassy in Tehran.” (5)
The former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, who is now a member of Trump’s legal team has also been a fervent advocate of regime change in Iran.
Speaking at a conference of the terrorist, cultish group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation, in Washington on 5 May 2018, Rudy Giuliani openly said that Washington’s policy was regime change in Iran, and he even promised that next year they would celebrate the event in Tehran. (6)
This obsession with the past and a deliberate decision to bring about a regime change in Iran will have incalculable costs.
Let’s not forget that prior to Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the authors of that war, predicted that it would be a “cake walk”, that it “would pay for itself”, and that “US forces would be welcomed with roses”.
Fifteen years after that disastrous war, American forces are still operating in that country, and the war which has cost trillions of dollars to US taxpayers has killed and wounded millions of innocent Iraqi people, shattered that country and has given rise to a number of vicious terrorist movements.
It should be clear to everyone who is familiar with the Middle East that a war against Iran will not be like Iraq, it will be much worse. It will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, will set the Middle East on fire and will do a great damage to Israel and other US allies that she seemingly wishes to support.
During his confirmation hearing at the US Senate, Mike Pompeo was asked if Russia was a unique country. He replied: “This [US] is a unique, exceptional country. Russia is unique, but not exceptional.” (7)
This kind of aggressive, bullying, threatening, demanding and illegal language has not been heard from a responsible government official since before the Second World War.
The concept of Americans being unique and exceptional and almost chosen by God, and referring to other nations as inferior, in the way that President Trump referred to the Latinos as animals, is not far removed from the concept of a superior race and Der Untermensch, or subhuman people.
If we wish to avoid the horrors of the Second World, we must put an end to this kind of arrogant mentality.
It is time for the Europeans, for all the peace-loving Americans and for millions of concerned people across the world who will be paying the cost of this misadventure to stop this madness before it is too late.
1. Aspen Security Forum, The View from Langley, July 20, 2017.
2. “Rep. Mike Pompeo: One year later, Obama’s Iran nuclear deal puts us at increased risk”, Fox News Opinion, July 14, 2016.
3. Raphael Ahren, “With anti-Iran, pro-Israel stances, Pompeo may become Jerusalem’s new darling”, The Times of Israel, 14 March 2018.
4. Peter Beinart, “Mike Pompeo at State Would Enable Trump’s Worst Instincts”, The Atlantic, Nov 30, 2017.
5. “Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal: US policy should be to end the Islamic Republic before its 40th anniversary”, Wall Street Journal, Jan 15, 2018.
6. “Rudy Giuliani speaks at Iran Freedom Convention”, CBSN, May 5, 2018.
7. USA: ‘US exceptional, Russia is not’ – Trump’s Sec of State pick Pompeo on YouTube here.
Reprinted with author’s permission from The Transnational
َAlireza Jafarzadeh has already published his suicide bombing note.
Wondering at those Americans who stand under the flag of Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, NCRI, Rajavi cult) only to LOBBY for the murderers of their servicemen
Trump using Israeli Mossad and MEK (Mojahedin Khalq Terrorist organisation) against American public
Jamal Abdi, National Iranian American Council (NIAC), May 08 2018:… While they are targeting pro-peace voices within the Iranian-American community, there is also an effort to elevate the voices for war. The revelation about Black Cube came on the same day as the MEK terrorist organization hosted its first conference in Washington, DC in 12 years, featuring Trump lawyer and confidante Rudy Giuliani as its keynote speaker. The aim of …
(The Following was released by NIAC on May 07 2018 – Iran Interlink)
Trump Hired Israeli Intelligence Firm to Target Former Obama Officials & NIAC
We were angered and shocked to find out over the weekend that NIAC had been targeted by operatives of Black Cube – a private Israeli Intelligence firm that conducted “dirty ops” against former Obama Administration officialsas part of a campaign to discredit and silence supporters of diplomacy with Iran. What makes the matter even worse is that Black Cube was hired by the Trump Administration.
These reports have been met by public outrage and the Trump Administration now faces intense scrutiny as it decides whether to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran deal this weekend. Donald Trump’s utilization of foreign agents to target former U.S. government officials and organizations like ours warrants a full investigation by the Justice Department as well as Congress. NIAC is now actively reviewing our own legal options to hold the perpetrators of this Nixonian campaign accountable.
These revelations confirm the lengths to which this Administration will go to unravel the Iran deal and set the stage for a war.
It also shows how those who want war with Iran have sought to target NIAC and prevent Iranian Americans from having a powerful, politically effective voice for peace. This latest campaign against us is just the most recent example of the coordinated effort to divide and weaken our community.
While they are targeting pro-peace voices within the Iranian-American community, there is also an effort to elevate the voices for war. The revelation about Black Cube came on the same day as the MEK terrorist organization hosted its first conference in Washington, DC in 12 years, featuring Trump lawyer and confidante Rudy Giuliani as its keynote speaker.
The aim of the event, which received significant media coverage around Giuliani’s call for U.S.-sponsored regime change and tearing up the Iran deal, was to establish the MEK as the voice of Iranian Americans.
As Iranian Americans, we cannot succumb and allow Trump, Netanyahu, or the MEK to target us and claim to speak for our community.
The overwhelming majority of Iranian Americans do not want war with Iran and do not want the U.S. to turn Iran into another Iraq. With the clouds of war gathering, it is incumbent that our community unite now behind an organized effort to stop military action and raise our voices rather than allow a former terrorist group to speak for us.
Trump and Black Cube’s targeting of us has only doubled our determination not to be silenced or intimidated from carrying out our mission of ensuring that the Iranian-American community has the power to shape the issues that most affect us. We will do everything we can, along with our allies, to empower our community and prevent this Administration from taking the US into an unjustified and unnecessary war with Iran.
Stand with us. Stand for peace.
Jamal AbdiJamal Abdi joined the National Iranian American Council as Policy Director in November 2009, directing NIAC’s efforts to monitor policies and legislation, and to educate and advocate on behalf of the Iranian-American community. Abdi joined NIAC’s team following his work in the US Congress as Policy Advisor to Representative Brian Baird (D-WA). Jamal tweets at @jabdi.
Rudy Giuliani in Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) gathering in Washington. (Where’s Rudy Getting the Money?)
Amir Tibon, Haaretz, and Josh Marshall, TPM, May 06 2018:… The group that hosted Giuliani has been accused by critics of being a “front organization” for Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that was designated in the past as a terrorist organization by the United States. John Bolton, Trump’s new national security adviser, who is considered to have his own ties to the MEK. A recent article in Foreign Policy …
Trump ‘Committed’ to Iran Regime Change, Giuliani Says Days Before Nuclear Deadline
President’s lawyer and confidante calls regime change ‘the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East’ and ‘more important than an Israeli-Palestinian deal’
Amir TRabon, May 06 2018:
Link to the source
WASHINGTON – U.S. President Donald Trump is “committed” to regime change in Iran, Trump’s lawyer and confidante Rudy Giuliani said on Saturday. The unusual statement comes just days before Trump will have to make a dramatic decision on the fate of the nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.
Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, said at an event hosted by an Iranian opposition group in Washington that regime change in Iran is “the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East.”
The president is “as committed to regime change as we are,” Giuliani said in his address. Giuliani predicted that Trump will withdraw the United States from the 2015 deal with Iran. “With Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on his right side, and National Security Adviser John Bolton on his left side, what do you think is going to happen to that agreement?” Giuliani asked with a grin.
Giuliani said that regime change in Tehran was “more important than an Israeli-Palestinian deal” and could contribute to reaching such a deal in the future.
While he does not hold an official position within the Trump administration, Giuliani is considered a close adviser to the president, and was recently added to his legal team dealing with the investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, as well as with the scandal surrounding Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
The group that hosted Giuliani has been accused by critics of being a “front organization” for Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that was designated in the past as a terrorist organization by the United States. John Bolton, Trump’s new national security adviser, who is considered to have his own ties to the MEK. A recent article in Foreign Policy included a quote by a congressional aide who said that “Bolton is positively predisposed to the MEK,” and that with his appointment, “they will have some access to this White House at the least.”
Trump must decide by May 12 whether to recertify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal or to reimpose nuclear-related sanctions. He has stated in recent weeks that the deal is a “disaster” and that it never should have been signed. European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have lobbied him not to withdraw from the agreement.
Meanwhile, former U.S. secretary of state John Kerry has reportedly met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif twice over the past two months in an effort to save the deal.
Where’s Rudy Getting the Money?
Josh Marshall, May 06 2018:
Link to the source
I mentioned a few days ago that just last March Rudy Giuliani went to Albania to speak before an Iranian exile group which is widely regarded as a cult and was for many years a US-government designated terrorist group. Giuliani is a long-time recipient of money (for speeches and lobbying) from the MEK and its various front groups. (There’s no word yet on what he was paid if anything for the March appearance.)
This evening we have news that Giuliani spoke in Washington today before a group called the Organization of Iranian-American Communities and promised that President Trump (for whom Giuliani now works as lead personal lawyer) remains “committed” to regime change in Iran. I don’t know if Giuliani was paid for this appearance as well. But few if any of the news reports note that the OIAC is a front group for the MeK, the cult group noted above. (See this report also which similarly confirms the group’s front group relationship to the MEK.)
It’s not clear to me that as the President’s personal lawyer Giuliani has any disclosure obligations that would reveal his financial ties to the MeK. But he is clearly acting as a representative of the President on Iran policy as well as representing him in the Mueller probe.
The Cult of Rajavi and the Obsession of Trump Support
Nejat Society, October 08 2017:… For years Bolton has been advocating bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, either by Israel, the US, or both,” Sahimi writes. “He is also a lobbyist for Mujahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MEK, also known as MKO), an Iranian opposition group that for years was listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and is universally despised by the Iranian people for its …
The Cult of Rajavi and the Obsession of Trump Support
With Trump’s apparent determination to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI/ the Cult of Rajavi) has just found more room to move around the US government to launch its anti-Iran lobbying campaign more generously –pushing its paid advocates to run their “war on Iran” agenda.
Trump described the nuclear deal as an “embarrassment” to the United States. Meanwhile, John Bolton may be the most vocal Iran hawk who addressed the September 20 rally coordinated by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities (OIAC), and members of the MKO, against the visit of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in New York. “I think it was a disastrous agreement for the United States to make; harmful to the United States, harmful to its friends and allies, harmful to the people of Iran. The sooner we get out of it, the better,” Bolton told the AP reporter.
Bolton is certainly a symbol of return to the Bush years, but he is such a hard-liner that he would think that Bush didn’t go nearly far enough in his foreign policy. He comes from the faction of the US government that wanted (and still wants) war with Iran, more confrontation with Russia and China, and a generally more aggressive approach to any threat (real or imagined). Like Trump, he is an alleged nationalist, but it is a nationalism defined by fulfilling their wish for U.S. “leadership” over the world. Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of the University of Southern California says, “They disguise this wish under the term “US leadership”. To them, international treaties and organizations are useful only to the extent that they protect and advance what they consider as the US interests, which are almost never the true national interests of the United States.” 
“For years Bolton has been advocating bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, either by Israel, the US, or both,” Sahimi writes. “He is also a lobbyist for Mujahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MEK, also known as MKO), an Iranian opposition group that for years was listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and is universally despised by the Iranian people for its collaboration with the regime of Saddam Hussein during Iran-Iraq war, and working with Israel to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. Bolton also has very cozy relations with anti-Muslim hate groups, which only goes to show the depth of the man’s mental state.” 
Probably the most troublesome part of Bolton and other neocons, in the eye of his country-men is his avowed support for regime change and his fondness for the Cult of Rajavi. When he talks about providing “vigorous support” to Iran’s opposition, he is talking about the MKO! Bolton should admit the bitter truth that no credible protesting party inside Iran wants anything to do with U.S. interference in their politics, and they absolutely aren’t interested in regime change. The so-called opposition that Bolton supports is the MKO, which is widely loathed in Iran and doesn’t speak for Iranian protesters of the Tehran government. However, Bolton seems to be blocked, regarding his own testimony in an op-ed where he confessed that he doesn’t have access to the White House.
The huge contradiction is that the MKO authorities who invest too much on the role of Bolton-like warmongers, paying large amounts of money for the speaking fees in their rallies and even expenses of the luxurious trips to Paris and Tirana to appear in their propaganda shows, claim that they seek non-violent regime change in Iran!
“Bolton’s comprehensive plan of aggression (BCPOA) against Iran is built upon lies, exaggeration, warmongering, and twisting the truth,” states Muhammad Sahimi. It should be added that the MKO’s claim of non-violent regime change is also built upon lies, exaggeration and illusion. According to Dr. Sahimi, “Bolton’s plan is also crude and cruel” and the MKO is evidently supporting and propagating this plan in its propaganda machine. 
The MKO’s company with US warmongers demonstrates its utmost hypocrisy and corruption.
By Mazda Parsi
 Nazarian, Adelle,EXCLUSIVE–John Bolton: Trump Should Decertify, Withdraw from Iran Nuclear DealEntirely, the Associated Press, September 24, 2017
Sahimi, Muhammad, Deconstructing Neoconservatives’Manifesto for War with Iran, Antiwar.com, September 25, 2017
Delusion of the MKO (MEK, Rajavi cult): Regime Change by the people
Nejat Society, September 25 2017:… Iranians inside and outside Iran hardly ever advocate for regime change witnessing the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. How could the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/MEK/PMOI/the Cult of Rajavi) claim that it is seeking “regime change by the people” rather than “regime change by war”? In addition to the MKO, there are certain regime change activists …
Delusion of the MKO (MEK, Rajavi cult): Regime Change by the people
United States involvement in regime change has entailed both overt and covert actions aimed at altering, replacing, or preserving foreign governments. Seemingly, regime change has been the cause not the consequence of a large number of wars. Regime change invasions have caused practically more death, destruction and suffering than the idiotic “war on terror”. Iranians inside and outside Iran hardly ever advocate for regime change witnessing the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. How could the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/MEK/PMOI/the Cult of Rajavi) claim that it is seeking “regime change by the people” rather than “regime change by war”?
In addition to the MKO, there are certain regime change activists in the US administration not in the people of Iran. Neo-cons like Senator John McCain who advocate for regime change wars in the Middle East are coincidently advocates of the MKO too. The investment of trillions of dollars and –countless lives– in a regime change invasion is the main strategy of money making for the US warmongers who are in bed with the MKO terrorist cult as well as the terrorists in Syria.
The best way for American warmongers to help end the violence is to stop deliberately arming these terrorist factions. However, terrorists such as the MKO have to maintain their survival by buying the support of such warmongers. Thus non-violent regime change by the side of the Western Neo-cons do not seem realistic. However, the MKO’s propaganda expert Ali Safavi claims, “Let’s wholeheartedly accept that a foreign military intervention is not the answer for Iran. It is the chants inside not the weapons outside that will make change happen”.
What is “the chant inside” that Ali Safavi is boastful about? Whether they are for the Islamic Republic or against it, Iranians do share one main idea about the MKO: They hate the MKO. Just one example of the demonstration of such hatred was the tweeter trend on the occasion of the group’s gathering in Paris a few months ago. Iranians contributed to #IranHatesMEK to debate those brainwashed or/and bribed authorities who had attended the event.
The MKO’s claim of representing the Iranian public opinion is so unrealistic that one may suggest that the group is not living on this planet. Is Ali Safavi so unaware of the aspirations of the Iranian public or is he just making efforts to run the group’s propaganda?
Definitely, Iran is almost the most stable country in the region. It enjoys a well-equipped military force and to tell the truth a large number of loyal soldiers. A war with Iran is very probably not a winning one for the West. That is why Israel has not tried to invade Iran yet–despite it really wants to.
Therefore, violent regime change does not seem to be an option for the West although Iran hawks constantly call for it. Non- violent regime change is not even an option; it is a delusion that only the MKO propaganda regime embraces.
By Mazda Parsi
The MEK: Masters of Propaganda (aka Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult NCRI, MKO, PMOI, …)
Mazda Parsi, Nejat Society, August 29 2017:… Yet, while the MKO has the support of a number of congressmen and a small number of analysts, it has no support in the power centers of Washington. Nevertheless, the group endeavors to demonstrate its claim of Western support by spending large amounts for luxurious trips of congressmen like John McCain to Europe. Over a hundred years after the establishment of Iran’s Constitutional Revolution, to advocate for …
The MEK: Masters of Propaganda (aka Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult NCRI, MKO, PMOI, …)
There is a big mistake often made by certain American politicians: They allegedly are concerned about freedom of Iranian people but fail to understand the nature of a group which, in public, says good things about freedom and democracy but, actually it is committed to violence, human rights abuse and cult-like practices. Mujahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, the Cult of Rajavi) are “skilled manipulators of public opinion”. In fact, the organization over which Maryam Rajavi and his disappeared husband have control avoids democracy and cuddles terrorism, dictatorship, and Maoism.
All the way in the corridors of the Capitol Hill, MKO agents tell Congressmen, their employees, and other officials what they want to hear: the MKO is the only opposition movement capable of changing the Iranian government and replacing it with a secular democratic government. They are hard workers to draw the attention of their targets to the so-called cause of their group; they are very sociable to lawmakers giving out Persian food, Christmas presents and their booklets and posters of misinformation about the life in Iran. Dressed up well, agents of MKO’s lobbying campaign get close to American journalists, politicians, and critics of the Islamic Republic.
Maryam Rajavi has increased totalitarian control over its members, particularly after the relocation of the group in Albania –where defection from the group is on the rise. While members reside in the West, the so-called cradle of democracy, the Cult authorities forbid the rank and file from access to any information from the outside world but its own TV channel and publications.
The MEK are “masters of propaganda”. Many of its supporters are unaware of its dark history and also what is going on inside the group now.
Warmonger think-tanks and conspiracy theorists have accelerated their run against Iranian government enabling the group to project a false image of popular support in Iran where none exist. Biased journalists such as Washington Post correspondents, repeat the fake story of the MKO as the viable alternative of the Islamic Republic, replacing their theories for fact. None of them can present the slightest evidence to prove that the MKO is a popular opposition group in Iran and none can assure the audience that the future Iran under the rule of the MKO is a democratic, non-nuclear one.
Yet, while the MKO has the support of a number of congressmen and a small number of analysts, it has no support in the power centers of Washington. Nevertheless, the group endeavors to demonstrate its claim of Western support by spending large amounts for luxurious trips of congressmen like John McCain to Europe.
Over a hundred years after the establishment of Iran’s Constitutional Revolution, to advocate for the undemocratic Cult o Rajavi and to feed Rajavi’s hunger for power sounds improper. However, many “monsters of the left” use the pro-democracy slogans to achieve their ambitions. Maryam Rajavi, and her cult of personality are not exception.
By Mazda Parsi
Here’s why Washington hawks love this cultish Iranian exile group
Mehdi Hasan, The intercept, July 08 2017:… What were a Saudi prince, a former Republican House Speaker and a former Democratic vice-presidential candidate doing together in a suburb of Paris last weekend? Would you be surprised to discover that Prince Turki Bin Faisal, Newt Gingrich and Joe Lieberman were speaking on …
Here’s why Washington hawks love this cultish Iranian exile group
What were a Saudi prince, a former Republican House Speaker and a former Democratic vice-presidential candidate doing together in a suburb of Paris last weekend?
Would you be surprised to discover that Prince Turki Bin Faisal, Newt Gingrich and Joe Lieberman were speaking on behalf of a group of Iranian exiles that was officially designated a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” by the United States government between 1997 and 2012?
Iran hawks long ago fell head over heels for the Mojahedin-e Khalq, known as the MEK, and loudly and successfully lobbied for it to be removed from the State Department list of banned terror groups in 2012. Formed in Iran in the 1960s, the MEK, whose name translates to “Holy Warriors of the People,” was once an avowedly anti-American, semi-Marxist, semi-Islamist group, pledged to toppling the U.S.-backed Shah by force and willing to launch attacks on U.S. targets. The MEK even stands accused of helping with the seizure of hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran; the group condemned the hostages’ release as a “surrender” to the United States. But after the Iran’s clerical rulers turned on the group in the early 1980s, its leaders fled the country and unleashed a series of bombings across Iran.
These days, the organization — run by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, though the former’s whereabouts are unknown and he is rumored to be dead — claims to have renounced violence and sells itself to its new American friends as a 100 percent secular and democratic Iranian opposition group. The biggest problem with the MEK, however, is not that it is a former terrorist organization. Plenty of violent groups that were once seen as “terrorists” later abandoned their armed struggles and entered the corridors of power — think of the Irish Republican Army or Mandela’s African National Congress.
Nor is it that the MEK lacks support inside of the Islamic Republic, where it has been disowned by the opposition Green Movement and is loathed by ordinary Iranians for having fought on Saddam Hussein’s side during the Iran-Iraq war.
Rather, the biggest problem with U.S. politicians backing the MEK is that the group has all the trappings of a totalitarian cult. Don’t take my word for it: A 1994 State Department report documented how Massoud Rajavi “fostered a cult of personality around himself” which had “alienated most Iranian expatriates, who assert they do not want to replace one objectionable regime for another.”
You think only people inside of dictatorships are brainwashed? A 2009 reportby the RAND Corporation noted how MEK rank-and-file had to swear “an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran” and highlighted the MEK’s “authoritarian, cultic practices” including ‘mandatory divorce and celibacy” for the group’s members (the Rajavis excepted, of course). “Love for the Rajavis was to replace love for spouses and family,” explained the RAND report.
You think gender segregation inside of Iran is bad? At Iraq’s Camp Ashraf, which housed MEK fighters up until 2013, lines were “painted down the middle of hallways separating them into men’s and women’s sides,” according to RAND, and even the gas station there had “separate hours for men and women.”
You might understand why a Saudi prince, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, or uber-hawk and former Bush administration official John Bolton — who all attended the Paris rally — might be willing to get behind such a weird collection of fanatics and ideologues. But what would make a liberal Democrat from Vermont such as Howard Dean — who has suggestedMaryam Rajavi be recognized as the president of Iran in exile — want to get into bed with them? Or Georgia congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis, who spoke out in favor of the MEK in 2010?
Could it be because of the old, if amoral, adage that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Perhaps. Could it be the result of ignorance, of senior U.S. figures failing to do due diligence? Maybe.
Or could it be a consequence of cold, hard cash? “Many of these former high-ranking U.S. officials — who represent the full political spectrum — have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK,” revealed a wide-ranging investigation by the Christian Science Monitor in 2011.
In Washington, D.C., money talks. Whether you’re a Democrat like Dean or a Republican like Bolton, a former head of the CIA like Porter Goss or an ex-head of the FBI like Louis Freeh, what seems to matter most is that the MEK can cut fat checks.
Take Gingrich, who once lambasted Barack Obama for “bowing to the Saudi king” but has himself been caught on camera bowing to Maryam Rajavi. The former House speaker bizarrely compared Rajavi to George Washington in his speech in Paris over the weekend.
Or Giuliani, “America’s Mayor” and self-styled anti-terror hawk, who nevertheless has had no qualms accepting thousands of dollars since 2010 to shill for a group that murdered six Americans in Iran in the mid-1970s; joined with Saddam Hussein to repress Iraq’s Kurds in the early 1990s; allegedly worked with Al Qaeda to make bombs in the mid-1990s; and fought against U.S. troops in Iraq in 2003.
Have these people no shame? To quote Suzanne Maloney, an Iran analyst at Brookings and a former adviser to the State Department: “How cheaply Gingrich/Guiliani/Bolton/Lieberman value their own integrity to sell out to MEK cult.”
Meanwhile, regime change in Tehran is very much back on the agenda in Donald Trump’s Washington. Candidate Trump, who blasted George W. Bush’s Middle East wars of aggression, has been replaced by President Trump, who appointed Iran hawks such as James Mattis and Mike Pompeo to run the Pentagon and the CIA, respectively; counts MEK shills such as Giuliani and Gingrich among his closest outside advisers; and appointed Elaine Chao, who took $50,000 from the Rajavis for a five-minute speech in 2015, to his cabinet.
Let’s be clear: The Trump administration, the Saudis and the Israelis — who have “financed, trained and armed” the MEK in the past, according an NBC News investigation — are all bent on toppling Iran’s clerical rule; they long for a bad sequel to the Iraq war. And Maryam Rajavi’s MEK is auditioning for the role of Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress: The group’s 3,000-odd fighters, according to former Democratic senator-turned-MEK-lawyer Robert Torricelli last Saturday, are keen to be the “point of the spear.”
That way madness lies. Have U.S. political, intelligence, and military elites learned nothing from their Mesopotamian misadventure and the disastrous contribution of Iraqi exiles such as Chalabi? Well, the brainwashed fanatics of the MEK make the INC look like the ANC.
It is difficult, therefore, to disagree with the verdict of Elizabeth Rubin of the New York Times, who visited the MEK at Camp Ashraf back in 2003 and later “spoke to men and women who had escaped from the group’s clutches” and “had to be reprogrammed.” The MEK, warned Rubin in 2011, “is not only irrelevant to the cause of Iran’s democratic activists, but a totalitarian cult that will come back to haunt us.”
Under President Macron, France can play a pivotal role in Western relations with Iran
Massoud Khodabandeh, Huffpost, June 27 2017:… Perhaps the time is finally ripe for a new appraisal of what zero tolerance means for France. The MEK’s messages promoting violent regime change should no longer be tolerated. President Emmanuel Macron’s new centrist movement has won a large majority in the French parliament giving him a strong hand to play. He already revealed himself to be a shrewd and …
Under President Macron, France can play a pivotal role in Western relations with Iran
European counter-terror experts warn that as ISIS is pushed into a smaller and smaller theatre of operations in the Middle East, there will certainly be blowback as foreign fighters return to their own countries. In this context, the ISIS terrorist attacks in Tehran expose a much morecomplex situation which will have lasting repercussions in the West unless it is tackled at source. That includes zero tolerance for any messages promoting violent extremism.
What worries experts is that ISIS almost certainly gained the expertise it used to carry out the attacks in Iran from the exiled Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) organisation. The MEK has a three-decade history of terrorist violence against Iran and continues to cling to an agenda which promotes violent regime change. Whilst the MEK is widely regarded as a defunct force due to the age and health of its fighters, experts warn that although the MEK no longer constitutes a fighting force, the members remain fully radicalised and capable of acting as logistics facilitators and training and planning consultants for any other terrorist group. Certainly, they are all capable of conducting suicide missions.
Since America ensured the MEK were transferred from Iraq to Albania this danger has become more acute. Albania is still struggling to overcome the political and media corruption, drug crime, gun smuggling and people trafficking which will prevent it joining the European Union anytime soon. The presence of 3000 radicalised MEK members in a country known as a route between Europe and Syria for modern terrorist forces is not just controversial, it is dangerous.
Even so, the real danger does not lie in Albania; it is a NATO country dominated by the US and the MEK can and will, therefore, be contained and re-purposed for whatever the US needs them for. The recent visits to the MEK by John Bolton and Senator John McCain are an indication of this agenda.
The real danger lies in France and Western Europe. The MEK has been headquartered for the past thirty-six years in Auvers-sur-Oise just outside Paris. This year, as always, the MEK will use its front name the ‘National Council of Resistance of Iran’ to hire the Villepinte salon outside Paris, pay disproportionate speakers fees to advocates and round up a paid audience to wave flags and dutifully applaud the ‘regime change’ speeches. This annual event is known inside the MEK as a celebration of armed struggle – the raison d’être of the MEK group.
This year the event is being held on July 1, but it was originally timed to celebrate the MEK’s challenge to Ayatollah Khomeini’s leadership on 30th Khordad (June 21, 1981). These dates matter. Analysts now say that the MEK has moved the date of the celebration to distance it from the association with defeat – after the coup d’état failed, senior MEK leaders fled to France with CIA backing and left the rank and file to face mass arrests and executions inside Iran. Instead the new date is closer to what the MEK regards as a major victory in its three decade long terrorist campaign against Iran. On the 7th Tir (June 28, 1981) MEK operatives blew up the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party in Tehran during a meeting of party leaders. Seventy-three leading officials of the Islamic Republic were killed.
The significance of this becomes clear when we link the MEK’s core beliefs to the recent terrorist attacks in Tehran. The message which the MEK event gives to observers is that the pattern of attacks by ISIS in Tehran was glorious and righteous and is a legitimate response to a scenario in which Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. (For the record, neither the MEK nor Saudi Arabia condemned the attacks.)
This scenario – Iran as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism – has been promoted ad nauseamby the MEK throughout western political circles. The work of national parliaments as well as the European Parliament have been held hostage to this narrative. Normalisation of relations with Iran following the nuclear agreement have been stymied by the MEK. Indeed, MEK bullying and intimidation in pursuit of this agenda was recently discussed in the European Parliament. The MEPs concluded that Europe cannot properly challenge Iran’s human rights situation as long as a group which promotes regime change and abuses the human rights of its own membersartificially imposes itself centre stage of these discussions.
The fact is that over the past year the western political landscape has changed dramatically. Two distinct blocs have emerged: a cohort of anti-Iran countries including the US, UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side blindly pursuing regime change against Iran apparently at all costs, and Europe – minus the UK after Brexit – (and incidentally Russia and China) pursuing rapprochement and trade opportunities.
In this context, the spotlight for action must fall on France, home to the MEK headquarters. We must ask the French government ‘these people belong to the regime change bloc, why do you continue renting your land to them after 36 years? What have the Americans or the MEK done for you that is worth the bad reputation attached to supporting this group? What is the cost benefit of having the MEK in your country? What implications does its continued presence have for your foreign policy and trade relations? How can the Republic continue to allow this group topromote violent extremism and terrorism on French soil?’
In the past, of course, it was pointless asking these questions – even though they were asked as permanent unresolved issues. Removing the MEK from France and other European countries was problematic – expelling them to Iraq was impossible because their human rights could not be guaranteed. But in 2016 the Americans facilitated the MEK’s removal from Iraq to safety in Albania. There is no reason to believe that Europe cannot similarly facilitate the safe removal of the MEK leaders from France and other European countries to Albania. The MEK leader Maryam Rajavi has already spent several weeks in Tirana. There is nothing to prevent her setting up a permanent headquarters there with further help from the Americans.
President Emmanuel Macron’s new centrist movement has won a large majority in the French parliament giving him a strong hand to play. He already revealed himself to be a shrewd and masterful challenger in international relations almost before opening his mouth when he out manoeuvred President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in Brussels in May. Perhaps the time is finally ripe for a new appraisal of what zero tolerance means for France. The MEK’s messages promoting violent regime change should no longer be tolerated.
Me Presidentin Macron, Franca mund të luajë një rol të rëndësishëm në marrëdhëniet perëndimore me Iranin
Ekspertët evropianë kundër terrorizmit paralajmërojnë se ndërsa ISIS është futur në një teatër gjithnjë e më të vogël të operacioneve në Lindjen e Mesme, me siguri do të ketë të papritura kur luftëtarët e huaj të kthehen në vendet e tyre. Në këtë kontekst, sulmet terroriste të ISIS-it në Teheran ekspozojnë një situatë shumë më komplekse e cila do të ketë pasoja të përhershme në Perëndim, nëse nuk trajtohet që në burim. Kjo përfshin tolerancë zero ndaj çdo mesazhi që promovon ekstremizmin e dhunshëm.
Ajo që shqetëson ekspertët është se ISIS përvetësoi pothuajse me siguri ekspertizën që përdorej për të kryer sulmet në Iran nga organizata e mërguar Muxhahedin e Halq (MEK). MEK ka një histori prej tre-dekadash të dhunës terroriste kundër Iranit, dhe vazhdon të kapet në një axhendë e cila nxit ndryshimin e dhunshëm të regjimit. Përderisa MEK konsiderohet gjerësisht si një forcë e vdekur për shkak të moshës dhe shëndetit të luftëtarëve të saj, ekspertët paralajmërojnë se megjithëse MEK nuk përbën më një forcë luftimi, anëtarët mbeten plotësisht radikalizues dhe të aftë për të vepruar si lehtësues logjistikë dhe konsulentë trajnimi dhe planifikimi për çdo grup tjetër terrorist. Sigurisht, ata janë të gjithë të aftë për kryerjen e misioneve vetëvrasëse.
Meqënëse Amerika siguroi që MEK-u të transferohej nga Iraku në Shqipëri, ky rrezik u bë më akut. Shqipëria ende po lufton për të kapërcyer korrupsionin politik dhe mediatik, krimin e drogës, kontrabandën e armëve dhe trafikimin e njerëzve, të cilat do ta pengojnë hyrjen në Bashkimin Evropian në çdo kohë. Prania e 3,000 anëtarëve të radikalizuar të MEK-ut në një vend të njohur si një rrugë midis Evropës dhe Sirisë për forcat terroriste moderne nuk është vetëm e diskutueshme; është e rrezikshme.
Megjithatë, rreziku i vërtetë nuk qëndron në Shqipëri; Shqipëria është një vend i NATO-s i mbizotëruar nga SHBA-ja, dhe kështu MEK-u mund dhe do të përfshihet e rivendoset për çfarëdolloj gjëje që SHBA-ja ka nevojë për të. Vizitat e fundit nga John Bolton dhe senatori John McCain janë një tregues i kësaj axhende.
Rreziku i vërtetë qëndron në Francë dhe në Evropën Perëndimore. MEK ka qenë i vendosur për tridhjetë e gjashtë vitet e fundit në Auvers-sur-Oise jashtë Parisit. Këtë vit, si gjithmonë, MEK do të përdorë emrin e tij të parë ‘Këshilli Kombëtar i Rezistencës së Iranit’ për të marrë me qera sallonin Villepinte jashtë Parisit, për t’u paguar avokatëve tarifat joproporcionale të folësve dhe për të siguruar një audiencë të paguar për të valëvitur flamuj dhe për të duartrokitur fjalimet e ndryshimit të regjimit. Kjo ngjarje vjetore njihet brenda MEK-ut si një festë e luftës së armatosur – arsyeja e ekzistencës së grupit MEK.
Këtë vit ngjarja do të mbahet më 1 korrik, por fillimisht ishte caktuar për të festuar sfidën e MEK-ut ndaj udhëheqjes së Ayatollah Khomeinit në Khordadin e 30-të (21 qershor 1981). Këto data janë të rëndësishme. Analistët tani thonë se MEK e ka ndryshuar datën e kremtimit për ta larguar atë nga lidhja me humbjen – pasi grushti i shtetit dështoi, udhëheqësit e lartë të MEK-ut ikën në Francë me mbështetjen e CIA-s dhe i lanë njerëzit e thjeshtë për t’u përballur me arrestime masive dhe ekzekutime brenda Iranit. Përkundrazi, data e re është më afër asaj që MEK e konsideron si një fitore e madhe në fushatën terroriste të tre dekadave kundër Iranit. Më 7-të Tir (28 Qershor 1981), operativët e MEK shpërthyen selinë e Partisë së Republikës Islamike në Teheran gjatë një takimi të udhëheqësve të partisë. Shtatëdhjetë e tre zyrtarë udhëheqës të Republikës Islamike u vranë.
Rëndësia e kësaj bëhet e qartë kur lidhim besimet kryesore të MEK-ut me sulmet e fundit terroriste në Teheran. Mesazhi që ngjarja e MEK-ut u jep vëzhguesve është se modeli i sulmeve të ISIS-it në Teheran ishte i lavdishëm dhe i drejtë dhe është një përgjigje legjitime për një skenar në të cilin Irani është sponsori kryesor i terrorizmit në botë. (Sa për ta ditur, as MEK as Arabia Saudite nuk i dënuan sulmet).
Ky skenar – Irani si sponsori kryesor i terrorizmit – është promovuar nga MEK në të gjitha qarqet politike perëndimore. Puna e parlamenteve kombëtarë si dhe Parlamenti Europian janë mbajtur peng i kësaj narrative. Normalizimi i marrëdhënieve me Iranin pas marrëveshjes bërthamore është penguar nga MEK. Në të vërtetë, ngacmimi dhe kërcënimi i MEK-ut në ndjekje të kësaj axhende u diskutua kohët e fundit në Parlamentin Evropian. Deputetët përfunduan se Evropa nuk mund ta sfidojë siç duhet situatën e të drejtave të njeriut të Iranit për sa kohë që një grup që promovon ndryshimin e regjimit dhe abuzon me të drejtat e njeriut të anëtarëve të vet, imponon vetë artificialisht fazën qendrore të këtyre diskutimeve.
Fakti është se gjatë vitit të kaluar peizazhi politik perëndimor ka ndryshuar në mënyrë dramatike. Dy grupe të dallueshme janë shfaqur: një grup i vendeve anti-Iran, duke përfshirë SHBA-në, Mbretërinë e Bashkuar, Izraelin dhe Arabinë Saudite nga njëra anë, që me sa duket ndjekin verbërisht ndryshimet e regjimit kundër Iranit me çdo kusht, dhe Evropa – pa Mbretërinë e Bashkuar pas Brexit – (dhe aksidentalisht Rusia dhe Kina) që po ndjekin afrimin dhe mundësitë tregtare.
Në këtë kontekst, vëmendja për veprim duhet të bjerë në Francë, në shtëpinë e selisë së MEK. Ne duhet të pyesim qeverinë franceze se pse këta njerëz që i përkasin bllokut të ndryshimit të regjimit vazhdojnë të marrin me qera tokën tuaj pas 36 vjetësh? Çfarë kanë bërë amerikanët apo MEK-u për ju, që ia vlen reputacioni i keq që i bashkëngjitet mbështetjes së këtij grupi? Cili është benefiti i të pasurit MEK-un në vendin tuaj? Çfarë implikimesh ka prania e tij e vazhdueshme në politikën tuaj të jashtme dhe të tregtisë? Si mundet Republika të vazhdojë ta lejojë këtë grup të nxisë ekstremizmin dhe terrorizmin e dhunshëm në tokën franceze?
Në të kaluarën, natyrisht, ishte e pakuptimtë t’i bëje këto pyetje – edhe pse ato ishin pyetur si çështje të përhershme të pazgjidhura. Heqja e MEK-ut nga Franca dhe vende të tjera evropiane ishte problematike – dëbimi i tyre në Irak ishte i pamundur për shkak se të drejtat e tyre njerëzore nuk mund të garantoheshin. Por në vitin 2016, amerikanët ndihmuan largimin e MEK-ut nga Iraku në Shqipëri. Nuk ka arsye të besohet se Evropa nuk mund të lehtësojë në mënyrë të ngjashme largimin e sigurt të udhëheqësve të MEK-ut nga Franca dhe vendet e tjera evropiane në Shqipëri. Udhëheqësja e MEK-ut, Maryam Rajavi ka kaluar tashmë disa javë në Tiranë. Nuk ka asgjë që të parandalojë ngritjen e një selie të përhershme atje me ndihmë të mëtejshme nga amerikanët.
Lëvizja e re qëndrore e Presidentit Emmanuel Macron ka fituar një shumicë të madhe në parlamentin francez, duke i dhënë atij një dorë të fortë për të luajtur. Ai tashmë e shpalli veten si një sfidues të zgjuar dhe mjeshtëror në marrëdhëniet ndërkombëtare kur ai ia mori në kthesë presidentit Donald Trump në samitin e NATO-s në Bruksel në maj. Ndoshta për Francën ka ardhur më në fund koha për një vlerësim të ri të asaj që nënkupton zero tolerancë. Mesazhet e MEK-ut që promovojnë ndryshimin e regjimit të dhunshëm nuk duhet të tolerohen më.
/ © Gazeta Impakt
ISIS Drew On MEK Expertise For Terror Attacks On Tehran (Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult)
Massoud Khodabandeh, Iranian.com, June 20 2017:… The following piece has been written by somebody I know well. He does not want his real name to be used because that would jeopardize the sensitive nature of his current work in counter terrorism in Europe – Massoud Khodabandeh… As a former member of the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist organization (MEK), I followed the news of terrorist attacks on Tehran with shame, guilt and anger. My shame and guilt stem …
ISIS Drew On MEK Expertise For Terror Attacks On Tehran (Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult)
The following piece has been written by somebody I know well. He does not want his real name to be used because that would jeopardize the sensitive nature of his current work in counter terrorism in Europe – Massoud Khodabandeh.
As a former member of the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist organization (MEK), I followed the news of terrorist attacks on Tehran with shame, guilt and anger.
My shame and guilt stem from having been involved in such attacks in the past as a member of the MEK. My anger springs from what I see as the MEK’s ongoing influence in these current attacks. Based on my inside knowledge of the MEK I believe this organization has now helped the most notorious terror organization in the world to attack our country and our people.
As I followed news of the attacks I was forced to remember my own role in a similar mission and how my membership of the MEK had almost cost me my life. While analyzing the details of the ISIS attack as they emerged, it was easy to see that these operations in Tehran had been based on the expertise of MEK operations in several ways. I have identified some of these similarities which I have given in outline below.
The targets selected by ISIS were sites constantly targeted by the MEK. The Iranian Parliament and its members had always been primary targets for the MEK since the 1980s. The group had managed to assassinate several members of the Parliament and tried to plant a bomb there at one point. They were unsuccessful and some members were killed by security forces while other terrorist teams were arrested. Similarly, after Ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine was created, Massoud Rajavi, the late MEK leader, announced that “Khomeini’s grave must be exploded”. It became a mantra among MEK members which they would chant in indoctrination sessions. The MEK tried unsuccessfully to send terrorist teams there in 1991 and 2002.
While ISIS and the MEK have the same interests in attacking Iran, ISIS could have caused much greater anti-government fear and hatred among the civilian population in line with its regime change agenda if they had bombed a civilian target like transport infrastructure or a shopping mall. They could have done more damage by targeting the Revolutionary Guards whose forces are in Syria. Instead, the ISIS targets matched those which had been constantly under attack by the MEK for thirty years.
ISIS used locally recruited Iranians for this attack. Their main challenge was to get their weaponry to Tehran without being detected by Iranian security forces. This had always been the main challenge for MEK terrorists. They used different methods to get their weapons to Tehran. For example, hiding the weapons in a small truck loaded with food or inside an empty computer case. The MEK experiences were helpful to the ISIS attackers. They paid a female acquaintance to join them to go to Tehran, pretending it is a family visit. This was to raise less suspicion. Between 2000-2003, the MEK used the same approach to get their terrorists from Iraq to Tehran. The first suicide bomber in Iran was a female MEK member. Since then, the MEK used women in suicide operations to ‘normalize’ their terrorist teams.
The suicide mission
An important similarity is the human factor. Just like the MEK, ISIS terrorists selected and trained for suicide missions are thoroughly brainwashed first. They undergo intensive indoctrination and psychological manipulation sessions and afterwards they are not allowed to think of anything else but their mission; terror. From the videos and reports, it is clear that the terrorists are numbed and fearful people who are prepared to use weapons as a first resort against innocent unprepared people. The ISIS terrorists exploded their vests in their first moments of contact with security forces. A couple of them even exploded their vests as soon as they just saw the security forces. This is similar to MKO terrorists who were brainwashed to assassinate unarmed civilians or perform a mortar attack in a large city like Tehran. They were also armed with cyanide pills and a hand grenade and ordered that rather than risk capture they must commit suicide and hurt as many of the people around them as possible.
It has been widely reported that, just like the MEK, ISIS also gets support from inside Saudi Arabia. After the Tehran terrorist attacks neither Saudi Arabia nor the MEK condemned the events. This echoes MEK behaviour under the Saddam regime. The MEK could not and would not condemn any action of Saddam or the Saudis because they were being paid and supported by them.
The MEK needed governmental level backing to move across national borders. Saddam arranged for MEK operatives to get inside Iran from Pakistan and Turkey rather than cross the Iraqi border which was under international scrutiny. ISIS has also been able to cross borders and move weapons and fund its activities in a way that indicates governmental level of support.
There is no indication that the MEK were directly involved in the Tehran attacks. But from my inside knowledge and based on having performed a similar style of suicide attack in Tehran myself some years ago, there is little doubt in my mind that ISIS have been able to use MEK expertise to pursue this modern terrorist attack.
Debate in the European Parliament ‘What is to be done about the Iranian Mojahedin Khalq (MEK)?’
Massoud Khodabandeh, Huffpost, June 02 2017:… The meeting was organised by Ana Gomes, SND (Portugal) and seconded by Marietje Schaake, ALDE (Netherlands) and Michael Gahler, Christian Democrats (Germany). Two expert speakers were invited to address the meeting: Nicola Pedde, Director Institute for Global Studies, Italy and Massoud Khodabandeh, Director Middle East Strategy Consultants, UK. …
Debate in the European Parliament ‘What is to be done about the Iranian Mojahedin Khalq (MEK)?’
A meeting in the European Parliament on 30 May discussed the problems associated with the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (MEK) both inside the Parliament and across Europe and the wider world.
The meeting, which was attended by MEPs, researchers and analysts along with representatives of agencies outside the parliament such as security personnel, was organised by Ana Gomes, SND (Portugal) and seconded by Marietje Schaake, ALDE (Netherlands) and Michael Gahler, Christian Democrats (Germany).
All three have a clear record as outspoken critics of Iran’s human rights record and are concerned about the impact of MEK activity on this issue.
Since all the participants have seen first-hand that the MEK spends enormous amounts of money for publicity and lobbying, the first issue to be discussed was ‘who funds the MEK and what is their agenda?’ It soon became apparent that the MEPs are fully aware that the MEK has never existed as an independent group and has benefitted over three decades from funding streams from specific circles which are trying to engineer regime change in the Middle East. The question then became whether these sponsors understand that the cost benefit of supporting the MEK is not giving positive returns but in fact has a negative result for them in their regime change agendas.
Further discussion by representatives revealed that the MEK has been shunned by almost every Parliament across Europe.
In spite of this, MEK members can still gain access to the European Parliament because it is an open institution. The problem this presents is the bullying tactics used by the MEK to intimidate MEPs and their staff. Several delegates at the meeting gave first-hand evidence of this. One MEP said that within ten minutes of taking one particular stance he was bombarded by mass emails some of which contained swearing and threats. Delegates agreed that this is incompatible with the fundamental principles of any Parliament in which representatives must be able to speak and act free from any pressure or intimidation.
Nicola Pedde described to delegates his work in the Italian Parliament where MPs are persuaded to sign petitions by bogus human rights campaigners. Pedde said that when he asked, many of the signatories were unaware that the MEK was behind the petition and didn’t realise that various sentences or paragraphs were added afterwards to give support for Maryam Rajavi and her agenda. Pedde said some MPs were even strongly against the MEK and were very angry about being deceived in this way. They had thought they were condemning human rights abuses in Iran, but their names were then misused to depict them as supporters of terrorists in Albania.
The discussion moved on to the problem of accepting the MEK as advocates of human rights for Iran. Ana Gomes said that when Iranian Nobel Human Rights Prize winner Shirin Ebadi visited the European Parliament, she was unequivocal in saying that the MEK do not have the right to be described as human rights activists. Quite the opposite, they are abusers themselves, she said. Massoud Khodabandeh reminded delegates that in a recent interview with AP, Reza Pahlavi – who wants to restore the monarchy to Iran – dismissed the MEK as a cult. In addition, every Iranian opposition group from the Greens to the Nationalists has rejected the MEK as human rights advocates and as a political entity.
More concerning for delegates is that the government of Iran is quick to use the MEK’s advocacy for human rights as a means to dismiss the issue, pointing out that the terrorist group murdered thousands of Iranian citizens and still commits human rights abuse against its own members. Massoud Khodabandeh gave an example from the UK House of Lords in which Haleh Afshar – a prominent Iranian feminist and academic who now sits in the House as Baroness Afshar – hosted a parliamentary debate about human rights in Iran. The challenging discussion, with valuable contributions from several informed members, was completely undermined by one of the MEK’s supporters who asserted that only Maryam Rajavi and her group could bring freedom and human rights to Iran. The government of Iran cannot be expected to even respond to such a debate said Khodabandeh.
Nicola Pedde made an interesting comment when he said that the MEK cannot be considered as a viable force because, as a result of its cultish behaviour, the MEK do not have a second generation. They have effectively killed themselves, he told delegates, because marriage and family are banned for all members.
The third issue to be discussed was the MEK presence in Albania. Delegates heard how the MEK had been forced to leave Iraq and how the Americans arranged for the UN to be able to transfer them to Albania. The government of Iraq was relieved to be rid of three thousand MEK who had been part of Saddam Hussein’s repressive forces, but the problem has now simply been moved to Albania. The Americans promised help to de-radicalise the MEK members. But, as Massoud Khodabandeh pointed out, this did not happen and the group was allowed to re-group as a terrorist cult and treat its members as modern slaves.
Delegates discussed Albania’s candidature to join the European Union in light of this situation and agreed that this is not just incompatible but that having trained terrorists on the doorstep of Europe is already a security threat to Europe. Delegates stressed that European security services need to take this threat seriously from now.
Reports also described the human rights abuses inflicted on MEK members by their own leaders. They are living in conditions of modern slavery because the UNHCR is acting illegally by paying refugee allowances to the organisation instead of to the individual members. This means members are forced into dependency on the group and cannot leave. Members are also prevented from contacting their families or even other former members so they do not have any recourse to external help or support.
As the two speakers gave their expert analysis throughout the meeting, they also offered suggestions for solutions. Khodabandeh urged delegates to put pressure on the Albanian authorities and the UNHCR to resolve the hostage condition of MEK members in Albania.
Pedde said MEPs should be briefed about the danger of supporting human rights through using groups like the MEK.
At the end the meeting was also opened to the audience for discussion. Former MEK members, Ali Akbar Rastgou, Batoul Soltani, Reza Sadeghi and Ghorban Ali Hossein Nejad were able to join the discussion at this time.
In conclusion delegates discussed various solutions which are open to them. It was important, they said, to find ways to tackle these problems because parliament cannot be held hostage to bullies. A package of activities was agreed in order to curtail the MEK’s deceptive and intimidating activities in Parliament. Other solutions to the wider problems were also agreed and will be put in place throughout the rest of the year.
Parlamenti Evropian: Shqipëria rrezikon integrimin në BE për shkak të muxhahedinëve (MEK)
Një takim në Parlamentin Evropian më 30 maj diskutoi problemet që lidhen me Organizatën Muxhahedin e-HalK (MEK) si brenda Parlamentit, ashtu edhe në të gjithë Evropën dhe botën e gjerë.
Takimi, në të cilin morën pjesë deputetë, hulumtues dhe analistë, së bashku me përfaqësues të agjensive jashtë parlamentit si personel i sigurisë, u organizua nga Ana Gomes e Partisë Socialiste (Portugali), dhe u suportua nga Marietje Schaake e partisë ALDE (Hollandë) dhe Michael Gahler i Partisë Kristian Demokrate (Gjermani).
Të tre kanë një rekord të qartë si kritikë të sinqertë të të dhënave për të drejtat e njeriut në Iran, dhe janë të shqetësuar për ndikimin e aktivitetit të MEK në këtë çështje.
Dy ekspertë u ftuan për të adresuar takimin: Nicola Pedde, Drejtor i Institutit për Studime Globale, Itali, dhe Massoud Khodabandeh, Drejtor i Këshilltarëve të Strategjisë për Lindjen e Mesme në Mbretërinë e Bashkuar.
Meqë të gjithë pjesëmarrësit kanë parë që MEK shpenzon shuma të mëdha parash për publicitet dhe lobim, çështja e parë për t’u diskutuar ishte ‘kush e financon MEK-un dhe cila është axhenda e tyre’? Shumë shpejt u bë e qartë se deputetët janë plotësisht të vetëdijshëm se MEK nuk ka ekzistuar kurrë si një grup i pavarur, dhe ka përfituar më shumë se tre dekada nga financimi nga qarqe të veçanta që po përpiqen të kurdisin ndryshimin e regjimit në Lindjen e Mesme. Më pas u bë pyetja nëse këta sponsorë e kuptojnë se kostoja e mbështetjes së MEK-ut nuk po jep kthime pozitive, por në fakt ka një rezultat negativ për ta në axhendat e ndryshimit të regjimit.
Diskutimet e mëtejshme të përfaqësuesve zbuluan se MEK është shmangur nga pothuajse çdo Parlament në të gjithë Evropën.
Përkundër kësaj, anëtarët e MEK-ut ende mund të fitojnë qasje në Parlamentin Evropian, sepse është një institucion i hapur. Problemi që paraqet kjo është taktika e persekutimit e përdorur nga MEK për të intimiduar deputetët dhe stafin e tyre. Disa delegatë në takim dhanë dëshmi të dorës së parë për këtë. Një deputet i parlamentit tha se brenda dhjetë minutave nga marrja e një qëndrimi të veçantë, ai u bombardua nga emaile masive, disa prej të cilave përmbanin betime dhe kërcënime. Delegatët ranë dakord se kjo nuk është në përputhje me parimet themelore të kujtdo Parlamenti në të cilin përfaqësuesit duhet të jenë në gjendje të flasin dhe të veprojnë pa ndonjë presion ose frikësim.
Nicola Pedde u përshkroi të deleguarve punën e tij në Parlamentin Italian, ku deputetët janë bindur për të nënshkruar peticione nga aktivistët e rremë të të drejtave të njeriut. Pedde tha se kur ai i pyeti, shumë nga nënshkruesit nuk ishin në dijeni se MEK ishte prapa peticionit, dhe nuk e kishin vënë re se më pas ishin shtuar fjali ose paragrafë të ndryshëm për të dhënë mbështetje për Marjam Raxhavin dhe axhendën e saj. Pedde tha se disa deputetë ishin madje shumë kundra MEK dhe ishin shumë të zemëruar që ishin mashtruar në këtë mënyrë. Ata kishin menduar se po dënonin abuzimet e të drejtave të njeriut në Iran, por emrat e tyre më pas u keqpërdorën për t’i përshkruar ata si mbështetës të terroristëve në Shqipëri.
Diskutimi vazhdoi me problemin e pranimit të muxhahedinëve si avokatë të të drejtave të njeriut për Iranin. Ana Gomes tha se kur fituesja e çmimit Nobel për të Drejtat e Njeriut, Shirin Ebadi vizitoi Parlamentin Evropian, ajo ishte e qartë që muxhahedinët nuk kishin të drejtë të përshkruheshin si aktivistë për të drejtat e njeriut. Përkundrazi, ata janë vetë abuzuesit, tha ajo. Massoud Khodabandeh u kujtoi delegatëve se në një intervistë të kohëve të fundit me AP, Reza Pahlavi, princi i kurorës në Iran – i cili dëshiron të rivendosë monarkinë në Iran – hodhi poshtë MEK-un si një kult. Përveç kësaj, çdo grup i opozitës iraniane, që nga të Gjelbrit deri te Nacionalistët e ka hedhur poshtë MEK-un si avokatë të të drejtave të njeriut dhe si subjekt politik.
Më shqetësuese për delegatët është që qeveria e Iranit është e shpejtë në përdorimin e avokimit të MEK-ut për të drejtat e njeriut si një mjet për të hedhur poshtë çështjen, duke vënë në dukje se grupi terrorist ka vrarë mijëra qytetarë iranianë dhe ende kryen abuzime të të drejtave të njeriut kundër anëtarëve të vet. Massoud Khodabandeh dha një shembull nga Shtëpia e Lordëve në Mbretërinë e Bashkuar në të cilën Haleh Afshar – një feministe dhe akademike e shquar iraniane, e cila tani është ulur në Shtëpi si Baronesha Afshar – priti një debat parlamentar mbi të drejtat e njeriut në Iran. Diskutimi sfidues, me kontribute të vlefshme nga disa anëtarë të informuar, u dëmtua plotësisht nga një prej mbështetësve të MEK-ut, i cili pohoi se vetëm Marjam Raxhavi dhe grupi i saj mund të sillnin liri dhe të drejta të njeriut në Iran. Qeveria e Iranit nuk mund të pritej as të përgjigjej për një debat të tillë, tha Khodabandeh.
Nicola Pedde bëri një koment interesant kur tha se MEK nuk mund të konsiderohet si një forcë me gjasa për sukses, sepse, si pasojë e sjelljes së tij kulturore, MEK nuk ka një brez të dytë. Ata kanë vrarë në mënyrë efektive veten e tyre, u tha ai delegatëve, sepse martesa dhe familja janë të ndaluara për të gjithë anëtarët.
Çështja e tretë për t’u diskutuar ishte prania e MEK-ut në Shqipëri. Delegatët dëgjuan se si MEK ishte detyruar të largohej nga Iraku dhe se si amerikanët organizuan që OKB-ja të ishte në gjendje t’i transferonte ata në Shqipëri. Qeveria e Irakut u lehtësua që shpëtoi nga tre mijë muxhahedinë që kishin qenë pjesë e forcave represive të Sadam Huseinit, por problemi tani thjesht është zhvendosur në Shqipëri. Amerikanët premtuan ndihmë për de-radikalizimin e anëtarëve të MEK-ut. Por, siç vuri në dukje Massoud Khodabandeh, kjo nuk ndodhi dhe grupi u lejua të ri-grupohet si një kult terrorist dhe t’i trajtojë anëtarët e tij si skllevër modernë.
Delegatët diskutuan mbi kandidaturën e Shqipërisë për t’u bashkuar me Bashkimin Evropian nën dritën e kësaj situate, dhe ranë dakord se jo vetëm që kjo është e papërputhshme, por trajnimi i terroristëve në pragun e Evropës është tashmë një kërcënim për sigurinë e saj. Delegatët theksuan se shërbimet e sigurisë evropiane duhet ta marrin seriozisht këtë kërcënim prej tani.
Raportet gjithashtu përshkruan abuzimet e të drejtave të njeriut të shkaktuara ndaj anëtarëve të MEK-ut nga udhëheqësit e tyre. Ata jetojnë në kushte të skllavërisë moderne, sepse UNHCR-ja vepron në mënyrë të paligjshme duke ia dhënë ndihmat për refugjatët organizatës, në vend që t’ua japë anëtarëve individualë. Kjo do të thotë se anëtarët janë të detyruar të varen nga grupi dhe nuk mund të largohen. Anëtarëve u pengohet gjithashtu që të kontaktojnë me familjet e tyre ose edhe me anëtarët e tjerë të mëparshëm, në mënyrë që ata të mos kenë ndonjë ndihmë apo mbështetje të jashtme.
Ndërsa dy ekspertët prezantuan analizën e tyre gjatë gjithë takimit, ata gjithashtu ofruan sugjerime për zgjidhje. Khodabandeh u kërkoi delegatëve të ushtrojnë presion ndaj autoriteteve shqiptare dhe UNHCR-së për të zgjidhur gjendjen skllavërore të anëtarëve të MEK-ut në Shqipëri.
Pedde tha se deputetët duhet të informohen për rrezikun e mbështetjes së të drejtave të njeriut përmes përdorimit të grupeve si MEK.
Në fund takimi u hap edhe për diskutim nga audienca. Ish anëtarët e MEK-ut, Ali Akbar Rastgou, Batoul Soltani, Reza Sadeghi dhe Ghorban Ali Hossein Nejad ishin në gjendje të bashkoheshin në diskutim në këtë kohë.
Në përfundim delegatët diskutuan zgjidhje të ndryshme që janë të hapura për ta. Është e rëndësishme, thanë ata, që të gjenden mënyra për të trajtuar këto probleme, sepse parlamenti nuk mund të mbahet peng i frikësimeve. U ra dakord për një paketë aktivitetesh për të kufizuar veprimtaritë mashtruese dhe frikësuese të MEK-ut në Parlament. U dhanë gjithashtu zgjidhje të tjera për probleme më të gjera, që do të vendosen në punë gjatë gjithë pjesës tjetër të vitit. / © Gazeta Impakt
National Geographic, March 04 2017:… Leading MEK members squirm under the knowing gaze of Michael Ware. Watch the shifty looks and glances as the MEK representatives try to lie about their true intentions. They admit to wanting regime change, but claim to be pacifists. Ware asks ‘Why does a political organization still need to have a para-military organization?’ He then cleverly gets them to …
Associated Press, February 16 2017:… The group at one point successfully infiltrated the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, according to a State Department report. And a series of bombings attributed to the MEK accompanied visits by presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter to Iran, including one to target an American cultural center. In 1973, MEK assailants wearing motorcycle helmets shot dead U.S. Army Lt. …
Iran Interlink, February 15 2017:… The following OpEd by MEK advocate Col. Wes Martin was published first in The Hill, followed by Mojahedin Khalq’s “Iran Probe” and the “NCRI” websites. Iran Interlink has published it here as indication of how hysteria has become the new normal in American published writing. A form of madness appears to have infected US politics and now all and sundry are dancing …
Massoud Khodabandeh, Huffington Post, February 07 2017:… He also signals that his war is not with ISIS but with the country Iran. Donald Trump rose to victory in part on the promise to take on ISIS and defeat the group. Yet ISIS cannot be defeated except by a coalition of forces that includes Iran. The facts on the ground in Syria and Iraq demonstrate unequivocally that ISIS forces in Aleppo and Mosul have been defeated largely due to the involvement
Gazeta Impakt, Albania, Translated by Iran Interlink, January 01 2017:… According to Fatos Klosi, former director of the National Intelligence Service, the American CIA chief has warned Albania that Donald Trump will renounce support for the MEK terrorists and it will be the Albanian Government itself which must deal with internal security and must confront a group trained militarily from the time of Saddam Hussein …
Massoud Khodabandeh, Huffington Post, December 24 2016:… That can only happen if journalists and investigatory bodies (human rights, nuclear experts, war crimes, etc) are able to base their work on facts and not the fake and fictionalised fantasies of stooges like the MEK, which are clearly designed to misinform on these issues. The information laundry cycle is not difficult to follow – the Washington Times takes its report …
Massoud Khodabandeh, Huffington Post, November 12 2016:… In particular, Rudi Giuliani, John Bolton and Newt Gingrich. Putting aside their weak personalities as well as their individual neoconservative agendas, the common thread which links these names together is their decade long support for the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist organisation (also known as Saddam’s Private Army or Rajavi cult). It is certain that …
Iran Interlink, October 30 2016:… Local observers in Tirana are reporting that the Mojahedin Khalq cultic terror group (MEK) is buying and creating several sandwich and kebab shops in the city and is using the MEK members to work in these fast-food businesses. On the surface this may look like a positive move. In an article titled ‘Albania: What would a de-radicalization program for the Mojahedin Khalq involve’, it was …
Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh, Iran Interlink, October 16 2016:… In spite of American promises, no de-radicalisation programme is in place to deal with over 2500 members of the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist group who have relocated to Tirana from Iraq. The MEK has a long history of violent and criminal activity. This has not stopped now they are in Tirana. Unless the Albanian government introduces its own programme, it must accept …
Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh, Huffington post (and Top Topic), October 09 2016:… For the local citizens, mystery surrounds their arrival and their lifestyle. Should these secretive and covert neighbours be treated with suspicion or kindness? At a local level, the first thing neighbouring families need to be aware of is that among all MEK members, sexual relations have been banned for over 25 years. This means there are no marriages or children or young people in the organisation. More troubling …
Massoud & Anne Khodabandeh, Huffington Post, July 14 2016:… Whether Rajavi is already dead or now killable is not known – only he can answer this – but he and his whole organisation are certainly now, body and soul, in the capable hands of the Saudi Prince. If he is still alive, Rajavi’s only role is to act as go-between to instruct his wife what she must do on behalf of the Saudis. If he is dead
Massoud Khodabandeh, Huffington Post, July 08 2016:… Clearly this message is not aimed at Iranians. The clamour for regime change in Iran does not emanate from inside the country in spite of its many social, civic and political problems. Who then is Maryam Rajavi’s constituency? Fro