Robert Mackey, The Intercept, February 15 2019:… Off-stage, the U.S. president’s lawyer admitted that he was paid by the exile group, but stressed to reporters that he was in Warsaw on behalf of the MEK in his personal capacity and would not be attending the diplomatic conference organized by the State Department. The Israeli prime minister described the gathering as primarily a meeting of Iran’s enemies.
As Giuliani Calls for Regime Change in Iran, Netanyahu Raises the Specter of “War”
RUDY GIULIANI, the former mayor of New York City who now serves as President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, called for the overthrow of Iran’s government on Wednesday during a rally in Poland staged by a cult-like group of Iranian exiles who pay him to represent them.
Speaking outside the Warsaw venue for an international conference on the Middle East attended by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Giuliani said that his message for the 65 governments discussing ways to confront Iran was simple. “The theocratic dictatorship in Tehran,” Giuliani said, “must end and end quickly.”
Former NY Mayor @RudyGiuliani in Warsaw:
In order to have peace & security in the Mid-East there has to be a major change in the theocratic dictatorship in #Iran. It must end & end quickly in order to have stability#FreeIranWithMaryamRajavi#PolandSummit#IStandWithMaryamRajavi pic.twitter.com/aKafMjxq4k
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) February 13, 2019
Giuliani went on to suggest that peace in the region would only come when Iran was ruled instead by his clients, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exile group of former terrorists also known as the Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People’s Mujahedin. The group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi, already refers to herself as “President-elect.”
.@RudyGiuliani: We have seen regime change work & fail. In #Iran's case we don’t have to worry. There is a viable alternative. Maryam Rajavi's 10-point plan stands for a #FreeIran w/ a democratically-elected Gov instead of a tyrant/monarch.#FreeIranWithMaryamRajavi #WarsawSummit pic.twitter.com/EFJHIw2WUV
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) February 13, 2019
Off-stage, the U.S. president’s lawyer admitted that he was paid by the exile group, but stressed to reporters that he was in Warsaw on behalf of the MEK in his personal capacity and would not be attending the diplomatic conference organized by the State Department.
Even before the conference began, the Israeli prime minister appeared to shrug off efforts by the State Department and the Polish government to portray the gathering as broadly focused on Middle East peace, describing it as primarily a meeting of Iran’s enemies.
In video posted on the prime minister’s official Twitter feed, Netanyahu characterized a meeting with Oman’s foreign minister as “excellent,” and one focused on “additional steps we can take together with the countries of the region in order to advance common interests.”
According to the English translation of Netanyahu’s remarks in Hebrew prepared by his office, the prime minister then added: “What is important about this meeting — and it is not in secret because there are many of those — is that this is an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran.”
A screenshot from video posted on the official Twitter feed of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu’s use of the word “war” seemed to throw Israel’s diplomatic corps into chaos. Within minutes, as journalists speculated that the prime minister’s office might have mistranslated his comment, Netanyahu’s spokesperson to the Arab media, Ofir Gendelman, wrote that the Israeli leader had described his nation’s common interest with Arab nations as “combatting Iran,” not “war with Iran.”
The subtitled video produced by the prime minister’s office was then deleted from his Twitter feed and replaced with the text of Gendelman’s alternative translation.
As my colleague Talya Cooper explains, however, Netanyahu did in fact use the Hebrew word for “war” in the video, which has not yet been deleted from his Hebrew-language YouTube channel. In a separate video, posted by Netanyahu’s office on Facebook earlier in the day, the prime minister had used the Hebrew word for “combat.”
Aron Heller, an Associated Press correspondent based in Jerusalem, also filmed the remarks and reported that although Netanyahu had mentioned “war,” his office said later that he was referring to “combatting Iran.”
— Aron Heller (@aronhellerap) February 13, 2019
Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, seized on the Israeli leader’s apparent Freudian slip as evidence that Netanyahu’s true aim of provoking a war with Iran was now out in the open
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) February 13, 2019
Zarif also suggested that the Trump administration and the exiles of the MEK might have been behind a suicide bombing on a bus in southeastern Iran on Wednesday, which killed 41 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
“Is it no coincidence that Iran is hit by terror on the very day that #WarsawCircus begins?” Zarif tweeted. “Especially when cohorts of same terrorists cheer it from Warsaw streets & support it with twitter bots? US seems to always make the same wrong choices, but expect different results.”
The foreign minister was clearly referring to the MEK, which spent three decades trying to achieve regime change in Iran through violence, including terrorist attacks. The well-funded exile group was also suspected of being behind social media trickery discovered by the BBC, which reported that Twitter bots had been deployed “to artificially create a trend which hints at popular support for the summit and — by extension — widespread resentment towards the Iranian establishment.”
The Iranian exiles have been caught in the past paying nonsupporters to fill out its crowds at rallies, a tactic reportedly used at the event in Warsaw on Wednesday, according to journalists on the ground.
The MEK is having a rally in Warsaw where as usual about a third of the crowd is random non-Iranians who've been bussed in from Slovakia and can't read the signs they're holding pic.twitter.com/NnJyqMxnEY
— Gregg Carlstrom (@glcarlstrom) February 13, 2019
Spoke to journalist in #WarsawSummit. He had attended the MEK terrorist org's rally. Many of the "demonstartors" were Slovak high school kids who couldnt really provide an answer as to why they were there.
Just as the MEK buys bots on Twitter, they do so in real life as well…
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) February 13, 2019
Members of the MEK helped foment the 1979 Iranian revolution, in part by killing American civilians working in Tehran, but the group then lost a struggle for power to the Islamists. With its leadership forced to flee Iran in 1981, the MEK’s members set up a government-in-exile in France and established a military base in Iraq, where they were given arms and training by Saddam Hussein as part of a strategy to destabilize the government in Tehran that he was at war with.
In recent years, as The Intercept has reported, the MEK has poured millions of dollars into reinventing itself as a moderate political group ready to take power in Iran if Western-backed regime change ever takes place. To that end, it lobbied successfully to be removed from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2012. The Iranian exiles achieved this over the apparent opposition of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in part by paying a long list of former U.S. officials from both parties hefty speaking fees of between $10,000 to $50,000 for hymns of praise.
Despite the claims of paid spokespeople like Giuliani and John Bolton — who predicted regime change would come at a lavish MEK rally in Paris just months before being named Trump’s national security adviser — the MEK appears to be as unprepared to take power in Iran as Ahmad Chalabi’s exiled Iraqi National Congress was after the American invasion of Iraq.
— Bahman Kalbasi (@BahmanKalbasi) March 22, 2018
Ariane Tabatabai, a Georgetown University scholar, has argued that the “cult-like dissident group” — whose married members were reportedly forced to divorce and take a vow of lifelong celibacy — “has no viable chance of seizing power in Iran.”
If the current government is not Iranians’ first choice for a government, the MEK is not even their last — and for good reason. The MEK supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. The people’s discontent with the Iranian government at that time did not translate into their supporting an external enemy that was firing Scuds into Tehran, using chemical weapons and killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, including many civilians. Today, the MEK is viewed negatively by most Iranians, who would prefer to maintain the status quo than rush to the arms of what they consider a corrupt, criminal cult.
Despite such doubts, spending lavishly on paid endorsements has earned the MEK a bipartisan roster of Washington politicians willing to sign up as supporters. At a gala in 2016, Bolton was joined in singing the group’s praises by another former U.N. ambassador, Bill Richardson; a former attorney general, Michael Mukasey; the former State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley; the former Homeland Security adviser Frances Townsend; the former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I.; and the former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. That Paris gala was hosted by Linda Chavez, a former Reagan administration official, and headlined by Newt Gingrich, the former speaker who was under consideration to be Trump’s running mate at the time.
Fears about Bolton’s apparently open desire to start a war with Iran have been exacerbated by his boosting of the MEK and his steadfast denial of the catastrophe unleashed by the invasion of Iraq that he worked for as a member of the Bush administration. Last year, when Fox News host Tucker Carlson pointed out that Bolton had called for regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Syria, and the first of those had been “a disaster,” Bolton disagreed.
“I think the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, that military action, was a resounding success,” Bolton insisted to Carlson. The chaos that followed in Iraq, he said, was caused by a poorly executed occupation that ended too soon. On the bright side, Bolton said, the mistakes the U.S. made in Iraq offered “lessons about what to do after a regime is overthrown” in the future.
Earlier this week, Sen. Chris Murphy warned that Bolton appeared to be laying the groundwork for war in a belligerent video message from the White House to mark the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution.
Here Bolton says Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. This simply isn’t true. The intelligence says the opposite and he knows it. He is laying the groundwork for war and we all must be vigilant. https://t.co/1zHR5vaEGn
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 12, 2019
Another strong supporter of the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq was Netanyahu, who, between terms as prime minister, testified to Congress on Sept. 12, 2002 as a private citizen, and advised lawmakers that attacking Iraq would be wise.
A review of Netanyahu’s 2002 testimony — in which he said, “I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice, it’s the right choice” — reveals that he linked his strong support for a United States invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein with the possibility of inspiring the implosion of the ruling theocracy in neighboring Iran.
“It’s not a question of whether Iraq’s regime should be taken out but when should it be taken out; it’s not a question of whether you’d like to see a regime change in Iran but how to achieve it,” Netanyahu said then. “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.”
"If you take out Saddam," Netanyahu told Congress in 2002, "I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran… will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone." pic.twitter.com/ZNTxpSP3a2
— Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) February 14, 2019
Updated: Feb. 14, 2019
This article was updated to include Congressional testimony from Benjamin Netanyahu on Sept. 12, 2002, in which he advocated a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Bolton/Pompeo used MEK to prep the table for Warsaw summit against EU interests
Anne Khodabandeh (Singleton), Balkans Post, January 27 2019:… The Poland summit is an indication that top officials in the Trump administration like former CIA chief Mike Pompeo and Trump’s Security Advisor John Bolton now feel confident they can create Trump’s foreign policy for him. The MEK’s use as a regime change tool is not new, but it was a speech made by John Bolton (before he was appointed Security Advisor) at the 2017 MEK rally in Paris that first indicated that his advocacy for using the MEK for regime change against Iran had a timeline.
Bolton/Pompeo used MEK to prep the table for Warsaw summit against EU interests
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s global summit in Warsaw on 13 and 14 February to discuss Middle East issues was greeted with scepticism. It was widely interpreted as a thinly veiled excuse to talk about Iran. And because Iran was not invited, the agenda could only be hostile.
But while it is acknowledged that Pompeo wants to build consensus against Iran, it is also understood that Pompeo’s first target is the European Union. Efforts to get the EU to withdraw from the JCPOA have already failed. This time, Pompeo hopes his approach will undermine the unity and integrity of the European Union itself. There are already divisions. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini has rejected the invitation. But European countries which may send representatives are those – Denmark, Belgium and Holland – which have allegedly been targeted by Iran for terrorist acts.
Manufactured threat to Europe
The Poland summit is an indication that top officials in the Trump administration like former CIA chief Mike Pompeo and Trump’s Security Advisor John Bolton now feel confident they can create Trump’s foreign policy for him.
Pompeo will come to Poland with a list of grievances against Iran, including human rights violations, destabilising the region, terrorism and of course, Iran’s ballistic missile programme. Some grievances are subject to interpretation – Iran of course is in Syria at the invitation of Bashar al Assad. Iran’s success in driving back Daesh in Syria and Iraq is undisputable. However, there is evidence that some grievances have been manufactured to deliberately demonise Iran. From its closed base in Albania, the Iranian Mojahedin Khalq (aka MEK, MKO, NCRI, Rajavi cult) been busy behind the scenes for over two years creating a false narrative designed to persuade European politicians that Iran is a threat to Europe.
The MEK’s use as a regime change tool is not new, but it was a speech made by John Bolton (before he was appointed Security Advisor) at the 2017 MEK rally in Paris that first indicated that his advocacy for using the MEK for regime change against Iran had a timeline. “Before 2019”, he told his audience, “we here will celebrate in Tehran”. Others chimed in; Albania’s former prime minister Pandeli Majko boasted that he would eat ice cream with the MEK in Tehran after they conquered Iran. As 2018 passed into 2019 commentators mocked. However, the idea of an active plan wasn’t picked up until last week when it was revealed that Bolton was doing everything within his power to push for President Trump to launch a military attack on Iran. The dots now begin to join up.
Regime Change Timetable
John Bolton is a long-term paid cheerleader for the MEK. He did not hesitate to visit them when they arrived in Albania to give them his blessing. And also, it seems, to enable their activities. In the Autumn of 2017, the MEK were given the green light to evade the de-radicalisation programme agreed by the Obama administration and regroup in a closed camp 30km from the capital where the cultic conditions of Iraq could be replicated.
Inside the camp the MEK were helped to create a click farm, using the slave labour of the members, to create and curate an online narrative concerning Iran to shape public and political perception on human rights, terrorism, nuclear intentions, etc.
In March 2018, the MEK made a false allegation against two retired Iranian journalists. They were invited to Albania to celebrate Norouz or Persian New Year by religious leader Baba Mundi and the Bektashi community. The MEK told police they were there to kill MEK members in their remote camp. Albanian police found no evidence and apologised to the men and the religious community. But the MEK narrative has been repeated so many times that it has taken on the aspect of fact. Indeed, it has now taken on the aspect of a ‘super-fact’ as faked embellishments to the story have been added; “A truck loaded with explosives was set to attack 3,000 members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) who are refugees in Albania, the dissident faction explained..”
In April 2018, the MEK the suspicious death of a troublesome member was a reminder that the MEK has a history of eliminating its members to whitewash its past. The impunity with which the MEK can act has transferred from Iraq to Albania because the MEK is protected by America. The Albanians do not have authority over the MEK in their own country.
In July 2018, just after the MEK held its annual propaganda rally in Paris to promote its regime change agenda an alleged assassination plot was immediately blamed on Iran. Iran however denied responsibility and called it a false flag op aimed at alienating the EU. Iranian media published information that two of those involved were long-term MEK supporters.
MEK are untrustworthy
With this background, it is hardly surprising that while anti-Iran pundits are happy to take money to promote the MEK as the main opposition, its leader Maryam Rajavi has not been invited to the summit in Poland. Not only would that ensure a total boycott, but Rajavi herself cannot answer for the criminal and subversive activities of her group. Instead of staying in the shadows though, Maryam Rajavi has insisted on holding her own propaganda rally in Paris on the 8th February, desperate to maintain the fiction that the MEK is relevant and popular and that it is the key to regime change.
Pompeo may echo this message but will fall short of promoting the MEK. The real reason for keeping the MEK at arms-length is not just because it is too dirty, but because ultimately the MEK cannot be trusted. The rally on 8th February is an example of the MEK doing its own thing. It may be a paid mercenary group but Rajavi doesn’t know when to stop. The Intelligence community knows the MEK. It is a group which will take money to kill Iranians. It is a group which may also, one day, take money to kill Americans. It would be disastrous for any government to share a platform with such people and Albania should follow America’s example; keep the MEK at a distance.
Anne Khodabandeh, is an expert in anti-terrorist activities and a long-standing activist in the field of deradicalization of extremists. She has written several articles and books on this subject, along with her husband, who is of Iranian origin.
Untangling The Web Of The Saudi-Israeli-US Propaganda War On Iran
Behnam Gharagozli, Iranian.com, February 06 2019:… One manifestation of this trend is witnessing how the MEK was somehow transformed from a terrorist organization to a dissident Iranian organization after only a short time. This transformation from terrorist to dissident just so happened to occur after the MEK’s base in Iraq was sacked (the MEK had been an ally of Saddam Hussein) and the calls for regime change in Iran grew louder. That the mainstream media belongs to only a handful of large corporate entities is another fact to consider.
Untangling The Web Of The Saudi-Israeli-US Propaganda War On Iran
Shortly after the horrific attacks on 9/11, it was discovered that there was an American plan to dismantle the regimes of seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and lastly, Iran. Since then, the world witnessed regime change and subsequent civil wars in Iraq and Libya while Somalia and Sudan remain failed states. However, Iran, along with its close ally, the Lebanese Hezbollah, which is said to be stronger than the Lebanese army and the most powerful non-state armed actor on earth, remain not only fully functional but have in fact expanded their power vis-à-vis the United States, Israel and their Gulf Arab governments.
US-Israeli-Saudi efforts in the Middle East since 2001 have provided multiple instances of Blowback—long term, unintended negative consequences of foreign policy. Nowhere is this more telling than Iran’s expanded and still growing influence in the region as the result of American missteps. Rather than converting Iraq into a launching pad to effectuate regime change in Iran, the United States saw Iranian influence and control grow in Iraq. Rather than meeting its declared mission of knocking out the Lebanese Hezbollah in 2006, Israel suffered its third defeat at the hands of the Iranian ally. In Iraq’s quest to rid its country of ISIS fighters, one Iranian official joked that the Iraqis prefer to have Iranian commanders lead from the front rather than American advisers direct them from the rear. Relatedly, world opinion generally credits Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Suleimani, rather than any American, Israeli or Saudi counterpart, as the one who led the successful campaign against ISIS in Iraq.
Instead of giving up its quest for regime change in Iran, the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia appear to be more determined than ever.
Instead of giving up its quest for regime change in Iran, the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia appear to be more determined than ever. Evidence for this is found not only in Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and imposition of harsh sanctions against Iran, but also in the mainstream media’s bias in reporting on Iran. Rather than analyzing the obvious drawbacks in pursuing regime change in Iran (e.g. the expected high loss of human life, enormous cost to the American taxpayer and resulting chaos in what would in all likelihood result in a fragmentation of the country similar to that of Syria and Libya), the mainstream media curiously appears to favor a regime change policy.
While this may initially appear to be surprising, identifying the many groups that would benefit from regime change in Iran quickly harmonizes the disparity between facts and reporting. Saudi Arabia and Israel would greatly benefit from Iranian regime change, as it would eliminate their chief rival in the region. The notorious terrorist cult organization, Mujahedin-e Khalq (“MEK”) would be a likely beneficiary, as it would clear the way for them to achieve their goal of acquiring power in the country (an objective that they failed to achieve after the 1979 revolution). Simultaneously, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi (the would be ruler of Iran but for the 1979 revolution) of the Pahlavi family would potentially be able to return to some sort of a leadership position in the country. The neoconservative establishment in the United States that infamously brought us the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and subsequent brutal aftermath would stand to benefit, as regime change in Iran was their ultimate goal (“Anyway can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran.”). One must recall that the neoconservatives sought a fairy tale scenario wherein the fall of Baghdad would lead to the rest of the Middle East (Iran included) to magically turn into pro-American liberal democracies.
The goal of removing the clerical regime in Iran is apparently so powerful that it has united groups that would otherwise hate one another. Indeed, absent a hatred of the Iranian regime, there are few commonalities between a Zionist, Saudi royalist, Iranian monarchist, MEK member and a Neocon. Nevertheless, many of these various groupings have found a loose yet committed confederation in their quest for regime change.
This confederation has revealed itself in the mainstream media’s bias against Iran. One manifestation of this trend is witnessing how the MEK was somehow transformed from a terrorist organization to a dissident Iranian organization after only a short time. This transformation from terrorist to dissident just so happened to occur after the MEK’s base in Iraq was sacked (the MEK had been an ally of Saddam Hussein) and the calls for regime change in Iran grew louder.
That the mainstream media belongs to only a handful of large corporate entities is another fact to consider. What this means for pro-regime change groupings is that there are relatively few sources that must be purchased to create an echo chamber favoring their political agenda. What is more, it is odd that Persian language outlets such as Voice of America, Manoto, Kalameh and Radio Farda consistently and persistently appear to favor regime change despite so many obvious policy drawbacks.
…it is important to expose media outlets that receive funding from the Israeli government, Saudi Kingdom, MEK, Pahlavi family and neoconservative groups.
In light of the above, it is important to expose media outlets that receive funding from the Israeli government, Saudi Kingdom, MEK, Pahlavi family and neoconservative groups. This will reveal important biases to alert the public of another American foreign policy misadventure that will dwarf the carnage of Operation Iraqi “Freedom.
Historical Background Behind the Saudi-Israeli-US Alliance Against Iran
That the MEK and Pahlavi family seek regime change in Iran should come as no surprise. Both organizations adamantly feel as though they are the true rulers of Iran and that they were unjustly pushed out of power by the current regime.
However, it is important to identify the geopolitics behind the Saudi-Israeli-US alliance against Iran to put the issue in its proper context. This is especially so as Saudi Arabia and Israel (along with their respective lobbies in the United States) face an uncomfortable reality: Iran’s status as an ethnic minority in the region, important strategic position, natural resources, large economy, powerful military and significant influence in the Middle East make Iran a much better geopolitical ally to the United States than both Israel and Saudi Arabia combined.
The U.S-Saudi relationship dates back to the 1940s wherein the United States essentially committed to protect the Saudi Royal Family in exchange for cheap oil. American commitment to this doctrine was subsequently reinforced in the Nixon and Carter Doctrines.
Prior to the 1979 revolution in Iran, the United States had set up a regional containment strategy designed to check Soviet power with American allies in light of American commitments elsewhere such as Vietnam. In May 1972, President Nixon’s administration immensely increased support of the pro-Western Shah of Iran, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi. The Nixon Doctrine essentially stood on two pillars:
Saudi Arabia and Pahlavi Iran (aka “twin pillars”). Pahlavi Iran was a crucial pro-Western buffer state and was regarded as the “strategic prize.”
Shah of Iran with President Nixon during a state visit to the United States, July 24, 1973. Source: Richard Nixon Foundation
1979 brought the twin pillar policy crashing down as it brought an end to Pahlavi Iran and replaced it with an anti-American Islamic Republic that sought to export its revolution. This resulted in the Carter Doctrine wherein the United States declared that:
Any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
The anti-American nature of Iran’s 1979 revolution and the Carter Doctrine turned the United States and Iran from allies to enemies. Indeed, on January 7, 1981, President Carter signed a secret directive authorizing “the Pentagon to use force to prevent Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz to oil exports.” What is politically ironic but geopolitically not surprising is that President Reagan continued the Carter Doctrine.
Since American officials at the time viewed military force as a last resort, the United States required a proxy to enforce the Carter Doctrine. As a result, Reagan administration threw its weight behind Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Saddam Hussein Iran-Iraq war 1980s. Credit: Wikipedia
The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) revealed Saddam Hussein to be an incompetent military proxy for the United States. Throughout the war, American officials expressed repeated anxiety about the Iraqi military’s ability to perform against Iranian advances. Indeed, American aid was crucial to preventing a decisive Iranian victory in the Iran-Iraq war.
Saddam Hussein would subsequently prove himself to be a liability. Not realizing that he was merely an American pawn to protect the other Arab governments in the Persian Gulf from Iranian expansion, Saddam invaded oil rich Kuwait. This foolish move invited direct American military intervention in Operation Desert Storm (1990-1991) and severely weakened Iraq’s military.
After essentially decimating its regional strongman, the United States was left without a military proxy to check Iranian expansion in the region. While the Cold War was over, American concerns about Iranian influence throughout the Middle East remained. Indeed, President George H.W. Bush generally continued the Carter Doctrine upon his signing of the National Security Directive 26 on October 2, 1989.
President Clinton’s lack of foreign policy experience allowed his National Security Advisor, Martin Indyk, a former AIPAC director to dominate Clinton’s Middle East policy. Indyk convinced Clinton to pursue a policy of containment vis-à-vis Iran.
Meanwhile, Israel, emboldened by the fall of the Soviet Union, the crippling of Saddam Hussein (an arch nemesis of Israel) and having an ally in the Clinton White House, began to depict Iran as a threat to advance its “New Middle East” ambitions. Israeli Prime Minister’s Yitzhak Rabin’s proposal whereby Israel would play a central role in the Middle East required Israel to demonize the only remaining regional power in the Middle East: Iran. That Rabin’s vilification of Iran flew in the face of Israel supplying Iran with weaponry and lobbying the United States to do so throughout the Iran-Iraq war apparently was of no importance.
Utilizing the often repeated but poorly supported myth of Israeli military invincibility, Israel and its lobby in the United States was able to convince the Clinton administration that Israel could replace Saddam as the regional pro-American powerhouse to thwart Iranian influence.
Israeli-AIPAC efforts in the United States quickly bore fruit in the anti-Iran campaign. AIPAC successfully lobbied the Clinton administration and subsequently Congress to halt all U.S. trade with Iran despite Israel continuing trade with Iran. This included cancellation of a $1 billion Iranian oil contract with an American company, Conoco. Although the Conoco deal found support in the State Department and CIA, pro-Israeli forces in the United States ended the deal by way of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act. This also served as the third failed attempt by then Iranian Akbar Hashemi President to normalize relations with the United States and therefore emboldened Iranian hardliners. Simultaneously, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich publicly secured $18 million for covert operations against Iran while arguing for regime change.
9/11 would considerably raise the stakes. With the rise of neo-conservatism in the United States, the Israeli lobby found a welcoming ear in their quest for regional expansion. The Israel lobby’s role in pushing the United States to invading Iraq is well documented.
Iran saw the writing on the wall. Indeed, neo-conservatives were not ambiguous about their ambitions for regime change in Iran. Such voices manifested themselves via official means by way of President Bush’s Axis of Evil speech in 2002 vilifying Iran despite Iran providing the Americans with crucial support in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan. This resulted in Iran converting its cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan into subversion.
Oddly, the United States did not have a concrete plan in place to invade Iran after toppling Saddam. The Bush administration did not conduct war games or simulations on this topic.
Nevertheless, Iran offered the United States and Israel the 2003 grand bargain (which has received little attention in American mainstream media) whereby the two countries would normalize relations, Iran would offer full access to its nuclear, chemical and biological tech programs, cooperation on fighting terrorism, assistance in stabilizing post-Saddam Iraq and pressuring Palestinian opposition groups to stop violence against Israel. The proposal even offered to disarm the Lebanese Hezbollah. The Bush administration and Israel instead decided to pursue regime change and rejected the grand bargain.
Coupled with American incompetence in stabilizing post-Saddam Iraq (e.g. Paul Bremer’s de-Baathification policy), U.S. and Israeli announcements for regime change convinced the Iranian regime to not only subvert American efforts in Iraq, but to take advantage of the power vacuum that the American invasion created and expand Iranian influence in Iraq. Rather than becoming a launching pad for an American invasion of Iran, post-Saddam Iraq turned into an Iranian ally.
Iran’s increased strength and expansion throughout the Middle East pushed Saudi Arabia and Israel closer together. The two countries had always had an unusual alliance. The Saudi Kingdom’s rise to power in the country significantly owes a debt to the British favoring the Ibn Saud family (the current ruling family in Saudi Arabia) over the Hashemites (the would be ruling family in Saudi Arabia). Part of the British preference was due to the Ibn Saud family’s approval of the creation of the state of Israel as per Britain’s Balfour Declaration. Recently, Saudi Royalists and Zionist hardliners have found a common enemy in Iran and decided that it would be convenient to reinforce their alliance.
However, the United States, Israel nor Saudi Arabia has the ability to overthrow the Iranian regime by way of overt military force. American military plans in the late 1990s asserted that toppling the Islamic Republic by force would require three years of fighting and at least half a million troops. Such plans and the estimates upon which they were premised were based on circumstances that predated the Iranian regime’s entrenchment in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Currently, therefore, it is logical to conclude that the current cost to topple the clerical regime in Iran is much higher. As such, the three countries have resorted to a propaganda war in hopes of weakening Iran and creating the conditions necessary for regime change.
Instances of Reporting Bias
On October 31, 2018, the Guardian published an article headlined “Concern over UK-Based Iranian TV Channel’s Links to Saudi Arabia.” In that article, Saeed Kamali Dehghan detailed that a UK-based Iranian TV station is being funded by a “secretive offshore entity” with close links to the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (“MBS”). The UK-based Iranian TV station, “Iranian International TV” joined the many exiled Iranian channels that reach Iranian residents by way of satellite television such as BBC’s Persian service and Manoto TV. An insider claimed that the channel had turned into a platform for “ethnic partisanship and sectarianism.” The article went on to identify instances where Iranian International TV provided the MEK a platform and how its parent company, Volant Media has strong links with the Saudi Royal Family. Importantly, Iranian International TV receives no commercial income, which makes its dependence on Saudi funding and corresponding Saudi bias incredibly apparent.
The article notes that “According to one source, Saudi Arabia gave” $250 million to launch Iran International. Subsequently, Tasnim News and Press TV observed that according to a tweet from the Guardian correspondent, Dehghan, that “one source” was Khashoggi. The tweet unambiguously indicated that:
“I can confirm that Jamal Khashoggi was killed because of speaking to me on the phone from Istanbul in the morning on 26 September, revealing that London-based Iran International TV was funded by Mohammad bin Salman and Saud al-Qahtani.”
This tweet, which was later deleted, did not receive any considerable coverage in American mainstream media. One may argue that Tasnim News and Press TV have a strong pro-Iran and anti-Saudi bias. However, such an argument would ignore the fact that the tweet from Saeed Kamali Dehghan stands on its own regardless of any bias on the part of Tasnim and Press TV.
While mainstream American media has provided some coverage on the Khashoggi murder, it has failed to do so within the crucial policy framework of Trump’s pro-regime change stance in Iran.
When considered in conjunction with Trump’s November 20th statement pardoning Saudi Arabia in part by demonizing Iran, the above strongly supports the contention that the United States has declared a propaganda war on Iran. That Trump has admitted to having personal business interests (and subsequently denied those business interests when confronted) with the Saudi Kingdom only bolsters the claim. Trump’s decision to cite Israeli interests when defending the U.S.-Saudi relationship only further reveals that there is coordination among the U.S, Israel and Saudi Arabia in this regime change campaign against Iran.
In 2017, protests began in one of Iran’s largest cities, Mashhad. The trigger appears to have been dissatisfaction regarding the price of food and necessities. Regime change advocates quickly sought to exploit these protests. Many who agreed with the protestors’ grievances were concerned that external forces like the Pahlavi family and MEK would attempt to leverage what appeared to be reasonable complaints to push for their own goals.
Such concerns turned out to be well founded. The Guardian reported on June 30, 2018 that Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, admitted that the protests were “happening because of many of our people in Albania.” What is significant about Albania is that it is the location where MEK’s compound is located. On November 9, 2018, the Guardian revealed that MEK’s “main work in Albania involves fighting online in an escalating information war.” This information war included a 1,000 member “troll farm” in Albania that would post propaganda in multiple different languages and multiple different online outlets (including Facebook, Twitter and others).
The above was virtually absent in mainstream American media. When read in conjunction with statements by John Bolton (who would subsequently become Trump’s National Security Adviser) at a 2017 MEK rally calling for regime change in Iran by 2019, it is difficult to ignore the Trump administration’s reckless regime change policy in Iran. What is even more troubling is that the Trump administration intends to achieve this goal by using an organization that the Iranian general public sees as synonymous with treason.
$300 Million Contract
With respect to why the Iran protests were happening, Giuliani also referred to “many of our people…throughout the world.” On August 4, 2018, the Critics Chronicle revealed that Saudi Arabia paid $300 million to Reza Pahlavi, the Crown Prince of the Pahlavi family and the would be heir to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s throne but for the 1979 revolution. This $300 million contract was intended for Reza Pahlavi to promote anti-government protests in Iran. At the writing of this draft, that article is not available online. However, the story was republished in November by other outlets including Tehran Times. Consistent with the overall trend, this story did not appear in mainstream American media.
Credible Iran analysts across the world are nearly unanimous in their belief that Reza Pahlavi, like MEK, has little to no support among the Iranian general public. That the American mainstream media would not report that an unpopular figure like Reza Pahlavi received $300 million to promote regime change in Iran cements the contention of an Israeli-Saudi-US information war.
Mossad To Use Mercenary MEK For Fatal False Flag Op In Albania
Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh, Iranian.com, November 04 2018:… The logical conclusion would be the creation of a false flag operation involving an attack on MEK members in Albania (outside the European Union so that it cannot be thwarted or investigated) which leaves some dead, and which can be blamed on Iran. Rajavi would be happy to fulfil this order since this would fill the bank of the “blood of martyrs” as she calls …
Mossad To Use Mercenary MEK For Fatal False Flag Op In Albania
On October 30, Denmark claimed that Iran had sent intelligence agents to assassinate the leader of the Danish branch of the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz (ASMLA). Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen robustly denounced the alleged plot as “totally unacceptable” and Denmark’s foreign ministry said it would urge other European countries to impose sanctions on Iran. The plot was apparently revenge for the terrorist attack on a military parade in Ahvaz Iran in September in which 29 people were killed. Iran however said it had already tracked down and killed ISIS operatives in Syria and Iraq which it blamed for the massacre. This prompts the question, why Iran would commit a further act of violence in Europe at a time when President Rouhani is on a diplomatic mission to persuade European leaders to maintain the JCPOA and resist following America in imposing sanctions?
According to Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, Mossad tipped off Denmark’s security and intelligence agency about the assassination plot. But this was only the latest in a series of similar alleged plots this year aimed at implicating Iran. In June on the eve of a visit by President Rohani to France, a bomb plot aimed at the Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) cult was also blamed on Iranian intelligence. Two of the plotters were subsequently found to have long term links with the MEK. Again, Mossad had given intelligence to the Belgians who made arrests. Again, the unanswered question is why would Iran do anything to jeopardise relations with Europe and threaten continuation of the JCPOA?
“Two of the plotters were subsequently found to have long term links with the MEK.”
Iran’s accusers have failed to explain this discrepancy. Reuters fantastically wrote: “Apparently, Iran is working hard behind the scenes to disrupt its relations with Europe.” Similarly, the Wall Street Journal, which ran a series of articles specifically on this issue, was unable to come up with a plausible explanation saying only that “The allegation that an Iranian operative plotted an attack on French soil is jeopardizing Europe’s support for the accord.” Again, why would this serve Iran’s interest? Perhaps then we must turn attention to these accusers to explain what is going on.
Earlier in March, Albanian police detained two Iranian journalists at a cultural event in Tirana. This time it was the MEK which falsely claimed Iran had sent agents to kill members of their group whose base is 30 kilometres away. The men had come to celebrate Nowruz at the invitation of the Bektashi’s World Chief Baba Mondi, on regular visas issued by the Albanian consulate in Turkey. The police subsequently apologised to the men and the Baba Mondi for the mistake. But even then the Albanian media was warning of false flag opsinvolving MEK.
A pattern emerges in all three cases: based on intelligence from Mossad the alleged assassination target – an anti-Iran, pro-West group – is identified, European security is quick to act, suspects are arrested, Reuters breaks the news, Iranian intelligence agents are implicated, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo immediately condemns Iran and his statements are further broadcast by American media, Iran denies any involvement, the WSJand other media embellish the story with imaginative detail of the individuals involved. Knowing that MEK leader Maryam Rajavi is among these accusers allows a clearer interpretation of events.
In the days leading up to the arrest in Denmark, Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) cult leader Maryam Rajavi held clandestine meetings with Israeli agents in the International Hotel in Tirana. Her presence in Albania provides a key to unlocking the mystery surrounding the plots allegedly involving Iranian intelligence accused of plotting to kill enemies on European soil.
As the MEK’s de facto leader, Rajavi’s role is to provide services to her backers – a virulently anti-Iran cabal from the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia – through the slave labour of MEK members. Rajavi receives funds to keep her group functioning but does not pass this money on to the members who do the work. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein the demands on MEK have changed. The cult’s new benefactor Prince Turki al-Faisal who made his presence felt at their Villepinte propaganda event in June 2016, is a former Intelligence chief. The MEK of Saddam/Massoud Rajavi which was overwhelmingly military/terrorist has now been replaced by the MEK of Turki/Maryam and is overwhelmingly intelligence/terrorist. MEK’s history of clandestine, intelligence-led activity is now being exploited. Rajavi is motivated by the survival of her cult. She will do whatever necessary to ensure the group does not disintegrate. As these authors explained in a previous article, MEK has a long history of self-serving bloodshed to boost morale and prevent further defections.
“In this context the MEK’s orders are clear; set up a situation to blame on Iran.”
In this context the MEK’s orders are clear; set up a situation to blame on Iran. There is precedence. In Iraq, from one year ahead of the controversial attack on Camp Ashraf which left 53 dead, MEK were shouting ‘Iran wants to kill us’. Iraqi investigators were not allowed to interview MEK survivors of the attack. Then later, in Albania, Malik Sharai, a witness to those events, was eliminated. Ex-members said he was about to leave the group. Similarly, while in Camp Liberty, MEK leaders began to cry victimhood days before a missile attack on the base which they blamed on Iran. Iraqi investigators found no link with Iran.
With this background, if it is remembered that MEK members are expendable, that their role is to sacrifice their lives, the stark conclusion is that fatalities will follow. And if the alleged plots by Iran which Foreign Minister Zarif describes as an “Incredible series of coincidences. Or, a simple chronology of a Mossad program to kill the JCPOA”, fail to drive a wedge between Iran and Europe, then clearly more drastic measures will be needed. Something that would force Europe to react against Iran. The logical conclusion would be the creation of a false flag operation involving an attack on MEK members in Albania (outside the European Union so that it cannot be thwarted or investigated) which leaves some dead, and which can be blamed on Iran. Rajavi would be happy to fulfil this order since this would fill the bank of the “blood of martyrs” as she calls the MEK’s sacrifices. It would also motivate the disaffected members who are regularly leaving the cult – last week alone 6 people managed to escape. With this in mind, Maryam Rajavi’s meetings with Israeli agents in the International Hotel in Tirana would indicate that a fatal event is imminent.
By Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh
Albanian Translation by Gazeta Impakt)
Mosadi do të përdorë mercenarët e organizatës MEK për sulme të rreme fatale brenda Shqipërisë
gazeta impakt –
November 4, 2018
nga Anne dhe Massoud Khodabandeh.
Në 30 tetor, Danimarka deklaroi se Irani kishte dërguar agjentët e inteligjencës për të vrarë udhëheqësin e degës daneze të Lëvizjes së Luftës Arabe për Çlirimin e Ahvazit (ASMLA). Kryeministri Lars Lokke Rasmusen e denoncoi fuqishëm komplotin e dyshuar duke e quajtur atë “krejtësisht të papranueshëm”, ndërsa ministria e jashtme e Danimarkës tha se do t’i nxiste edhe vendet e tjera evropiane që të vendosnin sanksione ndaj Iranit. Komploti ishte me sa duket hakmarrje për sulmin terrorist në një paradë ushtarake në Ahvaz të Iranit në shtator, në të cilën u vranë 29 vetë. Megjithatë Irani tha se i kishte gjurmuar dhe vrarë përgjegjësit, operatorët e ISIS-it, të cilët i kishte fajësuar për masakrën. Kjo shtron pyetjen se përse Irani do të kryente një akt të mëtejshëm dhune në Evropë në një kohë kur Presidenti Rouhani gjendet në një mision diplomatik për të bindur udhëheqësit evropianë që të ruajnë JCPOA-n dhe të rezistojnë duke mos e ndjekur Amerikën në vendosjen e sanksioneve?
Sipas gazetarit izraelit Barak Ravid, Mosadi informoi agjencinë e sigurimit dhe të inteligjencës të Danimarkës për komplotin e vrasjes. Por kjo ishte vetëm e fundit nga një seri komplotesh të ngjashme të pretenduara këtë vit që synonin të implikonin Iranin. Në qershor, në prag të vizitës së Presidentit Rohani në Francë, një komplot me bombë që synonte të godiste kultin Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) ju mvesh inteligjencës iraniane. Më vonë, dy nga komplotuesit dolën se kishin pasur lidhje të vjetra me MEK. Përsëri, Mosadi i kishte dhënë informacione sekrete belgëve të cilët u përgjigjen duke kryer arrestime. Sërish pyetja pa përgjigje që shtrohet është se përse Irani do të bënte veprime të tilla për të rrezikuar marrëdhëniet me Europën dhe në anën tjetër të kërcënonte vazhdimin e marrëveshjes JCPOA?
Paditësit e Iranit nuk kanë arritur të shpjegojnë këtë mospërputhje. Reuters ka shkruar për këtë në një mënyrë fantastike: “Me sa duket Irani po punon shumë prapa skene për të prishur marrëdhëniet e tij me Evropën”. Ngjashëm me këtë Wall Street Journal, që publikoi një seri artikujsh në mënyrë specifike për këtë çështje, nuk ishte në gjendje të krijonte një shpjegim të besueshëm. Kjo media vetëm tha se: “Dyshohet se një agjent iranian deshi të kryejë një komplot sulmi në tokën franceze duke rrezikuar mbështetjen e Evropës për marrëveshjen.” Pse do t’i shërbente përsëri ky veprim interesit të Iranit? Atëherë ndoshta duhet ta kthejmë vëmendjen tek akuzuesit për të marrë shpjegimin se çfarë po ndodh.
Më herët në mars, policia shqiptare arrestoi dy gazetarë iranianë në pension në një aktivitet kulturor në Tiranë. Këtë herë ishte MEK që në mënyrë të rreme pretendonte se Irani kishte dërguar agjentë për të vrarë anëtarët e grupit të tij, baza e të cilit është 30 kilometra larg Tiranës. Personat kishin ardhur me viza të rregullta të lëshuara nga konsullata shqiptare në Turqi për të festuar Nevruzin me ftesë të kryegjyshit botëror Bektashian Baba Mondit. Policia më pas u kërkoi falje për gabimin personave dhe Baba Mondit. Por edhe atëherë mediat shqiptare po paralajmëronin opsione të sulmeve të rreme (false flags) që përfshinin MEK-un.
Një skenar shfaqet në të trija rastet: bazuar në informacionet e Mossadit, objektivi i supozuar identifikohet si një grup anti-iranian, pro-perëndimor, siguria evropiane tregohet e shpejtë për të vepruar, të dyshuarit arrestohen, Reuters jep lajmin, agjentët iranianë janë të implikuar, Sekretari amerikan i Shtetit Mike Pompeo menjëherë dënon Iranin dhe deklaratat e tij transmetohen më tej në mediat amerikane, Irani mohon çdo përfshirje, WSJ dhe mediat e tjera e zbukurojnë historinë me detaje imagjinare të individëve të përfshirë. Duke ditur se kreu i MEK, Maryam Rajavi është në mesin e këtyre akuzuesve lejon një interpretim më të qartë të ngjarjeve.
Në ditët para arrestimit në Danimarkë, udhëheqësja e kultit Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) Maryam Rajavi mbajti takime klandestine me agjentë izraelitë në hotelin Tirana Internacional në Tiranë. Prania e saj në Shqipëri ofron një zgjidhje për zhbllokimin e misterit që rrethon komplotet në të cilat thuhet se janë përfshirë inteligjenca iraniane e akuzuar për komplotet për të vrarë armiqtë në tokën evropiane.
Si lidere de facto e MEK-ut, roli i Rajavit është të ofrojë shërbime për mbështetësit e saj – një intrigë të fortë anti-iraniane për SHBA-në, Izraelin dhe Arabinë Saudite – nëpërmjet punës skllavëruese të anëtarëve të MEK-ut. Rajavi merr fonde për të mbajtur funksionimin e grupit, por këto para nuk ua kalon anëtarëve që bëjnë punën. Që nga rënia e Sadam Huseinit, kërkesat e MEK-ut kanë ndryshuar. Princi Turki al-Faisal, bamirësi i ri i kultit, i cili e bëri prezantimin e tij në veprimtarinë propagandistike të MEK në Villepinte në qershor 2016, ka qenë një ish-shef i inteligjencës. MEK-u i Saddamit / Massoud Rajavit i cili ishte me tepër i militarizuar dhe terrorist tani është zëvendësuar me MEK-un e Turkit / Merjemit dhe është më tepër grup spiunazhi / terrorist. Historia e MEK-ut me veprimtarinë e tij klandestine dhe spiunazhin e tij sa vjen dhe bëhet më e qartë. Rajavi është e motivuar nga mbijetesa e kultit të saj. Ajo do të bëjë gjithçka që është e nevojshme për të siguruar që grupi të mos shpërbëhet. Siç e kanë shpjeguar disa autorë në disa artikuj të mëparshëm, MEK ka një histori të gjatë me gjakderdhje brenda perbrenda grupit për të rritur moralin dhe për të parandaluar dezertimet e mëtejshme.
Në këtë kontekst synimet e MEK-ut janë të qarta; krijimi i një situatë për të fajësuar Iranin. Ka një paraprirje të gjërave. Në Irak, një vit përpara sulmit të diskutueshëm në Kampin Ashraf ku u vranë 53 vetë, MEK bërtiste, “Irani kërkon që të na vrasë”. Hetuesit irakianë nuk u lejuan që të intervistonin të mbijetuarit e MEK-ut. Më vonë në Shqipëri, Malik Sharai, një dëshmitar i atyre ngjarjeve u eliminua. Ish-anëtarët thonë se ai ishte gati që të largohej nga grupi. Ngjashëm me këtë, ndërsa ndodheshin në Kampin Liberty ku udhëheqësit e MEK-ut po përkujtonin ditët e tyre të vuajtjeve, ndodh një sulm me raketa. Ata fajësuan menjëherë Iranin për sulmin, megjithatë hetuesit irakienë nuk gjetën asnjë lidhje të sulmit me Iranin.
Me këtë lloj formimi, duke parë që anëtarët e MEK-ut janë të tillë, ku roli i tyre është të sakrifikojnë jetët e tyre, përfundimi është i zymtë dhe ka per tu shoqëruar me viktima. Dhe nëse komplotet e pretenduara të Iranit të cilat Ministri i Jashtëm Zarif i ka përshkruar si një “seri e pabesueshme rastësore. Ose thjesht një kronologji e një programi të Mosadit për të shkatërruar JCPOA-n”, dështojnë për të krijuar një çarje mes Iranit dhe Evropës, atëherë do të nevojiten masa shumë më drastike. Diçka që do ta detyronte Evropën të reagonte kundër Iranit. Konkluzioni logjik do të ishte krijimi i një operacioni me sulme të rreme (false flags) që do të përfshinte një sulm kundër anëtarëve të MEK-ut në Shqipëri (jashtë Bashkimit Evropian në mënyrë që sulmi të mos mund të pengohej ose të hetohej) gjë që do të linte disa të vdekur dhe ku të mund të fajësohej Irani. Rajavi do të ishte mëse e lumtur ta përmbushte këtë pasi që kjo do ta mbushte bankën e “gjakut të dëshmorëve”, ashtu sic i quan ajo sakrificat e MEK-ut. Gjithashtu do ti motivonte anëtarët e pakënaqur që rregullisht e lënë kultin, ku vetëm javën e kaluar 6 veta ia dolën që të largoheshin nga organizata MEK. Duke menduar këto dhe duke parë takimet e Maryam Rajavit me agjentët izraelitë në hotelin Tirana International në Tiranë, lihet të kuptohet se një ngjarje fatale ka për të qenë e afërt./iranian/Gazeta Impakt
Puppet policies of Albania: Internet censorship bill and paving the…
Filip Vuković, Balkans Post, January 24 2019:… Following the news in recent weeks, we can notice that the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK or MKO) purchased 1,700 Lenovo brand computers and monitors from an Albanian firm. This terrorist cult, a darling of Washington conservatives, Israelis and Saudis, has set up a state within a state inside Albania and is used by its sponsors…
Another Member Of The MKO (MEK, NCRI, Rajavi cult) Left…
Nejat Society, January 09 2019:… “In 1989 a team of MKO recruiters headed by Mehdi Abrishamchi launched their propaganda in the POW’s camps to recruit us,” Mohammadian writes in his statement of defection. “Together with some other Iranian prisoners, I joined them but, soon I found out that their propaganda was completely false”. He witnessed an immoral, undemocratic and inhuman atmosphere…
Were the Iranians really ready to carry out an attack…
Gli Occhi Della Guerra, Rome, Italy, January 07 2019:… The Albanian investigative journalist Gjergj Thanasi had followed the case and had managed to show how the two were in fact [retired] Iranian journalists invited by the well-known Bektashi Albanian community for the celebrations of the Shiite festivity of Nowruz and to attend a conference on Imam Ali. Their visas had been…
America is turning Albania into a safe haven for international…
Balkans Post, January 03 2019:… The Iranian Mojahedeen-e-Khalq organization which were designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and Canada until 2012, started to come to Albania in 2013. A few months after the Obama administration removed them from the terrorist list, the Americans asked the government of Sali Berisha in Albania to offer asylum to 250 Iranian Mojahedeen commanders who…
Historian Kocaqi on the MEK: ‘They should not have been…
Ora News, December 30 2018:… Our government should not be involved at all with issues relating to Iran, and for me, the Mojahedin should not have been taken in by Albania at all. Taking thousands of people and thereby importing conflict is, for me, very wrong. Albanians have been so persecuted in the last two centuries, even by Europe, there is…
Objections to whitewashing human rights abuses by MEK in Albania…
Various sources, December 02 2018:… Dear Mr SOKOL BALLA and the Vision Plus TV in Albania, I suggest that the next time you want to report about the MEK, it would be better to ask them about their past, about forced divorces, working with Saddam Hussein, and imprisonment and torture inside Camp Ashraf. And in addition, invite investigative delegations to establish the truth…
Open Letter to Prime Minister Edi Rama – Secure the…
Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh, Balkans Post, November 06 2018:… Please, make sure that the MEK leadership does not lose its mind and commit horrific acts in your country. Enforce the law and impose the authority of your government over the MEK cult and reassure the European public that Albania is a responsible country. Your reply to this letter will be that…
Secret MEK troll factory in Albania uses modern slaves (aka…
Massoud and Anne Khodabandeh, Balkans Post, September 22 2018:… But, back in Albania if the Al Jazeera interviewer had asked ‘how much money does an MEK member make for spending all day, every day as an internet troll?’ The answer would be “nothing”. MEK does not pay its members anything. It never has and never will. This is because it operates…