Rajavi Cult , MEK failed to make an impact in Iran protests

Rajavi Cult , MEK failed to make an impact in Iran protests

MEK failed to make an impact in Iran protestsNauman Sadiq, Euroasia Review, December 19 2019:… Unlike Lebanon and Iraq, though, Iran itself is immune to foreign-backed political demonstrations as it does not have any imperialist collaborators on the ground, besides a fringe militant group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) funded by the US, France and Israel. Iraq has been through the US occupation from 2003 to 2011 and is known to have US sympathizers in the Kurdish-held north and the Shi’ite-majority south of the country, where the US oil majors operate and dispense largesse among local chieftains of myriad clans and fraternities. Rajavi Cult , MEK failed to make an impact in Iran protests

MEK failed to make an impact in Iran protestsIranian Protests And MEK Absence Inside Iran

Rajavi Cult , MEK failed to make an impact in Iran protests

Saudi Oil Attack And Choreographed Protests In Iran-Aligned Countries – OpEd

Since the planting of limpet mines on oil tankers off the coast of the UAE in May, the subsequent downing of the US surveillance drone in the Persian Gulf and the brazen attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia on September 14, choreographed protests have erupted in Lebanon and Iraq since October.

Lebanese American journalist Rania Khalek has documented for The Gray Zone [1] the US-backed political forces are spearheading the “color revolution” in Lebanon, where Iran-backed resistance group Hezbollah is part of the coalition government.

Similarly, Iraq has been through the US occupation from 2003 to 2011 and is known to have US sympathizers in the Kurdish-held north and the Shi’ite-majority south of the country, where the US oil majors operate and dispense largesse among local chieftains of myriad clans and fraternities.

Unlike Lebanon and Iraq, though, Iran itself is immune to foreign-backed political demonstrations as it does not have any imperialist collaborators on the ground, besides a fringe militant group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) funded by the US, France and Israel.

The Many Faces of the MEK, Explained By Its Former Top Spy Massoud Khodabandeh

Unlike Lebanon and Iraq, though, Iran itself is immune to foreign-backed political demonstrations as it does not have any imperialist collaborators on the ground, besides a fringe militant group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) funded by the US, France and Israel.

The proximate cause of the November 15 protests in Iran was steep rise in petrol prices by the Rouhani government, dubbed as “sabotage” by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The worst-hit region was Khuzestan province in southwest Iran which is home to large Sunni Arab minority known to have grievances against Tehran and susceptible to infiltration by imperialist stooges.

Regarding the recent escalation in the Persian Gulf, although the Houthi rebels based in Yemen claimed the responsibility for the September 14 complex attack involving drones and cruise missiles on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and they have UAV-X drones having a range of 1,500 kilometers, Washington dismissed the possibility.

Instead, the United States accused Tehran of mounting the attack from Iran’s territory, which is unlikely because Iran would never leave behind smoking gun evidence implicating Tehran, as the strategically vital Persian Gulf is monitored round the clock by American satellites and surveillance aircraft. The most likely suspects were Iran-backed militias in Iraq because the complex attack involving drones and cruise missiles was staged from the north.

Quoting Iraqi intelligence officials, David Hearst reported [2] for the Middle East Eye a day after the September 14 attack that drones and missiles were launched by the Hashed al-Shabi militia from its bases in southern Iraq.

Although Washington concocted “credible intelligence” the attack was mounted directly from southwest Iran, what lends credence to the report the attack was staged from southern Iraq is the fact that several eye witnesses reported seeing drones traversing the Kuwaiti airspace, entering from north and hitting targets south in eastern Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, in the weeks preceding the attack, Washington had accused the Hashed al-Shabi militia of mounting another attack in eastern Saudi Arabia claimed by the Houthi rebels because the oil-rich Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia is nearer the Iraq border than it is to the Houthi stronghold in Saada, Yemen.

Furthermore, in the weeks before the attack, the Iran-backed militias blamed [3] the US and Israel in August for mounting airstrikes on their bases in Iraq targeting the missile storage facilities. The missiles were recently provided to the militias by Iran. It’s worth noting that 5,000 American troops and numerous aircraft are still deployed in Iraq, therefore the likely culprit targeting the Iran-backed militias in Iraq was the United States, not Israel.

Taking cover of the Israeli airstrikes, Washington has conducted several airstrikes of its own on targets in Syria and Iraq and blamed them on Israel, which frequently mounts air and missile strikes against Iranian operatives and Hezbollah militia in Syria and Lebanon, though Israel has never conducted an airstrike in Iraq because for that Israeli aircraft would have to violate Jordanian airspace.

Are The MEK And Regime Change Finally Running Out Of Road?

Besides the airstrikes on the missile storage facilities of Iran-backed militias in Iraq, it is suspected that the US air force was also behind a recent airstrike at the newly built Imam Ali military base in eastern Syria at al-Bukamal-Qaim border crossing alleged to be hosting the Iranian Quds Force operatives.

In addition to planting limpet mines on the UAE’s oil tankers and shooting down the American Global Hawk surveillance drone, the September 14 attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field was the third major attack in the Persian Gulf against the interests of Washington and its regional clients.

That the UAE had forewarning about imminent attacks is proved by the fact that weeks before the attacks, it recalled forces from Yemen battling the Houthi rebels and redeployed them to man the UAE’s territorial borders.

Nevertheless, a puerile prank like planting limpet mines on oil tankers can be overlooked but major provocations like downing a $200-million surveillance aircraft and mounting a drone and missile attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility that crippled its oil-processing functions for weeks can have serious repercussions.

The September 14 attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility in eastern Saudi Arabia was an apocalypse for the global oil industry because it processes five million barrels crude oil per day, more than half of Saudi Arabia’s total oil production.

The subversive attack sent jitters across the global markets and the oil price surged 20%, the biggest spike witnessed in three decades since the First Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, though the oil price was eased within days after industrialized nations released their strategic oil reserves.

In order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf’s oil in the energy-starved industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data: Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production is 10 million barrels; Iran and Iraq each has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per day each; while UAE and Kuwait each has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3 million barrels per day each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788 billion barrels, more than half of world’s 1477 billion barrels proven oil reserves.

Not surprisingly, 35,000 American troops have currently been deployed in the military bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which states: “Let our position be absolutely clear: an 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.”

It bears mentioning that alongside deploying several thousand American troops, additional aircraft squadrons and Patriot missile batteries in Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the Abqaiq attack, several interventionist hawks in Washington invoked the Carter Doctrine as a ground for mounting retaliatory strikes against Iran.

The only saving grace of Iran is its military strength, geostrategic location in the Persian Gulf and the rhetoric of resistance against American imperialism appealing to the grassroots sentiments of the Middle East’s masses, who stand firmly united behind the revolutionary government, nevertheless Tehran has prudently avoided further escalating the conflict with Washington’s client regimes in the region following the choreographed demonstrations in Lebanon and Iraq since October.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and MENA regions, neocolonialism and Petroimperialism.

MEK defectors raise doubts over alleged Iranian ‘terror cell’ in Albania

Rajavi Cult , MEK failed to make an impact in Iran protests

Link to the source

***

US government supports MEK , Iranian terrorist groupSecretary of State Mike Pompeo sponsors MKO terrorists 

Also read:
https://iran-interlink.org/wordpress/iranian-protests-mek-trolls/

Iranian Protests , MEK Trolls , Reckless American Officials

Iranian Protests , MEK Trolls , Reckless American OfficialsEldar Mamedov, Lobe Log, November 27 2019:… These protests are fundamentally of the same nature as anti-austerity revolts in other countries, such as, most recently, Egypt and Chile. Neither of these countries is an object of American sanctions, nor is there any external-promoted regime change drive. This does not mean that there are no attempts to hijack legitimate economic grievances for regime change purposes. The fake news machine fueled by monarchist and Mujahedeen-e Khalk (MEK) trolls was in full swing trying to create an impression of a revolutionary situation. In addition, reckless statements by American officials, such as Richard Grenell, the ambassador in Germany, and Brian Hook, the special representative for Iran, gave credence to the hypothesis of external manipulation. Iranian Protests , MEK Trolls , Reckless American Officials 

Iranian Protests , MEK Trolls , Reckless American OfficialsUS – MEK meddling poisons grassroots democracy in Iran

Iranian Protests , MEK Trolls , Reckless American Officials

Can The Iran Crisis Be A Blessing In Disguise For Europe?

Popular protests in Iran came at a particularly delicate time for the nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers, known as Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA). More than one year after the United States unilaterally withdrew and re-imposed extraterritorial sanctions against Iran, the JCPOA is hovering precariously on a brink of collapse. Currently, the only obvious path available for Iran and the U.S. to avoid a direct confrontation is the French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to mediate between them, and to issue a $15 billion credit line to Iran to cover its basic needs.

The eruption of the protests in Iran, however, seems to have dis-incentivized Washington from seeking to re-launch diplomacy with Tehran. Instead, the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo unambiguously sided with the protestors. They see the protests as evidence that their campaign of “maximum pressure” against Iran is working.  Consequently, there is no point in talking to the “theocratic regime,” as it is, from their view, about to implode soon anyway.

This is likely to be a miscalculation. True, Iran consistently defied expectations and serially embarrassed experts, therefore humility is in order when assessing developments there. And the regime-imposed Internet shutdown at the outset of the protests does not contribute to better understanding them. Yet, any suggestion of an impending regime change in Iran should be met with skepticism.

Since its inception, the Islamic Republic has weathered multiple crises. Current turmoil was provoked not by the American sanctions, but by the government-imposed 50 percent hike in fuel prices. Ironically, in implementing the measure, the Rouhani administration followed the advice of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the very mainstay of American-led international financial order. As an economist Esfandiyar Batmanghelidj noted, doing so was fiscally sound, as Iran has unreasonably low petrol prices. According to  the IMF, subsidies to maintain them eat up to 1.6 percent of Iran’s GDP. These protests are fundamentally of the same nature as anti-austerity revolts in other countries, such as, most recently, Egypt and Chile. Neither of these countries is an object of American sanctions, nor is there any external-promoted regime change drive.

The fake news machine fueled by monarchist and Mujahedeen-e Khalk (MEK) trolls was in full swing trying to create an impression of a revolutionary situation. In addition, reckless statements by American officials, such as Richard Grenell, the ambassador in Germany, and Brian Hook, the special representative for Iran, gave credence to the hypothesis of external manipulation.

This does not mean that there are no attempts to hijack legitimate economic grievances for regime change purposes. The fake news machine fueled by monarchist and Mujahedeen-e Khalk (MEK) trolls was in full swing trying to create an impression of a revolutionary situation. In addition, reckless statements by American officials, such as Richard Grenell, the ambassador in Germany, and Brian Hook, the special representative for Iran, gave credence to the hypothesis of external manipulation.

This push, however, is unlikely to succeed, for three main reasons. First, however alienated many Iranians feel with respect to the regime, their experience tells them that a violent revolution usually leads to worse, not better outcomes. Second, the fear of a bloody chaos and disintegration along the Syrian or Iraqi lines is genuine and runs deep. Third, the security apparatus is brutally effective in nipping any uprising in a bud and its job is being helped by credible allegations of external interference. Coincidence or not, but the latest wave of protests started to ebb after loud proclamations of a U.S. support.

That leaves the nuclear clock ticking as before the protests. Absent any negotiation and sanctions relief, Iran is likely to accelerate its own departure from the JCPOA. The much-feared next step may be enrichment of uranium up to 20 percent, which could trigger a sanctions snapback in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Iranians made it clear that this would lead them to abandon not only the JCPOA, but also consider leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as well. All IAEA inspectors would then be expelled from the country. That, in itself, does not inevitably imply a dash for nuclear weapons. Iranians would be content with creating what Nasser Hadian, a political scientist from the Tehran university, calls  strategic ambiguity that would have the world guess about their intentions.

Once the situation is pushed to that extreme, only two paths become available: further securitization of Iran under the Article 7 of the United Nations Charter, or new, post-JCPOA negotiations. Consistent with Iran’s tactics in the last months, more pressure would certainly invite more resistance from Iran, both on the nuclear file and in the region. Those who like President Hassan Rouhani and foreign minister Javad Zarif still advocate for diplomacy will have fewer arguments to convince the ultimate decider, Ayatollah Khamenei, to back their line. The hardliners who reject any accommodation with the West, by contrast, will see their power increased, perhaps as soon as the next parliamentary elections in February 2020. That would leave war as a way to break the deadlock. President Donald Trump, however, consistently showed reluctance to engage in a new, and assuredly disastrous, conflict in the Middle East that could cost him re-election. A Democratic president would be even less inclined to embark on a warpath at the beginning of his or her mandate.

Which makes a return to diplomacy at some point inevitable. The sooner it happens, the lower the costs and risks for all involved. Once Iran is referred to the UNSC, the likelihood of a full-blown nuclear crisis will increase—the reluctance of U.S. presidents to engage in wars should not be taken as a guarantee that they will never stumble into one. Likewise, some elements within Iran, far more radical than Khamenei, might be tempted to push things to the brink. Even if both sides will escalate merely to accumulate chips for an eventual bargaining, the risks that the conflict will spiral out of control can never be underestimated. And credible negotiations are more likely with the current government of Iran than an alternative, which is another reason why Hook’s jubilation at protests is so woefully misplaced.

To prevent a nuclear crisis from materializing, Europe needs to step in and deliver Macron’s credit lines to Iran as a way of keeping it within the JCPOA. In situations of acute security threat, the EU is capable of acting, including by putting money where its mouth is: it happened in 2016 when the EU struck a pragmatic deal with Turkey on migration management. Washington’s reaction to the protests in Iran leaves no space for doubts: there is simply no time left for Europe to wait for U.S. approval of its initiatives on Iran. Macron’s plan should be implemented without any further delay.

The alternative to such a bold action for Europe would be either a war that will directly affect its security, or negotiations at some point between the U.S. and Iran, with Europe absent from the table. If the EU seizes the momentum now, it has a chance of proving itself as a serious geopolitical player. In this sense, the Iran crisis may yet prove to be a blessing in disguise. If not, Macron’s stark warning of Europe fading into irrelevance will prove to be sadly prescient.

avatar

ELDAR MAMEDOV

Eldar Mamedov has degrees from the University of Latvia and the Diplomatic School in Madrid, Spain. He has worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and as a diplomat in Latvian embassies in Washington D.C. and Madrid. Since 2007, Mamedov has served as a political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the EP delegations for inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, and Mashreq.

End

Iranian Protests , MEK Trolls , Reckless American Officials

Link to the source

***

Iranian Protests And MEK Absence Inside IranIranian Protests And MEK Absence Inside Iran

Also read:
https://iran-interlink.org/wordpress/us-uses-mek-to-fuel-unrest-in-iran/

US uses MEK to fuel unrest in Iran

US uses MEK to fuel unrest in IranTehran Times, November 18 2019:… Ali Shamkhani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), has said that anti-revolutionary elements and the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO or MEK) are behind the unrest over gasoline price hike in Iran, an MP said on Sunday. “Mr. Shamkhani pointed to documents which show that in the past two days, organized groups of anti-revolutionaries attacked police forces. They carried fire weapons and caused harms to banks and public properties,” Ahmad Amirabadi stated. US uses MEK to fuel unrest in Iran 

Mojahedin_Khalq_MEK_Ch_4_News_AlbaniaThe shadowy cult Trump advisors tout as an alternative to the Iranian government

US uses MEK to fuel unrest in Iran

Shamkhani says anti-revolutionary elements behind unrest in Iran

US uses MEK to fuel unrest in Iran M. Hanif Jazayeri Heshmat Alavi

TEHRAN – Ali Shamkhani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), has said that anti-revolutionary elements and the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO or MEK) are behind the unrest over gasoline price hike in Iran, an MP said on Sunday.

“Mr. Shamkhani pointed to documents which show that in the past two days, organized groups of anti-revolutionaries attacked police forces. They carried fire weapons and caused harms to banks and public properties,” Ahmad Amirabadi stated.

Shamkhani attended a meeting of the Majlis (parliament) on Sunday. The meeting was closed to cameras.

The government decided on Friday to cut petrol subsidies to fund support for the poor. Petrol in Iran still remains among the cheapest in the world.

According to a statement published by National Iranian Oil Products Distribution Company, the price for a liter of regular gasoline was increased to 15,000 rials (nearly 35 cents at the official rate of 42,000 rials per dollar) from 10,000 rials and the monthly ration for each passenger car was set at 60 liters. Additional purchases would cost 30,000 rials per liter.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday expressed support for the decision.

Speaking to his theology students, Ayatollah Khamenei said he has previously announced that since he is not an expert on the issue, he would support any decision made by heads of the three branches of government and the experts.

The Leader voiced sympathy with people who feel the decision would harm them economically, but condemned any act of sabotage that has been carried out by some hooligans and supported by Iran’s enemies.

US uses MEK to fuel unrest in Iran

Link to the source

***

Also read: