Tony Cartalucci, Actvist Post, June 12 2017:… In the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” the use of then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail. The report explicitly stated: The United states …
Tehran Was Always America’s And Thus The Islamic State’s Final Destination
Several were left dead and many more injured after coordinated terror attacks on Iran’s capital of Tehran. Shootings and bombings targeted Iran’s parliament and the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini.
According to Reuters, the so-called “Islamic State” claimed responsibility for the attack, which unfolded just days after another terror attack unfolded in London. The Islamic State also reportedly took responsibility for the violence in London, despite evidence emerging that the three suspects involved were long known to British security and intelligence agencies and were simply allowed to plot and carry out their attacks.
It is much less likely that Tehran’s government coddled terrorists – as it has been engaged for years in fighting terrorism both on its borders and in Syria amid a vicious six-year war fueled by US, European, and Persian Gulf weapons, cash, and fighters.
Armed Violence Targeting Tehran Was the Stated Goal of US Policymakers
The recent terrorist attacks in Tehran are the literal manifestation of US foreign policy. The creation of a proxy force with which to fight Iran and establishing a safe haven for it beyond Iran’s borders have been long-stated US policy. The current chaos consuming Syria and Iraq – and to a lesser extent in southeast Turkey – is a direct result of the US attempting to secure a base of operations to launch a proxy war directly against Iran.
In the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” the use of then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail.
The report explicitly stated:
The United states could also attempt to promote external Iranian opposition groups, providing them with the support to turn themselves into full-fledged insurgencies and even helping them militarily defeat the forces of the clerical regime. The United states could work with groups like the Iraq-based National council of resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.
Brookings policymakers admitted throughout the report that MEK was responsible for killing both American and Iranian military personnel, politicians, and civilians in what was clear-cut terrorism. Despite this, and admissions that MEK remained indisputably a terrorist organization, recommendations were made to de-list it from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization registry so that more overt support could be provided to the group for armed regime change.
Based on such recommendations and intensive lobbying, the US State Department would eventually de-list MEK in 2012 and the group would receive significant backing from the US openly. This included support from many members of current US President Donald Trump’s campaign team – including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton.
However, despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups. The 2009 Brookings paper made mention of other candidates under a section titled, “Potential Ethnic Proxies,” identifying Arab and Kurdish groups as well as possible candidates for a US proxy war against Tehran.
Under a section titled, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” Brookings notes:
Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply.
For the US proxy war on Syria, Turkey and Jordan fulfill this role. For Iran, it is clear that US efforts would have to focus on establishing conduits and safe havens from Pakistan’s southwest Balochistan province and from Kurdish-dominated regions in northern Iraq, eastern Syria, and southeastern Turkey – precisely where current upheaval is being fueled by US intervention both overtly and covertly.
Brookings noted in 2009 that:
It would be difficult to find or build an insurgency with a high likelihood of success. The existing candidates are weak and divided, and the Iranian regime is very strong relative to the potential internal and external challengers.
A group not mentioned by Brookings in 2009, but that exists in the very region the US seeks to create a conduit and safe haven for a proxy war with Iran, is the Islamic State. Despite claims that it is an independent terrorist organization propelled by black market oil sales, ransoms, and local taxes, its fighting capacity, logistical networks, and operational reach demonstrates vast state sponsorship.
The Ultimate Proxy, the Perfect Conduit and Safe Haven
The Islamic State represents the perfect “proxy,” occupying the ideal conduit and safe haven for executing America’s proxy war against Iran and beyond. Surrounding the Islamic State’s holdings are US military bases, including those illegally constructed in eastern Syria. Were the US to wage war against Iran in the near future, it is likely these assets would all “coincidentally” coordinate against Tehran just as they are now being “coincidentally” coordinated against Damascus.
The use of terrorism, extremists, and proxies in executing US foreign policy, and the use of extremists observing the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s brand of indoctrination was demonstrated definitively during the 1980s when the US with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – used Al Qaeda to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan. This example is in fact mentioned explicitly by Brookings policymakers as a template for creating a new proxy war – this time against Iran.
For the US, there is no better stand-in for Al Qaeda than its successor the Islamic State. US policymakers have demonstrated a desire to use known terrorist organizations to wage proxy war against targeted nation-states, has previously done so in Afghanistan, and has clearly organized the geopolitical game board on all sides of Iran to facilitate its agenda laid out in 2009. With terrorists now killing people in Tehran, it is simply verification that this agenda is advancing onward.
Iran’s involvement in the Syrian conflict illustrates that Tehran is well aware of this conspiracy and is actively defending against it both within and beyond its borders. Russia is likewise an ultimate target of the proxy war in Syria and is likewise involved in resolving it in favor of stopping it there before it goes further.
While terrorism in Europe, including the recent London attack, is held up as proof that the West is “also” being targeted by the Islamic State, evidence suggests otherwise. The attacks are more likely an exercise in producing plausible deniability.
In reality, the Islamic State – like Al Qaeda before it – depends on vast, multinational state sponsorship – state sponsorship the US, Europe, and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf are providing. It is also sponsorship they can – at anytime of their choosing – expose and end. They simply choose not to in pursuit of regional and global hegemony.
The 2009 Brookings paper is a signed and dated confession of the West’s proclivity toward using terrorism as a geopolitical tool. While Western headlines insist that nations like Iran, Russia, and China jeopardize global stability, it is clear that they themselves do so in pursuit of global hegemony.
If Terrorists Targeted Russia, Who’s Behind the Terrorists?
Tony Cartalucci, New Eastern Outlook, April 09 2017:… The document would state: The United States could work with groups like the Iraq-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. Although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed …
If Terrorists Targeted Russia, Who’s Behind the Terrorists?
Eleven have been killed and dozens more injured in what is an apparent terrorist attack on St. Petersburg’s metro system. Western analysts are assigning possible blame for the attack on either terrorists operating from Russia’s Chechnya region, or possibly terrorist groups affiliated with fronts fighting in Syria.
Western analysts are also attempting to cement a narrative that downplays the significance of the attacks and instead attempts to leverage them politically against Moscow. A piece in the Sydney Morning Herald titled, “Fears of a Putin crackdown after terror attack on St Petersburg metro,” would attempt to claim:
So who is to blame? No one has said officially. The BBC’s Frank Gardner says suspicions will centre around Chechen nationalists or an Islamic State inspired group wanting payback for Putin’s airstrikes in Syria. Or it could be a combination of both.
Putin has in the past justified crackdowns on civilian protests by citing the terror threat. But will he this time, and will it work?
At least one pro-Kremlin commentator has linked the attack to the recent mass demonstrations organised by Putin’s political opponent.
Yet, in reality, the demonstrations and the terrorist groups being implicated both share a significant common denominator – both are openly long-term recipients of US-European aid, with the latter group also receiving significant material support from US-European allies in the Persian Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
US-European support for foreign-funded organizations posing as “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs) running parallel efforts with terrorist organizations undermining Moscow’s control over Chechnya have been ongoing for decades.
Beyond Chechnya, the United States’ own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) would admit in a 2012 memo (PDF) that:
If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).
The DIA memo then explains exactly who this “Salafist principality’s” supporters are (and who its true enemies are):
The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
In essence, the “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) was a creation of the US in pursuit of its attempted regime change agenda in Syria. The current, self-proclaimed “Islamic State” is situated precisely in eastern Syria where the DIA memo claimed its state sponsors sought to place it. Its role in undermining Damascus and its allies’ attempts to restore peace and order to the Syrian state is obvious.
The fact that NATO-member Turkey served as a logistical, training, and financial hub for not only the Islamic State’s activities, but also other terrorist groups including Al Qaeda’s regional franchise – Al Nusra – also further implicates not only possible Al Qaeda and Islamic State involvement in the recent St. Petersburg blast, but also these organizations’ state sponsors – those who “support the opposition” in Syria.
Whether the United States played a direct role in the St. Petersburg blast or not is inconsequential. Without the massive state sponsorship both Washington and its European and Persian Gulf allies have provided these groups, such global-spanning mayhem would be impossible. The fact that the US seeks to undermine Russia politically, economically, and in many ways, militarily, and has recently fielded US-European-funded mobs in Russia’s streets – means that it is likely not a coincidence violence is now also being employed against Russia within Russian territory.
As per US policymakers’ own documented machinations – such as the 2009 Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF) – a militant component is prescribed as absolutely essential for the success of any street movement Washington manages to stir up against targeted states.
In the Brookings Institution document, it stated unequivocally in regards to toppling the government of Iran, that (emphasis added):
Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it. This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred. Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it.”
The policy document would also openly conspire to fund and arm listed terrorist organizations including the notorious Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The document would state:
The United States could work with groups like the Iraq-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. Although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.
It would also admit that (emphasis added):
Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.
Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.
If US policymakers have openly conspired to arm and fund known terrorist organizations guilty of murdering not only civilians in nations like Iran but also citizens of the United States itself, why would they hesitate to do likewise in Russia?
While the US poses as engaged in a battle against the so-called “Islamic State” in Syria, it has left its obvious, overt state sponsors unscathed both politically and financially. If the bombing in St. Petersburg is linked to US-European-Persian Gulf state sponsored terrorism, it will be only the latest in a long and bloody tradition of using terrorism as a geopolitical tool.
The US, having been frustrated in Syria and having little to no leverage at the negotiation table, is likely trying to “show” Moscow that it can still create chaos both beyond Russia’s borders amongst its allies, and within Russia’s borders – regardless of how well Russians have weathered such tactics in the past.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
link to one of the Mojahedin Khalq songs
advocating terror and killing Americans
(In Persian written and distributed after the Iranian Revolution)
Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult, Saddam’s Private Army, were trained by Mossad to assassinate Iranian scientists
Tehran Times, Marhc 12 2017:… Israel’s secret service, Mossad, trained MEK members. This information largely came from the interrogation of a would-be assassin detained in Iran in 2010. The MEK, however, denies any involvement with Israel, but Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israel connection. The MEK was designated as a terrorist group …
Israel’s role in assassinations of nuclear scientists
(Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult, Saddam’s Private Army, were trained by Mossad to assassinate Iranian scientists)
Although Israel has a policy of not commenting on allegations of murder and terrorism, authorities and unnamed sources have hinted that Israel may be involved in the assassinations of four Iranian nuclear scientists between 2010 and 2012.
Four Iranian nuclear scientists – Masoud Alimohammadi, Majid Shahriari, Darioush Rezaeinejad and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan – were assassinated between the years 2010 and 2012. Another scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi, was wounded in an attempted murder.
Two of the killings were carried out with magnetic bombs attached to the victims’ cars. Rezaeinejad was shot dead in front of his wife and young daughter, and Alimohammadi was killed in a motorcycle-bomb explosion.
Reza Najafi, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday at a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors that “Israel-hired terrorists” were behind the assassinations of the nuclear scientists in the Middle East.
“Unfortunately, the Zionist Regime has ignored the rightful requests of the international community in the last years, and having the blind support of some Western countries and with infringing all international laws and regulations, has pushed its dangerous military nuclear program forward,” the ambassador said.
The former Iranian envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, had called the assassinations of nuclear experts instances of “nuclear terrorism”.
During the time of the assassinations, there was speculation about the identity of the killers. The Israeli Mossad intelligence service and Israel Defense Forces were seen as the most likely perpetrators. However, the Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), intelligence agents from Arab countries opposed to the Iranian government and the United States were also under suspicion.
While then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denied any U.S. involvement in the killings, given the reported lack of U.S. intelligence assets in Iran, Israel neither confirmed nor denied its involvement.
In 2015, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said in an interview with Der Spiegel that he bore no responsibility “for the life expectancy of Iranian scientists”. Speaking about Iran’s nuclear program, he commented that, “it must be stopped”.
“We will act in any way and are not willing to tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. We prefer that this be done by means of sanctions, but in the end, Israel should be able to defend itself,” he said, hinting at Israeli involvement in the assassinations. He called the nuclear negotiations between Iran and six world powers “a historic mistake”.
According to a report by CBS News several years ago, the Obama administration pressured Israel to stop carrying out assassinations inside Iran against the country’s nuclear scientists. This came amid Washington’s attempt to reach a nuclear deal with Iran.
Although Israel never admitted to carrying out the killings, Mossad officials concluded that the assassination campaign became too dangerous for its spies, said the CBS News report.
A well-sourced and convincing investigation from 2012 by NBC News in the U.S. concluded that “deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service”. It also cites two senior Obama administration officials as confirming that the MEK is responsible for the killings.
NBC quoted Mohammad Javad Larijani, a former top diplomat and current chief of Iran’s human rights council, as asserting that Israel’s secret service, Mossad, trained MEK members. This information largely came from the interrogation of a would-be assassin detained in Iran in 2010.
The MEK, however, denies any involvement with Israel, but Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israel connection.
The MEK was designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department in 1997, although the designation was lifted in 2012. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that, even while it was listed as a foreign terror group, MEK members received training from the Joint Special Operations Command in Nevada. During the confrontational period between Tehran and Washington over Iran’s nuclear program, the MEK was attractive to U.S. intelligence agencies as an opposition group in Iran.
Israel has a history of systematic assassinations, most prominent of which are targeted killings of Hamas leaders in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to an Israeli intellectual, “targeted assassinations have become the most significant and frequent form of Israeli military attack,” and serve to control Palestinian territories.
In 2013, a young Iraqi nuclear scientist, Mohammad al-Fouz, was allegedly gunned down by Mossad in the country’s capital city of Baghdad. A member of Fouz’s family told reporters that unknown gunmen targeted the young scientist when he was on his way back home. He had just published his new uranium enrichment formula in a number of Western journals before he died.
No evidence has been provided linking Israel to the murder and Israel denies involvement. However, earlier reports suggest Mossad’s involvement in the assassination of more than 350 Iraqi nuclear scientists and more than 300 university professors. The attack on al-Fouz was the most recent in a series of attacks on Iraqi nuclear scientists.
According to a report released in 2010 by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Israel refused to admit that it had been carrying out “targeted killings” for decades.
“There is no policy, and there never will be a policy or a reality, of willful killings of suspects. The principle of the sanctity of life is a fundamental principle of the Israeli army,” the report quoted the Israel Defense Forces as saying.
Israel has defended its use of assassinations and targeted killings as legal under international humanitarian law.
However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all individuals have the right to life, liberty and security. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also says the right to life must be protected by law and “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived” of that right.
According to the United Nations’ “Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions,” governments must prohibit such executions and ensure they are considered offenses under their state’s criminal laws. It rules out “exceptional circumstances, including a state of war or threat of war” as justifications for such executions.
Mark Regev, the former Israeli prime minister’s spokesman, said in 2012 that it is preferable to arrest and bring “terrorists” to court, but that is not always possible. “Sometimes in the combat reality, the only real option is to eliminate,” he said.
Research by the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), stated that from 2000 to 2008 the Israeli military carried out 348 “extrajudicial execution operations” in the occupied Palestinian territories. The attacks killed 754 Palestinians: 521 of whom were specifically targeted and 233 of whom were civilian bystanders, including 71 children and 20 women.
Anne Singleton: Key to de-radicalization of MEK hostages in Albania are their families
IMPAKT 55 – Muxhahedinet iraniane ne Shqiperi. Interviste eksluzive me Anne Singleton
Albania: John Kerry brought terrorists (Mojahedin Khalq, MEK, Rajavi cult), John Brennan warns of their risk
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 …
(Translated by Iran Interlink)
Albania: John Kerry brought terrorists (Mojahedin Khalq, MEK, Rajavi cult), John Brennan warns of their risk
After the “gift” that John Kerry gave Albania, now CIA director John Bernnan has warned Tirana of the possible huge risk that the Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) terrorist group poses to Albania through its presence in the capital.
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. Fatos Klos said, “The visit to Tirana of the head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), John Brennan, has not gone unnoticed, as it could not have been intended that a state senior discuss only small and unimportant issues”. The former head of the National Intelligence Service, Fatos Klos, said in a statement to the newspaper Today, that he has listed three main issues for which the head of the CIA is believed to have arrived in Tirana. According Klos, one of the issues that has been the subject of discussion between the head of the CIA and top state officials, it is the question of the Mojahedin. The former Albanian head of espionage argues that the new president of the United States, Donald Trump has said he will pursue a new policy, focusing on economic growth in the country and that every member of NATO should contribute financially toward its own security.
In these conditions, Klos explained that America will not protect Albania, nor will it finance the Mojahedin. According to Klos, a change of US policy on the issue of the Mojahedin will increase the risk to Albania from Iran after the Albanian government undertook to accommodate three thousand representatives of the Iranian opposition, that the country considers terrorists. On the other hand, there is a risk from the Mojahedin itself. A lot of these issues would have been discussed, including the Iranian issue. “The new American president will escalate tensions with the Iranians and the Iranians will raise complaints against us because Albania has undertaken to accommodate these terrorists. The head of the CIA comes to discuss such issues. His visit to Tirana is an assessment of Albania’s role and partnership with the US, “said Klos”.
Comrades in Arms – Sexual abuse by Massoud and Maryam Rajavi
Albania: Toxic Waste, Cannabis and the Iranian Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) are part of the same equation under the devilish Justice Reform
Iran Interlink, Tirana, Albania, November 07 2016:… The author of this equation – as expressed in the title of the analysis – is Soros, who lobbied Washington to support this scheme, aiming to provide income to finance the activities of his Foundation in the Balkans and beyond Europe. In coming years, Albania will be known for the import of Mojahedin Khalq organisation, imported toxic waste and the mass cultivation of cannabis. Time will tell how the ‘reformed’ justice system will deal with this challenge. In conclusion, Myftaraj forecasts that Rama’s ‘Justice Reform’ will not affect the progress of this hellish business.
Albania: Toxic Waste, Cannabis and the Iranian Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) are part of the same equation under the devilish Justice Reform
In October, City News published an article by Kastriot Myftaraj criticising Prime Minister Edi Rama’s Justice Reforms. The article outlines what Myftaraj calls a black market deal with Washington to bring thousands of Iranian members of the Mojahedin Khalq organisation to Albania. This is a large number in relation to Albania’s own population and its place amongst other NATO countries. What may have been profitable for some is very harmful for the country and its inhabitants.
Rama’s government is accused of covertly striking other harmful deals. First to transform the country into a large plantation of cannabis production. Second, to transform the country into a centre for processing trash and hazardous waste from Europe and beyond. Both deals earning multi-billion euros for a minority of people.
In order to push these deals, Myftaraj says Prime Minister Rama invented the idea of ‘Justice Reform’, but argues that it doesn’t take a genius to realise that ‘reformers’ of justice are not really interested in making the justice system functional or independent because if this were so, judges and prosecutors would reveal and punish the authors of the above three schemes.
An independent prosecutor would ascertain what agreement there was to allow the introduction of the Mojahedin Khalq organisation in Albania. According to Albania’s constitution, any such agreement should have been passed to Parliament for approval. An independent court, therefore, would prosecute the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior as criminals.
An independent prosecutor would only need to chart the chronology of events to understand the connection implicit in the title of the article. It is no coincidence that the bill for the arrival of garbage and hazardous waste before the Assembly came after the massive influx of Mojahedin.
The author of this equation – as expressed in the title of the analysis – is Soros, who lobbied Washington to support this scheme, aiming to provide income to finance the activities of his Foundation in the Balkans and beyond Europe.
In coming years, Albania will be known for the import of Mojahedin Khalq organisation, imported toxic waste and the mass cultivation of cannabis. Time will tell how the ‘reformed’ justice system will deal with this challenge. In conclusion, Myftaraj forecasts that Rama’s ‘Justice Reform’ will not affect the progress of this hellish business.
Nga Kastriot MYFTARAJ/Plehrat, kanabisi, muxhahedinët iranianë dhe e ashtuquajtura reformë në drejtësi i përkasin të njëjtit ekuacion djallëzor
NDAJE ME MIQTË?
Qeveria e Edi Ramës, duke pranuar në Shqipëri të gjithë organizatën e muxhahedinëve iranianë, me mijëra njerëz, dhe jo vetëm një numër të vogël sipas përpjestimit që i takonte Shqipërisë në një ndarje të tyre në vendet e NATO-s, cfarë ishte marrëveshja e qeverisë paraardhëse, bleu në tregun e zi politik të Washingtonit, dy leje sa fitimprurëse për të, aq të dëmshme për vendin dhe banorët e tij.
Leja e parë është ajo për ta shndërruar vendin në një plantacion të madh të prodhimit të cannabis sativa. Leja e dytë është ajo për ta shndërruar Shqipërinë në një vend-kosh plehrash dhe mbetjesh të rrezikshme të Europës dhe më gjerë. Të dy këto leje sjellin të ardhura prej shumë miliardë eurosh për një pakicë njerëzish.
Për të mashtruar shqiptarët, në ndërkohë që përgatiteshin dhe bëheshin këto, u sajua teatri i reformës në drejtësi. Nuk është nevoja që një njeri të jetë shumë i mencur që të kuptojë se “reformatorët” e Drejtësisë nuk janë të interesuar vërtet për një reformë që ta bëjë Drejtësinë funksionale, të pavarur, sepse nëse do të ndodhte kështu, gjyqtarët dhe prokurorët do të zbulonin dhe ndëshkonin autorët e skemës së mësipërme.
Sepse një Prokurori e pavarur do të kërkonte nga qeveria marrëveshjen për ardhjen e muxhahedinëve në Shqipëri, dhe kur të konstatonte mungesën e marrëveshjes, e cila për më tepër nëse ekzistonte duhet të kalonte në Kuvend për miratim, sipas Kushtetutës, do t’ i dërgonte në Gjykatë si të pandehur Kryeministrin dhe Ministrin e Punëve të Brendshme. Dhe Gjykata e pavarur do t’ i dënonte si kriminelë.
Një Prokurorie të pavarur do t’ i mjaftonte të ndërtonte kronologjinë e ngjarjeve për të kuptuar lidhjen që kam bërë në titullin e kësaj analize. Sepse nuk është rastësi që projekt-ligji për ardhjen e plehrave dhe mbetjeve të rrezikshme erdhi në Kuvend pas ardhjes masive të muxhahedinëve .
Autori i ekuacionit të shprehur në titullin e kësaj analize është Sorosi, i cili loboi në Washington për ta mbështetur këtë skemë, me synim që të sigurojë të ardhura për financimin e veprimtarive të fondacionit të tij në Ballkan dhe më gjerë Europë.
Në vitet e ardhshme Shqipëria do t’ ua shikojë të keqen muxhahedinëve, plehrave të importuara, kultivimit masiv të kanabisit. Koha do të tregojë se sa do të jetë e aftë Drejtësia e reformuar për t’ u përballur me këtë sfidë. Nuk e quaj veten për parashikues të madh nëse them se Drejtësia e reformuar as që do ta cënojë mbarëvajtjen e këtij biznisi djallëzor.