Who Is “Republicans’ favorite Democrat”? (Joseph Liberman and Mojahedin Khalq, MEK, Rajavi cult … )

Who Is “Republicans’ favorite Democrat”? (Joseph Liberman and Mojahedin Khalq, MEK, Rajavi cult … )

Habilian Association, September 14 2017:… More recently, in 2015, Lieberman joined the advisory board of a new AIPAC-backed lobbying organization, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI). Lieberman’s affiliation with the group elicited criticism in part because of his support for the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a controversial Iranian opposition group which until 2012 was on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations … 

مزدور مریم رجوی و اربابان صهیونیست UANI, Joe Lieberman and the MEK (Mojahedin Khalq)

Maryam Rajavi Saddam's private army NCRICouncil of Foreign Relations, 2014: Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK). Backgrounders

Link to the source

Who Is “Republicans’ favorite Democrat”?

Joseph Lieberman, long regarded as the “Republicans’ favorite Democrat” because of his militarist foreign affairs agenda and support for a number of right-wing domestic policies, represented Connecticut initially as a Democrat and later as an “Independent Democrat” in the U.S. Senate. First elected to the Senate in 1988, Lieberman retired at the end of his term in 2013.

A neoconservative Democrat who regularly teamed up with hawkish Republican colleagues—notably Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Jon Kyl—to promote militarist security policies, Lieberman earned a reputation as a foreign policy hawk for his outspoken support for the war in Iraq and for his consistent collaboration with neoconservative-led advocacy groups pushing for interventionist policies in the Middle East.

After leaving office, Lieberman continued his foreign policy advocacy, joining numerous neoconservative groups, in particular the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he has co-chaired with former Senator Kyl its American Internationalism Project, a purportedly cross-party initiative meant “to rebuild and reshape a bipartisan consensus around American global leadership and engagement.”[1]

Quipped one commentator: “Lieberman, a preeminent neocon, should feel right at home there. There is nothing remotely bipartisan about his views. They are those of an unreconstructed neocon. His tenure at AEI will allow him to continue to pontificate to a sympathetic audience about why he regards even mild opposition to his intransigent bellicosity as benighted obstructionism.”[2]

Other overtly militarist advocacy organizations that Lieberman became involved in shortly after leaving office included the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a spinoff of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where he became a member of its board of advisors in January 2013[3]; the neoconservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, where he become a member of the advisory board; and the Hudson Institute, where he co-chaired the “Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense.” In November 2013, Lieberman also joined the Center for a New National Security (CNAS) as a member of its board of directors.[4]

More recently, in 2015, Lieberman joined the advisory board of a new AIPAC-backed lobbying organization, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI). Lieberman’s affiliation with the group elicited criticism in part because of his support for the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a controversial Iranian opposition group which until 2012 was on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.[5] CNFI itself has seemingly sought to erase material from its website suggesting it has ties with the MEK. According to a July 2015 LobeLog story: “Two items on the website of Citizens for a Nuclear Iran, one of which was later removed, featured an exiled Iranian opposition group called the Mojahedin-e Khalq.”[6]

In August 2015, Lieberman was appointed the chairman of the Sheldon Adelson-backed United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), replacing Gary Samore after the latter stepped down and announced his support for the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Said Lieberman at the time: “UANI has led the effort to economically isolate the Iranian regime, and its bipartisan and international expertise makes it a highly respected voice on the merits of the Iran agreement. I am honored to assume this new leadership role at this important time.”[7]

Lieberman—who promised during his Senate career that he would never become a lobbyist[8]—registered to lobby on behalf of a Libyan politician in November 2013. Lieberman’s lobbying efforts form part of his work as senior counsel for Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, a national law firm Lieberman joined in June 2013 and whose lobbying operation is headed by Lieberman’s former chief of staff.[9]

Opposition to Iran Diplomacy

Lieberman has actively advocated against the nuclear negotiations between Iran and six world powers, which led to the historic July 2015 agreement between Tehran and the P5+1 group of nations. He has argued that “no deal” with Iran would have been a better option for the United States than a purportedly “bad deal.” He wrote in a July 2014 op-ed: “Rather than being a defeat for the United States, a refusal to accept a bad deal in Vienna could strengthen the Obama administration at home and abroad. It would help rebuild its bruised credibility and influence in the Middle East and hopefully increase the odds that the administration can ultimately achieve the goal of peacefully, verifiably bolting the door on Iran’s illicit nuclear ambitions.”[10]

Lieberman also strongly defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial March 2015 speech to Congress criticizing the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran. Leading up to the speech, Lieberman urged Democratic members of Congress to not skip Netanyahu’s address, saying: “Go because you know that Israel is one of our closest and most steadfast allies and you feel a responsibility to listen to its leader speak about developments that he believes could threaten the safety, independence and even existence of his country.”[11]

In a March 2015 interview shortly before Netanyahu’s speech, Lieberman argued that Netanyahu wished to address Congress because he saw “echoes” of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in President Obama’s approach to Iran. “I think there are echoes of this that I think Netanyahu hears and we ought to all hear so that we don’t repeat the worst experiences of history,” Lieberman opined.[12]

After the comprehensive nuclear deal was reached with Iran in July 2015, Lieberman claimed that the United States had “conceded and conceded and conceded” to Iran and urged members of Congress to revoke the agreement. “I can’t think of a vote that I cast, apart from the ones deploying American troops into combat, that was as important as this agreement is to the future security of the United States,” Lieberman declared.[13]

Shortly after the deal was announced, Lieberman joined the advisory board of a new AIPAC-backed lobbying organization, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI). CNFI launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign against the Iran deal that was primarily aimed at Democratic constituencies in an effort to get Democratic votes in Congress to reject the deal. CNFI’s board of advisors has included several former Democratic members of Congress, including former Sens. Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Begich (AK), Mary Landrieu (LA), and former Rep. Shelley Berkley (NV).[14] CNFI’s TV ads released after the July 2015 accords were described by prominent nuclear experts as “very misleading.”[15]

In August 2015, Lieberman was appointed the chairman of the Sheldon Adelson-backed United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). “Senator Lieberman will play a key leadership role throughout UANI’s efforts to educate and inform the American public regarding the serious shortcomings of the Iran nuclear deal,” a UANI press release said of Lieberman’s appointment. The statement also highlighted that UANI president Gary Samore would be stepping down in order to “avoid any conflict with UANI’s work in opposition to the agreement” given that he “ultimately supports the agreement.”[16]

Commented Jim Lobe: “For those who are noting the overlap between Iraq war promoters and Iran deal saboteurs, Lieberman is your man.”[17]

Syria and Iran Policy

During his final term in the Senate, Lieberman was a vocal advocate for U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war. In an August 2012 Washington Post op-ed coauthored with McCain and fellow hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Lieberman called for the United States to arm select Syrian opposition groups and to provide air support for so-called “humanitarian safe zones” on Syria’s borders, despite arguments from many analysts that Syria’s conflict increasingly resembled a sectarian civil war and may have been infiltrated by foreign jihadists.[18]
“The U.S. reluctance to intervene in Syria is, first of all, allowing this conflict to be longer and bloodier, a radicalizing dynamic,” they wrote. “Contrary to critics who argue that a greater U.S. role in Syria could empower al-Qaeda, it is the lack of strong U.S. assistance to responsible fighters inside the country that is ceding the field to extremists there.”[19]
Earlier that year, McCain and Lieberman made a surprise visit to Free Syrian Army fighters on the Turkish border, where they declared that the conflict could only be resolved militarily. “Diplomacy with Assad has failed,” they said in a statement, “and it will continue to fail so long as Assad thinks he can defeat the opposition in Syria militarily.”[20]
Lieberman was also among Congress’s most strident hardliners regarding Iran, pushing through new sanctions measures and advocating for an aggressive U.S. posture. In comments made at the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative shortly after the 2010 midterm elections, Lieberman asserted that Congress would pressure the Obama administration for more sanctions against Tehran and possibly military action. Arguing that he was skeptical that economic sanctions could prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, Lieberman contended there was “broad bipartisan base of support” for taking military action against Iran.[21]

In April 2006, Lieberman became the first prominent Democrat to announce his support for preemptive attacks against Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons. In an April 2006 interview with the Jerusalem Post, Lieberman said the aim of air strikes would be “to delay [the nuclear program] to deter it hoping that you set the program off course so that by the time they catch up back to where they were there’s been a change in government. That’s the limited objective that I would see.”[22]

By mid-2007, Lieberman had expanded his agenda to include attacking sites in Iran near the border with Iraq. He argued the sites were being used to arm and train insurgents. Frustrated with the lack of political will in Washington to support U.S. strikes without sufficient proof of complicity of Iranian support for attacks in Iraq, Lieberman called on June 11, 2007, for a “strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”[23]

In September 2007, Lieberman and Kyl cosponsored an amendment calling on the State Department to officially label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a “foreign terrorist organization.” According to the Agence France Presse, the non-binding amendment, which passed 76-22, “says that senators agree it is in the critical national interest of the United States to prevent Iran turning Shia extremists in Iraq into a ‘Hezbollah type force.’”[24]

Independent Democrat, closet Republican, Neoconservative?

Lieberman’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror” made him a target of antiwar Democrats, and he was eventually defeated during a 2006 Senate primary contest against Ned Lamont. However, Lieberman handily won the general election as an Independent.[25] Some observers attributed the primary defeat to Lieberman’s Senate vote on June 22, 2006, in which he was one of only six Democratic senators to vote against two resolutions aimed at limiting U.S. involvement in the Iraq War.[26]

Lieberman critics also frequently highlighted the senator’s cozy relationship with Republicans, who often lavished praise on the senator. In December 2005, for example, after Lieberman chastised Democrats for pushing for withdrawal from Iraq, both Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld publicly extoled him. Said Cheney: “On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission.”[27]

In the run up to his 2006 primary election defeat, Lieberman announced that he would run as a “petitioning Democrat” during the main election, sparking widespread criticism from Democrats. Responding to the announcement, Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the Daily Kos blog, told the New York Times: “An interesting kind of ‘Democrat,’ Lieberman thinks he is. One who doesn’t respect the wishes of his state’s Democratic voters, one who will split his state’s vote on the left and potentially hand the election to a Republican.”[28]

The election sparked a spirited debate over Lieberman and what his fate might mean for the Democratic Party. Some, like Marshall Wittmann, a fellow at the (now defunct) right-leaning Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Progressive Policy Institute, contended that Kos and other “McGovernites with modems” are playing a dangerous game in attacking Lieberman, a game that ultimately plays into Republicans’ hands.[29]

Harold Meyerson, editor-at-large of the left-leaning American Prospect, saw the issue a bit differently, writing in an op-ed for the Washington Post: “Lieberman’s ultimate problem isn’t fanatical bloggers, any more than Lyndon Johnson’s was crazy, antiwar Democrats. His problem is that Bush, and the war that both he and Bush have championed, is speeding the ongoing realignment of the Northeast. His problem, dear colleagues, is Connecticut.”[30]

In one of his first moves after winning the 2006 midterm, Lieberman announced that his new spokesman would be Wittmann, whom the New York Times characterized “one of the great ideological contortionists.”[31]

An idiosyncratic ideologue associated with a bewildering array of political factions—including the Trotskyites, the neoconservatives, the Christian Coalition, and various Republican politicians—Wittmann promoted efforts to push hardline policies in the Democratic Party as a senior fellow of the Progressive Policy Institute and the DLC. In a press release regarding Wittmann’s appointment, Lieberman said: “There is no better person to take the helm during this new time in my Senate career than Marshall. Marshall has been a trusted outside adviser to me for some time now and I’m glad he will be bring his experience and wisdom to my staff. Those qualities, along with his independence and diverse background, make him the ideal captain of my new Senate Communications team.”[32]

History of Neoconservative Advocacy

Throughout the 1990s, Lieberman supported Republican-led initiatives to ramp up efforts to build a missile defense system, becoming one of only a handful of Democrats to vote in 1995 against cutting spending for space-based missile defense programs.[33] In 1998, he cosponsored with McCain the Iraq Liberation Act, which made the overthrow of Saddam Hussein an official goal of U.S. policy.[34]

In 2002, Lieberman became an honorary co-chair, along with George Shultz and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy outfit spearheaded by a number of neoconservative stalwarts, including Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Eliot A. Cohen. According to the group’s mission statement, “The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq was formed to promote regional peace, political freedom, and international security by replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations.”

Lieberman serves as a distinguished advisor to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a purportedly nonpartisan think tank, which according to its website was formed shortly after 9/11 by “a group of visionary philanthropists and policymakers to engage in the worldwide war of ideas and to support the defense of democratic societies under assault by terrorism and militant Islamism.” Though the foundation at one time boasted some Democratic advisers, its leadership has been dominated by neoconservatives and other right-wing hawks, including Gary Bauer, Newt Gingrich, and Steve Forbes.[35]

In 2004, Lieberman helped revive the Cold War-era anti-communist group, the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), which Lieberman then co-chaired with Woolsey, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and George Shultz. Among the familiar names on the CPD’s list of members were Frank Gaffney, Jack Kemp, Forbes, Gingrich, and Kirkpatrick. Reflecting the trend of similar neoconservative-aligned initiatives, the CPD also enlisted a number of well-known liberal figures, including Vaclav Havel and Elie Wiesel, giving the CPD a patina of nonpartisanship. At the June 2004 press conference announcing the rebirth of the CPD, Lieberman claimed the aim of the group was “to form a bipartisan citizens’ army, which is ready to fight a war of ideas against our Islamist terrorist enemies, and to send a clear signal that their strategy to deceive, demoralize, and divide America will not succeed.”[36]

Lieberman also teamed up with Lynne Cheney, spouse of Vice President Dick Cheney, in 1995 to set up the private American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), which in 2000 gave $3.4 million to colleges and universities. While its various boards and advisory committees include elites from a diverse array of backgrounds, it has also had a number of neoconservatives, like Irving Kristol, Martin Peretz, Philip Merrill, William Bennett, Donald Kagan, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Hillel Fradkin, and Leon Kass.

In October 2001, ACTA issued a report assailing the response of U.S. universities to the 9/11 attacks, attacking dozens of college professors and students for their supposedly less-than-patriotic reactions to the terrorist attacks. Several months later in February 2002, ACTA issued a “revised and expanded” edition, which included “a sampler of the many responses” to the original report. The revised edition, authored by ACTA staff, claims in its “Acknowledgements” that “no public official—including Lynne Cheney and Sen. Joe Lieberman—has endorsed or been asked to endorse this report.”

The revised report was a compendium of some 100 statements recorded by ACTA that reveal what it purported to be “moral equivocation” and outright hostility toward the United States among academic elites. Such statements included: “Just because a grotesque act was committed against this country, does not mean any response is justified; it does not grant this country special license to use the sword;” “[Americans should] bring ourselves and our country to justice, not just the perpetrators;” and, “War created people like Osama bin Laden, and more war will create more people like him.” While the original version cited the names of particular professors, leading to charges that the report resembled a blacklist, the revised edition suppressed the names “to focus discussion on the content of the views expressed, rather than the individuals who expressed them.” Also excised in the new edition were a number of scathing judgments from the original that were cited in press reports, such as the charge that “colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America’s response” to the attacks, and “when a nation’s intellectuals are unwilling to defend its civilization, they give comfort to its adversaries.”[37]

On January 9, 2017, In a letter to Trump, the former Sen. Joe Lieberman along with other former officeholders including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, wrote a letter to the incoming president and urged him to work with the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the front organization of MeK terrorist group. [38]

In December 2016, Lieberman also appeared at an event at the Capitol Hill organized by the Mujahedin-e Khalq. They have a long history of using violence and terror both against their own members as well as when they were serving as a military force for Saddam Hussein in Iraq. At the UANI event, Lieberman said the goal of increased pressure on Iran would be to elicit concessions from Iran by causing them to “begin to wonder about the survival of the regime.” [40]

Earlier, on October 7, 2015, Lieberman had a speech at hearing before the US Senate Committee on Armed Forces (SASC) titled, “Iranian Influence in Iraq and the Case of Camp Liberty,”. The hearing that served as a reaffirmation of America’s commitment to back the terrorist organization Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) and specifically 2,400 members of the organization being harbored on a former US military base in Iraq.

Providing testimony was former US Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, former US Marine Corps Commandant and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe General James Jones, USMC (Ret.), and Colonel Wesley Martin, US Army (Ret.).All three witnesses made passionate pleas before a room full of nodding senators for America to continue backing not only MEK terrorists currently harbored on a former US military base in Iraq, but to back groups like MEK inside of Iran itself to threaten the very survival of the government in Tehran.

In the opening remarks by Lieberman, he stated:

It was not only right and just that we took them off the foreign terrorist organization list, but the truth is now that we ought to be supportive of them and others in opposition to the government in Iran more than we have been.

Lieberman would also state (emphasis added):

Here’s my point Mr. Chairman, we ought to compartmentalize that agreement also, that nuclear agreement. We ought to put it over there, and not let it stop us from confronting what they’re doing in Syria. Continuing the sanctions for human rights violations in Iran in support of terrorism. And here’s the point I want to make about the National Council of Resistance of Iran and other democratic opposition groups that are Iranian – we ought to be supporting them. [41]

The United States, unrepentant regarding the arc of chaos, mass murder, terrorism, civilizational destruction it has created stretching from Libya to Syria, now seeks openly to extend it further into Iran using precisely the same tactics – the use of terrorist proxies – to dismantle and destroy Iranian society.

While Lieberman, General Jones, and Colonel Martin all failed categorically to accurately describe the true nature of the MEK terrorists they seek to support in a proxy war with Iran, the US policy papers these three lobbyists are reading from have done so and in great detail.

[1] AEI, “Senator Joseph Lieberman to Join Senator Jon Kyl as Co-Chair of the American Internationalism Project at the American Enterprise Institute,” March 11, 2013,& http://www.aei.org/press/foreign-and-defense-policy/senator-joseph-lieberman-to-join-senator-jon-kyl-as-co-chair-of-the-american-internationalism-project-at-the-american-enterprise-institute-release/.
 [2] Jacob Heilbrunn, “The Egregious Joe Lieberman Heads to AEI,” National Interest, March 11, 2013,& http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/joe-lieberman-heads-aei-8211.
 [3] WINEP, “The Washington Institute Announces New Board of Advisors Members,” November 7, 2013,& http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/press-room/view/board-of-advisors-rice-allen-bayh-berman-cohen-lieberman.
 [4] Jeremey Herb, “Sen. Lieberman, Gen. Allen join CNAS board,” The Hill, November 4, 2013,& http://thehill.com/policy/defense/189151-sen-lieberman-gen-allen-join-cnas-board.
 [5] Eli Clifton and Ali Gharib, “Anti-Iran Deal AIPAC Spin-off Relies on Iranian Ex-Terrorist Group,” LobeLog, July 21, 2015,& http://www.lobelog.com/anti-iran-deal-aipac-spin-off-relies-on-iranian-ex-terrorist-group/.
 [6] Eli Clifton and Ali Gharib, “Anti-Iran Deal AIPAC Spin-off Relies on Iranian Ex-Terrorist Group,” LobeLog, July 21, 2015,& http://www.lobelog.com/anti-iran-deal-aipac-spin-off-relies-on-iranian-ex-terrorist-group/.&
 [7] Greg Richter, “Joe Lieberman Named Chairman of United Against Nuclear Iran,” Newsmax, August 10, 2015,& http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/joe-lieberman-chairman-uani/2015/08/10/id/669420/.
[8] Mark Leibovich, “The Last Days of Joementum,” The New York Times, November 2, 2012,& http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/magazine/joe-lieberman-on-endorsements-and-senate-road-trips.html?_r=1&.
[9] Steve Bene, “Joe Lieberman, lobbyist,” MSNBC, November 27, 2013,& http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/joe-lieberman-lobbyist.
[10] Joseph Lieberman, “In Iran talks, ‘no deal’ bests ‘bad deal’ for U.S.,” Reuters, July 18, 2014,& http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/18/in-iran-talks-no-deal-bests-bad-deal-for-u-s/.
[11] Joseph Lieberman, “Hear out Israel’s leader,” Washington Post, February 22, 2015,& https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hear-out-mr-netanyahu/2015/02/22/d737f4b2-b93b-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html.
[12] Stephanie Klein, “Former Senator Joe Lieberman hears ‘echoes’ of Neville Chamberlin,” MYNorthwest, March 4, 2015,http://mynorthwest.com/194/2722401/Former-Senator-Joe-Lieberman-hears-echoes-of-Neville-Chamberlin.
[13] David Rutz, “Lieberman: Enough Opposition to Nuclear Deal in Congress to Override Obama Veto,” Free Beacon, July 21, 2015,http://freebeacon.com/national-security/lieberman-enough-opposition-to-nuclear-deal-in-congress-to-override-obama-veto/.
[14] Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Pro-Israel Aipac Creates Group to Lobby Against the Iran Deal,” The New York Times, July 17, 2015,http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/17/pro-israel-aipac-creates-group-to-lobby-against-the-iran-deal/.
[15] Dave Biscobing, “FACT CHECK: Expert says Iran nuclear deal TV advertisement is ‘misleading,'” ABC 15 Arizona, July 24, 2015,http://www.abc15.com/news/national/fact-check-expert-says-iran-nuclear-deal-tv-advertisement-is-misleading.
[16] UANI, “Senator Joseph I. Lieberman to Lead United Against Nuclear Iran as Chairman,” August 10, 2015,http://unitedagainstnucleariran.com/news/senator-joseph-i-lieberman-lead-united-against-nuclear-iran-chairman.
[17] Jim Lobe, “UANI, Samore Go Their Separate Ways,” LobeLog, August 10, 2015,& http://www.lobelog.com/iran-deal-uani-samore-go-their-separate-ways/.
[18] John McCain, Joseph I. Lieberman and Lindsey O. Graham, “The risks of inaction in Syria,” Washington Post, August 5, 2012,http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mccain-lieberman-and-graham-the-risks-of-inaction-in-syria/2012/08/05/4a63585c-dd91-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html.
[19] John McCain, Joseph I. Lieberman and Lindsey O. Graham, “The risks of inaction in Syria,” Washington Post, August 5, 2012,http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mccain-lieberman-and-graham-the-risks-of-inaction-in-syria/2012/08/05/4a63585c-dd91-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html
[20] Josh Rogin, “McCain and Lieberman meet with the Free Syria Army,” Foreign Policy “The Cable” blog, April 10, 2012,http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/04/10/mccain_and_lieberman_meet_with_the_free_syria_army.
[21] Foreign Policy Initiative, transcript of comments by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, November 16, 2010,http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/files/Rush%20Transcript%20-%20Lieberman%20at%20FPI%202010%20Forum.pdf.
[22] David Horovitz, “Lieberman: U.S. Could Attack Iran’s Nukes,”& Jerusalem Post, April 18, 2006.
[23] Gareth Porter, “& Bracing the Brass on Iran,” Right Web, October 23, 2007.
[24] “U.S. Senate Brands Iran Guard ‘Terrorist Organization,'”& Agence France Presse, September 27, 2007.
[25] “America Votes 2006,” CNN.com,& http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/.
[26] Chris Cillizza, “Lieberman Splits with His Party on War Votes; Senator’s Opponent May Benefit,”& Washington Post, June 23, 2006, p. A11.
[27] Raymond Hernandez and William Yardley, “Lieberman’s Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split with His Party,”& New York Times, December 10, 2005, p. A1.

[28] Patrick Healy and Jennifer Medina, “Senator’s Plan B Creates Quandary for Democrats,”& New York Times, July 4, 2006, .
[29] John Heileman, “The Kos Campaign,”& New York Magazine, July 17, 2006
[30] Harold Meyerson, “Lieberman’s Real Problem,”& Washington Post, July 12, 2006,& http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101204_pf.html.
[31] Mark Leibovich, “An Ideologue for Hire Gets a New Alliance,”& New York Times, November 22, 2006.
[32] “Lieberman Announces Appointment of New Senate Communications Director Marshall Wittmann,” Press Release, Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s Senate Website, November 21, 2006,& http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=266066&&.
[33] ”Joseph Lieberman’s Senate Voting Record,” Counterpunch,& http://www.counterpunch.org/liebermanrecord.html.
[34] Raymond Hernandez and William Yardley, “Lieberman’s Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split with His Party,”& New York Times, December 10, 2005.
[35] FDD, “Who we are,”& http://thehill.com/policy/defense/189151-sen-lieberman-gen-allen-join-cnas-board.
[36] Jim Lobe, “They’re Back: Neocons Revive the Committee on the Present Danger, This Time against Terrorism,” Foreign Policy In Focus, July 21, 2004,http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0722-14.htm.
[37] Roberto Gonzalez, “Lynne Cheney-Joe Lieberman Group Puts Out a Blacklist,”& San Jose Mercury News, December 13, 2001,http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1213-05.htm.&
[38]. Former U.S. officials urge Trump administration to work with Iran opposition, Fox News,     January 15, 2017
[39]. Nuclear Deal Opponents Urge Military Confrontation with Iran, National Iranian American Council, December 8, 2016
[40]. Ibid
[41]. Iranian Influence in Iraq and the Case of Camp Liberty, U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, October 7, 2015



The MEK’s dirty past includes the anti-Imperialist inspired murder of six Americans in pre-revolution Iran which it later celebrated in songs and publications

امریکا علت حمله به عراق را پشتیبانی صدام از مجاهدین خلق اعلام کردHow do you explain this to the families of over 4000 US servicemen Killed in Iraq?

مریم رجوی البغدادی مجاهدین خلق داعش تروریسم تهرانISIS Drew On MEK Expertise For Terror Attacks On Tehran (Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult) 

Also read:

McCain is called “hawkish” even by his party ( Mojahedin Khalq, MEK, Rajavi cult) 

John_McCain_Maryam_Rajavi_TerroristsHabilian Association, August 22 2017:…  On April 14, 2017, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a critical move met with Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the front organization of the terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq in Tirana, Albania. This meeting highlights a significant development in establishing further communication between US government … 

مک کین از تروریسم مجاهدین خلق فرقه رجوی در خاورمیانه استفاده می کندGary Sick: To understand MEK we need to understand the source of its revenue

امریکایی هایی که از تروریسم مجاهدین خلق فرقه رجوی حمایت می کنندHow can these lawmakers (Senator Roy Blunt, Brad Sherman, Joe Lieberman , Dana Rohrabacher, Ed Royce….) sleep at night and where is the media!

Link to the source

A Senator who is called “hawkish” even by his party (McCain, using terrorism, Mojahedin Khalq, MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult)

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is a leading advocate in the U.S. Senate for aggressive U.S. foreign policies, including an interventionist “war on terror.” A founding member of the neoconservative-led Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, McCain consistently backed the George W. Bush administration’s efforts to expand the “war on terror” in the Middle East, championing the Iraq War and the invasion of Afghanistan. More recently, he has been a leading congressional advocate for confrontational policies on Iran and intervening militarily in Syria’s civil war. McCain is chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, a post he attained after the GOP won a majority in the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections.[1]

McCain’s stature as one of his party’s leading hawks has been buttressed in part by his longtime chairmanship of the International Republican Institute, the GOP-linked arm of the National Endowment for Democracy that has been closely associated with subversive U.S. actions in Latin America and other parts of the world.
McCain is arguably one of the more militaristic senators of his generation, often partnering with Senate colleagues Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to press for U.S. military deployments across the globe. Following Lieberman’s retirement from the Senate after the 2012 elections, the New York Times ran a piece marking the end of “the three amigos,” observing that the trio’s “hawkish world views often placed them at odds with their respective parties, but together they secured a place at the center of every major foreign policy debate.”[2]

McCain has supported Graham’s bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, appearing on campaign stops with Graham in states like New Hampshire. He told a crowd of Graham supporters in August 2015: “If you’ve been impressed today, as I hope you have been, with this candidate, I would like you to do me one favor if you would: Tell your friends, ‘Go and see Lindsey Graham.’”[3]

On Iran Nuclear Deal

McCain has been a stanch critic of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. He frequently uses hyperbolic language in referring to the alleged threat Iran poses to the United States. For example, in a September 2015 town hall meeting organized by Christians United for Israel, McCain proclaimed that Iran is “probably the biggest threat to America and everything we stand for.”[4]

He was a vocal opponent of the P5+1 negotiations that resulted in the historic agreement concluded in July 2015. He blasted the agreement as having “fundamental flaws” and echoed neoconservative concerns that the deal would be bad for Israel and U.S. allies in the Arab world.[5] He said after the agreement was announced: “This is delusional and dangerous, especially as we see Iran on the offensive in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere in the region. Instead, I fear this agreement could undermine the very goals we have maintained for 35 years—weakening the Islamic Republic, constraining its threatening influence, strengthening Israel and our Arab partners, lessening regional tensions, and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.”[6]

In March 2015, McCain signed a controversial letter crafted by hawkish Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) addressed to Iran’s leaders, which misleadingly claimed that any deal reached with the Obama White House would not last past his administration. McCain later appeared to express regret over signing the letter, stating: “It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm. I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”[7]

Just prior to the April 2015 framework nuclear deal being reached with Iran, McCain wildly proclaimed that Israel may need to “go rogue” to survive the remainder of the Obama administration. He declared: “The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue. Let’s hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.”[8]
One commentator responded saying: “Recall that McCain is head of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Republican presidential candidate. His call for a foreign state to openly obstruct U.S. policy and in the process initiate a catastrophic regional war is perhaps unprecedented for someone of his senior position.”[9]

On Syrian Civil War and ISIS

McCain has been a leading advocate of U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war, characterizing the Obama administration’s reluctance to involve itself in the conflict as “shameful” and “feckless.”[10] An early proponent of funneling arms to opposition forces, McCain—along with Graham and Lieberman—penned an op-ed for the Washington Post in August 2012 claiming that “U.S. reluctance to intervene in Syria” was “allowing this conflict to be longer and bloodier, a radicalizing dynamic.”[11] Earlier that year, McCain and Graham paid a surprise visit to Free Syrian Army forces in Turkey, declaring in a statement that “Diplomacy with Assad has failed,” even as former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was attempting to negotiate a ceasefire.[12]

McCain amplified his calls for U.S. action in Syria in 2013, particularly after allegations emerged that the Assad regime had deployed small amounts chemical weapons against rebel forces (although UN investigators later said that rebels had likely used the weapons as well). Referring to President Barack Obama’s past remarks that the use of such weapons constituted a “red line” that could spur U.S. action, McCain quipped in May that the line “was apparently written in disappearing ink” and called for the United States to take “game-changing action” in Syria. Washington, he said, should “establish a safe zone” inside Syria and “supply weapons to the right people in Syria who are fighting, obviously, for the things we believe.”[13]

Observers have warned against these steps. Bill Frelick, the refugee policy director for Human Rights Watch, has decried the notion of so-called “safe zones,” warning that “keeping people fleeing for their lives in buffer zones inside Syrian borders risks trapping rather than protecting them.”[14]

Writing for LobeLog, former State Department official Wayne White argued that McCain had distorted Obama’s original comments, noting the president had implied action in response to the widespread use and movement of chemical weapons, not their use in a few isolated cases. Moreover, White added, due to stark sectarian divisions in Syria and the widespread presence of radical Islamist elements in the country’s opposition forces, arming the “right people” would prove nearly impossible—and would likely provoke a host of unintended consequences. “Still,” he concluded, “that has not stopped Sen. McCain (who so fervently backed US intervention in Libya, but now rails on about the deadly events in Benghazi despite the uncertain challenge posed by post-Qadhafi chaos), from advocating U.S. military involvement in the even messier situation in Syria.”[15]

In September 2013, after new reports emerged alleging the Syrian government had used chemical weapons, McCain led calls in the Senate for the United States to launch military strikes against Syria. He strongly denounced the Obama administration for ultimately deciding not to attack and instead agreeing to a Russian-brokered deal on Syria giving up its chemical weapons stockpiles. “What concerns us most is that our friends and enemies will take the same lessons from this agreement: They see it as an act of provocative weakness on America’s part,” McCain said in a joint statement with Graham at the time.[16]

McCain has also criticized the Obama administration for its approach toward combatting ISIS. He wrote in an August 2014 New York Times op-ed co-authored with Graham: “Still, we must face facts: A comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS would require more troops, assets, resources and time.”[17]

In October 2014, McCain told CNN that ISIS was prevailing in the fight in Iraq. “They’re winning, and we’re not. The Iraqis are not winning. The Peshmerga, the Kurds are not winning,” he opined. He also argued that the United States should “take the fight to Syria’s president” as part of war against ISIS, and called for establishing a no-fly zone in Syria.[18]

In early 2015, McCain declared that “American boots on the ground are necessary to defeat [the group] in Iraq and Syria.”[19] He told MSNBC in February 2015: “I’m talking about 10,000 in Iraq. Then we need to say that our objective is to eliminate Bashar Assad as well as ISIS in Syria, and we recruit other Arab nations with Americans, but not too many, to fight against ISIS and Bashar Assad in Syria and coordinate those movements with air power guided by air controls.”[20]

Ukraine/Russia Conflict

McCain has advocated an aggressive U.S. posture towards Russia in response to the on-going Ukraine crisis.  He has called for adopting “crushing” sanctions against Russia and has said that “it is long past time” to arm Ukraine.[21]

In March 2014, McCain lamented that there was not a military solution the United States could pursue in Ukraine. “I’d love to tell you that there is Andrea, but frankly I do not see it. I wish that there were. … I do not see a military option and it’s tragic,” he told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell.[22]

In May 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko appointed McCain as an advisor.[23]

Iraq War Advocacy and Neoconservative Drift

A veteran of the Vietnam War who was tortured as a POW, McCain has always given top billing to his views on national security, which have steadfastly remained on the hawkish right (although, unlike many of his Republican colleagues, he has been an unwavering opponent of torture and “enhanced interrogation”). Despite frayed personal relations with President George W. Bush stemming from a bitter primary race for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination, McCain was an important ally of the president’s policies in Iraq, supporting the war effort long after it fell from public favor. The senator was once quoted as saying it would be “fine” if U.S. troops remained in Iraq for “a hundred years.”[24]

As the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee, McCain hinged his campaign on the argument that he would be a stronger commander and chief than his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). McCain’s ongoing support for the Iraq War, however, ran up against growing public discontent with the conflict, highlighting his association with the unpopular George W. Bush and stoking concerns that he was weak on the economy. Obama frequently cited McCain’s hawkish tendencies as a sign that the Arizona senator was out of touch. For example, during the candidates’ second debate in October 2008, Obama responded to McCain’s charge that Obama was too inexperienced on foreign affairs, saying: “Senator McCain suggests that … he’s somber and responsible. … [T]his is the guy who sang, ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,’ who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don’t think is an example of ‘speaking softly.’ This is the person who, after we had—we hadn’t even finished Afghanistan, where he said, ‘Next up, Baghdad.’”[25]
McCain was also an early advocate of President Bush’s “surge” in Iraq, a marked escalation of the war that came shortly after a sweeping GOP defeat in the 2006 midterm elections, which were widely interpreted as a public rebuke of the deeply unpopular conflict.

After returning from a January 2007 trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), McCain and Lieberman presented their opinions on Iraq to an audience at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Washington, D.C.-based think tank that serves as home for many leading neoconservative writers. Emphasizing his belief that the Iraq War was still “winnable,” McCain laid out his argument for a troop surge: “The presence of additional coalition forces would give the Iraqi government the ability to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own—impose its rule throughout the country. In bringing security to Iraq and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces would give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation.”[26] This plan was echoed by one proposed by AEI scholar Frederick Kagan and retired Gen. Jack Keane, which unveiled at the same AEI event at which McCain and Lieberman spoke.[27]

Earlier, in 2002, McCain played a role in supporting aWhite House-orchestrated campaign to build public and congressional support for the invasion of Iraq when he served as an honorary co-chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, founded in late 2002 by Bruce Jackson of the now-defunct Project for the New American Century.[28] While most of the committee members were neoconservatives and Republican Party hawks like McCain, several hardline Democrats also supported the group, including Lieberman and former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE). The group’s executive director was Randy Scheunemann, a lobbyist who while on the staff of then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), wrote the Iraq Liberation Act, which authorized $98 million for the Iraqi National Congress and served as a key stepping-stone on the path to the Iraq War.[29] Scheuenmann went on to become McCain’s top foreign policy advisor during the 2008 presidential race.

Outside observers noted the impact of Scheunemann and other hawks on McCain’s policy preferences. According to John Judis, it was during McCain’s failed bid for the GOP 2000 presidential nomination that the influence of hardliners began to take root. Judis writes that McCain began “seeking to differentiate his views from those of other Republican presidential aspirants and from the growing isolationism of House Republicans … [placing] his new interventionist instincts within a larger ideological framework. That ideological framework was neoconservatism. McCain began reading theWeekly Standard and conferring with its editors, particularly Bill Kristol.” Shortly after his staff consulted with Kristol, McCain hired a bevy of neoconservative-aligned operatives, including Scheunemann, Marshall Wittmann, and Daniel McKivergan.[30]

The impact of this group of advisors on the senator’s thinking was revealed in early 1999, according to Judis, when McCain spoke at Kansas State University using a speech Scheunemann helped draft. In it, McCain echoed the neoconservative idea of “national greatness conservatism,” arguing: “The United States is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history…. [W]e have every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity’s benefit.” Judis reported about the stumping, “The centerpiece of the speech was a strategy that McCain called ‘rogue-state rollback,’” a term Scheunemann claimed to have coined based on rhetoric used by critics of 1950s Cold War containment strategy.[31]


McCain promotes an Israel-centric vision of Mideast peace, often echoing neoconservative rhetoric equating U.S. security with that of Israel. Speaking at a 2001 conference of the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), McCain said: “In addition to her moral commitment to Israel’s security, America must provide Israel with whatever military equipment and technology she requires to defend herself, above and beyond what we supply today if necessary. Our support for Israel must intensify, as threats to Israeli security have intensified.”[32] In a speech to the American Jewish Committee in 2002, McCain said: “I think the Israeli people would agree that we can’t wait for rogue regimes like Iran, Iraq, and Syria to develop the weapons that would seriously challenge Israel’s defenses, and our own. I think Israelis would agree that a posture of robust deterrence is no longer enough in this age of weapons of mass destruction.”[33]

Similarly, during the Israel-Lebanon conflict in summer 2006, McCain rejected mounting criticism of Israel for its response to the Hezbollah kidnappings. “What would we do if somebody came across our borders and killed our soldiers and captured our soldiers?” asked McCain. “Do you think we would be exercising total restraint?”[34]
Despite sharing a number of common policy objectives with neoconservatives and other hawks, McCain has promoted negotiated compromises in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a May 2006 interview with Haaretz, an influential Israeli daily, McCain said that he favored Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations led by realists like Brent Scowcroft or Jim Baker; he also nodded his assent in response to the question: “In general, a movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications?”[35] Writing in the New Republic, John Judis commented that the interview—which McCain disputed after an upsurge of Israeli criticism—indicated that McCain might be “closer to George H.W. Bush than to George W. Bush. And that’s not a bad thing at all.”[36]

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Scheunemann, who advised McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign as well as his failed 2000 presidential bid, argued that despite a number of “realists,” such as Scowcroft, among McCain’s foreign policy advisors, his own influence and that of other like-minded advisors like William Kristol and Robert Kagan was paramount in McCain’s thinking. “I don’t think, given where John has been for the last four or five years on the Iraq War and foreign policy issues, anyone would mistake Scowcroft for a close adviser,” Scheunemann said, adding that even if Scowcroft were close, McCain “was not taking the advice.”[37]

McCain has served since 1992 as the chairman of the International Republican Institute, a program of the Republican Party that was created in 1983 as a channel for funding from the then-newly created National Endowment for Democracy. Since its early years of work supporting U.S. partners in Central America and the Caribbean, the IRI has gained a reputation as a surrogate for interventionist U.S. foreign policy. IRI has offices around the world, and currently funds nongovernmental organizations in 50 countries. During the Bush administration, the IRI was a leading U.S. actor in supporting individuals and organizations that sought to overthrow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti (successfully in February 2004) and President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (unsuccessfully in April 2002).[38]

Support for Terrorists

McCain has a long record of backing unsavory and vicious people that happen to support regime change or that share his hostility to certain other governments. He was a cheerleader for the KLA during the Kosovo intervention, he was a fan of the rebellion in Libya from the start despite the presence of jihadists in their ranks, and he has been one of the most outspoken advocates of sending weapons to rebels in Syria on the pretense that they were “moderates.” In addition to misjudging the “moderate” rebels, McCain has been a leading advocate for a policy that has sent weapons into Syria when they have been seized by Jabhat al-Nusra or ISIS. Those are just the most obvious examples of McCain’s terrible judgment. McCain doesn’t discriminate when it comes to choosing allies of convenience in pursuing unwise and reckless goals, so it was probably just a matter of time before he started associating with the MEK. [39]

On April 14, 2017, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a critical move met with Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the front organization of the terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq in Tirana, Albania. This meeting highlights a significant development in establishing further communication between US government and this terrorist organization.

Speaking to members of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq at their headquarters in Tirana, McCain spoke about his opposition to the Iranian government. He also congratulated members of the group for successfully relocating to Albania from Iraq. Senator McCain praised MEK members by calling them freedom fighters and “an example to the whole world”!
Rajavi praised McCain for his efforts in support of MEK member in Ashraf and their relocation out of Iraq’s Camp Liberty. McCain also congratulated member of the group for successfully relocating to Albania out of Iraq. During their time in Iraq, the group had been subject to attacks from Iranian-backed militias.
Prior to the meeting, Senator McCain visited one of the centers of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) in Tirana and met with the PMOI/MEK members who were relocated to

Albania from Camp Liberty, Iraq.

After the event, McCain met separately with Rajavi, the group said.

McCain has spent the first week of the congressional recess traveling across Eastern Europe. He’s made stops in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro.
His office did not immediately return a request for comment on his visit to Albania.

Previously, in an unprecedented move, a 23 member bi-partisan group of senior former US officials signed a critical letter and delivered it to President Donald Trump. The letter suggested new policy options regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran and the need for the US to open up a meaningful channel of communication with the Iranian opposition, namely the coalition, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

This is something that has never been done under any other administration. The letter was signed by senior former US officials including Rudy Giuliani, Joseph Lieberman, Patrick Kennedy, General Hugh Shelton (a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Bill Clinton) to name a few. It explains that revised policies toward Iran are needed because Iran has used every opportunity since its establishment to scuttle US foreign policy objectives and damage US national, geopolitical, economic and strategic interests with the assistance of its proxies.

[1] Jennifer Steinhauer, “With Chairmanship, McCain Seizes Chance to Reshape Pentagon Agenda,” The New York Times, June 8, 2015,http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/us/politics/mccain-uses-committee-post-to-press-for-defense-agenda.html.
[2] Jennifer Steinhauer, “Foreign Policy’s Bipartisan Trio Becomes Republican Duo,”
New York Times, November 26, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/us/politics/liebermans-retirement-is-end-of-three-amigos.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
[3] Jose DelReal, “John McCain in New Hampshire: ‘Lindsey Graham, he’s my man!,’” The Washington Post, August 1, 2015,http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/01/john-mccain-in-new-hampshire-lindsey-graham-hes-my-man/.
[4] Sydney Abeyta, “Sen. John McCain Talks Iran, ISIS at Tempe Forum,” AZ Central, September 4, 2015,http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/09/04/john-mccain-iran-isis/71713906/.
[5] Jamie Jackson, “John McCain Denounces Iran Deal, Says ‘We’re Losing Badly’ to ISIS,” The Daily Signal, July 15, 2015,http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/15/mccain-denounces-iran-deal-says-were-losing-badly-to-isis/.
[6] Morgan Chalfant, “John McCain: ‘Delusional and Dangerous’ Iran Nuclear Deal Built on ‘Hope,’” Free Beacon, July 14, 2015,http://freebeacon.com/national-security/john-mccain-delusional-and-dangerous-iran-nuclear-deal-built-on-hope/.
[7] Newsmax, “Sens. McCain, Johnson Express Regret Over Iran Letter,” March 13, 2015, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mccain-Johnson-regret-Iran/2015/03/13/id/630020/.
[8] Jon Rainwater, “McCain Joins Bolton, Invites Israel to Bomb Iran,” The Huffington Post, March 31, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-rainwater/mccain-joins-bolton-invit_b_6973978.html.
[9 [ Zaid Jilani, “McCain Suggests Israel ‘Go Rogue,’ Blow Up Iran Negotiations By Starting War,” Alternet, March 29, 2015, http://www.alternet.org/mccain-suggests-israel-go-rogue-blow-iran-negotiations-starting-war.
[10] Kevin Robillard, “John McCain: Obama ‘shameful’ on Syria,” Politico, July 23, 2012, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78851.html.
[11] John McCain, Joseph I. Lieberman and Lindsey O. Graham, “The risks of inaction in Syria,” Washington Post, August 5, 2012,http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mccain-lieberman-and-graham-the-risks-of-inaction-in-syria/2012/08/05/4a63585c-dd91-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html.
[12] Josh Rogin, “McCain and Lieberman meet with the Free Syria Army,” Foreign Policy “The Cable” blog, April 10, 2012,http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/04/10/mccain_and_lieberman_meet_with_the_free_syria_army.
[13] Wayne White, “Syria: Pressure for US Military Action Rising Ominously,” LobeLog, May 6, 2013, http://www.lobelog.com/syria-pressure-for-us-military-action-rising-ominously/; Reuters, “McCain: Israeli strikes could force US action, Jerusalem Post,” May 5, 2013, http://www.jpost.com/International/McCain-Israeli-strikes-could-force-Obama-to-act-on-Syria-312153.
[14] Bill Frelick, “Blocking Syrian Refugees Isn’t the Way,” New York Times, April 23, 2013,http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/opinion/global/blocking-syrian-refugees-isnt-the-way.html?_r=1&.
[15] Wayne White, “Syria: Pressure for US Military Action Rising Ominously,” LobeLog, May 6, 2013, http://www.lobelog.com/syria-pressure-for-us-military-action-rising-ominously/.
[16] Darlene Superville, “McCain, Graham blast Syrian chemical weapons deal,” Yahoo News, September 14, 2013, http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-graham-blast-syrian-chemical-weapons-deal-195925431–politics.html.
[17] John McCain and Lindsey Graham, “Stop Dithering, Confront ISIS,” The New York Times, August 29, 2015,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/opinion/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-confront-isis.html?_r=0.
[18] Rory Carroll, “McCain urges ground troops to defeat Isis: ‘They’re winning, and we’re not,’” Guardian, October 12, 2014,http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/12/mccain-isis-syria-iraq-strategy.
[19] John Bennet, “McCain: More US Boots on Ground in Iraq, Syria,” Defense News, January 26, 2015, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/congress/2015/01/26/isis-terrorism-iraq-syria-obama/22349661/.
[20] Sandy Fitzgerald, “John McCain: Ground Troops Needed to Stop ISIS, Syria’s Assad,” Newsmax, February 9, 2015,http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/John-McCain-ISIS-ground-troops-Bashar-Assad/2015/02/19/id/625698/.
[21] Marina Koren, “What Would Vladimir Putin Do if John McCain Gets His Way on Ukraine?,” National Journal, February 19, 2015,http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2015/02/19/What-Would-Vladimir-Putin-Do-if-John-McCain-Gets-His-Way-Ukraine.
Daniel Schearf, “McCain Urges ‘Crushing’ Sanctions for Russia, Arms for Ukraine,” VOA News, September 4, 2014, http://www.voanews.com/content/mccain-urges-crushing-sanctions-for-russia-arms-for-ukraine/2439206.html
[22] Ben Armbruster, “McCain: ‘It’s Tragic’ There’s No U.S. Military Option In Ukraine,” Think Progress, March 7, 2014,http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/03/07/3378371/mccain-military-option-ukraine/.
[23] AFP, “Ukraine appoints US senator McCain presidential aide,” Yahoo News, May 13, 2015, http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-appoints-us-senator-mccain-presidential-aide-003503382.html.
[24] David Corn, ” McCain in NH: Would Be “Fine” To Keep Troops in Iraq for “A Hundred Years,” Mother Jones, January 3, 2008,http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/01/mccain-nh-would-be-fine-keep-troops-iraq-hundred-years.
[25] CNN, “Transcript of Second McCain, Obama Debate,” http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/.
[26] John McCain, Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute, “Iraq: A Turning Point: Panel II: Reports from Iraq,” January 5, 2007.
[27] American Enterprise Institute, “Iraq: A Turning Point: Panel II: Reports from Iraq,” January 5, 2007.
[28] John B. Judis, “Minister Without Portfolio,” American Prospect, January 1, 2003.
[29] Jim Lobe, “New Champions of the War Cause,” Asia Times, November 6, 2002.
[30] John Judis, “Neo-McCain,” New Republic, October 16, 2006.
[31] John Judis, “Neo-McCain,” New Republic, October 16, 2006.
[32] Quoted in “John McCain, Republican,” The Israel Factor, Haaretz.com, November 13, 2006.
[33] Quoted in “John McCain, Republican,” The Israel Factor, Haaretz.com, November 13, 2006.
[34] Cited in “John McCainand Israel,” One Jerusalem, http://www.onejerusalem.com/2008/02/28/john-mccain-and-israel/(accessed on November 9, 2008),
[35] John B. Judis, “John McCain’s (Disputed) Plan for Middle East Peace,” New Republic, October 25, 2006.
[36] John B. Judis, “John McCain’s (Disputed) Plan for Middle East Peace,” New Republic, October 25, 2006.
[37] Josh Gerstein, ” McCain Signals Distance From Bush, Neocons,” New York Sun, August 23, 2006.
[38] Mike McIntire, “Democracy Institute Gives Donors Access to McCain,” New York Times, July 28, 2008; Tom Barry, “Aristide’s Fall: The Undemocratic U.S. Policy in Haiti,” IRC America’s Program, February 27, 2004.
[39] Daniel Larison, “McCain Is the MEK’s Newest Fan”, The American Conservative, June 15, 2015. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/mccain-is-the-meks-newest-fan/.



‘No Exit’ – Human Rights Abuses Inside the Mojahedin Khalq Camps – Human Rights Watch

Document on Mojahedin Khalq released by RAND (The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq, A Policy Conundrum)

The MEK’s dirty past includes the anti-Imperialist inspired murder of six Americans in pre-revolution Iran which it later celebrated in songs and publications

مزدور مریم رجوی و ولینعمتان خونخوار امریکایی اشTirana, Albania, August 12, 2017 – Maryam Rajavi with United States paid Senators. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

زهره قائمی فرمانده ترور صیاد شیرازیBBC: Who are the Iranian dissident group MEK? (Mojahedin Khalq, MKO, PMOI, …) 


Lets create another Vietnam for America(pdf).
(Mojahedin English language paper April 1980)

Letter to Imam (Khomeini) (pdf). 
(Mojahedin English Language paper April 1980)

Some questions unanswered regarding the US military invasion of Iran (pdf).
(Mojahedin English Language paper June 1980)

link to one of the Mojahedin Khalq songs
advocating terror and killing Americans

(In Persian written and distributed after the Iranian Revolution)


Also read:

France is playing a hypocritical and destabilizing game by hosting the MEK (Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult) 

mousavian_hosseinDr. Seyed Hossein Mousavian, Habilian Association, August 22 2017:… In Europe, despite the MEK’s influence among some EU parliamentarians, the EU at the highest levels is still staunchly pro-engagement with Iran, with Frederica Mogherini due to attend Rouhani’s inauguration. For the EU to make a sudden turnaround and support a group like the MEK is highly unlikely—especially given their vested economic interests—unless the United States makes … 

List-of-Mojahedin-Khalq-martyrs-Massoud-Maryam-Rajavi-MEK-fiction-fakeThe Enemy of My Enemy is NOT Always My Friend…

نمایندگان پارلمان اروپا جلسه بحث در مورد مجاهدین خلق فرقه رجویDebate in the European Parliament ‘What is to be done about the Iranian Mojahedin Khalq (MEK)?’

Link to the source

France is playing a hypocritical and destabilizing game by hosting the MEK (Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi cult)

حسین موسویانDr. Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. From 1997 to 2005, he was the head of the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council; from 2003 to 2005, he served as spokesman for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the European Union. He is author of “The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir” published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in June 2012. Mousavian earned a PhD in international relations from the University of Kent in the U.K. He holds a master’s degree from the University of Tehran and studied his bachelor at the University of California, Sacramento. Following is a brief interview of Habilian Association with Dr. Mousavian on the current situation of terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq organization (MEK, a.k.a MKO, NCRI, PMOI, etc).

Habilian: Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization’s nature as a terrorist cult has remained the same since its establishment, but it has changed face several times over years. They posed themselves as a Guerrilla group fighting imperialism before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, then they fought against the Iranian government and sided with the country’s enemies, conducting hundreds of terrorist attacks inside Iran, killing thousands of Iranian civilians and officials. And now it’s been a while that they are depicting themselves as a political alternative to Iran’s democratically elected government. Some Western politicians are obviously buying MEK’s new disguise. Do you think with Trump administration at work in the White House, is there going to be a strategic change in U.S. view of the MEK? Do you think it is possible that the U.S. administration reaches a consensus to openly support a group like the MEK? How about the European Union? Please elaborate on your view.
Mousavian: Given the Trump administration’s regime change policy towards Iran, Iranian opposition groups have raced to get the White House’s embrace. At the same time Reza Pahlavi wrote a letter to Trump and did an interview with Trump-outlet Breitbart, the MEK spearheaded anti-Iran and pro-Trump letter campaigns and continued its lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill with increased vigor. At the latest MEK rally in Paris, Trump allies and longtime MEK supporters Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani were present.

It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will openly express endorse for any of these groups, but they may play a role in the administration’s regime change policy, and perhaps factored into Rex Tillerson’s statement that United States will rely on “elements inside of Iran” to bring about a “peaceful transition” of the government.

In Europe, despite the MEK’s influence among some EU parliamentarians, the EU at the highest levels is still staunchly pro-engagement with Iran, with Frederica Mogherini due to attend Rouhani’s inauguration. For the EU to make a sudden turnaround and support a group like the MEK is highly unlikely—especially given their vested economic interests—unless the United States makes a strategic change of its view towards the MEK and brings significant pressure on Europe, such as secondary sanctions, to follow course.  
Habilian: From a global security point of view, how are groups like the MEK viewed by security experts? What political future can be assumed for the MEK?

Mousavian: According to numerous independent studies, including by U.S. research organizations such as RAND, the MEK is a wholly illegitimate cult whose existence is entirely reliant on patronage by countries hostile to Iran. Its future depends only on the extent to which it can continue doing the bidding of these benefactors, which nowadays is chiefly Saudi Arabia.

Habilian: Saudi Arabia has apparently joined the club of MEK supporters. Could the MEK-Saudi connection worsen the already chaotic security situation in the Middle East?

Mousavian: Saudi Arabia’s endorsement of the MEK reflects their utterly poor understanding of Iran and Iranian politics. By supporting the MEK, they gain absolutely no bargaining chip or leverage over Iran—if that is the motivation—but only increase the apathy of the Iranian public towards them and thus, make the prospects for successful Iran-Saudi diplomacy more difficult.

Habilian: Could the recent military breakthroughs achieved by Iran and its allies in the region intensify the tension between Saudi led axis and Iran? Especially with the new crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman coming to power soon. Are the Saudis counting on MEK’s experience of perpetrating terrorism in the country to hurt Iran’s security?

Mousavian: The consolidation of control over their territories by the Syrian and Iraqi governments should convince Saudi leaders that their attempts to subvert these governments have failed. Now that Mohammad bin Salman has secured his throne, he would be wise to end these foreign adventures which have entangled his country and cost it dearly and pursue diplomacy.

Habilian: The newly elected French government on one hand seems to prefer better economic and diplomatic ties with Iran and on the other hand they allow a detested group like the MEK to hold rallies and openly call for the overthrow of the legal and democratically elected government in the country. How could this double-standard be justified by French cabinet?

Mousavian: France is playing a hypocritical and destabilizing game by hosting the MEK, a group that has no place in any democratic or civilized society. If France wants to signal to Iran that it is serious about its intention to improve its political and economic relations with Iran, it must stop allowing the group to operate on French soil.



Under President Macron, France can play a pivotal role in Western relations with Iran

The MEK’s dirty past includes the anti-Imperialist inspired murder of six Americans in pre-revolution Iran which it later celebrated in songs and publications

Also read:

From Iran to Nice, We Must Confront All Terrorism to End Terrorism 

Seyed Hossein Mousavian, Huffington Post, July 23 2016:… The MEK’s hands are tainted not only with American blood, but also with the blood of countless Iranians, Iraqis and Kurds. Since Iran’s 1979 revolution, the MEK has been responsible for the deaths of upwards of 17,000 Iranians, including senior officials and ministers. During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK also sided … 

زهره قائمی فرمانده ترور صیاد شیرازیFrom Attraction to Action — How Young People Are Radicalized

Link to the source

From Iran to Nice, We Must Confront All Terrorism to End Terrorism

Seyed Hossein Mousavian
Head of Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council (1997-2005)

France has unfortunately been the epicenter for two terrorism-related events in recent weeks. The tragic truck attack in Nice, which received international attention, and a rally recently held in Paris by a notorious Iranian opposition group — the “Mujahedin-e Khalq,” or MEK, which for years has committed acts of terrorism against Iran. While it might not be immediately evident, there is a connection between the events — the groups behind them have been accused of atrocities and have historical ties to Saudi Arabia.
Both the MEK and the self-proclaimed Islamic State, which claimed the attack in Nice, are groups with a history of terrorism, and both, in some way or another, are influenced by the kingdom.

nice attack

People light candles at a makeshift memorial on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice on July 19, 2016 in tribute to the victims of the Bastille Day attack. (VALERY HACHE/AFP/Getty Images)

MEK’s Terrorism in Iran

While the group no longer has the distinction of a terrorist group in the United States and is not related to or as widely destructive as ISIS, in Iran the MEK is still very much a perpetrator of terror.
Since its founding in the late 1960s, the MEK’s favored tactic has been terrorism, which for years it directed towards Americans. An MEK leader by the name of Massoud Rajavi stated in 1972 that the group’s “main goal” was to “free Iran of U.S. imperialism.” As I documented in my 2014 book, “Iran and the United States,” the MEK’s assassination campaigns in the 1970s claimed the lives of several high-profile Americans. Among the victims were one colonel and one lieutenant colonel of the U.S. Air Force, along with other servicemen.
The MEK’s hands are tainted not only with American blood, but also with the blood of countlessIranians, Iraqis and Kurds. Since Iran’s 1979 revolution, the MEK has been responsible for the deaths of upwards of 17,000 Iranians, including senior officials and ministers. During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK also sided with Saddam Hussein, earning the enmity of the vast majority of Iranians. An Iranian NGO, the Habilian Association, has gone so far as to document all the Iranian victims of the MEK in a comprehensive database that includes photos and biographies of each of the victims.

In the ‘80s and ‘90s, the MEK was responsible for several terrorist campaigns within Iran, one of which killed some 70 Iranian officials in 1981, including both the president and prime minister at the time.

After the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK resided in Iraq and took on the role of Saddam’s henchmen. An October 1994 Wall Street Journalreport quoted a Clinton administration official as saying, “Saddam looked on the Mujahedeen as more loyal than some of his own army units.” After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Massoud Rajavi lambasted the U.N. coalition that pushed Saddam out of Kuwait, stating, “Iranian national movements and their masses strongly denounce the Iranian regime’s alliance with U.S. imperialism, world Zionism, and regional reactionaries to launch aggression against Iraq.”
In recent years, Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated — in some cases murdered while driving to work. MEK is thought by many to be involved in these attacks, perhaps with the assistance of Israel. According to a 2012 NBC News report, Israel was “training MEK members” to carry out the killings. The group has also been held responsible for an April 2000 assassination attempt on the leader of the Iranian policy making center for the war in Iraq.

iranian scientists killed

Mourners carry the coffin of an Iranian nuclear scientist on January 13, 2012. Some believe MEK is involved in the deaths of the nuclear scientists. (Atta Kenare/Getty Images)

The Saudi Connection

This year, the annual gathering of the MEK in Paris featured Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former director of Saudi intelligence, as a speaker. The conference typically draws the attendance of politicians of many nations, including the U.S., Egypt, and this year, Saudi Arabia. In his remarks, al-Faisal praised the pseudo-Islamist-Marxist group and emphatically supported its objective of toppling the Iranian government. Al-Faisal’s comments, which come at a time when Saudi-Iranian relations are at an all-time low and have even been compared to a “Cold War” state, will have serious consequences for the Tehran-Riyadh relationship going forward.

During my trip to Iran a few weeks ago, I spoke with a senior official about the necessity of improving Iran-Saudi relations. He told me that Iran was willing to engage the Saudis but that Riyadh had devoted itself to a confrontational approach. This official informed me that Iran had detailed intelligence about Riyadh’s financial support to the MEK, which he said had increased 800 percent in the past two years. He also noted that Saudi Arabia would cover the cost of this year’s MEK conference in Paris and that Prince Turki would be present to publicly declare Saudi Arabia’s support.

With Prince Turki’s speech to the MEK, Saudi Arabia has elected to destroy any chance of de-escalating tensions between the two nations. In pursuing this approach, Saudi leaders should be cognizant that not only are they imperiling regional and global security, but they are also following in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia has already separated itself from its traditional regional allies with its hyper-anti-Iranian posture, so much so that only Bahrain— which is effectively under Saudi occupation — is standing fully with it. Global powers, on the other hand, are pursuing ways to enhance ties with Iran. It is truly a shame that Prince Turki al-Faisal, a man of significant ability and experience, has committed himself to this doomed cause rather than searching for peace and friendship between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh’s now open alliance with the MEK only solidifies its position as the sponsor of yet another extremist group that espouses perverted views of Islam. The barbaric Nice terrorist attack— later claimed by the self-proclaimed Islamic State — and Prince Faisal’s endorsement of the MEK have a common denominator: a connection to Saudi Arabia.

saudi arabia iran

Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al-Faisal looks on during the National Council of Resistance of Iran annual meeting on July 9, 2016. (Alain Jocard/Getty Images)

Saudi Arabia and ISIS

It has long been evident to the global community that Saudi Arabia is a benefactors of Islamist militant groups, including likely the group that evolved into ISIS. Many U.S. officials have publicly acknowledged this reality. Even former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at the Brookings Institution last year that, “Much of the extremism in the world today is the direct result of policies and funding undertaken by the Saudi government and individuals.” A recent British parliament report also stated that it is “very likely” that individuals close to the royals of the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf have donated money to ISIS, though it is unclear how directly those funds have been given. Historically, too, the ideology of the group has ties to Saudi Arabia’s own identity via Wahhabism.
While ISIS wreaks havoc on the world with its global acts of terror, the MEK ravages Iran. In much the same way ISIS is a twisted offspring of the Sunni world that has ravaged, among others, Sunni-populated areas, the MEK is its counterpart for Iranians in the Shia world. Iranians thus expect the world community to confront the MEK just as it confronts ISIS. At the very least, the group should not be hosted by countries like France and endorsed by Saudi Arabia. In the fight against terrorism, European and Saudi leaders should know better than to distinguish between “good” and “bad” terrorism, or tolerate any form of terrorism in the service of cheap geopolitical gains.

In light of the Nice terrorist attack, the international community should also view the threat from other groups such as the MEK as an interconnected phenomenon. The scourge of terrorismcurrently threatening the whole world can only be alleviated if it is addressed in a holistic way. The Nice truck slaughter — indeed the slaughtering by ISIS in general — and the MEK’s killing of thousands of Iranians are both worthy of our attention and condemnation. The territory the perpetrators of such violence use to plan and launch attacks, as well as the flow of cash, equipment and ideology they draw their support and influence from should all be considered as pieces of the same terrorism “puzzle.” The global terrorist threat simply cannot be solved until all these pieces are recognized as being a part of the same puzzle and dealt with in an effective and simultaneous manner. This means not only increasing security to prevent attacks, but also seriously confronting those who aid terrorism in any way — from the MEK to ISIS.


Saddam’s Private Army
How Rajavi changed Iran’s Mojahedin from Armed Revolutionaries to an Armed Cult

The Life of Camp Ashraf
Mojahedin-e Khalq – Victims of Many Masters
By Anne Khodabandeh (Singleton)  and Massoud Khodabandeh

BBC: Who are the Iranian dissident group MEK? (Mojahedin Khalq, MKO, PMOI, …)

مهوش سپهری مجاهدین خلق فرقه رجویGrow the MKO, Harvest Terrorism! Mujahedin Khalq ;A tool for West

Mojahedin Khalq USARemember.Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) was one of the excuses of US attacking Iraq

Also read:

  • Iran_Victim_of_Terrorism_Tehran_2017_2Habilian Association and Tasnim News, Tehran, September 02 2017:…G roups from the Mujahedin-e Khalq organization (MEK, MKO, NCRI, PMOI, etc) to groups with separatist claims which conducted brutal and savage terrorist acts in the name of people, and their followers today, have continued the same terrorist approach with the excuse of religious disputes. Regarding to its long record of terrorist activities, MEK could be rightfully named as the father … 

    khodabandeh_Ebrahim_Mashad_Mojahedin_Khalq_Rajavi_Cult_MEK_3Habilian Association, August 28 2017:… Ebrahim Khodabandeh, a former senior member of Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization who defected from the group in 2003, provided details of some less known aspects of the MEK in a speech delivered to scholars of Astan Qods Razavi endowment in Mashhad. In the first part of his speech, Ebrahim Khodabandeh referred to the cultish nature of MEK and said cults like the MEK highlight real-life problems of people and … 

    mousavian_hosseinDr. Seyed Hossein Mousavian, Habilian Association, August 22 2017:… In Europe, despite the MEK’s influence among some EU parliamentarians, the EU at the highest levels is still staunchly pro-engagement with Iran, with Frederica Mogherini due to attend Rouhani’s inauguration. For the EU to make a sudden turnaround and support a group like the MEK is highly unlikely—especially given their vested economic interests—unless the United States makes … 

    John_McCain_Maryam_Rajavi_TerroristsHabilian Association, August 22 2017:…  On April 14, 2017, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a critical move met with Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the front organization of the terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq in Tirana, Albania. This meeting highlights a significant development in establishing further communication between US government … 

    Habilian Association, July 10 2017:…  The timing of Gingrich’s appearance at the MEK gala was awkward for Trump, since the candidate had spent part of the previous week arguing that the late Iraqi dictator, while being “a really bad guy,” deserved some credit because “he killed terrorists.” “He did that so good,” Trump told supporters in North Carolina on Tuesday. “They didn’t read them the rights; they didn’t talk; they 

    Mehr News and Habilain Association, February 14 2017:… There are credible reports – including statements by Ms. Soltani, a former member of the MEK leadership who was close to Rajavi- that Rajavi has a variety of scenarios for sexual relationship with the cult’s women. The question is that how Rajvi could do these acts despite being under political pressure and involved in covert actions. How can this … 

    Albania_HabilianHabilian Association, January 30 2017:… Habilian Association has launched the first specialized website in Albanian language providing news, analysis and documents on crimes conducted by the Mujahedin e-Khalq organization (MeK, MKO, NCRI, PMOI, etc.) Expelled from Iraq and relocated to Albania, MeK’s record is filled with numerous crimes including assassination of high ranking Iranian officials … 

    mullah_bakhtiar_pukHabilian Association, August 08 2016:… The Kurdish Iraqi official included: “MKO is an armed terrorist group comprised of a number of Iranian dissidents that has a black record of conducting crimes against Iraqi nation and the Kurdish people.” He also added: “I demand Saudi officials to formally apologize Iraqi people and stop supporting the terrorist group. We acknowledge no difference between the ISIS and the MKO; They are two … 

    Jacques Jean Edmond Georges Gaillot Mojahedin Khalq Terrorists 1Habilian Association, May 18 2016:…  Jacques Jean Edmond Georges Gaillot (born 11 September 1935 generally known in French as Monseigneur Gaillot) is a French Catholic clergyman and social activist. He was Bishop of Évreux in France from 1982 to 1995. In 1995, by decision of Pope John Paul II, he was demoted to be Titular Bishop of Partenia, an extinct diocese, for having expressed too controversial and heterodox positions on religiou

    Matthew-HohMatthew Hoh, Huffington Post, May 09 2016:… The MeK has been very successful in the United States in paying American politicians and former government officials to represent the MeK. Along with the demonization with which the American government has colored Iran with since 1979, these political eff

    Mukasey JafarzadehHabilian Association, April 12 2016:…  Mukasey has admitted he was paid handsomely by the MEK to advocate for them. He didn’t deny that his “expert advice and assistance” to MEK was coordinated, only that the designated terrorist group did not dictate what he said. He insisted that as long as the MEK did not write his speech, his acceptance of the terrorist organization’s money and his meetings with MEK members to coordinate his appearances an

    Sharmine Narwani, Habilian Association, January 22 2016:… I can’t imagine this bothered them much – though it did make the Americans look extremely hypocritical on their “War on Terror.” After all, the MEK had killed US citizens in Iran in the 1970s, attacked US soil in 1992, and continues to abuse its own members. This was the State Department’s very language …