Friday, June 28, 2019

Washington’s Infatuation with the MEK


Inarguably, Washington has a long history of supporting terrorists.  As General William Odom, President Reagan’s former National Security Agency (NSA) Director wrote in his 2007 article “American Hegemony, How to Use It, How to Lose It”: 


 “[T]errorism is not an enemy.  It is a tactic.  Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics…”.

Despite this long-standing use of tactic, there is no record of terrorists operating but a stone’s throw away from the White House.  Nor has there been such brazen embrace of  a terrorist group dubbed an undemocratic cult - until now.

The  1997 Patterns of Global Terrorism report issued by the State Department stated the following about the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO, NCRI and various other acronyms):

During the 1970s, the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran to destabilize and embarrass the Shah's regime; the group killed several US military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. The group also supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In April 1992 the MEK carried out attacks on Iranian embassies in 13 different countries, demonstrating the group's ability to mount large-scale operations overseas.”

Listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 1997,  the offices of the group’s spokesperson, Alireza Jafarzadeh was located at 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue.    Even after the attacks of September 11 and America’s declared “war on terror”, the spokesperson and representative of the terror group was just down the street from the White House.   Later, the  organization would move its offices to 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, remaining close to the residence of the President of the United States of America located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


It is said that ‘familiarity breeds contempt’.  This is certainly not true of Washington officials and their cozy ties with the MEK cult.   It seems that they are inching ever closer and have the audacity to flaunt flaunt their ties.  Washington’s  actions are a long cry from Israel’s who in the 1990’s were aiding the group in secret.  (The Israeli-MEK relations continues to be omitted from news headlines while  the accusatory finger is pointed to Saudi Arabia for their financial support of the cult).


Connie Brock of The New Yorker  writes: “Israel had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and had supplied a satellite signal for N.C.R.I. broadcasts from Paris into Iran. An Israeli diplomat said:  "The M.E.K is useful," but did not elaborate.”.  According to the same report, the Israelis provided the MEK with unsubstantiated  ‘intelligence’ on Iran’s nuclear program.   Not surprising since the aforementioned 1997 Patterns of Global Terrorism report states, “The MEK directs a worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government that stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence .”.


The close relationship with Israel may help explain why it was that in spite of being listed as terrorists, the group managed to bribe prominent politicians; even as a provision of the defense authorization bill  would grant the military the authority to detain and hold anyone indefinitely, or to assassinate any individual suspected of having ties to terrorists/al Qaeda.   Yet, these terrorists were giving speaking fees to American politicians. (The group also has its tentacles on British politicians – see HERE).


What is even more mind-boggling is the fact that Israel was supporting a terrorist cult that had massacred the Kurds in Iraq in 1991, and only a few year later, the Israelis were training the Kurds in Iraq who has survived the massacre (obviously something that has been lost on the Kurds)  while their killers, the MEK, were being chauffeured around by American soldiers a short distance away in Iraq - in America’s ‘war on terror’!   


Meanwhile, back home, politicians were being bribed by the terrorists! Clearly, FATF (Financial Action Task Force) did not prevent money from being funneled to and from terrorists.  Shamelessly, Washington is demanding that Iran become a member of FATF to stop terrorism financing! 

Even while the terrorist group was doling out money to corrupt politicians so they  coulds  be removed from the FTO list, and Washington politicians accepted money from terrorists, the group continued with its terrorism and carried out cross-border raids inside Iran with the full knowledge and encouragement of the Bush administration (History Commons).  


Concurrently, Washington was using other group members to promote propaganda against Iran with emphasis on ‘human rights’.  The leader of the terrorist cult, Maryam Rajavi’s live satellite broadcast was cheered in Washington.   This certainly gave new meaning to ‘human rights’ promotion by America – as well as ‘war on terror’.


The hypocrisy reached across the aisle. Democrats and Republicans don’t agree on much, but both parties supported this terrorist cult – all the way to the top.   When Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2008, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D -Texas), co-chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign, not only shared her friendship with America’s then presidential hopeful, but she also promoted America’s pet terrorists – the MEK.   Congresswoman Jackson Lee went as far as calling Maryam Rajavi “Sister Maryam,[i].  (Would this make Hillary and Maryam ‘sisters’ too?).


Certainly, Hillary’s push to remove the MEK from the FTO was a very sisterly act. 


It is important to bear in mind that the group was removed from the list of FTO after  U.S. officials disclosed to NBC  that the  MEK terrorist group was financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service and responsible for the killing of Iran’s nuclear scientists; and at a time when the United States was negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran Deal.


This year, as the Iranians mark the 38th anniversary of a horrendous attack by the MEK cult, the Trump administration is openly promoting the cult and flaunts Washington’s decades long, bipartisan infatuation with a notorious, anti-democratic cult.    What makes the MEK stand out?


Israel’s support aside, they seem to be brought out in the open whenever Washington wants to play tis psychological games with Iran – a ‘stick’, the term [offensive] policy makers like to use.  Washington knows full well that the group is hated in Iran.  That not a single member of this group will be tolerated in Iran, and there is no future for the group.  History also shows that Washington has experienced blow-back every time it has supported an unsavory group or when it has encouraged terror and terrorists.  Terrorism, like pollution, does not recognize borders.  Why the mad romancing of the MEK?


Perhaps Washington hopes that this cult will simply come to an end.  As the Council on Foreign Relations has reported:  Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis. Older women were reportedly required to divorce their husbands in the late 1980s, and younger girls cannot marry or have children.”.  Perhaps Washington’s thinking is that their numbers will dwindle an there will be no future generations of this cult to come back and haunt it. Now there is a wish both Washington and Tehran share!  


But wishes don’t make policies.  Washington needs to understand that its stick is a boomerang that will come back at it.  Washington has become morally and fiscally bankrupt as a result of its wrong policies. Its high time to save itself from the quagmire of its own creation before sinking beyond redemption.





[i] Financial Times, October 6, 2005.

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Trump Out of Control? Who Flew the Drone?

It would seem that President Trump has no say in American foreign policy.    Israel has taken over completely leaving Trump out of the loop - so it seems.   His advisors, Israeli-firster John Bolton, and Evangelical Pompeo, are a greater threat to America and the world than they are to Iran.

On June 17, 2019,  one of Israel's foremost hasbara media publications, The Jerusalem Post made a bizarre claim.  It stated that according to 'diplomatic sources at the U.N., the United States was assessing plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the [false flag] tanker attack; and that it would be an "aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program."

This report spread like wild fire by conservative and liberal alike.  Anti-war and warmongers both weighing in on the report.  It seems that these days, Israel/its lackeys announce their false flags ahead of time!  Perhaps they feel it will prime and prep the minds of the sheeple with their media arms everywhere.

Unsurprisingly, 24 hours later, Iran spots a drone over its territorial waters headed towards for its territory.  It is inconceivable that after the threatening announcement by the Israeli paper, the Iranian authorities would allow a drone to fly over Iranian territory.  The drone shot down - understandably.  Not long afterward, we are told the drone was a sophisticated American drone.  No doubt, but was it being operated by American forces?

Warmongers are salivating - calling it an "unprovoked attack".   John Bolton is on his way to Israel for fresh instruction.  Media is in overdrive.

If Iran is attacked in any way, their first act of retaliation would be an attack on Israel, the shutting of the Strait of Hormuz, and the American troops in the region.  UAE and Saudi Arabia would not fare any better.

There has never been a more pressing time -- and perhaps the only time -- than the present for the world to stand up to US/Israeli aggression.  




Friday, June 14, 2019

Pompeo’s Tanker Narrative


“I was the CIA director. We lied, We Cheated, We Stole”.  – Mike Pompeo

It appears that Mike Pompeo has a hard time kicking his old habits.  He appears to be as smug about lying as a CIA operative as he is as Secretary of State.  Categorically blaming the Iranians for the recent oil attack tankers has left allies scratching their heads; and perhaps leaving foes thinking: “Thank God my enemy is so stupid”!   

On June 13, 2019, as Ayatollah Khamenei was holding talks in Tehran with Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, two oil tankers carrying oil to Japan were attacked.  As investigations into the incident were just beginning, Pompeo had already concluded his assessment and had it ready for the press.  Much to the audible surprise of the world, and without any proof or supporting documents, he laid the blame firmly at Iran’s feet citing “intelligence”. 

To his relief, in no time at all, US officials claimed that they had managed to get their hands on videos and pictures.  They presented a grainy video alleging to show an Iranian navy boat removing mines from the damaged Japanese ship.  It is easy to understand why the grainy video’s existence was necessary.

Precisely a month prior, on May 13th,  four oil tankers were damaged in the region.   The United States blamed Iran without any evidence.  Saudi Arabia followed suit.  The rest of the world was skeptical and doubts floated about the about the accuracy of US claims.  This time around, Pompeo was saved by the video – although not for long! The Japanese vessel owner disputed the presence of mines damaging his vessel (as suggested in the blurry video).

Even allies were skeptical.  To enforce its position and allegations against Iran,  the Trump administration made its argument  based on misinterpreting what Iran had said about the oil embargo.   Following Trump’s announcement on April 22nd that America would not renew US waivers for countries which imported oil from Iran, in essence, imposing an oil embargo, on April 25the Iranian government retorted by condemning America’s illegal demands and stated that no other country could take its share of the oil market.

The Trump team would like us to believe that what Iran meant was the sabotage of the oil tankers.   This is far from true.    Iran was referring to its legal right under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which legally allows it to impede the passage of oil shipments through its territorial waters – the Strait of Hormuz.

While UNCLOS stipulates that vessels can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage, under the UNCLOS framework, a coastal state [Iran] can block ships from entering its territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms “peace, good order or security” of said state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed “innocent”[i].   

Given Iran’s recourse to international law, American diplomacy at its all time low, and the rally behind Iran – if only verbally – it makes absolutely no sense for Iran to blow up oil tankers and turn the world opinion in favor of  Trump and his the warmongering advisors - Pompeo and Bolton.

But tankers were blown up.   What other motivation were there? 

Perhaps NOPEC – No to Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act.   In February, House passed a Bill that would cripple OPEC.   The Bill would prohibit OPEC from coordinating production and influencing prices.  While the Bill was said to provide a useful leverage for the White House, Persian Gulf Arab states sent their warnings to Wall Street. 

On April 5th, Saudi Arabia even threatened to drop Dollar for oil trades in order to discourage US from passing the NOPEC Bill.  The Saudi threat came on the heels of UAE cautions the prior month that if such bill passed, it would in effect, break up OPEC.  

Perhaps this was the reason behind Saudi Arabia’s lack of cooperation.   After Trump announced his Iran oil embargo, a senior US administration assured the world at large that Trump was confident Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would fill any gap left in the oil market.  He was mistaken. On April 29th, the Saudi Energy Minister, Khaled el-Falih made it clear that Saudi Arabia would not “rush to boost oil supply to make up for a loss of Iranian crude”. 

After the May 13th incident, apparently America’s accusations did not carry any weight around the world, but they did have an impact on the jittery Saudis.   On June 3rd, Bloomberg reported that over the last month, the Saudis  raised their oil production to replace lost Iranian oil.    The oil market was satisfied and America could continue to put pressure on friend and foe to stop buying Iranian oil – there would be no shortages.

What then explains the second tanker incidents of June 13th?

Perhaps the motive is two-fold.  Firstly, the United States would reinforce its unfounded allegations that Iran is a ‘bad actor’ and discourage and dissuade the international community from cooperation with Iran.  And secondly, the hike in the price of oil as a result of the tanker attacks no doubt sent a sigh of relief to shale oil producers in the United States.  A drop in oil prices would greatly harm or bankrupt US shale-focused, debt-dependent producers.

Not on Trump’s watch. 

Although many states in the US and some countries in the world have banned shale oil production due to its adverse effects on the environment, specifically water, the United States’ goal is to be the biggest producer and supplier of oil depending on its shale oil production.  Currently, according to the latest US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States is a net importer of oil.   With low oil prices, a halt or slowing of shale, the trend would continue to be an importer.

Having Saudi Arabia cower to US demands, demonizing Iran, intimidating allies and non-allies with fear of conflict in the region in order to press further demands on Iran, increase in the price of oil, and the weapons that would be purchased by US allies in the nervous neighborhood, seems like a win-win situation for America.  For now.



[i] Martin Wahlisch, The Yale Journal of International Law, March 2012, citing UNCLOS, supra note 12, , art. 19, para1, and art. 25, para1.