Israel, MEK and state sponsor of Terror groups

[Keith Millea]

http://politics.salon.com/2012/02/10/isr...singleton/

10, 2012 5:59 AM 12:09:05 PST

Israel, MEK and state sponsor of Terror groups

A new report claims that MEK is behind the assassination of Iran's scientists, and Israel funds them

By Glenn Greenwald

Howard Dean and Rudy Giuliani (Credit: AP)

One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders. The group of MEK shills includes former top Bush officials and other Republicans (Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani) as well as prominent Democrats (Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark). As The Christian Science Monitor reported last August, those individuals "have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK." No matter what one thinks of this group here is a summary of its activities it is formally designated as a Terrorist group and it is thus a felony under U.S. law to provide it with any "material support."

There are several remarkable aspects to this story. The first is that there are numerous Muslims inside the U.S. who have been prosecuted for providing "material support for Terrorism" for doing far less than these American politicians are publicly doing on behalf of a designated Terrorist group. A Staten Island satellite TV salesman in 2009 was sentenced to five years in federal prison merely for including a Hezbollah TV channel as part of the satellite package he sold to customers; a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now "for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet"; a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, Jubair Ahmad, was indicted last September for uploading a 5-minute video to YouTube that was highly critical of U.S. actions in the Muslim world, an allegedly criminal act simply because prosecutors claim he discussed the video in advance with the son of a leader of a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba); a Saudi Arabian graduate student, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, was prosecuted simply for maintaining a website with links "to groups that praised suicide bombings in Chechnya and in Israel" and "jihadist" sites that solicited donations for extremist groups (he was ultimately acquitted); and last July, a 22-year-old former Penn State student and son of an instructor at the school, Emerson Winfield Begolly, was indicted for in the FBI's words "repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans" by posting comments on a "jihadist" Internet forum including "a comment online that praised the shootings" at a Marine Corps base, action which former Obama lawyer Marty Lederman said "does not at first glance appear to be different from the sort of advocacy of unlawful conduct that is entitled to substantial First Amendment protection."

Yet here we have numerous American political figures receiving substantial fees from a group which is legally designated under American law as a Terrorist organization. Beyond that, they are meeting with the Terrorist leaders of that group repeatedly (Howard Dean told NPR last year about the group's leader, Maryam Rajavi: "I have actually had dinner with Mrs. Rajavi on numerous occasions. I do not find her very terrorist-like" and has even insisted that she should be recognized as Iran's President, while Rudy Giuliani publicly told her at a Paris conference in December: "These are the most important yearnings of the human soul that you support, and for your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just simply a disgrace"). And, after receiving fees from the Terrorist group and meeting with its Terror leaders, these American political figures are going forth and disseminating pro-MEK messages on its behalf and working to have it removed from the Terrorist list.

Given all the prosecutions of politically powerless Muslims for far fewer connections to Terrorist groups than the actions of these powerful (paid) political figures, what conceivable argument is there for not prosecuting Dean, Giuliani, and the rest of them for providing "material support for Terrorism"? What they are providing to MEK is the definitive "material support." Although these activities (along with those of the above-listed prosecuted Muslims) should be protected free speech, the U.S. Government has repeatedly imprisoned people for it. Indeed, as Georgetown Law Professor David Cole noted, these activities on behalf of MEK are clearly prosecutable as "material support for Terrorism" under the standard advocated by the Bush and Obama DOJs and accepted by the Supreme Court in the Holder v. Humanitarian Law case of 2009, which held that even peaceful advocacy on behalf of a Terrorist group can be prosecuted if done in coordination with the group (ironically, many of these paid MEK supporters have long been advocates of broad application of "material support" statutes (when applied to Muslims, that is) and have even praised the Humanitarian Law case). If we had anything even remotely approaching equal application of the law, Dean, Giuliani, Townsend and the others would be facing prosecution as Terrorist-helpers.

Then there's long been the baffling question of where MEK was getting all of this money to pay these American officials. Indeed, the pro-MEK campaign has been lavishly funded. As the CSM noted: "Besides the string of well-attended events at prestigious American hotels and locations, and in Paris, Brussels, and Berlin, the campaign has included full-page advertisements in The New York Times and Washington Post which can cost $175,000 apiece." MEK is basically little more than a nomadic cult: after they sided with Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, they were widely loathed in Iran and their 3,400 members long lived in camps in Iraq, but the Malaki government no longer wants them there. How has this rag-tag Terrorist cult of Iranian dissidents, who are largely despised in Iran, able to fund such expensive campaigns and to keep U.S. officials on its dole?

All of these mysteries received substantial clarity from an NBC News report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem yesterday. Citing two anonymous "senior U.S. officials," that report makes two amazing claims: (1) that it was MEK which perpetrated the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and (2) the Terrorist group "is financed, trained and armed by Israel's secret service." These senior officials also admitted that "the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign" but claims it "has no direct involvement." Iran has long insisted the Israel and the U.S. are using MEK to carry out Terrorist attacks on its soil, including the murder of its scientists, and NBC notes that these acknowledgments "confirm charges leveled by Iran's leaders" (MEK issued a statement denying the report).

If these senior U.S. officials are telling the truth, there are a number of vital questions and conclusions raised by this.

First, it would mean that the assurances by MEK's paid American shills such as Howard Dean that "they are unarmed" are totally false: whoever murdered these scientists is obviously well-armed.

Second, this should completely gut the effort to remove MEK from the list of designated Terrorist groups; after all, murdering Iran's scientists through the use of bombs and guns is a defining act of a Terror group, at least as U.S. law attempts to define the term.

Third, this should forever resolve the debate in which I was involved last month about whether the attack on these Iranian scientists constitutes Terrorism; as Daniel Larson put it yesterday: "If true, the murders of Iranian nuclear scientists with bombs have been committed by a recognized terrorist group. Can everyone acknowledge at this point that these attacks were acts of terrorism?"

Fourth, and most important: if this report is true, is this not definitive proof that Israel is, by definition, a so-called state sponsor of Terrorism? Leaving everything else aside, if Israel, as NBC reports, has "financed, trained and armed" a group officially designated by the U.S. Government as a Terrorist organization, isn't that the definitive act of how one becomes an official "state sponsor of Terrorism"? Amazingly, as Daniel Larison notes, one of the people who most vocally attacked me for labeling the murder of Iranian scientists as "Terrorism" and for generally arguing that Terrorism is a meaningless, cynically applied term Commentarys Jonathan Tobin yesterday issued a justification for why Israel should be working with Terrorist groups like MEK. As Larison wrote about Tobin's article:

In other words, Israeli state sponsorship of a terrorist group is acceptable because it's in a good cause. . . . Because Israel is overreacting to a perceived threat from Iran, Tobin believes it is entirely defensible for Israel to partner with a recognized terrorist group. In other words, Tobin believes that terrorism is "entirely defensible" so long as it is committed by the right people and directed at the right targets. It's as if he is going out of his way to vindicate Glenn Greenwald.

Of course, as I documented in my last book, those who are politically and financially well-connected are free to commit even the most egregious crimes; for that reason, the very idea of prosecuting Giuliani, Rendell, Ridge, Townsend, Dean and friends for their paid labor on behalf of a Terrorist group is unthinkable, a suggestion not fit for decent company, even though powerless Muslims have been viciously prosecuted for far less egregious connections to such groups. But this incident also underscores the specific point that the term Terrorism is so completely meaningless, manipulated and mischievous: it's just a cynical term designed to delegitimize violence and even political acts undertaken by America's enemies while shielding from criticism the actual Terrorism undertaken by itself and its allies. The spectacle whereby a designated Terrorist group can pay top American politicians to advocate for them even as they engage in violent Terrorist acts, all while being trained, funded and aided by America's top client state, should forever end the controversy over that glaringly obvious proposition.

[Christer Forslund]

I suggest that we are not dealing with people in "terror groups" here - instead we have "dissident activists"!

From Haaretz:

Mossad officials are training Iranian dissident activists to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, a NBC News report citing U.S. officials said on Thursday. The report noted, however, that Washington was not directly involvement in the alleged attacks.
...

[Jan Klimkowski]

Yes - the Old Lie.

When is a terrorist not a terrorist?

When he's our freedom fighter.

[Charles Drago]

Thomas Jefferson = Osama bin Laden.

George Washington = Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.

Except that Jefferson and Washington actually were responsible for the deeds attributed to them.

Okay, okay.

Hey, not all analogies are perfect ...

[Magda Hassan]

America's own Terror group

Huffington Post publishes, and then deletes, a post by a MeK spokesman. What does this tell us about Terrorism?

BY GLENN GREENWALD

(updated below)
Yesterday morning, The Huffington Post published a postby Hossein Abedini, who was identified in the byline as a "Member of Parliament in exile of Iranian Resistance." His extended HuffPost bio says that he "belongs to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran" (NCRI). The NCRI is thepolitical arm of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, (MeK), the Iranian dissident group (and longtime Saddam ally) that has been formally designated by the U.S. State Department since 1997 as a Terrorist organization, yet has been paying large sums of money to a bipartisan cast of former U.S. officials to advocate on its behalf (the in-hiding President of the NCRI, Massoud Rajavi, is, along with his wife Maryam Rajavi, MeK's leader). Abedini, the HuffPost poster, has been identified as a MeK spokesman in news reports, and has identified himself the same way when, for instance, writing letters to NBC Newsobjecting to negative reports about the group.
Yesterday's HuffPost piece by Abedini touted a recent rally, held on June 23 in Paris, which, he claimed, was attended by "over 100,000 Iranian exiles and supporters of the Iranian resistance from five continents." The news report cited by Abedini actually says that "tens of thousands" of Iranians participated, and reflecting what seems to be MeK's bizarrely unlimited budget they were transported by "more than a thousand buses . . . from all over Europe." Abedini boasted that the rally's keynote speaker was MeK leader Rajavi (whom he calls "the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance") it was a MeK rally and quotes her at length demanding the removal of MeK from the list of Terror organizations.
As usual for a MeK event, Abedini was able to tout more than a dozen former high-level U.S. political officials from both parties who spoke to the rally, many of whom (if not all) have been repeatedly paid large sums of money for their MeK speeches. According to Abedini, this latest rally included many of the usual MeK shills: former GOP New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, former Democratic New Mexico Governor and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, former GOP U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former GOP Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Democratic State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, and several retired U.S. Generals.
Shortly after the HuffPost piece appeared, several people on Twitter, the first of which (I believe) was the Iranian journalist Hooman Majd, noted that The Huffington Post had published a propaganda piece from a designated Terror group and wondered whether they would do so for all such Terror groups such as Al Qaeda. After several others, including The New York Times Robert Mackey andmyself, noted the oddity that HuffPost was publishing pieces from a designated Terrorist group, HuffPost deleted the piece. If one goes now to the URL where the post first appeared, one finds this: "Editor's Note: This post is no longer available on the Huffington Post" (the post can still be read in its cached version). No explanation is given for the deletion, but a HuffPost spokesperson, Rhoades Alderson, last night responded to my inquiry about it as follows:

It was published by mistake. By policy, we don't publish blog posts by people affiliated with designated terrorist organizations. The blog editor who published it was unaware that NCRI is MEK's political arm. When the mistake was discovered the post was removed.

Despite this "policy," the same post by Abedini remains on the HuffPost's UK site. Moreover, HuffPost has previously publishednumerous pieces from Abedini including one linking the Syrian and Iranian "resistance" and demanding Western support for both,another branding Iran the "epicenter of terrorism," and other posts spouting the MeK line. All of those posts by Abedini remain on the HuffPost site.
To be clear, I don't find HuffPost's conduct either in publishing posts from MeK spokespeople or removing them to be objectionable. That's not the point here. I personally believe it's better to hear from all groups and to have all viewpoints aired rather than trying with inevitable futility to suppress them, but if HuffPost really does have a policy against publication of "people affliated with designated terrorist organizations," then just like laws criminalizing the providing of "material support to Terrorist organizations" it should apply equally to MeK and those who work with it (including MeK's list of paid D.C. political celebrities).
[In the wake of 9/11, the U.S. Government instructed American media outlets not to broadcast any statements from Osama bin Laden on the ground that he might embed in his statements coded signals to his followers to activate sleeper cells on American soil -- perhaps he would use the nose wiggle employed by Bewitched's Samantha Stevens to unleash her magic powers -- and many American media outlets (needless to say) dutifully complied. It seems clear that the real reason for suppression of those Al Qaeda statements was to ensure that Americans, who were understandably asking "Why Do They Hate Us"? in the wake of 9/11, would be prevented from hearing Al Qaeda's actual grievances about U.S. aggression so that they could instead be told that They Hate Us for Our Freedom; George Bush on September 21, 2001: "Americans are asking 'Why do they hate us?' . . . They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other". It's far preferable, in my view, to allow all views to be aired, but a ban on Terror groups and their supporters should be equally applied.]
What makes this HuffPost event notable is that it is inconceivable that they would publish posts from spokespeople or paid advocates for other designated Terrorist groups which do not command widespread support among Washington's elites such as, say, Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Hezbollah. MeK is treated differently because they are Our Terrorists. NBC News reported that "deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissidentgroup [MeK] that is financed, trained and armed by Israel's secret service," while The New Yorkers Seymour Hersh detailed in April that the U.S. has provided extensive training to MeK operatives, on U.S. soil. This entire MeK controversy has, as vividly as any event in a long time, illustrated the core truth of Terrorism and the laws against it: the entire concept has no purpose in American political discourse and law other than to delegitimize and criminalize support for groups which use violence in opposition to American violence and aggression, while sanctioning and enabling those groups which use such violence to advance America's interests.
MeK used to work in close cooperation with Saddam (during the time Saddam was America's decreed Enemy, rather than Ally), so they were therefore Bad: Terrorists. Indeed, in 2003, when the Bush administration was advocating an attack on Iraq, one of the prime reasons it cited was "Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism," and it circulated a document purporting to prove that assertion, in which one of the first specific accusations listed was this:

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

So just nine years ago, Saddam's links to MeK were cited by the U.S. Government as proof that he sheltered Terrorist groups. Now, the MeK works for the interests of (and in cooperation with) Israel and the U.S., so suddenly, they are now Good, and the most Serious Beltway officials are free to openly take money from and advocate for this Terror group (as a result, the MeK is, predictably, highly likely to be rewarded by being removed by the Obama administration from the Terrorist list). They are basically the Ahmad Chalabis of Iran: despite being widely despised in Iran for their support for Iraq in its war against Iran, they are being deceitfully held out as the True Pro-American, Pro-Israel, Pro-Western-Intervention Voice of the Iranian People (paid MeK shill Howard Dean actually argued that the U.S. should recognize MeK's leader as the legitimate President of Iran).
That HuffPost responded to yesterday's pressure by removing the MeK post and citing its policy against publishing those "affliated with designated terrorist organizations" is valuable in the sense that it highlights the absurd travesty of "Terrorism" in U.S. politics. For legal purposes, at least, MeK is every bit the Terrorist organization that Al Qaeda is, yet they are now Our Terrorists, and are thus heralded and rewarded rather than scorned.
* * * * *
It was recently revealed that Clarence Page, the long-time Chicago Tribune columnist, was paid $20,000 to speak at this same MeK rally in Paris, along with travel expenses; once that was revealed, The Chicago Tribune reprimanded him and he announced that he would return the fee. It's just extraordinary how much cash is flying around and ending up in the pockets of prominent and influential Americans in order to shill for this Terror group.
On a different note, The Guardian's Iranian columnist, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, today details how sanctions against Iran are severely harming ordinary Iranians while doing little to undermine the government or its nuclear research program. The foreign policy analyst Reza H. Akbari points out the same thing here.
Finally, a new Pentagon report to Congress stresses, as the Federation of American Scientists put it, that "that while developing offensive capabilities, Iran's military posture is essentially defensive in character" specifically, "Iran's military doctrine remains designed to slow an invasion; target its adversaries' economic, political, and military interests; and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities while avoiding any concessions that challenge its core interests." Let's repeat that: quite understandably, "Iran's military posture is essentially defensive in character."

UPDATE: In addition to Abedini, The Huffington Post has alsorepeatedly published Ali Safavi, who is also identified as "a member of Iran's Parliament in Exile, National Council of Resistance of Iran." Safavi has also used his HuffPost platform to propagate standard MeK propaganda, such as this piece entitled "Time to Act on Iran Regime" which demands that "the US must immediately delist the MEK" and argues that "delisting the MEK will strengthen the entire opposition in Iran, serving to suffocate Tehran's nuclear drive and expansionist agenda," and this one, entitled "Reality Check: Understanding the Mujahedin-e Khalq," that reads like a MeK press release. He appeared on CNN in 2003 as a NCRI representative and said that the MeK "of course is one of the five member organizations of the National Council of Resistance of Iran." Safavi formerly lived in London where he led the movement to have the MeK unbanned, and often appears at Congressional hearings advising pro-MeK members of Congress. He now heads a "think tank" in D.C., the Near East Policy Research, which is overtly pro-MeK.
In sum, if HuffPost intends to apply its ostensible policy of banning "people affiliated with designated terrorist organizations," it has a lot more work to do beyond deleting this single post from yesterday. That site has become a regular outpost of propaganda for the MeK Terror group. Just try to imagine if they were regularly publishing Al Qaeda or even Hamas and Hezbollah spokespeople: they'd be aggressively accused, perhaps even by the U.S. Government, of materially supporting Terrorists (a Staten Island man is still in federal prison for the "crime" of assisting and including a Hezbollah channel in the cable package he sold to customers). It would never be tolerated. Why should MeK be any different?
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/11/americas.../#comments

[Magda Hassan]

Indictment of Iran for '94 Terror Bombing Relied on MEK

By Gareth Porter

August 09, 2013 "Information Clearing House - WASHINGTON, Aug 7 2013 (IPS) - Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman based his 2006 warrant for the arrest of top Iranian officials in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 on the claims of representatives of the armed Iranian opposition Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK), the full text of the document reveals.

The central piece of evidence cited in Nisman's original 900-page arrest warrant against seven senior Iranian leaders is an alleged Aug. 14, 1993 meeting of top Iranian leaders, including both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and then president Hashemi Rafsanjani, at which Nisman claims the official decision was made to go ahead with the planning of the bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA).

But the document, recently available in English for the first time, shows that his only sources for the claim were representatives of the MEK or People's Mujahideen of Iran. The MEK has an unsavoury history of terrorist bombings against civilian targets in Iran, as well as of serving as an Iraq-based mercenary army for Saddam Hussein's forces during the Iran-Iraq War.

The organisation was removed from the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist groups last year after a campaign by prominent former U.S. officials who had gotten large payments from pro-MEK groups and individuals to call for its "delisting".

Nisman's rambling and repetitious report cites statements by four members of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which is the political arm of the MEK, as the sources for the charge that Iran decided on the AMIA bombing in August 1993.

The primary source is Reza Zakeri Kouchaksaraee, president of the Security and Intelligence Committee of the NCRI. The report quotes Kouchaksaraee as testifying to an Argentine Oral Court in 2003, "The decision was made by the Supreme National Security Council at a meeting that was held on 14 August, 1993. This meeting lasted only two hours from 4:30 to 6:30 pm."

Nisman also quotes Hadi Roshanravani, a member of the International Affairs Committee of the NCRI, who claimed to know the same exact starting time of the meeting 4:30 pm but gave the date as Aug. 12, 1993 rather than Aug. 14.

Roshanravani also claimed to know the precise agenda of the meeting. The NCRI official said that three subjects were discussed: "The progress and assessment of the Palestinian Council; the strategy of exporting fundamentalism throughout the world; and the future of Iraq." Roshanravani said "the idea for an attack in Argentina" had been discussed "during the dialogue on the second point".

The NCRI/MEK was claiming that the Rafsanjani government had decided on a terrorist bombing of a Jewish community centre in Argentina as part of a policy of "exporting fundamentalism throughout the world".

But that MEK propaganda line about the Iranian regime was contradicted by the U.S. intelligence assessment at the time. In its National Intelligence Estimate 34-91 on Iranian foreign policy, completed on Oct. 17, 1991, U.S. intelligence concluded that Rafsanjani had been "gradually turning away from the revolutionary excesses of the past decade…toward more conventional behavior" since taking over as president in 1989.

Ali Reza Ahmadi and Hamid Reza Eshagi, identified as "defectors" who were affiliated with NCRI, offered further corroboration of the testimony by the leading NCRI officials. Ahmadi was said by Nisman to have worked as an Iranian foreign service officer from 1981 to 1985. Eshagi is not otherwise identified.

Nisman quotes Ahmadi and Eshagi, who made only joint statements, as saying, "It was during a meeting held at 4:30 pm in August 1993 that the Supreme National Security Council decided to carry out activities in Argentina."

Nisman does not cite any non-MEK source as claiming such a meeting took place. He cites court testimony by Abolghassem Mesbahi, a "defector" who had not worked for the Iranian intelligence agency since 1985, according to his own account, but only to the effect that the Iranian government made the decision on AMIA sometime in 1993. Mesbahi offered no evidence to support the claim.

Nisman repeatedly cites the same four NCRI members to document the alleged participation of each of the seven senior Iranians for whom he requested arrest warrants. A review of the entire document shows that Kouchaksaraee is cited by Nisman 29 times, Roshanravani 16 times and Ahmadi and Eshagi 16 times, always together making the same statement for a total of 61 references to their testimony.

Nisman cited no evidence or reason to believe that any of the MEK members were in a position to have known about such a high-level Iranian meeting. Although MEK propaganda has long claimed access to secrets, their information has been at best from low-level functionaries in the regime.

In using the testimony of the most violent opponents of the Iranian regime to accuse the most senior Iranian officials of having decided on the AMIA terrorist bombing, Nisman sought to deny the obvious political aim of all MEK information output of building support in the United States and Europe for the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

"The fact that the individuals are opponents of the Iranian regime does not detract in the least from the significance of their statements," Nisman declared.

In an effort to lend the group's testimony credibility, Nisman described their statements as being made "with honesty and rigor in a manner that respects nuances and details while still maintaining a sense of the larger picture".

The MEK witnesses, Nisman wrote, could be trusted as "completely truthful".

The record of MEK officials over the years, however, has been one of putting out one communiqué after another that contained information about alleged covert Iranian work on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, nearly all of which turned out to be false when they were investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The only significant exception to the MEK's overall record of false information on the Iranian nuclear programme was its discovery of Iran's Natanz enrichment facility and its Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.

But even in that case, the MEK official who announced the Natanz discovery, U.S. representative Alireza Jafarzadeh, incorrectly identified it as a "fuel fabrication facility" rather than as an enrichment facility. He also said it was near completion, although it was actually several months from having the equipment necessary to begin enrichment.

Contrary to the MEK claims that it got the information on Natanz from sources in the Iranian government, moreover, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh reported, a "senior IAEA official" told him in 2004 that Israeli intelligence had passed their satellite intelligence on Natanz to the MEK.

An adviser to Reza Pahlavi, the heir to the Shah, later told journalist Connie Bruck that the information about Natanz had come from "a friendly government", which had provided it to both the Pahlavi organisation and the MEK.

Nisman has long been treated in pro-Israel, anti-Iran political circles as the authoritative source on the AMIA bombing case and the broader subject of Iran and terrorism. Last May, Nisman issued a new 500-page report accusing Iran of creating terrorist networks in the Western hemisphere that builds on his indictment of Iran for the 1994 bombing.

But Nisman's readiness to base the crucial accusation against Iran in the AMIA case solely on MEK sources and his denial of their obvious unreliability highlights the fact that he has been playing a political role on behalf of certain powerful interests rather than uncovering the facts.

[Magda Hassan]

Not sure what to make of this as it can be read in several ways and all of them dodgy. Enlightening none the less.

The M.E.K, short for the Mujahedeen-e Khalq or People's Mujahideen of Iran, is an exiled Iranian opposition group that was previously designated a "foreign terrorist organization" by the State Department until its removal in Sept. 2012.

The M.E.K has a number of high profile backers in the U.S. Here's former House Speaker Newt Gingrich bowing to M.E.K. leader Maryam Rajavi in 2012. At the time the M.E.K was still labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S.

The The National Association of Iranian Academics in Britain took out a Washington Post ad in 2011, writing an open letter to President Obama asking him to take the M.E.K. off the list of terrorist organizations.

Via thinkprogress.org

The letter was signed by a number of prominent Democrats and Republicans, including former members of the Bush And Obama Administrations.

Via thinkprogress.org

The State Department labeled the M.E.K. a terrorist organization for a number of reasons, among other things, they staged terrorist attacks killing U.S. military personnel and civilians. They were also funded by Saddam Hussein.

From the State Department's website:

The group's worldwide campaign against the Iranian government uses propaganda and terrorism to achieve its objectives. During the 1970s, the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran and killed several U.S. military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. In 1972, the MEK set off bombs in Tehran at the U.S. Information Service office (part of the U.S. Embassy), the Iran-American Society, and the offices of several U.S. companies to protest the visit of President Nixon to Iran. In 1973, the MEK assassinated the deputy chief of the U.S. Military Mission in Tehran and bombed several businesses, including Shell Oil. In 1974, the MEK set off bombs in Tehran at the offices of U.S. companies to protest the visit of then U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger. In 1975, the MEK assassinated two U.S. military officers who were members of the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group in Tehran. In 1976, the MEK assassinated two U.S. citizens who were employees of Rockwell International in Tehran. In 1979, the group claimed responsibility for the murder of an American Texaco executive. Though denied by the MEK, analysis based on eyewitness accounts and MEK documents demonstrates that MEK members participated in and supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and that the MEK later argued against the early release the American hostages.

Before Operation Iraqi Freedom began in 2003, the MEK received all of its military assistance and most of its financial support from Saddam Hussein. The fall of Saddam Hussein's regime has led the MEK increasingly to rely on front organizations to solicit contributions from expatriate Iranian communities.

Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the group was disarmed and has said they have renounced terrorism. They started lobbying to get their name removed from the list of foreign terrorist organizations. The group managed to achieve this in Europe in 2009, and eventually, the U.S. in September 2012.
Via state.gov

One of the M.E.K.'s supporters, The National Association of Iranian Academics in Britain, recently attempted to take out an ad in The Washington Post.

Here's the invoice:

Even though the National Association of Iranian Academics in Britain was supposedly an independent group of M.E.K. supporters, the recent ad invoice is signed by Shahin Gobadi, a Paris-based spokesman for the M.E.K.'s parent organization.

The signed-copy of the invoice is also addressed to the wrong place. The address listed is the office of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who OPPOSES the M.E.K. and ran a campaign to stop them from being delisted as a terror organization.

The NIAC still has an entire section of their website devoted to opposition to the M.E.K. So accidentally signing a copy of contract addressed to them is particularly embarrassing.

Via niacouncil.org

By accidentally signing this invoice and somehow failing to notice that it was addressed to their opposition, the M.E.K. outed itself as the ones pulling the strings at the National Association of Iranian Academics in Britain.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/...washington

[Peter Lemkin]

Some of our Congresspersons and others in positions of power and influence backing groups bent on violence against their perceived, often created, enemies [and in their sick minds that of the USA, as a whole]?! I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you.....::willynilly::

[Charlie Prima]

- edited -