WAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Mission possible
31-Jul-2008
The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation's sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood.
Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.
Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating "accident" involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency's backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.
The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. Facing brutal repression from the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, the MEK became expert at blending into Iranian society, forming a cellular organizational structure which made it virtually impossible to eradicate. The MEK membership also became adept at gaining access to positions of sensitivity and authority. When the Shah was overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979 the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.
However, relations between the MEK and the Islamic regime in Tehran soured, and after the MEK staged a bloody coup attempt in 1981, all ties were severed and the two sides engaged in a violent civil war. Revolutionary Guard members who were active at that time have acknowledged how difficult it was to fight the MEK. In the end, massive acts of arbitrary arrest, torture and executions were required to break the back of mainstream MEK activity in Iran, although even the Revolutionary Guard today admits the MEK remains active and is virtually impossible to completely eradicate.
It is this stubborn ability to survive and operate inside Iran, at a time when no other intelligence service can establish and maintain a meaningful agent network there, which makes the MEK such an asset to nations such as the United States and Israel. The MEK is able to provide some useful intelligence; however, its overall value as an intelligence resource is negatively impacted by the fact that it is the sole source of human intelligence in Iran. As such, the group has taken to exaggerating and fabricating reports to serve its own political agenda. In this way, there is little to differentiate the MEK from another Middle Eastern expatriate opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, which infamously supplied inaccurate intelligence to the United States and other governments and helped influence the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Today, the MEK sees itself in a similar role, providing sole-sourced intelligence to the United States and Israel in an effort to facilitate American military operations against Iran and, eventually, to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran.
The current situation concerning the MEK would be laughable if it were not for the violent reality of that organization's activities. Upon its arrival in Iraq in 1986, the group was placed under the control of Saddam Hussein's Mukhabarat, or intelligence service. The MEK was a heavily militarized organization and in 1988 participated in division-size military operations against Iran. The organization represents no state and can be found on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations, yet since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK has been under the protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given "protected status" under the Geneva Conventions. The MEK says its members in Iraq are refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active paramilitary organization that uses "refugee camps" inside Iraq as its bases.
The MEK is behind much of the intelligence being used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in building its case that Iran may be pursuing (or did in fact pursue in the past) a nuclear weapons program. The complexity of the MEK-CIA relationship was recently underscored by the agency's acquisition of a laptop computer allegedly containing numerous secret documents pertaining to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran's ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.
Now, I have a simple solution to the issue of the laptop computer: Give it the UNSCOM treatment. Assemble a team of CIA, FBI and Defense Department forensic computer analysts and probe the computer, byte by byte. Construct a chronological record of how and when the data on the computer were assembled. Check the "logic" of the data, making sure everything fits together in a manner consistent with the computer's stated function and use. Tell us when the computer was turned on and logged into and how it was used. Then, with this complex usage template constructed, overlay the various themes which have been derived from the computer's contents, pertaining to projects, studies and other activities of interest. One should be able to rapidly ascertain whether or not the computer is truly a key piece of intelligence pertaining to Iran's nuclear programs.
The fact that this computer is acknowledged as coming from the MEK and the fact that a proper forensic investigation would probably demonstrate the fabricated nature of the data contained are why the U.S. government will never agree to such an investigation being done. A prosecutor, when making a case of criminal action, must lay out evidence in a simple, direct manner, allowing not only the judge and jury to see it but also the accused. If the evidence is as strong as the prosecutor maintains, it is usually bad news for the defendant. However, if the defendant is able to demonstrate inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data being presented, then the prosecution is the one in trouble. And if the defense is able to demonstrate that the entire case is built upon fabricated evidence, the case is generally thrown out. This, in short, is what should be done with the IAEA's ongoing probe into allegations that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons. The evidence used by the IAEA is unable to withstand even the most rudimentary cross-examination. It is speculative at best, and most probably fabricated. Iran has done the right thing in refusing to legitimize this illegitimate source of information.
A key question that must be asked is why, then, does the IAEA continue to permit Olli Heinonen, the agency's Finnish deputy director for safeguards and the IAEA official responsible for the ongoing technical inspections in Iran, to wage his one-man campaign on behalf of the United States, Britain and (indirectly) Israel regarding allegations derived from sources of such questionable veracity (the MEK-supplied laptop computer)? Moreover, why is such an official given free rein to discuss such sensitive data with the press, or with politically motivated outside agencies, in a manner that results in questionable allegations appearing in the public arena as unquestioned fact? Under normal circumstances, leaks of the sort that have occurred regarding the ongoing investigation into Iran's alleged past studies on nuclear weapons would be subjected to a thorough investigation to determine the source and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to end them. And yet, in Vienna, Heinonen's repeated transgressions are treated as a giant "non-event," the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn't really there.
Heinonen has become the pro-war yin to the anti-confrontation yang of his boss, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Every time ElBaradei releases the results of the IAEA probe of Iran, pointing out that the IAEA can find no evidence of any past or present nuclear weapons program, and that there is a full understanding of Iran's controversial centrifuge-based enrichment program, Heinonen throws a monkey wrench into the works. Well-publicized briefings are given to IAEA-based diplomats. Mysteriously, leaks from undisclosed sources occur. Heinonen's Finnish nationality serves as a flimsy cover for neutrality that long ago disappeared. He is no longer serving in the role as unbiased inspector, but rather a front for the active pursuit of an American- and Israeli-inspired disinformation campaign designed to keep alive the flimsy allegations of a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to justify the continued warlike stance taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.
The fact that the IAEA is being used as a front to pursue this blatantly anti-Iranian propaganda is a disservice to an organization with a mission of vital world importance. The interjection of not only the unverified (and unverifiable) MEK laptop computer data, side by side with a newly placed emphasis on a document relating to the forming of uranium metal into hemispheres of the kind useful in a nuclear weapon, is an amateurish manipulation of data to achieve a preordained outcome. Calling the Iranian possession of the aforementioned document "alarming," Heinonen (and the media) skipped past the history of the document, which, of course, has been well explained by Iran previously as something the Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan inserted on his own volition to a delivery of documentation pertaining to centrifuges. Far from being a "top-secret" document protected by Iran's security services, it was discarded in a file of old material that Iran provided to the IAEA inspectors. When the IAEA found the document, Iran allowed it to be fully examined by the inspectors, and answered every question posed by the IAEA about how the document came to be in Iran. For Heinonen to call the document "alarming," at this late stage in the game, is not only irresponsible but factually inaccurate, given the definition of the word. The Iranian document in question is neither a cause for alarm, seeing as it is not a source for any "sudden fear brought on by the sense of danger," nor does it provide any "warning of existing or approaching danger," unless one is speaking of the danger of military action on the part of the United States derived from Heinonen's unfortunate actions and choice of words.
Olli Heinonen might as well become a salaried member of the Bush administration, since he is operating in lock step with the U.S. government's objective of painting Iran as a threat worthy of military action. Shortly after Heinonen's alarmist briefing in March 2008, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, emerged to announce, "As today's briefing showed us, there are strong reasons to suspect that Iran was working covertly and deceitfully, at least until recently, to build a bomb." Heinonen's briefing provided nothing of the sort, being derived from an irrelevant document and a laptop computer of questionable provenance. But that did not matter to Schulte, who noted that "Iran has refused to explain or even acknowledge past work on weaponization." Schulte did not bother to note that it would be difficult for Iran to explain or acknowledge that which it has not done. "This is particularly troubling," Schulte went on, "when combined with Iran's determined effort to master the technology to enrich uranium." Why is this so troubling? Because, as Schulte noted, "Uranium enrichment is not necessary for Iran's civil program but it is necessary to produce the fissile material that could be weaponized into a bomb."
This, of course, is the crux of the issue: Iran's ongoing enrichment program. Not because it is illegal; Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not again because Iran's centrifuge program is operating in an undeclared, unmonitored fashion; the IAEA had stated it has a full understanding of the scope and work of the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program and that all associated nuclear material is accounted for and safeguarded. The problem has never been, and will never be, Iran's enrichment program. The problem is American policy objectives of regime change in Iran, pushed by a combination of American desires for global hegemony and an activist Israeli agenda which seeks regional security, in perpetuity, through military and economic supremacy. The specter of nuclear enrichment is simply a vehicle for facilitating the larger policy objectives. Olli Heinonen, and those who support and sustain his work, must be aware of the larger geopolitical context of his actions, which makes them all the more puzzling and contemptible.
A major culprit in this entire sordid affair is the mainstream media. Displaying an almost uncanny inability to connect the dots, the editors who run America's largest newspapers, and the producers who put together America's biggest television news programs, have collectively facilitated the most simplistic, inane and factually unfounded story lines coming out of the Bush White House. The most recent fairy tale was one of "diplomacy," on the part of one William Burns, the No. 3 diplomat in the State Department.
I have studied the minutes of meetings involving John McCloy, an American official who served numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, in the decades following the end of the Second World War. His diplomacy with the Soviets, conducted with senior Soviet negotiator Valerein Zorin and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev himself, was real, genuine, direct and designed to resolve differences. The transcripts of the diplomacy conducted between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to bring an end to the Vietnam conflict is likewise a study in the give and take required to achieve the status of real diplomacy.
Sending a relatively obscure official like Burns to "observe" a meeting between the European Union and Iran, with instructions not to interact, not to initiate, not to discuss, cannot under any circumstances be construed as diplomacy. Any student of diplomatic history could tell you this. And yet the esteemed editors and news producers used the term diplomacy, without challenge or clarification, to describe Burns' mission to Geneva on July 19. The decision to send him there was hailed as a "significant concession" on the part of the Bush administration, a step away from war and an indication of a new desire within the White House to resolve the Iranian impasse through diplomacy. How this was going to happen with a diplomat hobbled and muzzled to the degree Burns was apparently skipped the attention of these writers and their bosses. Diplomacy, America was told, was the new policy option of choice for the Bush administration.
Of course, the Geneva talks produced nothing. The United States had made sure Europe, through its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, had no maneuvering room when it came to the core issue of uranium enrichment: Iran must suspend all enrichment before any movement could be made on any other issue. Furthermore, the American-backed program of investigation concerning the MEK-supplied laptop computer further poisoned the diplomatic waters. Iran, predictably, refused to suspend its enrichment program, and rejected the Heinonen-led investigation into nuclear weaponization, refusing to cooperate further with the IAEA on that matter, noting that it fell outside the scope of the IAEA's mandate in Iran.
Condoleezza Rice was quick to respond. After a debriefing from Burns, who flew to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where Rice was holding closed-door meetings with the foreign ministers of six Arab nations on the issue of Iran, Rice told the media that Iran "was not serious" about resolving the standoff. Having played the diplomacy card, Rice moved on with the real agenda: If Iran did not fully cooperate with the international community (i.e., suspend its enrichment program), then it would face a new round of economic sanctions and undisclosed punitive measures, both unilaterally on the part of the United States and Europe, as well as in the form of even broader sanctions from the United Nations Security Council (although it is doubtful that Russia and China would go along with such a plan).
The issue of unilateral U.S. sanctions is most worrisome. Both the House of Representatives, through HR 362, and the Senate, through SR 580, are preparing legislation that would call for an air, ground and sea blockade of Iran. Back in October 1962, President John F. Kennedy, when considering the imposition of a naval blockade against Cuba in response to the presence of Soviet missiles in that nation, opined that "a blockade is a major military operation, too. It's an act of war." Which, of course, it is. The false diplomacy waged by the White House in Geneva simply pre-empted any congressional call for a diplomatic outreach. Now the president can move on with the mission of facilitating a larger war with Iran by legitimizing yet another act of aggression.
One day, in the not-so-distant future, Americans will awake to the reality that American military forces are engaged in a shooting war with Iran. Many will scratch their heads and wonder, "How did that happen?" The answer is simple: We all let it happen. We are at war with Iran right now. We just don't have the moral courage to admit it.
Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector and Marine intelligence officer who has written extensively about Iran. This article was first published in truthdig.com.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
You are amazing. You are a kind, warm, patient, tolerant,
by Rosie T. on Sun Aug 03, 2008 01:46 PM PDTbrilliant man. You have always welcomed me into all discussions and whenever I have had any questions about Iranian history or politics you have bent over backwards to explain them. You have never been hypocritical or self-righteous about your political or religious beliefs or tried to impose them on anyone. As you know I am in principle against any nation having a state religion, including Israel, but I would rather live in your version of the IRI than for example in the America Cheney/Khomeini and co. had in mind for us (mission attempted, largely unsuccessful..) That does not mean that I AGREE with you, it just means that having to choose, I would rather... I am sure you would respect me as an equal there the same way you do here. (I'd like to talk with you more about this vision of yours one day but now is definitely not the time.
You are amazing. That's all. Just take me at face value.
Rosie
Dear Professor: I have a few
by more questions? (not verified) on Sun Aug 03, 2008 01:25 PM PDTDear Professor: I have a few other questions and I apologize for not including it in my first post. I will be forever grateful to your feedback on these topics:
1. Given that Iran's economy is almost entirley oil-based, what is IR's plan for when there is no more cheap oil left in about 20+ some years?? What else has been proposed as a source of revenue once Iran has no more oil left to export???
2. Is it in the interest of Iran to be nonconciliatory in regards to its enrichment program at this juncture???
3. Do you think that by IRI's Calculus, the invasion/regime change of Iran is a fait accompli whether they give up enriching or not??
4. Do you think the supreme leader thinks they can come out as winners in a limited airstrikes against Iran??
Thanks again for your consideration.
Rosie
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:44 PM PDTCould you elaborate? I have been attacked so often that I no longer know what people mean, and who is a friend, and who is not. Thank you.
Mammad
the life saver at the end of the day! (to friend and foe)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:31 PM PDTwhether you want IRI toppled through the war, toppled through sanctions, ....., or changed slowly, your best friend is knowledge about this phenomenon (Iran/IRI).
.... specially if you are having any ambitions about being installed to power (e.g., in case of Kashani, and Fred serving as minister of Misinformation and AbdArchi in a new government), you need to KNOW Iran/IRI.
..... so for your own sake .... give Mammad hard time (forgive me Mammad!) but be respectful .... at the end of the day what you are hopefully learning from him might save you....
Re: The Amazing Resident Islamist Professor....
by Rosie T. on Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:24 PM PDTI agree. He's amazing. Absolutely amazing.
Just lurking.
Rosie
Fred
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:24 PM PDTYou say that you did not know what the word "Haji" might mean, other than a privilege of a Muslim. Well, now I have told you this. Do not accept it from me. Check it for yourself. If I am correct, then, just to avoid any racist interpretation of what you call me, stop it.
I have said many times that a brother of mine, who was 23 years old, and three cousins, who were all between 19 and 24, were executed by the IRI. I have not inflated the number.
You are correct. The tragic loss does not give me any card blanche, except that it should tell those who attack me that I am not, and I cannot be, an IRI supporter, although if they want to view me as such, I respect their opinion. It is their right.
As for my "joint" papers: This is, once again, not in your area of expertise. But, my "joint" papers - you presumably mean my scientific papers - are with my present and former doctoral students. That is a centuries-old tradition. I also published my scientific papers, which were the results of my Ph.D. work, with my Ph.D. thesis advisors (I had two).
But, once again, it is not up to you or even me, to rate my scientific work, but up to my scientific peers.
As for being introduced in the interviews the way you allege I am, I do not write such introductions. The producers do it, after checking my background. In the era of internet, one can easily check the claims of anybody. If you ever have one of such intrviews, you will see it for yourself.
You say that my defense of Iran's nuclear program within the strict limitations of the NPT is bogus. May be it is. But, before it is demonstratably shown that it is bogus, I make the following three observations:
(1) I invite you to demonstrate that my arguments are indeed bogus. To do so, if you choose to do so, you must strictly limit yourself to the NPT Agreement, Iran's Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, the IAEA bylaws that govern how the IAEA and its Board of Governors should work, the UN Charter, and the rules governing the work of UN Security Council.
This is how I have defended Iran's nuclear program for energy, and this is how you should demonstrate that my arguments have been bogus. The referee is not what Bush or Ahmadinejad or Israel or Europe say, but these international laws and the IAEA reports.
If you do that, I'll write a short article and retract all of my previous articles. Is this offer good enough for you, and people like you?
(2) Despite being bogus in your view, and in spite of the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of articles, have been published about the subject, I have yet to see one article that refutes my arguments. To the contrary, the articles are cited all the time. I invite you to check it for yourself. That indicates something. Not everybody is naive, or an IRI supporter!
(3) Since you are a Zionist, and seem to tell me that you have seen my interviews, then you should also have seen how I have condemned Ahmadinejad's remark regarding Israel, and how in my last interview I said that, "if Iran makes nuclear materials available to any group to use against Israel [or any other nation], then a massive retaliation by the US and/or Israel will be totally justified." One cannot be any clearer than this in his stance.
Once again, I'll be happy to debate any point with you in a respectful way, provided that you set aside your standard way of commenting, calling anybody who criticises Israel an anti-semite. I am not one, but I am, and proudly so, a strong and forceful critic of Israel's excesses.
Mammad
Mr. Mammad, Your expert opinion, please!
by Questions? (not verified) on Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:17 PM PDTDear Professor: Why do you think it is in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons/technology given the nature of the Islamic Republic??
Why do you not see the Islamic Republic's outright stealing and auctioning off the national resources including land and oil to the highest bidder as a treasonous act?
Why do you not see the Islamic Republic's lack of investment and upgrades in the oil infrastructure (including refinaries) of as a treasonous act?? I'm referring to the leaks in the current system where millions of dollars is wasted.
I'm referring to Roger Stern's article released online at 26 DEC 2006 on, "The Iranian petroleum crisis." The article was released to Open Access before publication.
//www.pnas.org/content/104/1/377.abstract?max...
You might want to read this article too:
Iran's oil problem
Why not present Iran's peakoil problem as an argument to justify Iranian's nuclear problem. Why does the Islamic Republic has kept this a secret?
Would it not be more enlightning to Iranians and the world to understand what is at stake if Iran did not develop nuclear power plants?? Is the nuclear technology the only way or there are other alternatives renewable energies sources and technology that Iran should invest in??
Anonymous4now
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:44 AM PDTI am not into throwing mud at anybody. If my words have, or can be, interpreted that way, then I apologize profusely to all those who may have been offended by my remarks.
But, let me ask you this: Why is it that advocating war explicitly or implicitly can be considered an exercise in freedom of expression, but calling such advocators traitors - because they wish war and destruction for their native land by a foreign force (the classic and standard definition of a traitor) - is deserving of your virulent attacks (or those of others) on me in your previous comment? Was mine not also an exercise in freedom of expression? If not, why not? Respectfully, I do not understand this stance of yours.
To be honest, there are few people, if any, who are attacked as savagely as I am. With all due respect, there are also very few people, if any, who try their best, as I do, to respond with respect. I am nothing, if not a tolerant Muslim and leftist. I am proud of who I am.
Mammad
Mammad
by Anonymous4now on Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:02 AM PDTMy expectations of you are extremely high precisely because you are a professor and a scientist and as you say have trained and educated hundreds of students. If you (people like you) can’t preach democratic ideals and instill them in our people, by example, and instead get into mud slinging then we are indeed in deep trouble.
The Mojahedin were not even the point of my comment other than to expose Ritter’s bias and agenda in twisting the words he had lifted from some other site. But in the grander scheme of things, the Mojaddin are and should be a part of the solution, because the solution is not exclusively in your domain or mine.
What is the point you are trying to convey from these statements.
“Anyone who directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, advocates war on Iran is, in my opinion, a traitor. Moreover, anybody who explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, supports the terrorist cult Mojahedin is also, in my view, a traitor.” I could reciprocate the claim and say that anyone who, explicitly or implicitly, adheres to the murderous Arab cult of the desert nomads of 1400 years ago is a traitor to Iran.
You are a scientist and you wish to go to the land of shepesh and sheep to visit the house of mud and stone, to feel closer to your God? The same house, that the fourteenth Khlif wanted to turn into a brothel because he had seen the phoniness of the whole thing? You can’t meditate at home and feel your God in your heart, and find it necessary to pretend by circling around the house of idolism?
What is your point on being on this site. Is it to get into the mud slinging or is it to analyze, breakdown, and logically argue issues so that we can all benefit from developing a culture for freedom of speech, and democratic ideals? I am extremely disappointed because I have realized that our problems are much more deeply rooted and that is why we have been at each others’ throats (not the Iraqi way but in a virtual sense) for the past 30 years.
Haji professor
by Fred on Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:58 AM PDTI’m sorry you take the highest accolade a Moslem strives for all his life to achieve as a “racist” remark. This is the fist I hear about it being used as a derogatory term and in the context that you describe, coming from you I doubt it.
As for the “world renowned scientist” that I mentioned is based on your own recorded word in a televised interview, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove not me who may not or to your surprise may very well know about these things. Having submitted joined papers is a world away from being a “world renowned scholar”.
That tidbit about having lost family members to IRI, the last time you recounted that publically the number was one, a brother if I am not mistaken; now it has accrued interest to four. Even one is way way too many but that does not in anyway gives you a card blanch in anything, there are those among us who have lost members and at times being forced to witness it.
I will not rehash and get into your wholly bogus argument in defense of the Islamist republic’s two decades long full cycle clandestine nuclear activity in direct contravention of treaties they are signatory to. I just wonder what Majid would have said of your activities (in many fronts) in furtherance of the Islamist republic’s agenda. Although he was murdered by the fruits of the poisoned tree his and your ideological gurus, Shariati and Ale-Ahmad planted the seeds of, he at least was truly Sharif.
Anonymous4now
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:07 AM PDTI was not even talking about you, but someone else. You wrote a comment, I responded respectfully, and you thanked me for it. Then, all of sudden, I am the worst of all? What happened?
Supporting Mojahedin, a terrorist cult, or military attacks on Iran, is not, in my opinion, an exercise in freedom of expression. You view it differently, be my guest. You express your opinion, I mine.
As for the rest of your angry comments: I am guilty as charged. I am a worthless being, just existing on the fringe of the society. The best evidence for it is the fact that I have such terrible and outdated "opinions." Here, you heard it from me. Do you feel better now?
If you lower your expectations of me, because I am such a horrible being, then you will no longer be so angry. I do not even use "human being" for myself to make you feel better. Is that good enough now?
Mammad
Fred the Zionist
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 09:52 AM PDTI wanted to ignore your use of "haji" to describe me, because I thought that it is one of those angry moments when you lose control. But, obviously, the anger within you is much deeper, to the point of making you a psychotic. The stench of your hatred towards Muslim is truly sickening. So, just so that everybody else also knows where you are coming from:
First, as a practicing Muslim, I have not had the priviledge of being a Haji. If God is kind enough to me, and if I am fortunate enough, then I'll be a Haji some day, and be absolutely proud of it.
Second, and but, Haji in the context that you use is a racist word invented by US soldiers in Iraq, calling all Iraqis Haji in order to look upon them in a degrading manner. I guess being a Zionist you do not have any qualm about using a racist word. After all, you belong to the group of people "chosen by God."
Third, and this is in response to your utter imbecility by which you want to show me your depth of knowledge about me. I am glad you feel strongly enough to do checks on me. I hope you get paid enough.
The NIOC Chair was the Aryamehr Chair when the Shah gave 7 million dollars in the 1970s to the University where I am to establish it. It was intended to educate and train Iranian students for petroleum engineering. The holder of the Aryamehr Chair was supposed to spend a semester in Iran every year to teach Iranian students. After the Revolution the University changed its name to the NIOC Chair. When they did that, I was still a graduate student, having nothing to do with it.Two American professors were holder of the Chair. There is no relation between the Chair and the IRI. It was established by the Shah.
A Chair holder in any first-rate research University in the US has already established his scientifric reputation by first-rate scientific work. He does not become a Chair holder on a whim. Go to Google Scholar and Google search my name to see how many citations my scientiofic work has received. Then, stop commenting on things about which you are totally imbecile.
Fourth: Whether I am a first-rate or fourth-rate scientist is not decided by you or even me. It is decided by my scientist peers. So, do not get yourself involved in things that you absolutely know nothing about. You do not impress anybody. To the contrary, you bring ridicule onto yourself.
Fifth: I have proudly defended Iran's nuclear program strictly within the NPT that gives Iran certain rights, but also obligations. Nothing more nothing less. I have done it in this column and in my many articles. Check any article about Iran's nuclear program to see how many times my articles are cited by experts.
I am absolutely positively proud of my work in this area. I do not allow my opposition to the IRI colour my view of what I consider to be Iran's national interests, even though I have lost 4 loved ones by execution to the IRI.
So, if you have any substantial point to debate, fine. Otherwise, all you currently do is making racist comments. Then again, I expect nothing less of you.
Finally, I repeat: Anyone who directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, advocates war on Iran is, in my opinion, a traitor. Moreover, anybody who explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, supports the terrorist cult Mojahedin is also, in my view, a traitor.
Mammad
Leftist/Islamist are
by sickofislamists (not verified) on Sun Aug 03, 2008 09:46 AM PDTLeftist/Islamist are inherently arrogant and self-rightous; ergo, their collosal failure. Everything they touch, turns into a collosal disaster; their incredible sense of superiority is their doom everytime.
The Amazing Resident Islamist Professor
by MargBarIRI (not verified) on Sun Aug 03, 2008 07:30 AM PDTCalls the MEK a "cult" but refuses to see the cult which is called the IRI and all the "honourable" accomplishments of this Ayatoilet cult.
1) What is so Honorable in killing people in the name of religion and having laws that prefers the believers of one form of religion over another?
2) What is so Honorable in treating woman as a second class citizen and subjecting them to 1400 year old tribal dress codes?
3) What is so Honorable about executing people for sexual relationships prohibited by the Ayatoilet cult?
4) What is so Honorable about the Ayatoilet becoming the Siggeh prostitutes of the Russians in the North (to Islamist Lefty Professors the backwards Russians are better than the USA)?
5) What is so Honorable about legalizing prostitution and calling it Siggeh?
6) What is so Honorable about public executions and stoning in this day and age?
7) What is so Honorable about having a leaders/leadership who really thinks and operates on the belief that emam zaman is coming out of his cave to save the world
8) What is so Honorable for having to ration/import oil when you are main supplier of oil to the world
9) What is so Honorable about having one of the highest rates of drug addicts in the world?
10) What is so Honorable about having one of the highest inflation rates in the world?
11) What is so Honorable about having one of the highest unemployment rates in the world?
12) What is so Honorable about protecting a regime that support the above Professor? You are far less Honorable than any MEK member Sir!
The Islamist Lefty Professor fails to see that the MEK is another off shoot of his Leftist Islamic thinking which is basically just like his own leftist Islamic thinking at the end - a grand failure. All these Islamist movements have one major flaw: Its called Islam. They want to mix politics and religion. Mixing the two (especially Islam which is still in an oppressive period) will never work.
"World renowned" Haji professor
by Fred on Sun Aug 03, 2008 03:45 AM PDTHaji professor who in attempts to dispel mounting charges of being a regime lobby, like to call himself “world renowned scientist” in TV interviews should add self describing category to his list of Iranians. That is Islamists/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies. This category of Iranians throw around the charge of “treason” like confetti all the time usually accompanied with foul language. Our world renowned scientist of a Haji professor tirelessly defends the Islamist regime’s twenty years secret dual purpose Atomic program. Regime’s enemies to the one are his enemies too and his solution is summed up in establishment of normal unfettered commercial relationship with the Islamist regime? He has many other interesting strongly held viewpoints and attributes that match the Islamist regime’s as well. BTW, does NIOC endowment have anything to do with oil?
Anonym7, you don’t have
by Farhad Kashani on Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:50 PM PDTAnonym7, you don’t have to go through the trouble to cite me, I’m gonna make this easier for you and repeat it (See I’m looking out for you, although you treat me so bad!):
Now that our country is hijacked, and just like the people in our same situation such as N Koreans, Myanmarians, Cubans, Syrians, Chinese and others who look for International support, we will gladly accept any help from any country, including the U.S, to free our country, on two conditions: 1- That assistance doesn’t harm the Iranian people. 2- That assistance doesn’t give our sovereignty away.
When/if Iran is freed from the brutal rule of the IRI, we will gladly except any help from any country, including the U.S, to better our economy, military, education, technology,,and others,,,on the same conditions.
Also, International support doesn’t mean “governments” supports necessarily. What we really need is U.N support, ICC support, Human Rights Commission support, NGOs, Human Rights Organizations worldwide, media, public opinions and others.
Anonym7, which one am I,
by Farhad Kashani on Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:58 PM PDTAnonym7, which one am I, Michael or Vitto Corleone? lol
Mammad
by Anonymous4now on Sat Aug 02, 2008 09:26 PM PDTIf you are, as you claim a scientist and professor then I am not surprised why we are such a zalleel nation subservient to tyranny. You are scorning people for expressing their opinion on issues while you gloat and boast about your repulsive stance on depleted and defunct leftist ideology. You are more dogmatic than “all those” you are trying to wrap into a box. It does not surprise me that you want to elevate Ritter to an intellectual height that he does not deserve, because you are agenda derive and an ideologue and for you the end justifies the means.
I wrote this response to Irandokht to post on another thread, but it got shut down before I could post it. Here it is. Shame on you for being so destructive.
You are absolutely right about one thing. We are of no consequence in the grand scheme of things. The art of compromise to achieve a better or optimized end to suite the desires of the majority is not an Iranian trait. That is why some 30 years later there is no united opposition and everyone wants his or her whole share and nothing less. That attitude prevails on this site too. Only if everyone could compromise their absolute position and accept the basis of a constitution which may be something like separation of church and state, the rule of the majority, and a government by the people for the people, all else could be decided on by the majority. But the left wants nothing but a social republic, and the right is insistent on a constitutional monarchy, and the rest are somewhere in between.
I never suggested that my suggestion [surgical strikes] is the only way and that all other suggestions should be dismissed. It is only my personal opinion and I have not yet seen any other suggestions that would minimize the suffering and the agony of Iranians. For 30 years Iranians have been suffering the results of the Mullah version of trickle down economics (trickle in the most physical sense of the word) and more sanctions would prolong their suffering. The mullahs and the khodies will get by, but the masses will suffer. No military action and no sanctions prolong the suffering of the Iranians and the status quo. Normalization of relations means a bonanza for Western companies and lucrative contracts which will make them oblivious to such mundane issues as Human Rights. An uprising from within needs organization and leadership which is non existent because the regime has systematically wiped out all opposition. It would be futile to expect Iranians to take to the streets to topple this regime because I have no doubt this regime will kill the numbers of people they claimed the Shah’s regime killed in 1978-79 uprisings. Change from within the clerical establishment is only a fantasy, because it would mean the death sentence for them.
No solution is ideal or perfect. You can only hope that it can be optimized to minimize the suffering of a nation which has had more than its unfair share of it. Only if the opposition in exile could be united, and agree on the fundamentals, and compromise on the personal details, then they might have a chance to affect and influence the unavoidable policies that will bring about the inevitable change in the regime in Iran.
Anonym7/Shadooneh
by Mammad on Sat Aug 02, 2008 05:40 PM PDTLet me add to your valid points:
Many on this site are pro-war. All the pro-war people can be divided into two groups:
(1) Those who have the "courage" to say so explicitly, and
(2) those whom I call "Iraaniyan-e sharmandeh." They are the ones who do not say explicitly that they are pro-war, but do the next "best" thing: Attack all the anti-war people as IRI supporter, IRI appeaser, leftist, Islamist, anti-semite, etc. Look at the comments of these people on Ritter's article. They all say, more or less, the same thing. One of them has called the Mojahedin-e Khalgh "an honourable" organization.
What is honourable about spying on your country and reporting to Saddam, Israel, the U.S., or whoever the highest bidder is?
What is honourable about acting as Sadaam's security arm, helping him to kill thousands of Shi'ites and Kurds after the 1991 Persian Gulf war (by the way, this is what the Kurds themselves said)?
What is honourable about falling in love with the wife of your comrade, ordering him to divorce her so that you can marry her, and then calling it an ideological revolution?
What is honourable about setting up a cult, whereby the ideological leader of the cult orders all members to divorce their spouses, and separates their children from their parents?
What is honourable about a cult who sends its members to wars that has absolutely no chance of winning?
What is honourable about kissing the ass of some of the worst US congressman and senators, and MPs in England, France, etc., just so that they recognize you? These are the same countries that MEK used to attack before the revolution with much pride? The MEK also strongly supported take over of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Picking on Ritter's minor errors is just an excuse. Forget about what Ritter says or does not say. We know who the MEK members are and what the MEK represents, rewgardless of what Ritter should or should not say: A bloody terrorist cult that commits treason on a daily basis against Iran and Iranians, and has been doing it since at least 1981.
But, the pro-war people would like us to believe that this terrorist cult, which is now a tool of Mosad and the CIA, is really an honourable organization, fighting for democracy and human rights.
In my opinion, any Iranian who supports the MEK in any shape or form is commiting treason against his/her native land. This has nothing to do with the IRI, but everything to do with treason. I know the MEK too well not to know.
Mammad
God Father and my money!? (to Shadooneh)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sat Aug 02, 2008 02:48 PM PDTAs the God Father explicitly said "If the U.S is willing to help, we will gladly accept it...." (to verify see this article: //iranian.com/main/2008/where-it-hurts).
So I agree with you Shadooneh, that $400 million is not going for schools and clinics in Iran. I don't know about you but specially as an Isfahani-American my felAn_JA burns real real bad when I see my tax money is spent on God Father, MEK, and likes.
BTW Shadooned good points as usual.
Ritter has a point.
by Shadooneh (not verified) on Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:19 AM PDTI am not prepared to argue any fine points about Ritter's article and his point of view. Whether he mixes up Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza, or whether he is revealing state secrets, etc. are beyond me. But he DOES have a point. He has seen the whole spin-for-shock-and-awe and the accompanying dog-and-pony show to loot Iraq up close as a WMD inspector attached to a UN team in Iraq he personally witnessed events "on the ground" while America was being led to an illegal war-of-choice by a cabal of neo-con(men), and Israel of course. I have seen him in Congressional hearings facing very hostile Foreign Relations Committee members who were reading out of "reports" provided by AIPAC - Joe Biden, who may be Obama's Sec. of State, was very enthusiastic to prove how wrong Scott Ritter was to claim there were no WMDs found in Iraq because the Israeli "information" found in report he was waving in the air. The "report" was put in his hand by AIPAC! Scott has always stood by what he was testifying about under oath, while the senators who had voted for the "war resolution", especially the democrats led by Biden, were shamefully and desperately trying to defy and even humiliate him.
In essence the war that he is talking about is going on. He has been talking about it for years - the irony is both Iran and the US have an interest in keeping this low-intensity war under wraps and only allow a glimpse of it when their benefits require it. Otherwise how would one explain the $400 million just "announced" as the budget for covert and overt operations against Iran? How much Israel is spending on the Iran intell is never talked about but I'm sure is is huge. I assure everyone these millions are not earmarked to build schools and clinics in Iran. By law all this money must be spent on war, destruction and bloodshed - not only Iranians, mind you.
Anonymous4now
by Mammad on Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:20 PM PDTI would make a couple of points:
(1) I personally do not have any evidence that Ritter is INTENTIONALLY bending and changing facts about MEK in order to make his point. I would like to ask you to point it out if you have the evidence.
(2) Ritter is NOT revealing any state secret, at least not in the present article. What he is saying is widely known, at least to political people like me who spend hours everyday, looking at all sorts of articles and analyses. Once again, if you know of any specific case, you should talk about it. We would all benefit. At least, I would.
So, if you were correct about the two statements, I would completely agree with you. But, at this point, I do not.
Yes, there is no question that my anti-war stance might colour my views. I try to be as objective as I possibly can, but I also know that I may not be completely objective. That is part of being human.
Mammad
Thank you Mammad for your response
by Anonymous4now on Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:16 PM PDTYes, obviously as times change and facts are better established you must adapt and change your position to align with the facts, even at the expense of contradicting your earlier positions. In Ritter’s case though, he is throwing in a 90 to 95 % number that is pure conjecture, because 2 years earlier he had complained about the lack of transparency of the Iraqis and lack of UN muscle to enforce inspections to get at those numbers.
The point about his description of the status of MEK before the revolution and after, displays a level of intellectual dishonesty (distorting facts to force his bias on his argument), that disqualifies him from any credibility for any one to stand in awe of his publications. In addition, he is accusing the MEK of doing exactly what he, himself, is doing: revealing state secrets (if you believe he is privy to state secrets).
You agree with his stance on the war and hence are willing to look over his loss of credibility and intellectual dishonesty, at least in the sense I have tried to expose here. The fact that he write a lot does not qualify him to be right.
By the way his argument on the war was that the U.S. would lose the war because of Iraqi resistance to U.S. occupation (analogous to Vietnam). He has been proven wrong on two accounts. The mayhem created in Iraq was primarily the work of Al Qaeda which is being pushed back now, and the rift between Sunnis and the Shiites who were hell bent on cutting each others’ throats, which is also subsiding.
Lucky for Iraq, there may come a day soon, when they will have a functioning democracy in their country, and that’s worth all the oil they have ever had.
Anonymous4now
by Mammad on Fri Aug 01, 2008 08:17 PM PDTDo you think that if people said something at one time, we should always hold them to it? People change their opinion either because
(1) they are opportunists, and bend in the direction of wind, or
(2) they realize that their opinion about something is wrong, or that times as well as the conditions on the ground have changed.
My point is, just because Ritter said something about Iraq in 1998 does not imply that, if he says something today about Iraq opposite of what he said in 1998, he has lost credibility. Which one do you prefer: A dogmatic man who sticks to his opinion no matter what, or someone who realizes that he may have made a mistake and tries to correct and amend it?
In 1998 96 US Senators voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act which made overthrow of Saddam Hussein the official policy of the US. In 2002, fewer of them, but still a large number, voted for the Iraq war authorization. Today, most of them say they made a mistake.
Ritter has been consistently anti-war, even when being anti-war was considered unpatriotic in the US in 2001-early 2003. What is wrong with that? So what if he made some mistake about the MEK? The essence of what he says about the MEK is true:
MEK is an organization (now a cult) that was against the Shah and for Revolution. Because it did not succeed in taking the government over after the Revolution, and because coming to power was the only thing that mattered to the MEK leadership, it turned its guns against the IRI.
The war between the IRI and the MEK was not, and still is not, about people, democracy, or human rights. It is about power.
The MEK also helped Saddam to put down the Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq in 1991. It collaborated with Saddam's army during the Iran/Iraq war. It now collaborates and receives funds from Israel, and it fabricates lies about Iran's nuclear program.
It is easy to criticize others, and Ritter's analysis might indeed be shoddy and biased, as you say (I don't agree though, but I could be wrong). But people like Ritter are willing to put their neck out, analyse the situation the best they can, and spend the time to write and publish their analysis. I suggest that you also do the same. It is not enough to criticize, as valid as the criticism might be.
Mammad
counting the word "faschist" (to Kashani)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 06:26 PM PDTKashani, it seems you are fascinated with the word "fascist" calling anyone or any idea that you don't like "fascist". Here are some examples just from your two posts below:
--"fascists leftists"
--"fascist regime of IRI"
--"Islamic Fascists"
--"fascist regime in Iran"
Also as you may remember once you called IRI "ultra fascist"!
If we follow your logic we'll have a very gloomy world full of "fascists", and "fascist governments"! And I am even excluding you(????) :)
Mostaghel, is “ZioNazi”
by Farhad Kashani on Fri Aug 01, 2008 04:35 PM PDTMostaghel, is “ZioNazi” another word your beloved IRI invented, just like “Islamic Human Rights”? You’re right, Iran’s drive to freedom will not stop, regardless of fascists leftists like you doing everything you can to stop it.
India gained independence about the same time the Iranian-and-Shah-planned and executed- 1953 coup happened, now, it’s a great world power, where does Iran stand comparing to India? Nowhere! Because your beloved fascist regime of IRI, turned our country back 50-100 years since that awful day they hijacked the revolution and our country.
Abbas aziz, great point. Some Americans do that, but these IRI apologist leftist Iranian do it on purpose.
Varjavand, thank for the insult and I will take your suggestion into consideration. The Scott Ritters, and the George Bushs’ and the Bill Clintons and the CIAs of the world are helpless in front of the Islamic Terrorism wave inspired and supported by Iran, because the Scott Ritters of the world are unable to understand that these Islamic Fascists have broken all rules of engagement, and the preservation of life is not only NOT their ultimate goal, but rather, as we see in Iraq when they kill an infant and stuff his body with explosives so they can detonate it in a market killing innocent Iraqi women and children, they use human life as a weapon towards achieving their goals. With Obama, that will change.
Mammad, who said because the IRI destroyed our country, the U.S should do “whatever it wants” in Iran? Why are you mixing up subjects? Even the U.S doesn’t say or act upon the theory that it can “do whatever it wants” in Iran. Also, there is a world of difference between being "anti war and anti IRI", and being "anti war and pro IRI". For example, I'm an staunch anti IRI and anti war. I don't know about you, but most like minded people on this site are pro IRI.
//forums.csis.org/iran/?p=79
by asdf (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 03:55 PM PDT... According to kargozaaran.com, the issue of a possible attack on Iran dominated the discussions. Aboul Gheit, Egyptian foreign minister, emphasized the importance of diplomacy in arriving at a solution to the Iran nuclear issue. He stressed that any military action will lead to greater instability in the region, and will have disastrous effects for the global economy. He added that although it is not desirable to have another nuclear power in the region, preventive steps should be taken, and through multilateral channels. Jordan’s King Abdullah II said he considered an American attack on Iran to be improbable (at least in the next few months), and that an Israeli attack was “illogical.
//www.kargozaaran.com/ShowNews.php?22880
asdf...
by Internets on Fri Aug 01, 2008 03:43 PM PDTDon't worry, you're not breaking my heart by not responding and I was not looking to engage you in a debate. You posted your opinion on a public forum and made a statement, which I thought was simplistically wrong then I made a counter to your statement. If I touched a raw nerve, then is what it is!.
It is interesting that when
by Anonymous4now on Fri Aug 01, 2008 03:07 PM PDTIt is interesting that when Scott Ritter screams bloody foul and reveals secret and sensitive information about his government in the hopes of correcting it, he is hailed as a scholar and a hero, but the MEK are characterized as traitors for doing the same thing. Ironically, Ritter himself finds it repulsive!!??
My main point though is directed at those who consider him scholarly because he has published “books and papers”. The extent of his knowledge and background on Iran and the MEK is limited to this paragraph which he has, essentially word for word, lifted from this site:
//www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2374198
But looking up information is not that objectionable, as long as you give credit to the source and don’t act like you are the source. So the main point is in the key paragraph itself.
“The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. Facing brutal repression from the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, the MEK became expert at blending into Iranian society, forming a cellular organizational structure which made it virtually impossible to eradicate. The MEK membership also became adept at gaining access to positions of sensitivity and authority. When the Shah was overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979 the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.Here is the original paragraph at the site above:
“The MEK is an obscure organization with a long history of violence and opposition activities. It emerged in the 1960s, composed of college students and leftist intellectuals loyal to Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq; the popular leftist nationalist prime minister was deposed by a U.S.- and U.K.-backed coup in 1953 that restored Mohammad Reza Shah to power. Its revolutionary zeal combined aspects of Marxist and Islamist ideologies in pursuit of its goal to overthrow the U.S.-backed shah through armed resistance and terrorism. Its primary targets in the 1970s included ranking officials and symbols of the shah’s regime, both within and outside of Iran. The regime responded in kind with brutal repression through SAVAK, the shah’s notorious domestic intelligence apparatus. Thousands of members and associates of MEK were killed, tortured and jailed during this period. Consequently, like many Iranians at the time, the MEK viewed the Islamist opposition as a positive force for change. The MEK supported the revolutionary forces and the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy and subsequent hostage crisis led by student activists in Tehran. The group’s unique brand of Marxism and Islamism, however, would bring it into conflict with the rigid Shiite Islamism espoused by the post-revolutionary government. The failure of a June 1981 coup attempt intended to oust Ayatollah Khomeini elicited a massive crackdown by the regime against the MEK, forcing the group’s leaders and thousands of members into exile in Europe. When France ousted operational elements of the group in 1986, many made their way to Iraq, where they joined Saddam Hussein’s war effort against Iran and enjoyed a safe haven [2].”
Do you notice how the sequence of phrases have changed and altered to convey a student and intellectual movement during “the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi”, in the face of brutal oppression by SAVAK, and how the same movement becomes a terrorist evil organization that takes American hostages and is a menace to the helpless paassdaars who are forced to admit they can’t rout them out?
“It is this stubborn ability to survive and operate inside Iran, at a time when no other intelligence service can establish and maintain a meaningful agent network there, which makes the MEK such an asset to nations such as the United States and Israel.” Is this fact or conjecture?
“The MEK is able to provide some useful intelligence; however, its overall value as an intelligence resource is negatively impacted by the fact that it is the sole source of human intelligence in Iran. As such, the group has taken to exaggerating and fabricating reports to serve its own political agenda.” How does he know this? Is he still in the inner circles of the intelligence community, and is giving up state secrets? Wow, talk about double standards. He is accusing the MEK of doing exactly what he is doing.
Frankly, he lost all credibility when he contradicted himself in 2002 to take an anti Bush and anti war stance despite earlier statements.
In 1998 after he resigned from his inspector position he made this statement.
“I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program.”
In 2000 he made this claim (this is after he had resigned from the inspection post. (Where did the numbers come from? Didn’t he have them before?)
“There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.”
His analysis, if it can be called that, is pretty shoddy and plenty biased.
internet: ARe you always
by asdf (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 03:00 PM PDTinternet: ARe you always this obnoxious?? You're simply too rude and not worth responding to.