Infiltration: Iranian “subversive” opposition inside the U.S. lobbies

EtemadOnline| Mojtaba Hosseini; EtemadOnline editor-in-chief Dire situation in the Middle East, thanks to an ongoing thread of incidents and rampant spread of fake news, seems so complicated and bizarre to understand. But in order to get a glimpse of what is probably happening under the table, it would be enough to analyze the media outlets which are influenced by the powerful elite.

Last week, New York Times published a false report about the U.S. government's decision to send 120,000 troops to the region. It circulated in almost all news agencies in the US, Europe, Arab language media, and also Persian outlets inside and outside of Iran. But this fake news, with no supporting facts, was instantly manipulated by Reuters, VOA (Voice of America) and RFI (Radio France Internationale) to strengthen an agenda: war with Iran.

Exploitation of this article by anti-Trump media in the US, Europe, some Arabic news agencies and Persian language media, with their headquarters outside of Iran, led Trump to immediately dispute this report as describing it "fake news".

Attack on Fujairah port, sabotaged UAE ships and rocket attacks in Baghdad's Green Zone, one kilometer away from the U.S. embassy, were among other news that the global media narrated different stories about them.

Monitoring such news and information propagated in the current mass media, shows it clearly that there are active agents with a clear strategy inside foreign based Persian media outlets and also Arabic language ones in the region, manipulating them to advance their own agenda and manage the actions and reactions of the Middle Eastern officials to meet their own interests and goals.

Resource management of intelligence and media in the U.S., Israel and Arab states of the Persian Gulf is an organized, multi-layered project. This shows that a third-party intelligence service, is opposed to the security of the region, sabotaging against Iran's and also the U.S.'s national interest in the region. This opposition considers itself a rival to America and calls itself "subversive" to the established regime in Iran.

The sabotage attack of a terrorist militia against UAE ships and firing rockets close to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad are acts done to ignite a war between Iran, the U.S. and other countries in the region. A war which may lead to a regime change in Iran.

The prime suspect of these acts is MEK or People's Mujahedin of Iran, a terrorist, centrist and also socialist organization with a militia. MEK has the record of training its members for suicide acts, self-injury by self-immolation during public protests in front of international assemblies to disturb Iran's relationship with other countries. Grasping the opportunity of starting an unwanted war between Iran against the U.S. and some Arab countries, MEK would find itself a great beneficiary by getting closer to its longed-for wish of a regime change in Iran and secure its own interests.

If Americans want to solve their problems with Iran they should, at first, deal with issues that they have with their international rivals without putting Iran as a bargaining chip. Secondly, to have a better understanding on Iran, not only must they not rely on selected and distorted information by third parties, like MEK but on the contrary, they must look at them as a subject of concern to their national security and interest.

MEK's services like sabotage and spying activities are not exclusive for Americans. They have also done this job for the French government.

That would be enough for the U.S. officials to read history or remember how once a progressive anti-American organization is their today's number one information source. Here are some examples:

1. Eavesdropping on the U.S. embassy

2. Assassination of U.S. military attaches like Lt. Col. Lewis Lee Hawkins, Lt. Col. Jack Turner, Donald Smith, Robert Krongard and William Cottrell.

3. Bombing offices of the Iran-American Society, the U.S. intelligence, Pepsi Cola, General Motors, Pan American World Airways, and Shell Oil Company.

4. Attacking to the U.S. embassy before the so-called "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line" took over the embassy in Tehran.

5. Cooperation with KGB on the case of Lieutenant General Moghrebi, a senior military official who, in December 1977, was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union.

MEK's anti-American activities are not limited to these five examples. In 1979, they had a rally in front of the U.S. embassy asking for interrogation of the embassy's staff, a request which was immediately rejected by the "revolution council". At the time, other official demands of this organization included, requiring the U.S. to deport Shah, cutting ties with the imperialist USA, cutting oil exports to the U.S., disclosing and abolishing from all political, economic and military ties with America, disclosing the intelligent network of C.I.A. and SAVAK in Iran, and also a call to explicitly put the terms "anti-despotic and anti-imperialistic" as the main features of a Islam ideology constituting the new regime.

Americans must answer to these questions: Why did MEK, which currently plays the part of an intelligent service for the "B-team", leave Iran for France to make this country as a base for their operations against Islamic Republic?

Doesn't the U.S. know that MEK started its regular connections with MPs from different European communist and socialist parties in order to simultaneously secure its political survival and, with the help of global powers, provide a way back to Iran and come to power?

Have American current officials forgotten the time that Massoud Rajavi and other leading members of MEK, while located in France, never changed their anti-American stance and criticized William Sullivan, last U.S. ambassador to Tehran, for condemning the assassination of Mohammad Beheshti?

Have Americans understood the main reason for this organization to have such a U-turn in its behavior toward them? Is it possible that the U.S. has not understood the realities of Iran and Iraq war and MEK's failure in Operation Mersad, which was the main reason for Mr. Rajavi and his terrorist organization to leave their anti-imperialist and anti-American slogans?

If Americans read the history of last four decades of Iran they would very well understand that MEK, according to a European mission, left their leftist agenda and turned to a pro-American one. This new strategy was explained by the organization's leadership as such: "We, as a revolutionary force, exploited the conflict between imperialism and the reactionary (i.e. Islamic Republic) to reach sovereignty". The irony is that the leadership of MEK used to say to its supporters and sympathizers that to defeat Imperialism, Islamic Republic must be destroyed, and then they claimed that to demolish Iran's regime, we must get help from imperialism!

Americans didn't welcome MEK's immediate shift. But thanks to the efforts of some republican senators who had good relationship with French social democrats and by encouraging this motto that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", MEK, once listed as a terrorist group by the U.S., became a service provider for Americans. In this regard, attendance of U.S. politicians like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani in MEK annual rallies are of importance.

By paying money to people like Bolton and Giuliani, MEK tries to lobby in U.S. congress and influence U.S. foreign policy by fabricating news and providing disinformation for Americans. They also try to present and impose themselves to Americans as a powerful, large and effective organization which is an alternative to the Islamic Republic.

There is no doubt that U.S. officials, mainly current government in the White House, are susceptible to a great deception. This duplicity can also be traced back to the time that Maryam Rajavi, MEK's leader, condemned President Trump's decision to move U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. MEK's objection against Trump's move was in accordance with the French. And perhaps this stance mean MEK is still serving the France, a country that still defines Palestine its area of influence.

If President Trump pays more attention to what Iranian supreme leader said in July 2018, he would notice why France and UK were named as customers for MEK services. This organization has provided help to international rivals of the U.S. like France and also European socialists. Maybe this would be enough for President Trump to ask himself that, with people like John Bolton, in whose favor his Department of State is running?