By: Tony Cartalucci
Of course, this is an overt lie, exposed by 3-4 years of documented collaboration between the United States and MEK, including an extensive conspiracy formulated within US policy think-tank Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, proposing to fully arm, train, and back MEK as it waged a campaign of armed terror against the Iranian people.
In their report, they openly conspire to use what is an admitted terrorist organization as a “US proxy” (emphasis added):
Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.
In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.
Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.
Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations. – page 117-118 of”Which Path to Persia?” Brookings Institution, 2009
It was also revealed in Seymour Hersh’s 2008 New Yorker article “Preparing the Battlefield,” that not only had MEK been considered for their role as a possible proxy, but that the US had already begun arming and financing them to wage war inside Iran:
The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. ‘The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.’ He added, ‘The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.’
Seymore Hersh in an NPR interview, also claims that select MEK members have already received training in the US.
It was also revealed that US forces in Iraq had provided MEK’s main camp with security, and with the recent “withdrawal” of US troops from Iraq, the US State Department and even the UN have been scrambling to find a new safe haven for the US listed terrorist organization. Even more unimaginable is the fact that many of the foremost fearmongers and proponents of the “War on Terror” are engaged in desperate lobbying efforts to get MEK delisted by the US State Department. In October of 2011, a full page ad was taken out in the Washington Post on MEK’s behalf.
Image: Full-page treason — US politicians, many the most prominent proponents of the “War on Terror,” appeal to the President of the United States to delist MEK as a terrorist organization. While hand-wringing humanitarian concerns are cited, what the ad fails to mention is that MEK has long been sought after to serve as an armed US-proxy to be turned on Iran and carry out a campaign of terror, as stated clearly in the Brookings Institution “Which Path to Persia?” report. (click image to enlarge)
Among those signing the statement made in the ad were John Bolton, Howard Dean, Rudy Giuliani, Ed Rendell, and Tom Ridge. When reading the statement, it must be kept in mind that the Brookings Institution already confirmed that MEK was a terrorist organization and that it had verifiably killed US military personal and civilians. It must also be kept in mind that Brookings admitted that MEK’s targets in Iran included political and civilian targets. With MEK’s specialty being among other things, assassinations, they already were the most likely suspects behind the recent spate of targeted killings of Iranian scientists. Now, Daily Mail and US officials have confirmed MEK’s role, however oafishly they try to cover-up obvious US involvement.
And while Israel’s current regime is most definitely assisting MEK logistically, financially, tactically, and rhetorically, working in tandem to achieve Western hegemony across the Middle East, MEK’s existence and sustenance is derived as much so, if not almost entirely from Wall Street and London, with Israel serving merely as a regional conduit and beachhead with its regime a complicit cog of globalist ambitions. “US officials” deceitfully attempting to pawn off full responsibility onto Israel signals a new level of dangerous deception and subterfuge few are prepared to understand — but again, clues of this can be found within US policy papers frankly admitting the advantages ofusing Israel as a convenient scapegoat for what is a Wall Street/London agenda propagated through their contrived “international institutions” of “global governance.”
Contrived Strategy of Tension
Indeed, Israel has long been portrayed as the “puppet master” of a vast “Zionist” conspiracy; however, it is quite clear they have been made overtly “evil” to take the blame for what is essentially a global-elite agenda based out of Wall Street and London — two cities that Israel’s current regime would not exist without the support of. For the people residing under the current Israeli regime, it would be beneficial for them to realize that they are being thrown under the bus by both their alleged allies and their own government and will be made the full scapegoats of increasing hostilities targeting both Syria and Iran to insulate and preserve the mechanics of an emerging global government they have helped carve out.
The intention is to create a religious-centric strategy of tension to obfuscate both the true aims and perpetrators of this global agenda in hopes of getting Jews, Muslims, Christians and others to divide along predictable lines against each other, globally, rather than recognize and target the elite that lord over them domestically and internationally.
It is essential to understand the criminality being perpetrated against sovereign nation-states throughout the Arab World, Iran, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and beyond; to identify the corporate-financier power structures driving it, and devise a method to undermine their source of power, and replace it entirely with local pragmatic solutions. We shouldn’t take the bait of a deceitful strategy of tension preying on long-held, petty social and political predispositions. While such predispositions may lead to the destruction of Israel and many of its people, it will ultimately fail in stopping the global elite that created the modern state of Israel in the first place. In fact, such petty myopically pursued predispositions will almost certainly insulate those truly responsible, and allow them and their “international institutions” to continue on with their agenda.