US-Iran: Inverted Reality, Real War. America’s Al Qaeda Mercenaries. Iran Is Fighting the Largest State Sponsor of Terror

BY TONY CARTALUCCI

In its march toward yet another war, the United States accuses Iran of using military force to establish itself as a “regional hegemon.” It accuses Iran of being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It accuses Iran of aiding rebels in Yemen, the government in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But what the United States leaves out about Iran is just as important as what it accuses Iran of.

Familiar Lies

For one, the Middle East already has a regional hegemon – the United States. Even the wildest accusations against Iran regarding state sponsored terrorism pale in comparison to Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) whose terrorism spans the globe, including standing armies operating in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan – several of which Iran itself is specifically fighting.

The US also supports terrorist organizations within Iran including the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). MEK enjoys the support of National Security Adviser John Bolton – who lobbied for them for years while they were listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department itself.

Thus, Iran finds itself involved in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon precisely to stave off openly declared intentions by the US to include Iran next under its already expansive hegemony over the Middle East.

During Washington’s slow-motion blitzkrieg across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, now decades of lies have continued generating excuses, pretexts, and artificial threats to justify America’s unending wars and Washington’s march toward its next target – Iran.

Iran is Resisting Regional Hegemony 

The US invasion of Afghanistan along Iran’s eastern borders in 2001, then the US invasion of Iraq along Iran’s western borders in 2003 left the nation surrounded by US military forces. The invasions, followed by extended occupations were only two of the most extreme examples of Washington’s aggressive military encirclement of Iran itself.

US proxy wars against Libya, Syria, and Yemen also sought to eliminate political and military blocs allied to Tehran. Coupled with deliberate, crippling economic sanctions and a campaign of admitted and concerted political subversion aimed at Iran itself – the US has all but declared war against Iran.Iran finds itself on the US regime change “hit list,” dubbed the “Axis of Evil” by US President George Bush who presided over the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. On the list alongside Iran was Libya – now a divided and destroyed failed state after US military intervention there in 2011 – as well as Syria which still faces US-backed militants and a still-ongoing US military occupation of its territory.

Iran has been surrounded by an openly hostile United States and its allies for now nearly two decades. What the US characterizes as “Iranian aggression” is merely the rational steps any government surrounded by hostile forces would take to defend itself, its territory, and its people.

 

The Middle East is already subject to a regional hegemon – the United States – presided over by a government thousands of miles away. And if the US would be bold enough to presume dominion over an entire region of the planet so far from its own shores, it should come as no surprise that it would also shift responsibility for the disruptive consequences of its hegemony onto the nations still resisting it from within the region.

Iran is Fighting the Largest State Sponsor of Terror 

In a recent interview with The Epoch Times, US Congressman Van Taylor of Texas called Iran “the largest state sponsor of terror in the world.” He cites Iranian support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as examples. It is a claim being repeated throughout America’s pro-war establishment.

However – it is not entirely true, and it omits mention of state sponsored terrorism that eclipses it even if it were.Groups like Hamas actually fought against Damascus and its Iranian allies during the recent conflict in Syria – calling into question claims of “Iranian state sponsorship” of Hamas.

Hezbollah – on the other hand – does enjoy close ties with Iran. But it also dedicated large amounts of resources and manpower – not creating terrorism across the Middle East – but fighting it – specifically in taking on ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq.

It was Iran and Hezbollah who aided Syrian forces on the ground while Russia provided air support that began rolling back ISIS and Al Qaeda from 2015 onward.

ISIS and Al Qaeda – ironically – persist in Syria only in areas under the protection of US-NATO forces. This includes in Al Qaeda-held Idlib where the US has repeatedly warned Damascus and its allies not to retake under threat of military retaliation.

While US accusations against Iran regarding “state sponsorship of terror” remain nebulous, US intelligence agencies themselves have admitted the US and its allies’ role in the creation of terrorist organizations like ISIS.The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) – for example – as early as 2012 had noted (PDF) a Western and Persian Gulf-led conspiracy to create what it called at the time a “Salafist” [Islamic] “principality” [State] precisely in eastern Syria where ISIS would eventually find itself based.

The DIA document would explain (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

On clarifying who these supporting powers were, the DIA memo would state:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

The US and its allies have also been shipping weapons and supplies to Al Qaeda’s other affiliates in Syria. Along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the US has provided thousands of tons of weapons to militants in Syria – while also conceding that Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra is the best armed, most well equipped militant front in the conflict.

Attempts to claim “moderate rebels” defected over to al-Nusra along with their US arms to explain the terrorist organization’s prominence doesn’t explain who was giving al-Nusra more arms and cash to attract such large-scale defections in the first place.The US has also been caught using Al Qaeda in Yemen to wage proxy war there. The Associated Press in an article titled, “AP Investigation: US allies, al-Qaida battle rebels in Yemen,” would report (emphasis added):

Again and again over the past two years, a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and backed by the United States has claimed it won decisive victories that drove al-Qaida militants from their strongholds across Yemen and shattered their ability to attack the West. 

Here’s what the victors did not disclose: many of their conquests came without firing a shot.

That’s because the coalition cut secret deals with al-Qaida fighters, paying some to leave key cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment and wads of looted cash, an investigation by The Associated Press has found. Hundreds more were recruited to join the coalition itself.

The US has also since been caught transferring weapons systems to Al Qaeda in Yemen.  CNN in its article, “Sold to an ally, lost to an enemy,” would admit (emphasis added):

Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in Yemen, in violation of their agreements with the United States, a CNN investigation has found.

It is clear – by the US government’s and the US media’s own admissions – that the US is the “largest state sponsor of terror,” literally arming Al Qaeda across the region – then calling forces raised by nations like Iran “terrorists” for arraying themselves against them.

Then there is MEK – a US-backed terrorist organization previously listed as such by the US State Department itself – now openly hosted in Washington and spoken for by current US National Security Adviser John Bolton – who by no coincidence is also the leading voice advocating war with Iran. 

MEK was listed as a terrorist organization for a reason. It has carried out decades of brutal terrorist attacks, assassinations, and espionage against the Iranian government and its people, as well as targeting Americans including the attempted kidnapping of US Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II, the attempted assassination of USAF Brigadier General Harold Price, the successful assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations of Colonel Paul Shaffer and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, and the successful ambush and killing of American Rockwell International employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard.

Admissions to the deaths of the Rockwell International employees can be found within a report written by former US State Department and Department of Defense official Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. on behalf of the lobbying firm Akin Gump in an attempt to dismiss concerns over MEK’s violent past and how it connects to its current campaign of armed terror. A similar narrative has now been predictably adopted by the Western media.To this day MEK terrorists have been carrying out attacks inside of Iran killing political opponents, attacking civilian targets, as well as carrying out the US-Israeli program of targeting and assassinating Iranian scientists.MEK is described by Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh as a “cult-like organization” with “totalitarian tendencies.” While Takeyh fails to expand on what he meant by “cult-like” and “totalitarian,” an interview with US State Department-run Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty reported that a MEK Camp Ashraf escapee claimed the terrorist organization bans marriage, using radios, the Internet, and holds many members against their will with the threat of death if ever they are caught attempting to escape.

MEK was delisted by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization after extensive lobbying efforts – not because evidence indicated they no longer belonged on the list. They were delisted specifically to allow the US to more openly support MEK’s efforts to undermine and overthrow the Iranian government including through the use of continued violence. 

If Al Qaeda and MEK are the sort of “allies” the US has enlisted to confront “Iranian aggression” in the Middle East, how is Iran rather than Washington the true threat to regional or even global peace and stability?

Inverted Reality, Real March to War 

It is upon these feet of clay that the US builds its case against Iran – with catastrophes from Washington’s many other wars of aggression in the region still burning in the background.

Iran lacks the economic and military might to pose a real threat to the world even if it wanted to. It only poses a threat to distant nations closing in around it, seeking conflict with Iran, and domination over a region Iran itself is geographically located in.
Conversely, the United States still possesses the largest economy and military on Earth and has a demonstrated track record of falsely accusing nations of various provocations to initiate devastating wars of aggression.

The US – even if it does not resort to war – is imposing economic damage not only on Iran but on nations the world over who – without coincidence – do not perceive Tehran as a threat and do a considerable amount of trade with Iran.

US aggression toward Iran and its allies – even if total war does not break out – have demonstrably destroyed the region – from Syria to Yemen – miring even America’s own allies in protracted, costly wars and setting the entire region back decades in terms of economic and social development.

Were peace to break out in the Middle East tomorrow – nations like the US and its NATO allies would have the least to do with developing the region. That role would go instead to China who is already attempting to foster stability as a condition to extend its global infrastructure building spree into the Middle East.

Even in terms of selling weapons to Middle Eastern nations – Russia and China have competitive systems US allies are even now considering.

Thus chaos is the only environment in which US primacy over the region can continue to thrive – justifying military bases and the billions of dollars needed to build, occupy, supply, and expand them, justifying military interventions – direct and by proxy – pressuring governments to either join or defend against them, and justifying immense weapon sales to allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to keep those interventions going.It is a multi-trillion dollar industry, and one only Washington is shameless enough to openly and continuously promote. There is no lie too big or disgraceful to keep America’s last major export of chaos profitable.

TONY CARTALUCCI

Tony Cartalucci is a geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok, Thailand. His work aims at covering world events from a Southeast Asian perspective as well as promoting self-sufficiency as one of the keys to true freedom.

Trump has undone the years of progress in US-Iran relations achieved under Obama

By: Hossein Mousavian*

Tehran, Jan 26, IRNA - Iranian ex-diplomat and former nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian in an article reviewd the US President Donald Trump's acts to nullify the progress which had been made in Iran-US ties during the Ex-US President Barack Obama.

The US President Trump announced on May 8, 2018 the withdrawal from the JCPOA, which was condemned by other parties to the 2015 agreement and their emphasis to stay in the landmark international deal.

Earlier, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini said, “We are working, as a Union of 28 member states and with the rest of the international community, to preserve a nuclear agreement that has so far been implemented in full, as certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 13 consecutive reports.'

This is while earlier, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi criticized the European Union for delay in implementation of the SPV following the US exit from Iran nuclear deal, saying that the country deems EU responsible for not implementing the mechanism.

The full text of Mousavian’s article that originally appeared in blogs.lse.ac.uk is as follows:

Nearly four years ago, the US, along with five other countries agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for the curtailment of the country’s nuclear programs. While this agreement helped thaw US-Iranian relations during the Obama administration, President Trump’s withdrawal from the deal has seen a massive decline in engagement between the two countries and a return to old animosities, writes Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian and Younes Mahmoudieh.

Three years ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran had met its nuclear related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed between with China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany in July 2015. The announcement triggered the lifting of sanctions based on UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The Iran nuclear deal is the most comprehensive agreement in the history of nonproliferation, a clear triumph for diplomacy and represents the most important security agreement since the signing of the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF) Treaty between Washington and Moscow during the twilight years of the Cold War. No doubt, US president Obama played a key role on this achievement.

Why Obama was important to US-Iran relations

In the context of Iran-US relations after the 1979 revolution, the Obama administration was an exception in both its approach and subsequent successes regarding Iran, and thus deserves to be examined carefully. During this period, in addition to other world powers, Iran’s direct bilateral communication and negotiations with the United States were at an all-time high. Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s frequent meetings and cordial relationship was something unprecedented between the longtime rival nations.

As far back as November 2007, then Senator Obama called for negotiations with Iran as part of his presidential campaign, a sign of that he was willing to engage with the Islamic Republic directly, without any preconditions. His administration made attempts in its first term but faced two serious hurdling blocks: a very hardline adversary in President Ahmadinejad as well as domestic division in the White House.

The American government was neither united nor coordinated in its Iran policy at first; serious differences existed between the White House and the State Department. Dennis Ross of the National Security Council, a prominent Israel advocate, was skeptical of a multilateral engagement policy with Iran and often clashed with seasoned diplomat William J. Burns, a moderate who had served in the State Department under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Ross stepped down from his post in the Obama administration in November of 2011; Deputy Secretary of State Burns was subsequently tasked with leading the American team in secret talks with Iran.

During the Ahmadinejad presidency and President Obama’s first term (2008-2012), world powers became united in their approach towards Iran. It was a unique moment where China and Russia supported US-EU initiatives to pressure Iran, imposing six UNSC resolutions against the Islamic Republic. American sanctions during this period were said to be truly the most damaging and harmful because of the cohesiveness and coordination of the US and its allies. No American allies dared to openly defy President Obama, much less form a coalition designed to subvert his policies. The US achieved global consensus on its Iran policy. Maximum international pressure was exerted. Nevertheless, the first direct US-Iran negotiations at the level of deputy foreign minister began in 2012, in the last year of Ahmadinejad’s presidency.

The road to the JCPOA

In 2013, President Rouhani took the helm of the Iranian government with his moderate foreign policy approach and a promise to end sanctions. His foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, a US-educated diplomat, was nominated to lead his country into nuclear negotiations with world powers. For the first time in over three decades of US-Iran relations since the 1979 revolution, there existed a positive, coherent team on both sides willing to engage in reciprocity measures founded on mutual respect. Secretary of State John Kerry led the American team in the international negotiations while Robert Malley headed the Middle East desk of the National Security Council; William Burns and Wendy Sherman played critical roles for the US as well. The presence of united and moderate teams in both Iran and the United States yielded the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, a diplomatic triumph applauded by the international community.

The Obama period can be characterized by historic firsts in US- Iran policy. First, following the deal, President Obama remained dedicated to implementing American commitments outlined in the agreement, although primary US sanctions remained his main obstacle. Long-standing financial disputes between the two countries were partially resolved during this period, including a $1.7 billion payment made to Iran.

Second, the American president declined pressures by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt to attack Iran and in an interview with The Atlantic, Obama outlined power-sharing incentives for Iran and Saudi Arabia rather than unilateral dominance of the Middle East, thus avoiding war.

Third, successful negotiations between US-Iran security officials culminated in a prisoner swap: five Americans were released in Iran in exchange for seven Iranians freed by the United States. Improved relations and direct ministerial contact also resulted in the swift release of US sailors after having entered Iranian territorial waters in January of 2016.

Finally, rhetoric softened and concessions were made; in his address to the UN general assembly in 2013, President Obama committed to not pursuing regime change in Iran but rather seeking relations founded upon “mutual interests and mutual respect.” The US president also recognized Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa banning weapons of mass destruction, and respected Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear enrichment (becoming the first US president to ever do so).

President Obama also acknowledged that Iranians were victims of chemical weapons during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and admitted to the US role in overthrowing Iran’s first democratically elected government in 1953.

This unprecedented success was only possible due to political will on both sides to uphold their commitments and a genuine desire for cooperation. President Obama defied both domestic and foreign war hawks. He stood up to the constant threats and intimidation from Tel Aviv and Riyadh and exerted maximum effort in implementing the nuclear deal. His measures were a step forward towards establishing trust. Iran, in turn, fulfilled all of its commitments as confirmed by the IAEA and began to engage with world powers on a variety of issues.

These policies were followed by concrete diplomatic breakthroughs, a direct result of the “engagement policy”. The United States and Iran were able to resolve their differences in a fundamentally new way.
A new Iran policy under President Trump

The stark contrast in policies and results between the Obama and Trump presidencies could not be more pronounced, even from the outset. President Trump began his presidential election campaign with belligerent rhetoric, threatening to rip up the multilateral agreement “to shreds”, calling it the “worst deal in history.”

After his electoral victory, his administration isolated itself by subsequently withdrawing from the JCPOA; a clear violation of UNSC resolution 2231, which the US had sponsored. Trump failed to convince the other signatories to abandon the nuclear deal and rejected international consensus that endorsed the JCPOA, leading to US isolation.

Following encouragement by Israel and Saudi Arabia, the United States, under President Trump, resorted to illegal, unilateral pressures: barring Iranian civilian’s access to humanitarian goods including food, life-saving medicine, and civil aviation equipment. Sanctions were also re-imposed on Iranian carpets, pistachios, handicrafts and other goods. The symbolic $25 billion Boeing deal with Iran was also cancelled in May 2018, and this past November, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced, “Iran will be squeezed ‘until the pips squeak.’ ”

In his September 2018 address to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), Trump chose to heap praise upon North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-Un (who he had previously referred to as “rocket man”) while making the most provocative statements ever made by a US president regarding Iran at the UNGA. All high-level and formal negotiations with Iran were terminated including negotiations between security institutions.

Looking more widely, the United States has strengthened its alliance with Saudi Arabia and has been complicit in the Saudi bombardment of Yemen while selling the Kingdom $110 billion in American arms. The US also initiated the creation of an “Arab NATO” which has exacerbated ethnic rivalries and Sunni-Shia tensions in order to eliminate Iranian influence from the region. An increasingly hostile Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Abu Dhabi triangle was formed to confront Iran. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman was quoted saying, “We will work so that it becomes a battle for them in Iran” while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted a video threatening Iran at a nuclear facility.

Military action is not off the table either: this month, National Security Advisor John Bolton asked the Pentagon for military plans to strike Iran and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly announced that US President Donald Trump “is acting against Iran at the economic level and we here in Israel are acting against Iran at the military level.”

With the arrival of the Trump administration, US-Iran policy was transformed from one of “interaction” to “hostile confrontation” overnight. Conversely, world powers are currently exploring ways to save the JCPOA without the United States, counteract American sanctions, and have rejected the hawkish rhetoric coming from the Trump administration. The EU has threatened to distance itself from the US and for the first time in history establish its own “European Payment System” undermining the US dollar. The current EU project, the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), is designed to encourage trade with Iran and effectively bypass American sanctions. Countries, under the banner of the Group of 77 at the United Nations, have [also] voiced support for” the deal. The remaining JCPOA signatories are endeavoring to maintain their commitment to the agreement and support for Iran.

If world powers manage to preserve the JCPOA without the United States, this would have an enormous impact on the promotion of multilateralism in the face of US unilateralism in regional and international issues. ‘After observing twenty months of Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East, we have to conclude that it has needlessly escalated conflicts, inflicted collective punishment on tens of millions of people for no good reason, damaged US interests and our national reputation, and made our government complicit in numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity. One can call the administration’s policies successful only in the sense that they are “successfully” inflicting unnecessary suffering and death on people in many different parts of the region’, wrote Daniel Larison a contributing editor at The American Conservative in October 2018.

Trump has relied on Riyadh and Tel Aviv to undermine Iran in the region and create an axis of power tasked with destroying the nuclear deal. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 12 preconditions for negotiations with Iran further demonstrate a fundamental difference in approach as compared to the Obama administration. These preconditions are tantamount to complete submission by Iran to the United States and international humiliation. Efforts to bring Iran to its knees have isolated the Trump administration and unified world powers in their resistance towards US policies regarding Iran.
Tehran disengages in the face of Trump

The Obama-Trump presidencies diverge completely in terms of Iran. President Obama favored multilateralism while President Trump acts unilaterally. President Obama avoided sensitivities and focused diplomatic efforts on common ground. President Trump has chosen insult and slander. The US, under President Obama, maintained a respect for international law and negotiations whereas President Trump has rejected international institutions and the rule of law (the ICJ, the UN, the P4+1, and the IAEA). The Obama administration was in favor of better Saudi-Iran relations and regional cooperation. Trump is fueling Tehran-Riyadh tensions and has encouraged sectarianism, arms races, and regional division. President Obama acknowledged past US mistakes in regard to Iran. President Trump seems hell-bent on regime change and support for Iran’s enemies, no matter the cost: Several prominent members of the Trump administration have met with and voiced support for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) terrorist organization, a group infamous for its support of Saddam Hussein and its history of suicide bombings and assassinations carried out in Iran.

In short, the US knows how to create wars and impose sanctions but is incapable of genuine diplomacy to resolve animosities with Iran. This policy of threats, bullying and intimidation has failed in the past and will not work in the future. Cooperation and dialogue provide results. Iran has been calling for “mutual respect” for decades. “Axis of evil” rhetoric simply fails every-time, especially concerning Iran. Nevertheless, President Obama was far from soft on Iran. His sanctions and policies in the first term of his presidency were the most hostile and unwelcome, yet they failed to achieve results. It was his tact and his willingness to put aside differences that led to concrete progress.

Although Tehran was not willing to engage with the Obama administration beyond the nuclear issue, tensions decreased dramatically during his presidency. However, following Trump’s Iran policy, Tehran has rejected every offer by the Trump administration to approach the negotiating table. Why? Appearances matter. A country with a proud history of civilization and resistance will not succumb to the language of threat, bullying and humiliation. “Good faith begets good faith.” President Obama understood this, and these are the magic words President Trump needs to understand in order to manage US-Iran relations after four decades of hostility.

*Hossein Mousavian is a Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist at Princeton University and a former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators. His book, The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir, was published in 2012 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His latest book, Iran and the United States: An Insider’s view on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace was released in May 2014.

*Hossein Mousavian is a Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist at Princeton University and a former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators.