Iran Wise to Worry about Relocation of Daesh to Afghanistan: Ex-US Adviser

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A former US government adviser said “it is wise for Iran to be concerned” about Washington’s moves to relocate the Daesh (ISIS or ISIL) terrorist group to war-torn Afghanistan.

Paul Larudee

“Given the history of the Western use of terrorists against nations like Iran that refuse to be puppets of the imperialist powers, it is wise for Iran to be concerned about this possibility,” Paul Larudee from San Francisco said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.

“It is not the first time that Afghanistan has been used to store the terrorist groups so as to later be able to take them off the shelf for terrorist campaigns in Africa, the Middle East and other locations,” he added.

Larudee is an Iranian-born American political activist and human rights volunteer, who works with the International Solidarity Movement. He is a former contracted US government adviser to Saudi Arabia and a founder of the Free Gaza and Free Palestine Movements.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: Recent evidence shows that Daesh presence is on the rise in war-torn Afghanistan with the support of the US government. According to Tasnim dispatches, a large number of prisoners, all of whom senior members of Daesh, recently broke out of a Taliban prison in northwest Afghanistan after US troops helped them escape through a covert operation. Given that Daesh’s so-called caliphate has collapsed in Syria and Iraq, what goal is Washington pursuing by transferring the terrorists to Afghanistan and strengthening them?

Larudee: Daesh and other terrorist groups are the tools of the US, the Zionists and the other Western imperialist countries.  They are useful as both enemies and allies. As enemies, they can be used as pretexts for invasion and intervention, under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, an act of the US Congress passed only three days after the attacks on the World Trade Center. It was a gift to the US President, allowing him to make war anywhere in the world, without consulting anyone. The US has to attack its enemies everywhere, violating the sovereignty of nations, which is against the UN charter, which the US signed. As allies, terrorists can be provided with weapons, money and other kinds of logistical and strategic support in order to use these mercenaries against nations that the US wants to destroy, such as Iraq, Libya and Syria. The American people are much more willing to see the terrorists and their victims die than to see American soldiers killed. There is a reason that the only places still ruled by terrorists in Syria are the ones controlled by the US and its allies. In the areas controlled by the Syrian army and its allies, they have been completely eliminated. Is this a coincidence?

Tasnim: As you know, some regional countries, including Iran, have been sensitive about the presence of Daesh in Afghanistan due to their national security concerns. How justifiable do you see their concerns?

Larudee: Given the history of the Western use of terrorists against nations like Iran that refuse to be puppets of the imperialist powers, it is wise for Iran to be concerned about this possibility. It is not the first time that Afghanistan has been used to store the terrorist groups so as to later be able to take them off the shelf for terrorist campaigns in Africa, the Middle East and other locations. The groups themselves are easily defeated when they have to depend upon their own fundraising. But when they receive the backing of heavily armed nations, they can become a very destructive fighting force that Iran does well to view with caution.

Tasnim: Do you think that Daesh would be able to establish a foothold in Afghanistan with the military and financial support it may receive from the US and the West, given the fact that the Taliban is already active there and can encounter it?

Larudee: Let's remember that the Syrians were also strongly opposed to Daesh and similar groups. But it is usually possible to find corrupt local allies willing to cooperate for the sake of money and power. The same is happening in Venezuela today. These allies would be powerless without the vast money and arms of the imperialist powers, but the US and its allies hold a great deal of power. Iran is in a good position to understand, given the history of the overthrow of the popular Mossadegh government in 1953 and its replacement with a hated and repressive autocracy. Few nations are immune from such possibilities, but Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of invaders, while Syria has proven to be able to defend itself, with the help of its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies. It is not for us to presume that any situation is hopeless.

American Activist: Israel Seeks to do to Palestinians what North Americans did to Native Americans

TEHRAN (FNA)- American activist Paul Larudee says that the US embassy move and Washington’s absolute support for the regime in Tel Aviv results in the continuation of the Zionist project to ethnically cleanse Palestinians.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with FNA, Paul Larudee said that “the most effective way to defend Palestinian rights is by popular and civil nongovernmental worldwide resistance, to make Israel, Israelis and Israeli products and services unwelcome everywhere.”

Reacting to the shameless remarks by the US Ambassador to the UN who said “no country would act with greater restraint than Israel,” Mr. Larudee talked about the viciousness of the Zionists who like to kill every last Palestinian man, woman and child. The activist further explained that it is with this brutal mentality that they consider the recent killings in Gaza to have been done with great restraint.

Paul Larudee is an academic, activist and former US government advisor. He is also a human rights volunteer and a founder of the Free Gaza and Free Palestine Movements. Mr. Larudee has shared his expert comments on many international news outlets such as RT English and Press TV.

FNA has conducted an interview with Paul Larudee about Trump’s relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem Al-Quds and also the recent killings of Palestinian protesters by Israeli army.

Below you will find the full text of the interview.

Q: Delivering on his campaign promise and in defiance of all global warnings, Donald Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem al-Quds. Many believe that this move by Trump has effectively killed fantasies that Washington is a neutral party in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. How do you think that would play in the current and future developments surrounding the issue?

A: The US embassy move has not killed the fantasy that Washington is a neutral party because that fantasy died a half century ago.  No one believes that fantasy, least of all the Zionist agents that are trying to pretend that it is still alive.  The embassy move and the continuation of unquestioning US support for Israel meant the project to empty Palestine of its Palestinians will proceed with no signs of slowing down, demonstrating that the phrase “Never again” meant to put an end to all genocide, has been replaced by “Again and again.”

Q: Since the beginning of the protests dubbed as the “Great March of Return”, Israeli forces have killed and wounded many Palestinian civilians, including the protesters, members of the press and medical workers. It seems as if the regime in Tel Aviv felt an atmosphere of impunity where it could act beyond all international laws and conventions. Where do you think this feeling of immunity comes from?

A: Why shouldn’t Israel feel free to kill and maim Palestinians?  No one is stopping them.  They are quite justified in believing that they can commit murder without any limits. If there are limits, no one has found them.  Their intention is to do to Palestinians what the North Americans did to Native Americans, and until now, no one has done enough to stop them.  Under these circumstances, one would have to say that their arrogance is justified.

Q: The US Ambassador to the UN said “no country would act with greater restraint than Israel” as the world was witnessing the rise in the toll of Palestinian civilians killed and wounded by Israeli live fire. How do you evaluate her words?

A: She is referring to countries that would like to exterminate every last Palestinian man, woman and child, which is a view endorsed by a lot of Israelis and Zionists, especially at the highest levels of government.  In such a country, killing on the scale of Gaza must be considered restraint, by comparison. After the 2008-9 massacres of Palestinians in Gaza, I was invited to speak at Clark University in the US.  The Zionist student organization attended, and I had a conversation with their faculty advisor.  He thought that the deaths of around 1400 Palestinians showed that Israel had exercised great restraint.  He said that a lot more could have been killed.  I replied, that yes, Israel could have killed all the Palestinians in Gaza.  “Exactly,” he replied. “So if Israel had killed a million and allowed the rest to live, would that be restraint,” I asked?  “You would have to say so,” he answered.  This is not an unusual way of thinking among Israelis and Zionists.

Q: Israel has rejected international calls for probes into recent killings and insisted that its open-fire rules for Gaza will not change. Some Western states, particularly the US and Britain, who call themselves champions of human rights, have supported the Israeli crimes against Palestinians. The UN has also failed to restore the rights of the people. What is your assessment? What role can nations of the world play in protecting the rights of the oppressed people of Palestine?

A: I’m not sure that governments can or will do much to protect Palestinians, because those that defy the US and Israel will be subject to regime change or total destruction, as with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries. The most effective way to defend Palestinian rights is by popular and civil nongovernmental worldwide resistance, to make Israel, Israelis and Israeli products and services unwelcome everywhere. BDS is an example, but much stronger measures are needed.

Q: Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, has recently said that Israelis “have the right to have their own land” and that formal relations between Tel Aviv and Riyadh could be mutually beneficial. The Saudi regime once, at least seemingly, opposed Israel’s right to exist. What do you think has changed in Riyadh to now come out as an apologist for the Zionist regime and betray the Palestinian cause? How do you think would other fellow Arab and Muslim nations think of the Kingdom?

A: Mohammad bin Salman is playing a dangerous game.  His alliance with Israel is not popular in his own country, much less in other Arab and Muslim countries.  He regards Iran as a greater threat than Israel, and an alliance with the US and Israel as the means to a dominant role for Saudi Arabia in the region, at the expense of Iran and its allies.  Betraying the Palestinian cause is a means of strengthening ties with the US and Israel.  He sees the Palestinians as an obstacle to his regional ambitions.  Other Arab and Muslim nations may despise him for this, but most of their governments will not say anything because their leadership has been compromised.  The ones that dare to speak out, like Iran and Syria, are under constant threat.