Syria: US Success Would Only Be the End of the
As US attempts to extort a settlement in Syria built
on regime-change, US senators and generals conspire to arm and back
a new terrorist army aimed at Iran.
By Tony Cartalucci
October 11, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - An October 7, 2015
hearing before the US Senate Committee on Armed Forces (SASC)
Influence in Iraq and the Case of Camp Liberty," served as a
reaffirmation of America's commitment to back the terrorist
organization Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) and specifically 2,400 members
of the organization being harbored on a former US military base in
Providing testimony was former US
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, former US Marine Corps Commandant and
former Supreme Allied Commander Europe General James Jones, USMC
(Ret.), and Colonel Wesley Martin, US Army (Ret.).
All three witnesses made passionate
pleas before a room full of nodding senators for America to continue
backing not only MEK terrorists currently harbored on a former US
military base in Iraq, but to back groups like MEK inside of Iran
itself to threaten the very survival of the government in Tehran.
In the opening remarks by Lieberman, he stated:
It was not only right and just that we took
them off the foreign terrorist organization list, but the truth
is now that we ought to be supportive of them and others in
opposition to the government in Iran more than we have been.
Lieberman would also state (emphasis added):
Here's my point Mr. Chairman, we ought to
compartmentalize that agreement also, that nuclear agreement. We
ought to put it over there, and not let it stop us from
confronting what they're doing in Syria. Continuing the
sanctions for human rights violations in Iran in support of
terrorism. And here's the point I want to make about the
National Council of Resistance of Iran and other democratic
opposition groups that are Iranian - we ought to be supporting
This regime in Tehran is hopeless. It's not going to change.
There's no evidence ... every piece of evidence says the
contrary. So I hope we can find a way, we used to do this not so
long ago, supporting opposition groups in Iran.
They deserve our support, and actually they would
constitute a form of pressure on the government in Tehran that
would unsettle them as much as anything else we could do because
it would threaten the survival of the regime which from every
objective indicator I can see is a very unpopular regime in
The United States, unrepentant regarding the arc
of chaos, mass murder, terrorism, civilizational destruction it has
created stretching from Libya to Syria, now seeks openly to extend
it further into Iran using precisely the same tactics - the use of
terrorist proxies - to dismantle and destroy Iranian society.
While Lieberman, General Jones, and Colonel Martin all failed
categorically to accurately describe the true nature of the MEK
terrorists they seek to support in a proxy war with Iran, the US
policy papers these three lobbyists are reading from have done so
and in great detail.
MEK is a Listed Terror Organization for a Reason
MEK 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
Harold Price, the successful assassination of
Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations
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.
terrorists in Iraq, 1997. Saddam Hussein used MEK terrorists
to wage proxy war on Iran. Ironically despite accusing
Hussein of state-sponsored terrorism for just such a policy,
the US eagerly inherited the terrorist organization and has
since then aspired to use MEK in a similar fashion.
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
testament to the depths of depravity from which Washington and
London lobbyists operate.
To this day MEK terrorists have been carrying out attacks inside of
Iran killing political opponents, attacking civilian targets, as
carrying out the US-Israeli program of targeting and assassinating
Iranian scientists. MEK terrorists are also suspected of
in recent false flag operations carried out in India, Georgia, and
Thailand, which have been ham-handedly blamed on the Iranian
MEK is described
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
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.
Not once is any of this backstory mentioned in the testimony of any
of the witnesses before the senate hearing, defiling the memories of
those who have been murdered and otherwise victimized by this
terrorist organization. The de-listing of MEK in 2012 as a foreign
terrorist organization by the US State Department is another
indictment of the utter lack of principles the US clearly hides
behind rather than in any way upholds as a matter of executing
American Support of Anti-Iranian
Mercenaries a Prelude to Wider War
MEK has already afforded the US the ability to wage a
low-intensity conflict with Iran. MEK's role in doing so was eagerly
discussed in 2009, several years before it was even de-listed as a
terrorist organization by the US State Department in the Brooking
Institution's policy paper "Which
Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran"
The report stated (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
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
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
Proof that Brookings' policy paper was more than a
mere theoretical exercise, in 2012 MEK would indeed be de-listed by
the US State Department with support for the terrorist organization
expanded. The fact that former senators and retired generals
representing well-funded corporate think tanks even just this week
are plotting to use MEK to overthrow the Iranian government should
raise alarms that other criminality conspired within the pages of
this policy paper may still well be in play.
Lieberman himself suggests that proxy war and regime-change should
proceed regardless of the so-called "nuclear deal" - with the 2009
Brookings report itself having stated that (emphasis added):
...any military operation against Iran will
likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper
international context—both to ensure the logistical support the
operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it.
The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize
support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when
there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given
but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime
determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the
wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances,
the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as
taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the
international community would conclude that the Iranians
“brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
Clearly, both Brookings in 2009, and Lieberman this week have
conspired to use the so-called "Iranian Nuclear Deal" as cover for
betrayal and regime change.
For those wondering
why Russia has intervened in Syria in the matter that it has, it
should be plainly obvious. The US has no intention to stop in Syria.
With Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya behind it, and Syria within its
clutches, it is clear that Iran is next, and inevitably this global
blitzkrieg will not stop until it reaches Moscow and Beijing.
is not in Syria to merely "prop up" the Syrian government -
it is in Syria to stop a global blitzkrieg that has consumed
several nations before Syria, and will consume all nations
after Syria, including Russia itself.
Even as the US adamantly denies the obvious - that is has
intentionally created and is currently perpetuating Al Qaeda, the
so-called "Islamic State," and other terrorist groups in Syria, it
is openly conspiring to use another army of terrorists against
neighboring Iran, live before a US Senate hearing. Should the US
succeed in Syria, it would not be the end of the conflict, but only
the end of the beginning of a much wider world war.