All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
It's Anti-War Radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm happy to welcome Mohamed Sahimi back to the show.
Been a little while.
How's it going, Mohamed?
Not too bad.
I'm happy to be back in your program, Scott.
Yeah, yeah, me too.
Very happy to have you here.
Everyone, if you're not familiar, I'll direct you to original.antiwar.com/sahimi.
The latest article is called Don't Remove the MEK from the Terrorist List.
And Mohamed is a professor of chemical engineering and material science at the University of Southern California, and he is the lead political columnist for the website PBS Frontline Tehran Bureau, which has really great essays by a whole lot of people as well as Mohamed.
So go and check that out.
PBS Frontline, the Tehran Bureau.
Bob Dreyfuss, the Leverets, etc., etc.
Now, Mohamed, what is the Mujahideen all talk?
Well, the talk in the United States is that they are lobbying members of Congress, politicians, and influential people to get the organization of the terrorist list of the State Department.
In 1997, when reformist Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was elected, as a gesture to Iran, the Clinton administration put the organization on his terrorist list simply because the organization had committed many, many terrorist acts within Iran against population, government officials, and so on, and had also allied itself by the regime of Saddam Hussein, which was in power in Iraq at that time.
And the organization has remained on the terrorist list ever since.
But in the aftermath of Iranian elections of 2009, that was hotly disputed and there were large demonstrations, the organization has been trying to take advantage of the situation and by a very intensive campaign trying to get itself off the terrorist list.
And because of that, a lot of Iranian Americans who live in the United States, particularly those such as myself, who are anti-war activists, are strongly opposed to delisting of MEK from the terrorist list, because we believe that if the MEK is delisted from the terrorist list, it will lead to more terrorist actions by the organization, and may eventually even lead to war with Iran, which of course none of the activists would like to have.
So that's the gist of the issue.
All right now, so tell us more about the history of the MEK.
They're even at least accused of killing some Americans back during the Iranian Revolution when they were still in the good graces of the Ayatollah, right?
Actually, yes, the MEK was founded in 1965 as an organization to fight the regime of the Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the regime that was in power before the Iranian Revolution.
One of the specialties of MEK in the early 1970s was to attack American advisors in Iran, American corporations, and so on.
So several American military advisors in Iran in the early 1970s were fascinated by the MEK.
The MEK also supported the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that was led by Ayatollah Khomeini, and in November of 1979, when the American embassy in Tehran was overran by Iranian students and that called themselves followers of Imam's line, and 53 Americans were taken hostage.
The MEK also supported the hostage taking and declared support for the students and Ayatollah Khomeini.
But in 1981, because the MEK could not actually come to power through elections, part of it was because of the fact that the government restricted its activity, and part of it was because of the fact that the MEK, although it had large following, could not really get as many votes as it needed.
It decided to take to take up arms against the Iranian government, and then it started a campaign of assassination.
And that helped, of course, in Iran under the revolutionary conditions of that era, that helped the reactionary forces within the establishment to get stronger, and they retaliated by carrying out a campaign of executions against the followers of MEK.
So it was basically tit-for-tat between Mujahideen and the Iranian government, and in the early 1980s, thousands of Mujahideen followers, as well as thousands of people, were killed because of the armistice between Mujahideen and the government.
Because the Mujahideen could not succeed in their armistice, in the campaign of assassination against the Iranian government, what they did was they moved their headquarters to Iraq and made an alliance with Saddam Hussein, which was involved, Iraq was involved in a very ferocious war with Iran at that time.
So they moved to Iraq and they started collaborating with the Iraqi army and spying on Iranian forces.
So for Iranian people, actually, began hating them, and the hatred and the fact that they despised them at that time has remained ever since, because these people basically committed treason against their homeland by allowing themselves to be with the regime of Saddam Hussein.
They're kind of the mirror image of the Supreme Islamic Council, the Iraqis who fled to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.
Exactly, exactly.
The Mujahideen, the Iranian Mujahideen, had moved to Iraq and working with Saddam Hussein and the Supreme Iraqi Council was in Iran, working with the Iranian government.
But what happened was, at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, when Resolution 598, United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, went into effect and both were acted to a ceasefire, then Mujahideen force attacked Iran from the Iraqi side with the support of Iraqi Air Force, hoping that they would overthrow the government because they thought that people were tired and they wanted to get rid of the regime.
But what happened was, the Iranian army easily defeated them and killed many, many of them.
Then they stayed in Iraq, and then when the first Persian Gulf War happened in 1990-1991, after the war, if you remember, President George H.W. Bush promised that if the Iraqi Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south rise against the regime of Saddam Hussein, the United States will help them.
When they did that, the United States didn't help them, and Mujahideen used their forces in collaboration with Saddam Hussein's army to crush Iraqi dissidents in the north and Shiites in the south.
And in fact, these facts have been documented.
So basically, Mujahideen became a tool for Saddam Hussein to kill more of his citizens in the north and the south.
So that added to the disreputation of this organization.
And at the same time, there was a political transformation within the organization, whereby the organization, which was basically a political-military organization, was transformed into basically a political cult, sort of a Stalinist cult, whereby the ideological leader, Massoud Rajavi, was above questioning, and he was an undisputed leader.
And then he appointed his own wife, Maryam Rajavi, as the so-called president-elect of the resistance, whereas she has never been elected by any body that I know of.
So that has become sort of a political cult ever since, with members of Mujahideen having no ability to leave the organization, or to criticize the leadership, or to tell their stories of what has happened to them over the past three decades that they have been in exile.
For example, then what happened was in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, the camp Ashraf, which is basically a mini-city near the Iranian border in Iraq, where a lot of Mujahideen forces were residing, was surrounded by U.S. forces, and the Mujahideen signed a capitulation agreement with the U.S. forces, and they were disarmed.
Ever since they have stayed there, even though other countries have offered to take them in, so that they would be dispersed.
And the leadership of Mujahideen wanted to keep them there, because they wanted to stay close to the Iranian border.
Now, why they wanted to do that?
Because they want to show that they still have forces near the Iranian border, and they think that that was a winning card for them, to have forces there, so that they can get support from foreign powers, so that hopefully they can go back to Iran and take power again.
So that's basically what's going on.
We go out to this break.
Everybody, it's Mohammad Sahimi, professor at USC, leader of the Tehran Bureau over there at the PBS Frontline website, and also writes for antiwar.com original.antiwar.com/sahimi.
We're talking about the Mujahideen al-Khalk, communist, terrorist, lunatic, weirdos.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's Antiwar Radio.
I'm Scott Horton, and I'm talking with Mohammad Sahimi, professor at USC, writer for the PBS Frontline Iran Bureau, and also antiwar.com original.antiwar.com.
And we're talking a little bit about, well, a lot about the Mujahideen al-Khalk and their history, and where we left off was right about 2003 and the American invasion, and Professor Sahimi was explaining how the Americans basically cut a deal that said, well, we'll let you stay at Camp Ashraf and protect you, more or less.
But I wanted to actually, Mohammad, go back to the time in between the September 11th attack and the invasion of Iraq, when the Leveretts, as they've reported over and over, were working closely with the Iranians on issues surrounding the war against al-Qaeda, and had worked out a deal, or at least been offered a deal by the Iranians, that they would trade Osama bin Laden's son, and not the one that's in Rolling Stone magazine, but one who's you know, still dedicated to his father's cause, and numerous other al-Qaeda guys who had fled Afghanistan during the bombing of Afghanistan in 2001 into Iran, who the Iranian government had basically arrested and put either in prison or on house arrest, and was keeping them there, and they were willing to give all these guys up to the Americans if we would just trade for them some members of the Mujahideen Al-Qaeda, but the way I understand it, the Defense Department, Donald Rumsfeld, and the neocons, and I guess Dick Cheney's office, whatever, decided that they would rather have these communists, holy warrior, terrorist, civilian killer guys stay in Iraq and work for them as terrorists in Iran, than trade them for actual Al-Qaeda guys, the so-called enemy from, you know, the war we were fighting.
That is completely true.
The deal was offered by Iran, and in fact, the Iranian government did not want what they offered was, as you said, they offered a son of Osama bin Laden in return for the top leadership of Mujahideen, including the two Rajavis, the husband and wife Rajavi, and a few others that have been leading the organization for the past three decades.
But at that time, in the Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon, there was considerable support for the Mujahideen, because they thought that they could use Mujahideen and the network of spies that he supposedly had in Iran to spy on Iran and use it as a sort of leverage with Iranian government, because the Mujahideen have proven to be able to carry out terrorist operation within Iran.
So they wanted to keep them around so that in due time, when they needed, they could use Mujahideen.
But after 2000, and in fact, let me point out that the Camp Ashraf, the Mujahideen headquarters in Iraq, was protected by the US forces all the way from 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, to 2009.
It was only in 2009 that the security of the Camp Ashraf was transferred from the US forces to the Iraqi government.
At the same time, let me also point out that Mujahideen in Iraq have also been interfering in Iraq's internal efforts.
They have sided with Ayyad Allawi, who is the main foe to Prime Minister Noor and Maliki.
And if you, if anybody knows Persian and watches Mujahideen television, which is called Simaya Azadi, which means the face of freedom, you will see that the programs are just full of propaganda in favor of Ayyad Allawi in Iraq.
So basically, this is a group that that has been carrying out terrorist operation that has transformed itself into a political cult that does not accept Iraqi sovereignty, and at the same time does not accept the refugee status within Iraq, refuses to leave Iraq, but also interferes in Iraqi internal affairs.
And at the same time, its lobbying campaign in the United States has attracted even mainstream politicians, such as Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate, and even people in Congress like Brad Sherman and others, and people like James Jones, who was President Obama's first national security adviser.
Even Mary Robinson, who was formerly the president of Ireland, has spoken in favor of this terrorist organization, and Patrick Kennedy, one of the Kennedys, has also spoken in favor of MEK.
But the point about all of this is that none of these people actually know about the history of Mujahideen, and what they have done.
And the fact that this group is, at the grandest scale, is despised by Iranian people, because this group has committed one treason after another against the Iranian nation.
They allied themselves with Saddam Hussein, they carried out assassination operations, they invaded Iran, and in August of 2002, they were the ones who received the information from Israeli intelligence Mossad, and announced to the world that Iran is constructing a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, which was not illegal, by the way, as I have explained many times in my articles on Antiwar.com.
But they reported it, and that basically started the whole business of confronting Iran's nuclear threat, or so-called Iran's nuclear threat.
So they have been committing treason one after another over the past three decades, and yet because of their sleek and intensive lobbying campaign, they are getting close to be delisted from the terrorist list of the State Department.
Now, what they have done is they have set up a lot of front organizations.
For example, MEK has a political arm called National Resistance Council of Iran, which is not listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, which means that it is free to operate within the United States.
It has also set up so-called consulting companies on the Middle East, whose main task and only task is to provide false information about what's going on to members of Congress in their attempt to get the organization to be delisted from the terrorist list.
It also has organizations with very nice-sounding names, like Council for Democratic Change in Iran, which is another front organization for MEK that invites politicians to speak at Mujahideen's gatherings without telling them that this is basically a front organization for a terrorist organization listed by the State Department.
They also provide large honoraria, tens of thousands of dollars, for a short speech to the council.
And in this way, they have been able to attract a lot of these mainstream politicians.
So a lot of Iranians in the Iranian-American community are really concerned that this terrorist organization with this terrible history will be delisted by the State Department, removed from the terrorist list, and let me assure you that if that happens, it may lead to a war that nobody wants with Iran.
This is not in support of what's going on in Iran.
As everybody knows, people like me, they can look at my track record on Antiwar.com and also on Tehran Bureau.
I have a long track record of opposing the Iranian government in Tehran, but this is not that.
This is activity as an anti-war activist who is opposed to an illegal and unwanted war with Iran, and let the Iranian people in Tehran and another part of Iran decide their own fate without any outside interference.
Well, I wanted to wrap up real quick one point.
We'll get right back to that.
But I wanted to get back to that offer to trade between the Iranians and the Americans back in 2003, how they would give up the captured Al-Qaeda guys they had in exchange for these Mujahideen Al-Qaeda terrorists.
And that is, you know, the new development that apparently Al-Qaeda grabbed an Iranian diplomat in Pakistan, and then they made a deal to give them back to the Iranians that you have to let our guys off a house arrest.
And now they're saying that this guy, I think even credible people, not just TV, are claiming that, you know, this guy Saif al-Adl has already been able to travel outside of Pakistan, outside of Iran, into Pakistan.
That, I guess, bin Laden's son is included among one of these guys that they've let off a house arrest.
There's a really long article about it in the Associated Press from yesterday, from Sunday.
Top Al-Qaeda ranks keep footholds in Iran.
They call it, and I think they make probably too much of the idea that the Iranians and Al-Qaeda guys are friends.
But the answer here is that those terrorists that Don Rumsfeld didn't get from the Iranians back in 2003 are now on the loose.
I must say that regardless of what's happening within Iran, and regardless of the domestic policy of Iranian government, when it comes to foreign policy, the Iranian government has been actually very pragmatic.
They have wanted to seek some sort of accommodation.
They have helped the United States in its invasion of Afghanistan.
Whether we support it or not is a separate question.
But the Iranian government did provide support to the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and regarding the exchange of Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's sons, and MEK leadership, Iranians were still very pragmatic, but it was the United States that rejected the deal.
All right, and now Mohamed, I wanted to to ask you more about what you say about if they're taken off the terrorist list that could lead to war.
Connect some step-by-step for me there and explain what you mean exactly, if you could.
The way a lot of people envision it is the following.
If they are delisted from the State Department terrorist list, then they will start raising funds, and then they may start something like what happened in Libya.
Namely, they start something somewhere in some part of Iran, and obviously the Iranian forces, the Iranian security forces, will attack them.
And then they will ask for help from outside, and then the NATO and the U.S. forces and others will go in to bomb and to support an organization which is no longer considered a terrorist organization.
This is one of the ways they may approach it.
And in fact, there has been a lot of speculation about how the MEK is organizing around this concept.
The intervention of NATO and the U.S. in Libya has indicated to some of these opposition forces, particularly MEK, that there may be a way to start a war between Iran and the United States and the West, so that they could come to power.
So this is the fear that people like me have, and it's very likely.
It's not, you know, it's not a stretch to think that that happens.
We know that the Western intelligence agencies have been supporting terrorist operations within Iran.
Jundala, which is a terrorist organization based in Pakistan, attacks Iranian forces within Iran, has been supported by CIA and other organizations.
There are Iranian Arabs in the oil province of Khuzestan that have been known to be supported by the British government and have carried out terrorist operations within Iran.
There are Kurdish groups in northwestern Iran that have received support from Israeli intelligence, and some speculate even American intelligence, to carry out operations within Iran.
So it's not totally out of whack or it's not totally, you know, a stretch to think that the majority, given the network that they have within Iran, may start something along those lines or along the way that what's happening in Libya.
And that's basically the fear that some people, including myself, have.
Mm-hmm.
Well, and as far as their so-called intelligence, you mentioned how they broke the story about Natanz, you know, back in what, 2003 and what-have-you.
And all of that, really, all their accusations, many of which have not panned out at all, you know, secret nuclear factories and tunnels outside Tehran and all this nonsense.
They come up with this stuff all the time, but they're basically just laundering Israeli intel and Israeli propaganda most of the time.
I wonder how closely connected, how loyal to Israel the Mujahideen al-Qaqa is at this point, do you think?
We don't know.
We don't know how close is the connection.
But, for example, when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Massoud Rajavi, the ideological leader, disappeared from the scene.
Nobody knows where he is.
And there is a lot of speculation, at least in the Iranian community, that he may be in Israel, living in Israel.
We know that there is a close connection, close working relation between Mujahideen and Mossad.
As I pointed out, and you also repeated again, it was Mossad that provided the intelligence to Mujahideen in 2002 about the Natanz facility.
And aside from the Natanz facility itself, which wasn't illegal, most or all of our outlandish claims that Mujahideen have made about the Iranian nuclear program haven't panned out.
So basically, they are an arm, sort of an arm of Mossad to propagate the propaganda for Mossad.
I must also mention that in 2002, when that intelligence was provided to MEK, Mossad approached Iranian monarchies to give them the information so that they would publicize it.
But the Iranian monarchies, out of their nationalism, they refused to accept the intelligence and publicize it.
So the next thing they did, that they approached MEK, given its long history of collaboration with Saddam Hussein and other powers, just to overthrow the Iranian government and come to power, they accepted to play this role, and they have been playing ever since.
So there is at least a working, close working relationship between MEK and Israeli intelligence.
I have no doubt about it, and I think there is, you wouldn't find too many among Iranians who would not believe the close connections between MEK and Mossad and intelligence, you know, Israeli intelligence.
And now, you mentioned this in your article too, and I'll let this be the last point, but I'll ask you to elaborate as much as you can, if you've got the time, about the relationship between the Mujahideen-Al-Qaqs political front group, the NCRI, and other, you know, political fronts for them here in the United States, and the neoconservative fifth column.
Oh yeah, I mean, there is Iran Policy Committee that was founded by Raymond Tantar, who's a conservative academic, used to be a professor at the University of Michigan, that has been supporting the US everywhere.
John Bolton has spoken to Mujahideen gatherings many, many times, and has said repeatedly that the United States should do two things, bomb Iran and support the MEK.
James, R. James Woosley, the former CIA director under the Clinton administration, has been supporting the MEK.
Claire Lopez, another CIA former operator, has been supporting MEK.
So, there are all sorts of conservative and neocon support for MEK, and based on what I know, the AIPAC, the Israeli-American Public Affairs Committee, has also been supporting the Mujahideen campaign lobby in the United States, behind the scenes.
So, there is considerable neoconservative and Israeli support for what MEK has been doing in the United States.
And, in some sense, it's easy, because after the 2009 elections, and what happened to the peaceful demonstrators in Tehran and other places in Iran, what Mujahideen do is, they approach these politicians, even the mainstream politicians, and represent themselves, not as MEK members, but as supporters of Iran's democratic, peaceful, green movement, and say that what we want to do is to support the green movement in Iran.
And, given the reputation of the green movement around the world as a peaceful, democratic movement, it is not difficult to convince these people that they may actually represent the green movement outside Iran.
There are other people, for example, there is this guy, Ali Safavi, who has been an active member and supporter of Mujahideen for the past four decades.
He has this consulting company, supposedly consulting company, but the only thing that he does is he spreads propaganda for MEK and National Council of Resistance.
He claims that he is a member of Iranian Parliament in exile.
There is no such Parliament in exile for Iranian people, as far as I know.
The only thing that exists is, basically, a Politburo of Mujahideen that they call the Iranian Parliament in exile.
So, there are all sorts of propaganda of this side.
Then, there is this guy, Alireza Jafarzadeh, who was a spokesman for MEK, but now he acts as a, supposedly, as an independent consultant, and Fox News hired him as some sort of Middle East expert to analyze what is happening in Iran.
So, he also presents himself, not as a former spokesman for MEK and as a supporter of MEK, but as a Fox News analyst.
So, there are all sorts of tricks that are going on for these people to present themselves anything other than what they really are, namely members and supporters of a terrorist organization that have committed numerous crimes, not just only against Iranian people, but also against Iraqi people, and they have committed treasons, and so on and so forth.
Everywhere that they go, they claim that they have vast support within Iran.
Whereas, they left Iran 30 years ago, and given that the 70% of Iranian population is under the age of 35, there is no, basically, memory of this organization in Iran with the young people, with the large majority of Iranian people.
The older people, the only thing they remember is the repeated treasons that this organization committed against their own native land by aligning themselves with the Saddam Hussein regime and attacking Iran and spying on Iranian forces during a long, ferocious war between 1980 and 1988.
Well, and weren't they involved in bombings in 2005 inside Iran?
Oh, they have.
In fact, they claim that they stopped all the terrorist activities in 2001, but documents released by FBI shows that that is not true.
They have been active at least up until 2004 or 2005.
So, at least up until then, we know that this organization was still thinking and trying to carry out terrorist organizations.
There were bombings in 2005, buses, and other things that were attributed to MEK.
There have been bombings in Iran that the Iranian government had attributed to MEK.
Now, whether they were actually carried out with MEK is subject to debate, but there are other operations and bombings that can be definitely linked to MEK.
And the CIA's other pets, Jandala and MEK, do something.
Exactly.
And, in fact, several years ago, there was a speculation that Mujahideen members had moved into Pakistan and Afghanistan to work with these terrorist groups in order to attack Iran.
So, these are, of course, a speculation, but the very fact that these speculations exist and the very fact that these terrorist operations have happened in Iran repeatedly just goes to show that the danger that this group poses, if it is delisted from the terrorist list of the State Department.
Well, and, you know, reading your article, Don't Remove the MEK from the Terrorist List, by Mohamed Sahimi at Antiwar.com, which has all links in the Antiwar.com tradition to the proof of all your most controversial assertions there, really has a very scary group of people supporting these guys.
You know, the Boltons and the James Woolsey's of the world, ties with Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, no doubt, with the Rendon group and whatever.
I mean, the people in America, the politicians and the neocons and the lobbyists who are pushing for the normalization of all things MEK here are, you know, the very worst of our American War Party.
That ought to say a lot right there.
Yes, I totally agree.
And that's why anti-war activists such as myself have been working on this.
In addition to Antiwar.com article that you mentioned, I also posted two long articles on TrueDoubt.com just a couple weeks ago.
The links to those articles are also in my Antiwar.com article, and people can go...
Pardon me?
Oh, I was just saying, oh, great.
I didn't know.
Yes, the links are there.
And if you just go there, the articles are long and give the whole history of Mujahideen from the time they were founded in 1965 all the way to 1980s when they were committing treason against Iranians and collaborating with Saddam Hussein and everything else.
I mean, if you just go and look at those articles, you will see it for yourself.
And then they, you know, the connections that they have made with neocons, they have proven to be very flexible when it comes to working with anybody who helps them to come to power in Iran.
I mean, these guys were supposedly anti-imperialist forces, leftist forces in the 1970s and 1980s.
Even in mid-1980s, they were still propagating anti-imperialist slogans.
But once it became clear that they could not reach power through armed struggle and through alliances with Saddam Hussein and forces like that, and they had to get support from the West, they suddenly forgot about all of their past.
They claimed that all those assassinations that had been carried out by MEK in the early 1970s were not their work, because there was a communist split in the organization in 1975.
And therefore the leadership of MEK tried to attribute those assassinations to those communists that split from the organization.
But as I explained in the article that was posted on Truthout, the claim is totally wrong because at least some of those assassinations happened when there was no split in the organization between 1972 and 1975, and therefore it can be irrefutably linked to the present leadership that gets all of its credentials and legitimacy from the original founders of the organization in 1960s and early 1970s that carried out those assassinations.
So we cannot just forget about the past and the record that this organization has.
And that's why this organization, despite having almost no support within Iran, is so dangerous, because they have proven very adept at approaching people and trying to raise funds for their activity.
One of the questions that people should ask is, for example, how is an organization like MEK is able to get so much funding for all of its operations?
If you look at their operations, they are spending millions of dollars every year on their lobbying campaigns and approaching people.
They have a television program, they have publications, and so on.
So the question is, where do they get all of these funds?
The organization claims that their supporters in the United States pay for them.
But that's nonsense, because, for example, I know some MEK supporters in Los Angeles, here in Los Angeles, and they are in no financial position to provide even the slightest, the most minor type of help to the organization.
So the answer is, as most people believe, they get their support, their financial support, from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and possibly from Jordan.
And there is a speculation that if Rajavi is not in Israel, he may be living either in Jordan or Saudi Arabia.
So they get their support from those countries, and we know, for example, what type of a terrible system Saudi Arabia has in that region, you know, a reactionary dictatorship that opposes to any sort of democracy in that region.
And Saudi Arabia, of course, has been a big foe of Iran, not just during the Islamic Revolution since 1979, but even before 1979.
So there is this long rivalry, history of rivalry, between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
And once again, this organization, MEK, apparently has some links with another foe or another rival of Iran in that region.
So as you can see, this organization is willing to make alliance even with Satan, if it is necessary, just to come to power to Iran.
But as I said at the end of my anti-war.com article, if this organization ever comes to power in Iran, the bloodshed that we will see in Iran, the bloodshed that has happened in Iran since 1979 revolution, will be child's play compared to the bloodshed that will happen if this organization comes to power.
So it is dangerous in all levels, and must be prevented from doing anything meaningful at all levels by anybody who is anti-war.
Right on.
Well, we'll have to leave it at that, but I want to recommend everyone, I found the articles here at Truthout, U.S. Neocons New Overtures to Terrorist Opposition Group in Iran, Part 1 and Part 2, and then at anti-war.com original.anti-war.com/sahimi, don't remove the MEK from the terrorist list.
Been great.
Thank you very much, Mohammed, for your time on the show today.
Thank you, Scott, for having me on your program.
Mohammed Sahimi, everybody.
