07/20/12 – Jeremiah Goulka – The Scott Horton Show

All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
Our first guest on the show today is Jeremiah Gulka.
He writes about the politics and culture of security, was previously an analyst at the Rand corporation, where he was the primary author of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a policy conundrum.
He visited the MEK's camp Ashraf in Iraq in 2007.
And there's a previous interview of him about that Rand study and other things too, if you go to scotthortonshow.com.
Welcome back to the show, Jeremiah.
How are you doing?
I'm good, Scott.
Thanks for having me back.
Well, you're welcome.
Very happy to have you here.
I want to direct everybody's attention to this new piece in the American prospect, prospect.org, the cult of MEK.
The Mujahideen-e-Khalq is trying to steer its supporters in the United States toward war, which shows that the enemy of our enemy is not our friend.
Well, that's good.
As I always like some good conventional wisdom debunking, especially, you know, cliche debunking when I can get some.
But here you start off with the images, which I shouldn't be surprised by stuff like this, but I really was surprised to see Newt Gingrich bowing like Obama before the Saudi King, Newt Gingrich bowing to Myram Rajavi, who's basically T of the bow and T leaders of this Heaven's Gate cult.
Um, what in the hell was he doing bowing to her anyway?
Is he a member of the cult?
I knew he followed Sun Yung Moon.
Yeah, he, he, like a lot of other former officials are, are, uh, you know, receiving significant sums to give speeches on their behalf.
And he was in Paris at an event that they had lots and lots of different, uh, prominent former officials and, and, and some writers to sing the praises of the M.E.K.
Uh, and this is all organized in an effort to get the M.E.K. off of the U.S. foreign terrorist operation list.
That way they'd be able to raise even more money for their ultimate goal, which is to get themselves installed as a new government in Iran.
And since they have zero support in Iran, they need someone's military to put them into power.
And so that's why they're drumming up all these fears of war with Iran so that we can put them in power at the head of our battalion.
Well, first of all, let's elaborate a little bit about that there.
Uh, the, the dream that somehow, um, we could do a 1953, um, you know, drum up a regime change in Iran and place Myram Rajavi or any of the other members of the M.E.K. cult in power in Iran.
There is a what percentage chance of that?
Well, I think that's about zero.
So even, even if you take that, that model, I think the more likely model they would want would be the Iraq invasion where we would directly put them in.
Because when, when we propped up the Shah in the fifties, he had, you know, the previous record, I would say of, you know, being there, the, uh, fact that there wasn't, you know, an existing, uh, you know, monarchy there, or at least existing that they could tap into, whereas this would be fresh and new.
And, uh, they're literally have no, no base of, of support, even though they claim to be the number one opposition group, they destroyed their base of support, not just becoming a, by becoming a cult, but more importantly, um, because the last time they tried to get a foreign army to put them in power was when they signed up with Saddam Hussein during the Iran Iraq war.
And so if you remember that war from the 1980s, Saddam invaded Iran shortly after the Iranian revolution, uh, in basically in part to take advantage of the, the, the sort of new government, the lack of, of establishment and entrenchment, he thought that they were weak and there was an opportunity to take over.
And so he invaded and was just an absolutely catastrophic war for Iran.
So the decision of the MEK, which had been exiled at this point to join up with the invader and fight Iranian troops destroyed their, their credibility in Iran.
And, uh, well, that's sort of all important that for the people in the United States who are being paid to advocate on their behalf, they keep saying things like, Hey, these, uh, this MEK group is the best hope we have for regime change for democracy, for the future of Iran hook, line, and sinker.
They are towing the line that this is, uh, you know, a plausible outcome whatsoever that under any version of the regime change that the people of Iran would ever tolerate being ruled by the MEK.
Yeah.
It's, it's really, it's ludicrous.
It's all so reminiscent of the homage, the lobby fiasco and the Iran.
Well, at least, you know, his family had been bankrolling important Shiites in Iraq for a long time.
He had some police still got an office there, right?
He's somebody, but I guess that's more than, more than zero.
I mean, Chalabi was, yeah.
Chalabi had like a 1% chance.
These guys are, yeah, those two, these guys might actually have less.
Well, I mean, they might just get lynched if we were to parachute them down into, into a downtown Tehran and nevermind the cops.
I mean, the people might just get them.
Oh yeah.
One of the things that I found kind of distressing was when I was doing interviews from my report, when I was at the Rand corporation was speaking with some folks within the government who liked them, there were some folks in the government who liked them and a lot who did not, but those who did, it was, they're just seen as the convenience and maybe they would provide some useful intelligence.
And at the very least they'd provide some bodies as a bullet catchers.
And I thought that was just extraordinarily callous, even to, you know, people who we don't necessarily.
Yeah.
That sounds like the U S government talking.
They're useful as bullet catchers.
I think that'll be the title of this interview when I put it on the website.
I was appalled.
Well, so now, um, uh, let's talk, uh, real quick here.
We got about three minutes before we go out to break.
There's a, and I want to get back to the legalities of all of, uh, those who provide material support to these terrorists in the United States and the politics of their listing or de-listing and all of that, but can you tell us briefly here about the situation at camp Osheroff and is it true that there's a total breakdown in the cooperation by the MEK and their move from Osheroff to camp Liberty and then out of the country before Maliki gets them?
Yeah, I don't have a great visibility on exactly what's going on.
I mean, the, the MEK has been an extremely obstreperous group throughout all of the U S's dealings with them in, in, uh, Iraq and the fact that they even got, um, this many people to leave and go to camp Korea to be processed by a proper international legal process to see what other country they can go to.
Uh, I found basically amazing.
There was a real feat of, and of, of work by the state department and, and their absolute stick-to-itiveness to, to deal with them.
It, it's a really extraordinarily difficult group to deal with.
Uh, the, I'm not sure if they're what the dynamic is among the thousand or so people who remain at camp Osheroff.
If, if some of those people are ones who are leaders of the MEK and therefore would not benefit from the amnesty that, uh, Iran has offered to members of the MEK to return to Iran, where it is illegal to be a member of the MEK.
But the proviso is members, but not leaders of the MEK have amnesty to return.
So long as they cut ties with the group and obviously the MEK leadership has no interest in having any of its people go back and cease ties with the group.
Um, or of course be actually prosecuted, which would happen to the leaders.
So they probably cannot go back because they probably would not just be prosecuted, but also very likely persecuted because the Iranian regime does have quite a history of being brutal to members of the MEK.
Sure.
Yeah.
Uh, I wouldn't want to tangle with them either side, really.
Um, now whatever happened to Masoud Rajavi, the husband, is he dead?
That's the rumors are all around.
He's, you know, he, we, he disappeared, uh, right around the time of the, uh, 2003 invasion.
Right.
People think he's dead.
Sometimes you hear words of him appearing in Jordan that MEK was trying to keep them believing he was alive by having rumors go around Camp Ashraf that he was paying caveat, uh, or cameo appearances.
Living at the Four Seasons in DC, more likely.
All right.
We'll be right back after this.
Jeremiah Golka, the American prospect.
All right.
Y'all welcome back.
I'm Scott Wharton.
I'm talking with Jeremiah Golka.
He wrote this, uh, that one big, very important study of the Mujahideen e-cock communist terrorist cult for the Rand corporation.
And now here he is at prospect.org, the American prospect with this article, the cult of MEK, and they should have said, and their ties to prominent Democrats, but you can't get a title like that out of the American prospect, but that's okay.
Um, and, and Republicans too, uh, Clarence page, I was surprised to see that you mentioned Clarence page here, uh, Chicago Tribune column.
This, uh, I don't usually agree with him, but I'm surprised that he's dumb enough to just pocket some money and go give a speech in favor of a communist terrorist cult without googling them first.
We know it's, it's interesting.
I had two, two, two quick, uh, points.
One is, um, rare among people who have spoken on behalf of the MEK.
He, uh, says he, he's, uh, returned the money.
Really?
Oh, that is good to say.
Yeah.
I have to give him that.
And the second is, uh, if you Google the MEK, you find a lot of interesting things on them.
I found that when I was doing, uh, I started doing research on the MEK that it took an enormous amount of effort to separate out information that seemed credible from what doesn't seem credible.
Uh, it's the, the materials that they put out themselves and their supporters put out, uh, sound really appealing.
And I think that's one reason why a lot of the various speakers who have spoke on their behalf, as well as members of Congress who are not getting, you know, direct paychecks.
They, although I know at least in the past, um, before the MEK was listed as a foreign terrorist organization, they did receive, um, some degree of, uh, campaign donations.
The, the MEK did a great job of presenting themselves as being very pro-Western, pro-Western notions of democracy, women's rights, human rights.
Uh, they sound very kind of cuddly.
And if you don't try very hard, it doesn't really take all that much effort.
Uh, especially, you know, thanks to the growing awareness about the group that we've seen, um, with various writers, not just me, uh, about the real, the reality of the group, uh, some people, particularly if they want to be willfully blind, could persuade themselves that this, uh, is a group is a good idea, and they certainly put on impressive, uh, shows, uh, and bring in lots of people, although as some journalists have shown, not all of the people who come to their rallies are aware that it's about the MEK or lots of people just think it's some sort of pro-democracy rally.
And well, they have one rally where it was homeless people bused in from Jersey.
Exactly.
And they, they get church groups and, uh, I think they get school groups in Europe, uh, of people who, you know, say they want to support democracy in Iran.
And I mean, hey, who doesn't want to support democracy anywhere?
Now, when they're dropping $30,000, I guess I might give a speech for the MEK for $30,000, you know?
Well, that's an interesting question.
They give, they give out, uh, that, and that's like per speech.
And I just always found it curious that ex-officials, uh, Democrats and Republicans who are going to be able to, uh, have, I would assume significant, uh, salaries.
I mean, you think of someone like, um, you mentioned the Democrats and so take ex-governor Rendell of Pennsylvania.
And as someone who's an ex-governor, you would imagine that they're probably pulling down something like a million dollars per year, which seems to be sort of an average ex-official type rate.
If you add up the various, um, consulting gigs and board, you know, board positions and lobbying jobs, whatnot.
If you're making a million plus, why, why do you really need another 10 grand or 20 grand?
But, you know, I'm, I don't know.
I, it's, we wonder what, what the price is of people to get bought.
And, you know, if you're just, if you're, you know, writers and radio commentators that, you know, I think that that's pretty heavy money, but I always just wonder about folks who are looking at huge money, why they would be bought for what seems like relatively cheap for them.
And now I'm actually not for this, except in this case.
Uh, but, uh, give me just a sec to explain.
I'm not really a hypocrite.
Um, there's a, the courts say now they have upheld, uh, and I forget the name of the case, but they upheld the power of the government to prosecute and imprison people for speech if they speak and they don't even have to get paid for it.
They just have to give a speech in favor of the bad guys.
And, uh, so here, these are the, here's the head, the former, uh, director of the department of Homeland security abomination and his top advisor, former governors, former Rudy Giuliani, and all of these people, they ought to be in prison.
If, if nobody's with Muslim last names have to go to prison for making a YouTube, then these people have to go to prison for getting paid and pocketing money to speak on behalf of the Mujahideen called communist terrorist cult, which after all, uh, killed American civilians and, uh, military personnel in Iran back in the seventies.
Exactly.
This, you get this kid hits on this, this, this kind of wild, uh, sense of, of hypocrisy that you have, uh, Francis Fregos Townsend, who is the Homeland security advisor under Bush supporting and saying it was a wonderful thing when the Supreme court and humanitarian law group versus holder interpreted the material support statute as saying that not only did you have to give money to a terrorist, a designated terrorist group for it to be a federal crime, but you merely mirror political speech would count if it was done while, you know, working with the, uh, the, uh, the group.
And here you have Townsend and others doing just that speaking on behalf of this group at events organized by this group.
And like you, I think that that, that the Supreme court decision is actually terrible.
I think it's a, I think it's a, a total, uh, infringement on the first amendment, but it is currently the law and the idea of, of convicting people for things like YouTube, YouTube, or just saying things that I should really just be caught under free speech.
And then, you know, finding and imprisoning them, but then letting the big players get away with it and pocket significant sums of money.
It just, the hypocrisy is, it's really nauseating.
Yeah.
Well, so now, um, I want to finish up, uh, asking you about just if you can describe what you saw when you went to camp Ashraf and all that.
Um, but, uh, real quick first, can you tell us, uh, do you have a good idea about whether, uh, they actually will be delisted shortly?
It does it all just hinge on what happens at camp Ashraf?
It's, you know, I, I'm not sure what's going to happen.
I think that, you know, a lot of people are wondering the, uh, state department has said that they will view, uh, leaving camp Ashraf at, uh, they will see that as a favor, favorable thing and make it more likely that they would, uh, leave uh, sorry, the state department would delist the group.
Um, the mere fact that state said that doesn't mean that they have to delist them.
Uh, I think, I think the likelihood is that it will, they will remain listed, but I think that may possibly just be my hope more than anything else.
And even, even saying it, I think it's, uh, you know, 51% likelihood, maybe.
Uh, I'm not sure.
Um, at some point I'm going to write, uh, fairly soon I'm going to write my own piece on why I think that they remain, they should remain on, on, on the list.
The spring, uh, the state department has to make their decision by October 1st, according to a court decision.
And if they don't make the decision by then, then the court will automatically delist them.
Really?
Oh, there you go.
The, the, uh, like the pocket veto or whatever Hillary Clinton gets to just, uh, you know, let it happen.
Not stop.
I see.
Although coming, you know, it's, it'll be interesting.
October 1st, right.
And right around the time of, you know, a month before the election.
And this does put me into, I think he just predicted the future right there with that explanation of the one possibility there.
Um, and of course, you know, something being, uh, absolutely outrageous and criminal has never stopped Hillary Clinton.
So, you know, politicians are politicians.
Yep.
Great.
So, well, um, so now I'm sorry, we have very little time, but, um, you know, I'm always, uh, talking bad about these guys, you know, as though they're a government, but they're not even a government, they're just a bunch of kooks, most of them, uh, you know, probably denied protein for a year and got their kids kidnapped and are threatened and controlled and are basically helpless, uh, cult followers.
You know, I don't mean to be mean to them, you know, specifically, but it just, I I'm trying to discredit, um, you know, our government's use of a terrorist cult group like that, but then I wonder, uh, whether I'm right, are they really that much of a Charles Manson type of kookery going on there or what?
Well, uh, what I saw when, when I was at Camp Ashraf, and for starters, there are no children because they have mandatory celibacy, uh, that they implemented after they did their own invasion of Iran.
At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, they, they said that their cult behaviors started as essentially military type activity in order to fight better.
They said their reason that they didn't fight adequately well was that there was too much love in the trenches.
So they mandated celibacy, forced divorce, no children.
The children who remained were, uh, who were born previously were shipped out, uh, before the 1991 Gulf War.
And it is, it's a very strange place for people wearing their olive drab uniforms and with, uh, sort of dead looks in their eyes, uh, men and women don't touch.
People cannot speak unless they're given permission to.
There are different hours at the Camp Ashraf gas station for men and women.
It is a, they have a strange, strange organization.
All right.
Well, I'm sorry, we're all over time and I got to let you go, but I really appreciate your time on the show.
And I urge everybody to go and read this article at prospect.org, the cult of M-E-K by Jeremiah Gulka.
And if you really want the in-depth about, uh, Camp Ashraf there, uh, go read his report at, uh, the RAND organization as well.
Um, thanks very much for your time.
Appreciate it.
Thanks Scott.
Thanks so much for having me.