The deep links between the Iranian opposition and the Israeli lobby

Sep 17, 2023

Source: Al Mayadeen English

Ironically, the link between Esmaeilion and Maryam Rajavi is none other than James Cotler, the chief of the Israeli lobby in Canada. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Arwa Makki)

By Karim Sharara

Between monarchists, separatists, terrorists, and liberals, it’s a wonder the Iranian opposition ever managed to stay under one roof. However there is one thing they all do have in common: their ties to the MEK cult and the Israeli lobby.

Iran’s opposition is officially fragmented, although it was a hopeless case to begin with. How are you supposed to bring together people attempting to topple a revolutionary Iran, with each vying for leadership of the opposition? Masih Alinejad, Hamed Esmaeilion, Abdullah Mohtadi, Reza Pahlavi, and Shirin Ebadi, all have extremely divergent worldviews and do not accept each other as representatives of the opposition, much less so as leaders.

They had all been brought together by a common goal: To topple the Iranian administration; but even that, along with Western-Israeli support, was not enough to keep them bound. 

The fragmentation

Between Masih Alinejad, who has overt ties with the US administration and is an employee of the US State Department-funded VOA TV channel, Reza Pahlavi, who also has friendly ties with “Israel” and advocates for the return of monarchical rule to Iran, Abdullah Mohtadi, whose Komala party advocates for secession from Iran, Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who seems to be very proficient at the fine art of public speaking, with a special focus on demanding that sanctions be placed on Iran while also doubling as a human rights advocate (if you can see the hypocrisy then you’re one of the lucky ones), and Hamed Esmaeilioun, who has only recently come to the spotlight… It’s a wonder these people got together.

As all of these figures held anti-Iran rallies in the West, sometimes each on their own, sometimes together, their supporters were busy bashing each other’s leaders online, revealing the extent to which these people cannot stand to be together. To them, Alinejad was an opportunist, lying traitor who only cared about filling her own pockets; Pahlavi was a fool out to restore the tyrannical rule of his father; Mohtadi was a traitor separatist; Ebadi was an old woman who can’t get anyone to hear her out; and Esmaeilion was pro-Iran until just recently, meaning he has no credibility.

Of course, we can’t forget the great role played by the MEK cult in all of this, but their methods and cult status have made these opposition figures take a sizeable step away from them, adding to this the fact that the MEK is disliked by almost all Iranians because they sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, and the fact that they killed more than 12,000 Iranians during that period.

Please note that I said step away from the MEK, not cut off ties. I’ll get to that later.

In terms of mobilization, two clear contenders come out as those who have shown the most ability to mobilize people, however small that actual number may be, and have the greatest online influence: Esmaeilion and Pahlavi, with Esmaeilion being the clear winner in terms of charisma.

As I said earlier, there is no question as to the ties of the Iranian opposition’s main figures with Western government, mainly “Israel.”

Now when I say main figures, I am of course leaving out Abdullah Mohtadi, who does not represent a sizeable portion of the Iranian opposition in any way shape or form, and is only considered a main figure because his Komala party has great potential for violence, which can be employed on Iranian soil. I am also leaving out Shirin Ebadi, because she has a near-negligible capacity for mobilization, and is only present on account of seniority. 

This leaves us with Reza Pahlavi, Masih Alinejad, and Hamed Esmaeilion.

The ties with “Israel’ and clear regarding Masih Alinejad, as she is already employed by the US government, and has overtly demanded Western leaders to place additional sanctions on Iran, and is well-acquainted with the leader of the Israeli lobby in Canada, whom we’ll get to in a bit. Reza Pahlavi has also gone to “Israel” and met with Netanyahu, not to mention that his supporters do not shy away from their support for “Israel.”

But Hamed Esmaeilion is a newcomer to the scene, and many believe that his views are more in line with what the mainstream Iranian opposition believes. Those who are pro-West, do not wish for a return of monarchy to Iran, and do not want to be associated with the MEK. 

Moreover, Masih Alinejad is more powerful with the young female demographic, and has proven incapable of mobilizing men. Pahlavi has been tried and tested for a long time, and his methods have proven ineffective at engendering any sort of change.

Mythmaking

Myths, imaginary or conceptual as they may be, always leave a profound impact on reality, be it how we see ourselves, or how societies view themselves and their contributions to history. Even states have their own founding myths in the crafting of national identity that, in turn, influence how people view themselves. Enter the Iranian opposition and their attempts at crafting individual myths around their main figures.

On January 8, 2020, a few days after the martyrdom of Major General Qasem Soleimani, as Iran and the US were an inch away from an all-out war, and a few hours after Iran pummeled the US Ain Al-Asad base in Iraq with ballistic missiles, Iranian forces were on high alert as they expected a counterattack. It was at this moment that Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752 was fired on by an Iranian soldier who mistook it for an enemy object. 176 people lost their lives that day in what was a national tragedy.

Among the passengers of that flight were the wife and daughter of Hamed Esmaeilion, who was a well-known novelist in Iran, and who until shortly after the downing of the flight had no noteworthy political ambitions or stances to speak of. From that point on, Esmaeilion would be marketed as a spokesperson for the families of the victims of flight PS752, and even started a website to commemorate the victims and “hold the Islamic Republic accountable” for their deaths, and thus, a new Hamed Esmaeilion was born.

On the left, a picture we can all associate with on a human level, one of pain, grief and hurt. On the right…the Godfather? (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Zeinab Elhajj)

I’m not here to speak of why Esmaeilion would take such a confrontational stance against Iran, as such tremendous grief is enough to break and change a man, however, it is interesting to see, if only passingly, the process through which Esmaeilion was shaped and molded into this leadership role. The platforms he was granted access to, the support he garnered, and his evolution in that time, the myth being created around him likening him to Iranian heroes of folklore like Kaveh the Blacksmith.

Perhaps there is some sort of irony here that Kaveh was leading the national resistance against the Zahak, a foreign ruler. Maybe they introduced revisions in the modern version where Kaveh and the foreign ruler oppressing his homeland hug and make nice?

A picture of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participating in an anti-Iran demonstration in Ottawa. Trudeau and Esmaeilion have met on many occasions.

Esmaeilion’s transformation is reminiscent of that of his colleague Masih Alinejad, who was earlier made into an icon for the Iranian opposition in 2015, evolving from a well-known journalist and part of the Iranian opposition to one with a leading role in fostering anti-establishment sentiment in Iran, particularly among women.

Related News

Esmaeilion was a good option because he was someone that those of the Iranian opposition, or even perhaps regular Iranians in the grey area, could sympathize and connect with. He was someone whose story would help establish an emotional connection with others, whom they could feel with. An everyday man, an accomplished man, who was molded by grief and loss.

This is how soft power is played, through emotions and catchy slogans, not cold hard facts and figures.

If you question Esmaeilion, then you question his pain, and if you question the pain of the victim, then you’re on par with those who killed his family. 

It’s all meant to make it look like this man is single-handedly pulling off all this weight. A modest man, with modest capabilities, with nothing but his drive and belief in a better future driving him. But reality is far from this.

Esmaeilion’s ties to ‘Israel’ and the MEK

Iranian London-based journalist Ali Alizadeh has already done importawnt work on the subject of Esmaeilion’s allegiances, his transformation, and his ties to the Israeli lobby and the MEK.

Alizadeh goes into the subject in depth in one of his Jedaal episodes, showing the clear link between Esmaeilion and Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the MEK cult. Ironically, the link between him and Rajavi is actually Irwin Cotler, coupled with Esmaeilion’s good friend Kaveh Shahrooz.

Cotler is the former president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, former Canadian Justice minister, board member of the “Israel” Council on Foreign Relations, and was this year the recipient of the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honor. In short, Cotler is the Israeli lobby’s top-dog in Canada.

The podcast is in Farsi, of course, but here’s the gist of it. 

Esmaeilion knows Irwin Cotler very well, as he was invited by Cotler to take part in a seminar entitled “Justice and Accountability: Remedies for those murdered in the bombing of flight PS752 by the regime in Iran,” organized by Cotler’s Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, and both of them run in the same circles.

Esmaeilion had also, in the early months of the protests, tweeted the link to a petition, asking people to sign it on change.org to push G7 leaders to expel Iranian diplomats from their countries. The petition was created by Shahrooz.

Shahrooz’s mentor is none other than the aforementioned Cotler, as he himself says in this tweet.

Shahrooz had also used Esmaeilion’s clout among the victims of the plane crash to organize a protest in the names of the victims of the plane crash, later using the protest as a platform from which to make political overtures, in effect duping those who attended into participating in an event they had not signed up for.

All in the same circles

Naturally, Shahrooz follows the Israeli lobby’s agenda and follows Cotler in his work to ‘defend justice and the oppressed around the globe’. You cannot make this up, I swear

The man is actually pictured next to his mentor, the foremost Israeli lobbyist in Canada, on multiple occasions at events that serve to increase political pressure on Iran, and has spoken and written articles demanding more sanctions on Iran.

Then, when one Twitter user points all of these facts out, as well as his mentor’s known MEK ties, Shahrooz goes into an incomprehensible and complete denial as if he had nothing to do with any of this.

Back to the earlier Antifa tweet. Shahrooz mentions another name: Terry Glavin. It’s interesting that Glavin had written an article in 2009 saying that if the Canadian opposition wishes to succeed, they would have to work to lift the “terror” designation of the MEK, called the terrorist designation against them “bogus”, and dubbing them “Tehran’s Worst Nightmare.”

Although the surviving copy of this article is on a now-defunct website, fear not, Glavin is not short of work on the importance of the MEK, extoling their virtues to no end and attacking those calling them terrorist, just like another article written the next year. It’s also convenient that this article was written after he accepted an invitation from the MEK to attend their Paris conference. 

The timing and convenience are just stupendous.

One piece of news published by “The Jerusalem Post” also reveals Irwin Cotler’s lobbying for the MEK, alongside famed “Israel” lobbyist Alan Dershowitz!

Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel have become three prominent Jewish activists joining with others in a bid to remove a group with a blood-soaked history from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations…

On the record, the people involved insist there is no Israel element to what they say is a humanitarian endeavor to remove the movement’s followers from danger.

“I don’t see any Israel issue at all,” Dershowitz told JTA in an interview, instead casting it in terms of Hillel’s dictum, “If I am only for myself, who am I?”

Off the record, however, figures close to the campaign use another ancient Middle Eastern dictum to describe the involvement of supporters of Israel: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

The MEK has been implicated in the murder of thousands of Iranians, which is why so many figures are attempting to distance themselves from it. If anything, most Iranians (whether pro- or anti-Islamic Republic) are united in their hatred of the MEK and their agenda. But they’re a cult, and cults are effective when it comes to commanding the loyalty of their adherents and at getting results, particularly when the stakes are high. 

Between the Iranian opposition’s main figures all vying for leadership, Reza Pahlavi’s attempts to assert control over them under the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran (ADFI), and their completely divergent worldviews and irreconcilable approaches, it was only a matter of time before they’d fragment and wither away. That’s not to say that there is no longer an ‘Iranian opposition’, but that the once seemingly united position they held was no longer sustainable.

In fact, it was never sustainable, which is why Esmaeilion left them a month into the ADFI’s establishment.

The story’s actually quite simple from there. “Israel,” the MEK, and the Iranian opposition’s figures all run within the same circles, and it is unfathomable for anyone in the Iranian opposition to gain prominence without being involved with either of the two, or both. 

And then, despite all this, some people can actually say with a straight face that the Iranian opposition abroad has no ties to the Israeli lobby.

Iran against all odds

For more than 40 years, a harsh embargo has been imposed on Iran. Yet, Iran was able to self-sustain and overcome the sanctions. Nonetheless, Western attempts to disrupt Iran did not cease, and external interventions to tear the country apart are relentless. one year later after the tragic death of Mahsa Amini, Iran is still standing tall, against all odds, and Western agenda has miserably failed.

“New world order pledged to Jews” 80 years ago

Source

September 21, 2020 – 11:43

Most Zionist diplomacy takes place in secret, through corruption and blackmail (euphemistically called “lobbying”). But sometimes it is deemed appropriate that some statement be written down by some government representative in support of Zionism. The Goyim who write these statements may think them of little consequence, but Zionists know very well how to capitalize on them.

The most famous such document is the short letter written by the British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, president of the Zionist Federation, on November 2, 1917. Prime Minister Lloyd George later explained the deal in those terms:

“Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to give facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.” 

Less known than the Balfour Declaration is the letter obtained by Nahum Sokolow, head of the World Zionist Organization, from the French Foreign minister Jules Cambon. Dated June 4, 1917, it not only anticipated the Balfour Declaration but cleared the way for it. It states that the French government “feels sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is linked to that of the allies.” The cause in question is “the development of the Israeli colonization in Palestine” and “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.” Back in London, Sokolow deposited the Cambon letter at the Foreign Office, where it stimulated a spirit of competition. In January 1918, he returned to Paris, this time with the aim of securing a public French declaration in support of the Balfour Declaration.  A magnificent example of the efficiency of Zionist transnational diplomacy for war profiteering.

If Balfour thought that, after the war, his letter, cautiously worded and typed on unmarked paper, would be of little consequence, he was wrong. Zionists made it a cornerstone to their project. When the British government proved reluctant to deliver after the Versailles Treaty, they invested on the ambitious, unscrupulous and bankrupt Winston Churchill (1874-1965), whose thoughts were, in his own words, “99 percent identical” with Chaim Weizmann’s.  

During WWII, Churchill and Weizmann conspired to repeat the winning strategy of the Balfour declaration in WWI, attempting to monetize Jewish influence to bring the United States into the war. In a letter to Churchill dated September 10, 1941, Weizmann wrote: 
“I have spent months in America, traveling up and down the country […]. There is only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out-aid’ for her: the five million American Jews. […] It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again.” 

As soon as he had become Prime Minister in May 1940, Churchill instructed his War Cabinet member Arthur Greenwood to craft a document assuring the Jewish elites that a winning Britain will give them not only Palestine but a major share in the “new world order” to compensate for “the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people.” Although it is little known, this “Greenwood Pledge” is, according to Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise, “of wider and farther reaching implications” than the Balfour declaration. The New York Times published it in its October 6, 1940 edition, under the amazing title “New World Order Pledged to Jews” (reproduced here and here). 

The recipient of the declaration, here presented as Dr. S.S. Wise, was a major player in Zionist deep politics since the time of Theodor Herzl, and a close collaborator of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Samuel Untermeyer. He was the founder of the New York Federation of Zionist Societies in 1897, the first seed for the Zionist Organization of America, of which he was president. In 1917 he participated in the effort to convince President Woodrow Wilson to approve the Balfour declaration. In 1936, he was a co-founder of the World Jewish Congress, dedicated to rallying world Jewry against Hitler. 

Here is the full text of the New York Times, introducing the  “Greenwood Pledge”:

New York Times, October 6, 1940

NEW WORLD ORDER PLEDGED TO JEWS;

Arthur Greenwood of British War Cabinet Sends Message of Assurance Here

RIGHTING OF WRONGS SEEN

English Rabbi Delivers to Dr. S.S. Wise New Statement on Question After War

In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, a member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of “justice and peace.”

Mr. Greenwood, who is Deputy Leader of the British Labor party, declared that in the new world the “conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.” He added that after the war an opportunity would be given to Jews everywhere to make a “distinctive and constructive contribution” in the rebuilding of the world.

The message was delivered last week to Dr. Stephen S. Wise, chairman of the executive committee of the World Jewish Congress, by Rabbi Maurice L. Perzweig, chairman of the British section of the congress. Rabbi Perizweig arrived from England Monday evening. 

Intention to Right Wrongs

Comparing the statement with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, D. Wise declared that in a sense it had “wider and farther reaching implications,” as it dealt with the status of Jews throughout the world. He said that Mr. Greenwood’s message could be interpreted as a statement of England’s firm intention to help right the wrongs which Jews have suffered and continue to suffer today because of Hitler’s “disorder and lawlessness.” Mr. Greenwood, sending the Jews of America a message of “encouragement and warm good wishes,” wrote: 
“The tragic fate of the Jewish victims of Nazi tyranny has, as you know, filed us with deep emotion. The speeches of responsible statesmen in Parliament and at the League of Nations during the last seven years have reflected the horror with which the people of this country have viewed the Nazi relapse into barbarism.

“The British Government sought again to secure some amelioration of the lot of persecuted Jewry both in Germany itself and in the countries which were infected by the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred. Today the same sinister power which has trampled on its own defenseless minorities, and by fraud and force has temporarily robbed many small peoples of their independence, has challenged the last stronghold of liberty in Europe.

New World Order Forecast

“When we have achieved victory, as we assuredly shall, the nations will have the opportunity of establishing a new world order based on the ideals of justice and peace. In such a world it is our confident hope that the conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted. 

“In the rebuilding of civilized society after the war, there should and will be a real opportunity for Jews everywhere to make a distinctive and constructive contribution; and all men of good-will must assuredly hope that in new Europe the Jewish people, in whatever country they may live, will have the freedom and full equality before the law with every other citizen.”

In an interview at the Hotel Astor, Rabbi Perlzweig declared he was certain Mr. Greenwood “speaks for England.” There is a clear realization, he added, that freedom and emancipation for the Jewish people are tied up with emancipation and freedom for people everywhere. The message, Rabbi Perlzweig remarked, was the subject of earnest consideration by the British Government. “This is a declaration on behalf of the whole world,” he observed. “Here the British Government expresses clearly what it hopes will take place after the war is won.”

[1] According to a 1937 report of the Palestine Royal Commission, quoted by Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, pp. 18-21.

[1] Martin Kramer, “The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration,” June 5, 2017, on mosaicmagazine.com

[1] Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henry Holt & Company, 2007.

[1] David Irving, Churchills War, vol. 2: Triumph in Adversity, Focal Point Publications, 2001, pp. 76–77.

[1] Thanks to M.S. King, who made this information known here: http://www.tomatobubble.com/nwo_jews.html

RELATED NEWS