IRAN RISES

The American government alleged that one Gholam Shakuri was a high-ranking officer in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards and a co-conspirator in a fantastic plot to murder the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. (For a good summary of this affair, see Gareth Porter’s excellent reporting.)
On October 17, Mehr News Agency (MNA), a semi-official agency of the Islamic Republic of Iran, published a story (please read before proceeding!) alleging that Shakuri was in fact a leading figure in the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI). The MNA’s version of this story has received traction in various anti-imperialist websites of the sort which take a sympathetic and credulous attitude towards the Iranian government, its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and its anti-imperialist posturing.
For all this, the story is preposterous on the face of it and no sensible person should take it seriously. Here is why:

1. Why would Interpol contact the Islamic Republic over these allegations and not the United States, as claimed in the article?
2. Does Interpol keep track of the comings and going of the People’s Mojahedin? The Persian version of the story claims that it does and the Islamic Republic’s media and anti-Mojahed websites claim this, though on shaky documentation. Even so, would it trail someone not specifically on a wanted list? Would the names on said list be kept from the Americans, as alleged in the article? (See the penultimate point on this list.)
3. “Gholam Shakuri was last seen in Washington and Camp Ashraf in Iraq where MKO [People's Mojahedin] members are based.” Last seen by whom? The Persian version of the MNA report claims that he was last seen by Interpol agents; the English version omits this. This could be an oversight by the translators, or perhaps they figured that while MNA’s Iranian readership would fall for this while Western readers would see through it. Again, the question of why Interpol would send this information to MNA is unclear.
4. Pars News claimed, citing an Iraqi newspaper al-Sabah, that Interpol was not allowed into Camp Ashraf. This would be in or around March 2009, when Camp Ashraf’s entrances and exits were controlled by an American military unit. It would have been a bit of a scandal for this unit to keep Interpol out of Camp Ashraf.
5. Similarly, we are expected to believe that Interpol knew (according to the Persian version; the English version is again mute on who knew) that someone they were trailing was visiting Washington DC and did not alert the Americans. (It is conceivable, however, that the American had been alerted and chose to ignore the alert.)
6. Again, MNA’s report says that Shakuri “was see for the last time” in Washington and Camp Ashraf. It is left unexplained how he “was seen for the last time” in two different places. (“How can you be in two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all?”)
7. The Persian version of this story is labeled “Special to Mehr News Agency.” It is unclear why MNA would be breaking this story and not the government of Iran, since an Interpol document would be placed at the disposal of a government and not a news agency so that it could get a scoop.
8. The Persian version of MNA’s report ends with the anodyne observation, “New intelligence about the secondary accused must immediately be placed at the disposal of American Interpol.” This is an example of clairvoyant or magic thinking. How do the editors of MNA know what Interpol has told the Americans? Why would Interpol drop this information off at MNA and not let the Americans know about it?
9. Would whoever was behind the alleged conspiracy to frame up a leader of the Revolutionary Guards as being party to a conspiracy to murder have chosen a leading officer in the People’s Mojahedin? To put it in terms more familiar to Americans, if the Republicans wanted to frame ACORN as being involved in, say, murder and extortion, would it finger Karl Rove as being a leading member of this ACORN-led adventure? No, I don’t think so either. So why is an analogous story greeted with such credulity among people who should really know better?
10. Along the same lines, if we accept the very likely scenario offered by Mr. Porter, Mr. Arbabsiar had been turned by the Americans and would say whatever they wanted him to say. Why would the Americans have had him finger “a principle member” of the People’s Mojahedin? It simply makes no sense.

This transparent hoax is a disgrace to Mehr News Agency. I don’t know what to say about those who credulously accept it.