Mediaboss Marketing

What were a Saudi prince, a former Republican House Speaker and a former Democratic vice-presidential candidate doing together in a suburb of Paris last weekend?

Would you be surprised to discover that Prince Turki Bin Faisal, Newt Gingrich and Joe Lieberman were speaking on behalf of a group of Iranian exiles that was officially designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States government between 1997 and 2012?

Iran hawks long ago fell head over heels for the Mojahedin-e Khalq, known as the MEK, and loudly and successfully lobbied for it to be removed from the State Department list of banned terror groups in 2012. Formed in Iran in the 1960s, the MEK, whose name translates to Holy Warriors of the People, was once an avowedly anti-American, semi-Marxist, semi-Islamist group, pledged to toppling the U.S.-backed Shah by force and willing to launch attacks on U.S. targets. The MEK even stands accused of helping with the seizure of hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran; the group condemned the hostages release as a surrender to the United States. But after the Irans clerical rulers turned on the group in the early 1980s, its leaders fled the country and unleashed a series of bombings across Iran.

These days, the organization run by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, though the formers whereabouts are unknown and he is rumored to be dead claims to have renounced violence and sells itself to its new American friends as a 100 percent secular and democratic Iranian opposition group. The biggest problem with the MEK, however, is not that it is a former terrorist organization. Plenty of violent groups that were once seen as terrorists later abandoned their armed struggles and entered the corridors of power think of the Irish Republican Army or Mandelas African National Congress.

Nor is it that the MEK lacks support inside of the Islamic Republic, where it has been disowned by the opposition Green Movement and is loathed by ordinary Iranians for having fought on Saddam Husseins side during the Iran-Iraq war.

Rather, the biggest problem with U.S. politicians backing the MEK is that the group has all the trappings of a totalitarian cult. Dont take my word for it: A 1994 State Department report documented how Massoud Rajavi fostered a cult of personality around himself which had alienated most Iranian expatriates, who assert they do not want to replace one objectionable regime for another.

You think only people inside of dictatorships are brainwashed? A 2009 report by the RAND Corporation noted how MEK rank-and-file had to swear an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran and highlighted the MEKs authoritarian, cultic practices including mandatory divorce and celibacy for the groups members (the Rajavis excepted, of course). Love for the Rajavis was to replace love for spouses and family, explained the RAND report.

Iraqi security forces enter through the main gate of Camp Ashraf in Khalis, north of Baghdad, Iraq in 2012.

Photo: Hadi Mizban/AP

You think gender segregation inside of Iran is bad? At Iraqs Camp Ashraf, which housed MEK fighters up until 2013, lines were painted down the middle of hallways separating them into mens and womens sides, according to RAND, and even the gas station there had separate hours for men and women.

You might understand why a Saudi prince, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, or uber-hawk and former Bush administration official John Bolton who all attended the Paris rally might be willing to get behind such a weird collection of fanatics and ideologues. But what would make a liberal Democrat from Vermont such as Howard Dean who has suggested Maryam Rajavi be recognized as the president of Iran in exile want to get into bed with them? Or Georgia congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis, who spoke out in favor of the MEK in 2010?

Could it be because of the old, if amoral, adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Perhaps. Could it be the result of ignorance, of senior U.S. figures failing to do due diligence? Maybe.

Or could it be a consequence of cold, hard cash? Many of these former high-ranking U.S. officials who represent the full political spectrum have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK, revealed a wide-ranging investigation by the Christian Science Monitor in 2011.

In Washington, D.C., money talks. Whether youre a Democrat like Dean or a Republican like Bolton, a former head of the CIA like Porter Goss or an ex-head of the FBI like Louis Freeh, what seems to matter most is that the MEK can cut fat checks.

Take Gingrich, who once lambasted Barack Obama for bowing to the Saudi king but has himself been caught on camera bowing to Maryam Rajavi. The former House speaker bizarrely compared Rajavi to George Washington in his speech in Paris over the weekend.

Or Giuliani, Americas Mayor and self-styled anti-terror hawk, who nevertheless has had no qualms accepting thousands of dollars since 2010 to shill for a group that murdered six Americans in Iran in the mid-1970s; joined with Saddam Hussein to repress Iraqs Kurds in the early 1990s; allegedly worked with Al Qaeda to make bombs in the mid-1990s; and fought against U.S. troops in Iraq in 2003.

Have these people no shame? To quote Suzanne Maloney, an Iran analyst at Brookings and a former adviser to the State Department: How cheaply Gingrich/Guiliani/Bolton/Lieberman value their own integrity to sell out to MEK cult.

Meanwhile, regime change in Tehran is very much back on the agenda in Donald Trumps Washington. Candidate Trump, who blasted George W. Bushs Middle East wars of aggression, has been replaced by President Trump, who appointed Iran hawks such as James Mattis and Mike Pompeo to run the Pentagon and the CIA, respectively; counts MEK shills such as Giuliani and Gingrich among his closest outside advisers; and appointed Elaine Chao, who took $50,000 from the Rajavis for a five-minute speech in 2015, to his cabinet.

Lets be clear: The Trump administration, the Saudis and the Israelis who have financed, trained and armed the MEK in the past, according an NBC News investigation are all bent on toppling the Irans clerical rule; they long for a bad sequel to the Iraq war. And Maryam Rajavis MEK is auditioning for the role of Ahmed Chalabis Iraqi National Congress: The groups 3,000-odd fighters, according to former Democratic senator-turned-MEK-lawyer Robert Torricelli last Saturday, are keen to be the point of the spear.

That way madness lies. Have U.S. political, intelligence, and military elites learned nothing from their Mesopotamian misadventure and the disastrous contribution of Iraqi exiles such as Chalabi? Well, the brainwashed fanatics of the MEK make the INC look like the ANC.

It is difficult, therefore, to disagree with the verdict of Elizabeth Rubin of the New York Times, who visited the MEK at Camp Ashraf back in 2003 and later spoke to men and women who had escaped from the groups clutches and had to be reprogrammed. The MEK, warned Rubin in 2011, is not only irrelevant to the cause of Irans democratic activists, but a totalitarian cult that will come back to haunt us.

Top photo: Mariam Rajavi speaks at the annual meeting of the Mojahedin-e Khalqat the Villepinte exhibition center near Paris on July 1, 2017. International political leaders also made speeches to support her.

Visit link:
Here's Why Washington Hawks Love This Cultish Iranian Exile Group - The Intercept

Residents and civil society activists staged a protest Friday in southern Afghanistan to denounce neighboring Iran's President Hassan Rouhani for criticizing Afghan water management and dam projects.

Hundreds of demonstrators peacefully marched through the streets of Lashkargah, capital of Helmand province near the Iranian border. They chanted, Death to Hassan Rouhani and Death to enemies of Afghanistan.

The protesters called on President Ashraf Ghanis government to not be deterred by the Iranian warning and to implement water management and storage projects along Afghan rivers.

At an international conference on sandstorms and environmental issues in Tehran on Monday, the Iranian leader warned that construction of several dams in Afghanistan could destroy civilizations in Iranian border provinces, forcing people to abandon their homes.

We cannot remain indifferent to the issue, which is apparently damaging our environment, the Iranian leader said before an audience that included Afghan delegates.

Rouhani was referring to Afghan dams such as Kajaki, Kamal Khan, Bakhshabad and Salma in provinces that border Iran.

Afghan politicians also have been criticizing the Iranian president for his comments, which they say amount to direct interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.

Afghan media have also expressed outrage through special commentaries and editorials.

We can continue living brotherly, but the use of the things that belong to us is our immediate right. We need our waters; we need electricity, irrigation and greenery. Thus, we should be the first ones that use our rivers, English daily Afghanistan Times wrote in an editorial published Friday.

The paper went on to say that 80 percent of Afghan water flowed to Iran and neighboring Pakistan without being used inside Afghanistan.

Tehran has not commented on the criticism Rouhani's comments provoked in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and Iran signed a water-sharing treaty in 1973, stipulating that Iran not make claims to water from the Helmand River in excess of the amount agreed upon in the treaty, even if additional water becomes available in the future.

President Ghani has recently noted that Iran continues to receive its fair share of water from the river and that the country cannot claim more than what has been agreed upon.

We want domestic production...We will manage our water and control it, Ghani said.

After assuming office in 2014, the Afghan president vowed to construct 21 new dams, calling them key to efforts to boost the troubled economy and produce jobs for unemployed youth.

The controversy over the construction of new dams comes as Kabul accuses Iran of increasing contacts with the Taliban fighting the Afghan government and international forces.

Provincial officials and politicians have alleged that Iranian security forces are arming and providing medical assistance to insurgents, allegations Tehran denies.

Afghan officials say Iran wants to bolster the Taliban to prevent Islamic State militants from threatening Iranian territory.

Excerpt from:
Afghans Stage Rare Anti-Iran Rally, Denounce Iran's Rouhani - Voice of America

President Donald Trump likely sees Mohammed bin Salman, who in June was named the new Saudi crown prince, as a Middle Eastern leader made in his own image. The young crown princes unrelenting hostility towards Iran and take-no-prisoners censure of Qatar is consistent with Trumps emerging, aggressive posture towards Iran.

But by placing his thumb on the scale of intramural Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) squabbles and reinforcing the narrative that Iran is the primary source of instability in the Middle East, Trump could hand Tehran a strategic bonanza, much like former President George W. Bush did by taking down Iraq, a country that for good or bad had acted as a check on Iranian power since the Iranian revolution.

The Saudis will miscalculateif they take much solace from Trumps support for their regional policies. Regardless of what the United States does, sharply increasing the vitriol towards Iran while at the same time laying siege to fellow GCC member Qatar will likely weaken the Saudi position and what is left of an already compromised Arab political order. Intended to take Iran down a notch, these actions instead will likely strengthen Tehrans hand. In fact, Iranian policymakers would be forgiven for believing that Saudi Arabia had fallen prey to the judo move by which ones opponents are unwittingly maneuvered to use their own strength to harm themselves.

How does Saudi Arabia undermine its own position by escalating the conflict with Iran and working to bring Qatar forcefully into compliance? While Saudi Arabia, through its security relationship with the United States, derives many military advantages over Iran, much of Saudi Arabias political strength in the region comes from the kingdoms strong position within the Arab world. But the Arab order has become particularly fragile due to the corrosiveness of the civil wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Although Iran clearly represents a threat to Saudi interests, it is the weakness in Saudi Arabias own Arab ranks, caused by the effects of the Arab Spring and the civil wars, that poses the biggest challenge to Riyadh and the biggest opportunity for Tehran. Ratcheting up hostility towards Iran is likely to prolong these wars, running the risk of further weakening the Arab world, thereby compromising Saudi Arabias position relative to Iran. The longer the proxy battles between Saudi Arabia and Iran in the regions civil wars continue, the greater the risk that the civil wars could spread to other Arab countries like Jordan and Lebanon, the more splintered the Arab world will likely become, and the more Iran gains in the regional power game.

What is incubating in Syria right now within the Sunni opposition to President Bashar al-Assad is a metaphor for how divisions between Arab countries pose a greater threat to Saudi Arabia than the challenge from Iran. In contrast to the disciplined, tightly consolidated, Iran-led Shia coalition supporting the Syrian government, the Sunni opposition is highly fragmented. Hundreds of different opposition groups, ranging from jihadist militant groups like the al Qaedas Syria affiliate, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the Nusra Front), to non-jihadist Salafist groups like Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-sham, and even some of the stronger factions of the secular Free Syrian Army, are busy shaping areas of Syria still outside government control, like Idlib province. Given the propping up of the Syrian government by Iran, Russia, and its Shia militias, it is unlikely that these Sunni opposition groups will pose an existential threat to Assad (or Iran) anytime soon. But with their Syrian base threatened by Russia and Iran tipping the scale towards the Syrian government, and the recent de-escalation efforts by Iran, Russia, and Turkey, these groups, particularly Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, could ultimately turn their sights to the Arab world, further weakening the Arab political fabric, and potentially posing security and political challenges to Saudi Arabia. In other words, battle-tested Sunni groups in Syria could spill over to other parts of the Arab world, further eroding the Saudi position on Iran.

Saudi Arabia has potentially amplified this risk of blowback from Syria by dangerously using divisions within the Sunni Arab community as a flashpoint in relations with Qatar. Saudi Arabia considers the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, while Qatar has kept avenues open to this nearly century-old political organization with deep roots in several Arab countries. While one could debate the motives behind Qatars actions, conflating the Brotherhood with the threats from jihadist groups like the Islamic State and al Qaeda recklessly delegitimizes the middle ground within the Sunni ideological spectrum, something that could blow back in Riyadhs face. By pushing the Brotherhood out of the Sunni debate, Saudi Arabia (along with the United Arab Emirates) creates an opening for more extremist organizations, possibly those with deep Syrian roots like al Qaedas Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which could pose a significant threat to the Saudis and the broader Arab world.

Moreover, the Middle East today is a dangerously pressurized regional system, with few safety valves for conflict mitigation. Qatar (with Oman and Kuwait) could be seen as providing this pressure relief function. By building bridges with the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, it creates pathways for dialogue and conflict resolution both inside and outside the Arab world. While the Saudis bristle at the ambiguity of Qatars position, it serves a purpose of blurring some of the lines of conflict, potentially creating diplomatic pathways towards eventual normalization of relations between Riyadh and Tehran. Saudi Arabias censure of Qatar brings into sharper relief the conflict lines, threatening the pressure relief value of Qatars strategic ambiguity. Also, it potentially divides the Arab world between Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates on the one hand and Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar on the other, splitting it into camps, ultimately weakening the Saudi position.

Another risk is that Qatar is pulled further out of its GCC orbit. While Qatar has followed an independent foreign policy, it has cooperated with Saudi Arabia on many initiatives, including the war in Yemen. The potential for Doha to become more dependent on Turkey and Iran, which now provide Qatar a lifeline, would be a net loss for Riyadh. Allowed to continue further, the Saudi-Qatar row could cement a Turkey-Iran axis, something that has already been evolving due to a common threat from the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and tactical collaboration with each other and Russia on the Syria negotiations in Astana, Kazakhstan. Having Turkey as a bridge between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been one healthy feature of an ailing region. Having Tehran and Ankara close ranks further is neither constructive for the region nor for Saudi Arabia. There is also a risk that Pakistan, which has walked a fine line in the Saudi dustup with Qatar, would be forced to take sides in a way that would not please Riyadh.

Also, the current Saudi path could disrupt and compromise the war against the Islamic State. Recent Islamic State attacks on Iran and an increased threat of attacks on Turkey in theory create a convergence of interests between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. But in the current environment of hostility, it appears that the Islamic State will remain everyones second most important enemy, with Tehran and Riyadh each seeing the other as the number-one threat to its own security. Given the need for a concerted effort to ensure that the Islamic State does not effectively regroup after the liberation of Mosul and Raqqa, and other like-minded groups dont fill these spaces, this is not good news for the region or the Saudis. The Islamic State and other jihadist organizations represent an insurgency against the Arab order, and their perpetuation will do more harm to the Arab heartland than to non-Arab countries like Iran and Turkey.

Last, Saudi actions are likely to strengthen the factions within the Iranian foreign policy establishment with the greatest capacity to exploit vulnerabilities in the Arab world. The Saudis are not wrong to be worried about an adventurist Iran, as Tehran is actively taking advantage of the hollowing out of the region, through activities in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Qasem Soleimani, head of Irans al-Quds force, is responsible for giving Iran strategic depth by exploiting power vacuums created by the Arab civil wars. Saudi hostility will likely strengthen voices like that of Soleimani, who advocates for a confrontational stance on Saudi Arabia, and dilute voices coming from the Foreign Ministry and presidents office less inclined to see the region in zero-sum terms.

If Saudi Arabia fails to deviate from its current path, it is likely to weaken its own regional position and strengthen Iran. Like it or not, the Middle East has moved from an Arab-centric to an Arab-Iranian-Turkish region. While trying to create countervailing power to Irans adventurism within this tripartite regional system is strategically sound, working to deprive Iran of regional influence will likely fail and weaken the Saudis. Instead, Riyadh should become a constructive partner for peace in the civil wars in Syria and Yemen, in effect shoring up its base in the Arab heartland. Continuing to fight a proxy war with Iran in Yemen is like shooting up your own house to try to save it. Only by working to heal the ideological, political, and military rifts in its own Arab ranks can Saudi Arabia feel secure of its position relative to Iran.

What the United States should be doing, in addition to supporting Saudi Arabias attempt to create a balance of power against Iran, is to encourage Riyadh to open a parallel diplomatic path with Tehran and try to resolve peacefully the row with Qatar. America should be bringing out the best, not the worst, strategic instincts of the Saudis by encouraging diplomacy. In the Middle East of today, containment of Iran blended with diplomacy, along with cooperation on behalf of bringing the corrosive civil wars to an end, is the only pathway out of the current regional morass.

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Excerpt from:
Saudi Arabia Is Weakening Itself and Strengthening Iran - Foreign Policy (blog)

By Ray Takeyh By Ray Takeyh July 5

Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In recent congressional testimony, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sensibly stressed that the United States should work towards support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. The commentariat was aghast, and the Islamic republic registered a formal protest note. Both parties seemed surprised that the United States has long assisted those seeking democratic change. During the Cold War, secretaries of state routinely assured those trapped behind the Iron Curtain that America supported their aspirations. Given that Iran is ruled by an aging Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the United States should be prepared for a transition of power there that may yet precipitate the collapse of the entire system.

In a region littered with failed states, Iran is often mischaracterized as an island of stability. The history of the Islamic republic, however, is a turbulent one, featuring a constant struggle between an authoritarian regime and restive population seeking democratic empowerment. When they first assumed power, the clerical oligarchs waged bloody street battles to repress other members of the revolutionary coalition who did not share their desire for a theocratic dictatorship. In the 1990s, they faced the rise of a reform movement that remains the most exhilarating attempt to harmonize religion and pluralism. The reformists spoke about reconsidering Khameneis absolutist pretensions and expanding civil society and critical media. The regime reacted with its usual mixture of terror and intimidation to eviscerate the movement. And then came the Green Revolt in summer 2009 that forever delegitimized the system and severed the bonds between state and society.

The one thing certain about Irans future is that another protest movement will rise at some point seeking to displace the regime.

Today, the Islamic republic lumbers on as the Soviet Union did during its last years. It professes an ideology that convinces no one. It commands security services that proved unreliable in the 2009 rebellion, causing the regime to deploy the Basij militias because many commanders of the Revolutionary Guards refused to shoot the protesters.

The seminaries in the shrine city of Qom appreciate the damage that the government of God has done to Islam as the mosques remain empty even during important religious commemorations. Young men dont wish to join the clergy, and women dont want to marry clerics. The system is engulfed by corruption, which is particularly problematic for a regime that bases its power on divine ordinance. And Iran just underwent a presidential election where the winner, Hassan Rouhani, promised freedoms he has no intention of delivering and further delegitimized the government by airing its dirty laundry on issues of craft and repression. Today, the Islamic republic will not be able to manage a succession to the post of the supreme leader as its factions are too divided and its public too disaffected.

The regime does, however, have one thing in its favor: its nuclear agreement with the international community (officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.) Historically, arms-control treaties have generated their own constituency. During the 1970s, at the height of U.S.-Soviet arms-control diplomacy, influential voices in the West did not want to pressure the Kremlin for fear that it would disrupt the agreements. The Islamic republic can count on similar forbearance from critical sectors of Washington. Many will feign concern about Irans terrorism or human rights abuses, but will rebuff attempts to impose truly crippling sanctions on Tehran. The legitimacy and longevity of the regime will not be questioned by those whose foremost priority is sustaining a deficient arms-control accord. And it was this sentiment that Tillerson challenged when he called for making common cause with those struggling for freedom inside Iran. The amorality of arms control has little room for such lofty and idealistic ambitions.

The task of a judicious U.S. government today is to plan for the probable outbreak of another protest movement or the sudden passing of Khamenei that could destabilize the system to the point of collapse. How can we further sow discord in Irans vicious factional politics? How can the United States weaken the regimes already unsteady security services? This will require not just draining the Islamic republics coffers but also finding ways to empower its domestic critics. The planning for all this must start today; once the crisis breaks out, it will be too late for America to be a player.

In March 1953, when Joseph Stalin died, President Dwight Eisenhower asked to see his governments studies about how to exploit the Soviet succession crisis. There were none. An exasperated Eisenhower exclaimed, For about seven years, ever since 1946, I know that everybody who should have been concerned with such things has been sounding off on what we should do when Stalin dies. Well he did and we want to see what bright ideas were in the files of this government, what plans were laid. What we found was that the result of seven years of yapping is exactly zero. We have no plan. For his part, Tillerson has established the guidepost that should direct U.S. foreign policy. The task for the administration now is to study ways that we can take advantage of Irans looming crisis to potentially displace one of Americas most entrenched adversaries.

Continue reading here:
It's time to prepare for Iran's political collapse - Washington Post

AT FIRST, Clay Jones was flattered. Then he learned more, and was repulsed.

Now, Jones, a self-syndicated political cartoonist based in Fredericksburg, Va., is declining the honor.

Jones discovered this week that a cartoon of his lampooning the president had been awarded a citation in the Trumpism Cartoon and Caricature Contest, as announced Monday by Irans House of Cartoon in Tehran. His cartoon spoofed Time magazines 2016 selection of Trump as person of the year by drawing a comparison to Hitler, whom Time named its man of the year in1938.

Joness issue with the competition is that he now believes it is anti-American and anti-free speech.

[House of Cartoon] may have good intentions, but I dont want to be associated with them, Jones tells The Posts Comic Riffs. It can be perceived as not just an anti-Trump contest, but anti-American. Im fine with criticizing America, or even our democratic allies criticizing America. But I dont want to join our enemies in doing so.

When he entered the contest several months ago via email, Jones says, he was unaware exactly who was organizing it, or that the group had held a Holocaust cartoon contest. He says he had received an invitation to enter via Facebook.

I have an issue with a contest sponsored by the government of Iran thats critical of free speech in the United States when they dont allow freedom of speech, or freedom for the press in their nation, Jones writes on his blog. I have an issue with a contest that was a wolf whistle for anti-Semitism.

Though the Trumpism contest wasnt about any of that, its not a party I would accept an invitation to. If the Ku Klux Klan held a cartoon contest on economics, I wouldnt want to enter, and I dont want to be involved with a group that engages in anti-Semitism, no matter how their denial may be worded.

Contest organizer Masuod Shojai Tabatabaei told the AP that the goal of the contest, as well as the exhibition of some of the entries, was to show wrong behaviors by Trump in the framework of satirical portraits. The contest chose honorees in the cartoon and caricature categories from among 1,600 artworks, organizers claimed. The winner in the cartoon category was Hadi Asadi of Iran, who received a $1,500 award. He told the Associated Press that he wanted his cartoon to point out President Trumps money-mindedness and war monger nature.

The honored contest entry by Ed Wexler, via Cagle Cartoons.

The other American honoree in the cartoon contest was Ed Wexler, who is syndicated by Cagle Cartoons, and who entered a cartoon of Trump running from Russia, in a visual reference to Indiana Jones. Syndicate head Daryl Cagle is critical of Irans House of Cartoon, as well as the Federation of Cartoonists Organizations (FECO) and its ties to the Holocaust-themed cartoon contest.

Those groups offer great prizes and five-star hotel trips to international cartoonists to build an image of legitimacy for their messages of hate, Cagle says, and they have been successful in dividing the international cartooning community, which led to France Cartoons and Britains PCO [Professional Cartoonists Organization] leaving FECO in protest of FECOs continuing embrace of FECO-Iran.

When Irans House of Cartoon was officially launched two decades ago, I was one of the organizers, says Washington-based cartoonist Nikahang Kowsar, and the first exhibition was for charity to support children with cancer.

Now, Kowsar who fled Iran after being jailed for his cartoons is critical of the House of Cartoon.

Its great to make fun of world leaders and collect masterpieces, but the question is: Why doesnt the Islamic regime let Iranian cartoonists draw caricatures and cartoons of ayatollahs, the Revolutionary Guards General [Qasem] Soleimani and all those leaders in charge of massacres and mass executions in the 1980s? Kowsar says.

It saddens me when artists participate in contests held by the ruthless regime just for prize money, Kowsar continues. Im angry seeing good Iranian artists turning into bait for the regimes propaganda. The organizers are calling the whole show The Art of Resistance. Resistance to what? To freedom of speech? To democratic values?

Imagine if a cartoonist inside Iran draws something about freedom of religion and criticizes the regime for murdering converts or Bahais, adds Kowsar, who is a board member of Cartoonist Rights Network International. The cartoonist will have no choice but to leave the country before facing the interrogator and tons of charges such as corruptor on earth. Ive received death threats for less than this.

The Trumpism contest has not responded to requests for comment.

As for Joness own participation, he writes: I do not want to be with any group that engages in hatred, no matter how much fun it is to mock Donald Trump. But its not about Donald Trump for me.

Read more:

The winning entry in Trump contest shows a drooling president wearing a jacket made of dollars

See more here:
Virginia cartoonist declines award from Iran's Trump cartoon contest - Washington Post