Thread by @Amotevalli

(1) Dear @ClaraJeffery, I recently read the «The Suspicious Twitter Network Trolling for Regime Change in Iran» article posted on your website, written by journalist @alibreland. I must admit that I was pretty boggled by the flawed and biased content of it. I will try to explain.

(2) Firstly, the journalist refers to MEK as «militant» and an «armed group», which is factually inaccurate. He also brings up the fact that they were on the State Department’s list of FTO’s, but leaves out an essential part, which is WHY they were designated..

(3) In 1997, after Mohammad Khatami was elected president of Iran, the Clinton admin sought to better the U.S. - Iran relationship, by offering a series of «goodwill gestures». The Mullahs were still unimpressed and declared in september 1997 that..

(4) .. America’s leaders were «not sincere in their stated desire to talk with us». Three weeks later the U.S. State Department designated MEK as a FTO. The day after the designation, a senior Clinton admi. official stated that the decision to place the MEK on the FTO list was..

(5) .. «intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected moderate president, Mohammad Khatami». Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk wrote in his memoir («Innocent Abroad»): «We hoped it [designating MEK] would be perceived in Tehran as a goodwill gesture».

(6) Later after many years, the State Department was unable to offer any sound legal arguments for keeping the MEK on the list, and was ordered by a U.S. court to de-list them, which they did, although years after Europe. An objective article would include these points as well.

(7) The group NIAC, which is painted as an innocent group «representing Iranians in the U.S.», is in fact not representing Iranians. Iranians mainly from the U.S., but also from Europe and Iran have all confronted NIAC because of their close ties to Iranian regime officials and..

(8) consider NIAC to be a lobby group for the regime, hiding under the guise of being «anti-war» and «pro-peace». Iranians from all around the world are sick and tired of this group and therefore started a campaign on twitter using the hashtag #NIACLobbies4Mullahs (240K+) tweets.

(9) As expected, NIAC employees started labeling anyone criticizing them as «bots», through presenting false and inaccurate analysis through their dear friend Mr. Geoff Golberg. The same Golberg that even included @SecPompeo & @realDonaldTrump in his list of «bots» (not kidding).

(10) Your journalist does also refer to an Al-Jazeera piece, where they have supposedly interviewed former «MEK members» (regime hirelings) who exposed MEK’s «troll operation». What he fails to mention is that MEK and NCRI debunked those allegations thoroughly and entirely.

(11) Oh and btw, the not-so-independent researcher Golberg has had his twitter account restricted several times because of harassing Iranian freedom activists, acting as a «troll» himself. But sadly, this fact is left out of the article..

(12) The journalist also writes that MEK and the coalition they are part of, NCRI, have been earning «allies in and close to the Trump administration..», but fails to mention that they in fact have broad bipartisan support within the U.S. political spectrum.

(13) I could mention a longer list of factual errors and reasons for why I believe the article was biased, but I think these will do. I find it worrisome that @MotherJones have given a platform to pro-regime Iranians while completely leaving out the opposite voices.

(14) Fact is that NIAC wasn’t a victim of a «Suspicious Twitter Network» made up by trolls, but rather real Iranians critical of an org. that pretends that it represents them, but does the complete opposite by siding with their oppressors.

(15) I also wonder why the journalist is so focused on bashing the MEK, when fact is that those Iranians who participated in the twitter campaign against NIAC were from all walks of life, with different political affiliations and goals, united in their hatred towards NIAC.

(16) It seems more like a cheap hit-piece done with bad intentions, rather than an article where the content is based on journalistic neutrality and journalistic ethics and principles, which is expected of @MotherJones and your journalists.

(17) The Iranian regime is feeling the heat, not only because of U.S. policy, but mainly because of the daily anti-government/regime #IranProtests that take place all over the country, and also the growing popularity of MEK. They have and will continue to..

(18) .. try to shift the media narrative by lies, distortions and old propaganda against their main opposition. What I kindly ask you is to make sure @MotherJones isn’t on board with it. The Iranian people have risen and won’t stop.

(19) They won’t stop resisting until they achieve their goal, which is a free, secular and democratic Iran. We want no foreign military intervention, but we also say no to appeasement. Yes to #IranRegimeChange by the people and for the people of Iran.

#Iran