Page 268 – Nejat Society

Female victims of terrorism offer recommendations at UN Human Rights Council

The women victims of terrorism called for strengthening international cooperation to reduce the problems of women affected by terrorism in the world in the 36th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland.

Representatives of the Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism attended the 36th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council under the motto”Empowering Women Victims of Terrorism as a Necessity for the Future of Human Beings”, and offered recommendations to UN mandate holders, representatives of states, human rights activists, and other NGOs.

The Association proposed some projects to the UN mandate holders to strengthen the role of the UN in protecting women affected by terrorism and emphasized the implementation of such proposals which were welcomed by the UN officials.

ADVT delegate held a side-event on”Empowering Women Victims of Terrorism”attended by experts from Spain, Britain, Cameroon and Iran. They analyzed and explained the situation of women affected by terrorism in the world and offered solutions.

“International law is still incomplete when it comes to protecting these women. During war times, the protection granted by the Geneva Conventions isn’t enough. Besides, terrorism is becoming more complex, so the international community should have a more dynamic approach to women’s protection from terrorism,”one of the law professors said.

One of the prominent and impressive points raised at this side-event was the testimonies delivered by women victims of terrorism. One of the victims was Ms. Manijeh Safiyari who explained how she was affected by a terrorist act.

“I was a 17 year-old girl when I lost my right leg from up the knee in a bomb explosion by Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization in Tehran Bazaar. My mother who was with me was injured and is now disabled. At that age, while I had only one leg, I did my best to keep myself and my family calm and avoid isolation. I continued to study, started college and obtained a bachelor’s degree, and now I drive with the left foot and go swimming. I also participated in sports events in the fields of discus throw, weightlifting, archery and shooting with a pistol, and at last, I joined the darts tournament, and in all of these fields I received a national title and a lot of medals,”she said.

The session is now being held from 11 to 29 September for three weeks.

October 2, 2017 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Who is Maryam Rajavi?

Born in December 1953, Tehran, Maryam Qajar Azodanlu (later called Rajavi) was raised in a middle-class family. She joined the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/MEK/PMOI/the Cult of Rajavi) after her older sister was killed by the secret Police of the Shah.

Maryam Qajar Azodanlu served as an organizer of the anti-Shah student movement in Sharif University of Tehran –where she was studying Metallurgy– in the 1970s. She then became an official of the social section of the MKO, where she served until 1981. After the Iranian Revolution, Maryam was a parliamentary candidate in 1980 but she was not elected by the people.

Married to Mehdi Abrishamchi , one of the high-ranking members of the group, she had a baby girl when they fled Iran to join Massoud Rajavi in France.

In France, Maryam became the administrator of Massoud’s office. The close relationship between Maryam and Massoud in the office led to their dramatic marriage in 1985 immediately after she her divorce from Medi Abrishamchi. The marriage was celebrated as an ideological revolution in the history of the group. Maryam Rajavi was named the co-leader of the MKO.

1985, she became Joint-Leader of the PMOI and served in that capacity until 1989 when she became the Secretary General. The marriage signaled a turning point that changed the MKO from an armed political organization to the Cult of Rajavi.

Since then Maryam Rajavi was announces as the role model for all members of the group to leave their own family life and have Massoud in their minds as their only love. Maryam was a tool for Massoud to impose his cult-like practices such as forced divorce, mandatory celibacy and a large number of other violation of human rights against the rank and file in Iraq.

Maryam Rajavi was then selected as the so-called President elect of the NCR, for the transitional government after the so-called overthrow of the Islamic Republic. She is still enduring the title!

After the American invasion to Iraq, Maryam fled to France. Her headquarter in Auver sur d’oise in the suburb of Paris was raided by the French Police in June 2003. She was placed under arrest together with 160 of the group members and the assets of the MKO were frozen by the French judiciary. The Police seized millions of dollars from the group’s headquarters. The group was accused of preparing to commit or finance acts of terrorism and money laundering.

A dozen of brainwashed supporters of the Cult of Rajavi set themselves on fire to protest the arrest of Maryam. Two women were killed eventually. French Police released the cult leader to stop the horrible scenes of self-immolations in European capitals.

Maryam was the first assistant of her disappeared husband Massoud in his quest for sexual abuse of female members of their cult. She was charged with the responsibility of mental preparation of members of the group’s so-called Elite Council to get naked in front Massoud and consequently get in bed with him.

In July 2010, the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal issued an arrest warrant for 39 MEK members, including Rajavi, for crimes against humanity committed while suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq. According to the testimonies by former members of the group. Maryam told the MKO forces “Take the Kurds under your tanks, save the bullets for the Iranian soldiers.”

Also Read:

Maryam Rajavi’s background and experience

October 1, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Deconstructing Neoconservatives’ Manifesto for War With Iran

Ever since Donald Trump entered the presidential campaign of 2016, he has been attacking the July 2015 agreement that Iran signed with P5+1 – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany – officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Calling it”a horrible agreement;””the stupidest deal of all time,”and”the worst deal ever,”the President has been trying to find an excuse to take the United States out of the agreement. Finding such an excuse has not, however, been easy because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has continuously certified that Iran has abided by its obligations under the JCPOA, the most recent of which was announced on 31 August.

In search of an excuse for leaving the JCPOA, the Trump administration dispatched Nikki R. Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, Vienna, Austria, in order to convince the IAEA to demand inspecting Iran’s military sites. But, Yukiya Amano, Director-General of the IAEA, vigorously defended his agency’s work in Iran, declaring that,”The nuclear-related commitments undertaken by Iran under [the JCPOA] are being implemented. The verification regime in Iran is the most robust regime which currently exists. We have increased the inspection days in Iran, we have increased inspector numbers … and the number of images [taken from Iran’s nuclear sites] has increased. From a verification point of view, it is a clear and significant gain.”Haley then delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the same”think thank”that played a leading role in deceiving the American people to support the illegal invasion of Iraq, in which she laid out the Administration’s”arguments”for leaving the nuclear agreement. The speech, which was reminiscent of the arguments before invasion of Iraq in 2003, was replete with lies, exaggerations and innuendoes and outside the neoconservatives and Israel lobby convinced no one. Then, on 19 September the President went on ranting at the UN, calling the JCPOA”embarrassing”to the United States, and threatening to scuttle it.

But, the most comprehensive plan of action for leaving the JCPOA and eventually going to war with Iran was proposed by John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN and Assistant Secretary of State during the first term of President George W. Bush. For years Bolton has been advocating bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, either by Israel, the US, or both. He is also a lobbyist for Mujahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MEK, also known as MOK), an Iranian opposition group that for years was listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and is universally despised by the Iranian people for its collaboration with the regime of Saddam Hussein during Iran-Iraq war, and working with Israel to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. Bolton also has very cozy relations with anti-Muslim hate groups, which only goes to show the depth of the man’s mental state.

Bolton’s comprehensive plan of aggression (BCPOA) against Iran is built upon lies, exaggeration, warmongering, and twisting the truth. Let us consider the essence of his”arguments”one by one:

BCPOA: we must explain the grave threat to the US and our allies, particularly Israel.

What is the threat? Iran’s path to making nuclear bomb – if it ever wanted to, for which there was no evidence – has been blocked. Iran gave up over 13,000 of its centrifuges that were enriching uranium; it stopped enriching uranium at 19.75 percent altogether; it demolished its under-construction heavy water nuclear reactor in Arak; it put its heavy water plant under the IAEA supervision and inspection (even though it did not have to); it converted its uranium enrichment facility in Fordo, which had been built under a mountain and could not be bombed, to a research facility; it shipped out its 10 tons of enriched uranium, and it signed and implemented the Additional Protocol that has granted the IAEA access to any site in Iran that it deems necessary to inspect. Iran’s air force belongs to museums. Iran’s army is equipped with the 1970s and 1980s armaments, and this is while the US and its allies have sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf.

BCPOA: The JCPOA’s vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran’s direction; Iran’s significant violations and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally….. We can bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behavior around the world.

What is the imbalance? What has Iran gained in return for all of its aforementioned practical concessions? Congress has imposed new sanctions on Iran. The Trump administration has been actively discouraging the European Union from doing business with Iran, and the Treasury Department has been dragging its feet for issuing new license for US corporations to enter Iran market. All of these represent actual violations of US obligations toward the JCPOA. Major European banks are still reluctant to get involved with Iranian banks, and over two years after signing of the agreement, Iran has attracted only a small amount of foreign investment, much less than what the Rouhani administration had hoped for.

What are the ambiguous wordings of the JCPOA? The 159 page document covers every aspect of Iran’s nuclear program. Every word, every letter, and every comma in it was negotiated with much intensity. It is Bolton’s own claim that is vague and imprecise.

What are Iran’s”significant violations”? The IAEA has certified continuously Iran has abided by its obligations. Iran twice exceeded its limit on heavy water, but after the IAEA pointed them out, it quickly rectified the problem. Note also that, in the absence of a heavy water nuclear reactor, heavy water has no use. Once again, Bolton has resorted to exaggeration, at best, and outright lie, at worst.

And, what are Iran’s”increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally”? Bolton is silent, but he is presumably referring to Iran’s intervention in Iraq and Syria, and its alleged support of the Houthis in Yemen. It was the Iraqi government that asked Iran for help after Daesh (also known as the ISIS and ISIL) suddenly took over large part of its territory in June 2014. Moreover, the Shiite-led government in Baghdad came to power after US invasion of that nation. If it were not for Iran’s help, Baghdad would have fallen to Daesh in 2014. Iran (and Russia) should not have intervened in Syria, but after Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Turkey, not to mention the United States, first intervened in Syria, as acknowledged by Joe Biden in his speech at Harvard University, and by Hillary Clinton in her 17 August 2014 e-mail to her confidante John Podesta, who could blame Iran? Never mind that Iran and Syria have a mutual defense treaty. As for Yemen, all objective experts and analysts believe that Iran has not given any large-scale aid to the Houthis (it could not, anyway, given that Yemen has been blockaded by Saudi Arabia, the US, and their allies); that before Saudi Arabia began its war crimes in Yemen, Iran was not really interested in their small and poor nation, and that the Houthis are not Iran’s”puppets.”

BCPOA: unlike the JCPOA, the provisions of which shield Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons.

What”ongoing efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons?”This is an outrageous lie, given the aforementioned concessions by Iran, and the fact that even hardliners, such as Defense Secretary James Mattis, support JCPOA. Bolton is willing to fabricate any lie in order to make his point.

BCPOA: The Administration’s explanation in a”white paper”should stress the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect.

These are, once again, lies. Iran only had one heavy-water reactor under construction, but after signing JCPOA, it destroyed it. Iran can enrich uranium only at very low levels, 3-5 percent, which cannot be used for any bomb making activities. Iran is not allowed to operate its advanced centrifuges, but can only carry out limited research on their further developments.

BCPOA: Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.

It is not clear what type of inspection regime Bolton considers as”adequate.”Apparently, he wants to prove a negative, which means that every inch of Iran’s territory must be inspected. I suppose Bolton, who has no expertise or experience with inspecting a nuclear program, and is simply a lying propagandist for the US neocons, believes that he knows better than the IAEA to inspect Iran’s nuclear program.

Bolton’s reference to military sites is pure nonsense and hyperbole. The Additional Protocol stipulates that the IAEA can request access to such sites in order to resolve questions about undeclared nuclear materials and activities. However, the IAEA can only do so if it has credible evidence, which is currently nonexistent, and even then it is allowed only to carry out”location-specific environmental sampling”at or near the suspected sites. What Bolton wants is scrapping all international agreements, so that his thirst for war can be satisfied.

The JCPOA also has provisions regarding this issue. Section Q of Annex 1 of the JCPOA stipulates that if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or”activities inconsistent with the JCPOA”at undeclared sites, it can request access to such a site. Section T of the same Annex contains commitments regarding various activities relevant to developing a nuclear warhead. Thus, the IAEA can, in principle, demand access to any site where it suspects such activities may be going on. But, the demand for access must be based on credible evidence. The Trump administration has no such evidence, but Bolton and the Administration want to push for visits to military sites, not because there is any evidence justifying the demand, but rather to have Iran rightfully reject it, so that they can claim that Iran has”violated”its obligation, or that it has something to hide. The goal is to justify creating a new”reality,”as Bolton puts it, akin to what George W. Bush administration tried to do by creating its own nonexistent”reality.”

In his demand for inspecting Iran’s military sites, Bolton is supported by the usual suspects; the so-called experts, such as David Albright and his non-jihadi ISIS that has, nevertheless, been waging a jihad against Iran and its peaceful nuclear program. Albright, the expert of”last resort”for the neocons such as Bolton, together with his usual gang, issued a statement demanding the revival of an old issue that was resolved with the JCPOA, namely, visiting the Parchin site 35 km southeast of Tehran that has been producing conventional ammunition for Iran since 1930s.

After all of his lies, exaggerations, and fabricated stories, Bolton begins his BCPOA for abrogating the JCPOA. This part of his proposal is sheer fantasy. It is as if the world has forgotten about his lies and those of other neocons about Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. It is as if the world does not know that Bolton and his neocon comrades are ultimately responsible for the bloodshed and destruction in the Middle East, North Africa and Afghanistan that have been going on for over 16 years. His suggestions include explaining”why the deal is harmful to US national interests.”Never mind the interest of the rest of the world, the JCPOA is in true national interests of the US

In his fantasy world Bolton also believes that the US can fool the rest of the world. He states that if the US abrogates the JCPOA,”Iran is not likely to seek further negotiations once the JCPOA is abrogated, but the Administration may wish to consider rhetorically leaving that possibility open in order to demonstrate Iran’s actual underlying intention to develop deliverable nuclear weapons, an intention that has never flagged.”So, not only does Bolton, in his utter imbecility, believe that”rhetoric”alone would do the”trick;”he also wants to use it to demonstrate Iran’s intention to develop”deliverable nuclear weapons.”How the two are connected is beyond my comprehension.

As usual, Bolton also demonstrates his hatred of the UN and international treaties that has always been part of his thinking in fantasy land. As part of his fantasy proposal Bolton demands that”unilateral US sanctions should be imposed outside the framework of Security Council Resolution 2231 so that Iran’s defenders cannot water them down.”So, surprisingly, Bolton actually recognizes that Iran does have its own defenders, which goes against all of his rhetoric regarding building an international coalition against Iran. Over the past several days, France’s President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May, as well as Federica Mogherini, the European Union foreign policy chief, made it clear to President Trump that they vigorously support the JCPOA.

Bolton’s plan is also crude and cruel. He demands ending”all visas for Iranians, including so called”scholarly,”student, sports, or other exchanges.”As Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden admitted, it is Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunni Arab states of the Middle East that supported Daesh and other terrorist groups. Saudi Arabia citizens make up the second largest group among the Daesh terrorists; they constituted 40-45 percent of all foreign fighters that went to Iraq to fight with the U.S. forces after Iraq was occupied, and they are more likely than citizens of any other Muslim country to join the terrorist groups. 15 out of 19 terrorists that were responsible for the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 were Saudi citizens, and yet it is the Iranian people that should be punished.

Why do Bolton and the neoconservatives hate Iran so unabashedly? They have made it clear that they believe the US should rule the world. They disguise this wish under the term”US leadership.”To them, international treaties and organizations are useful only to the extent that they protect and advance what they consider as the US interests, which are almost never the true national interests of the United States. Bolton and the neoconservative have never seen a war that they have not liked it. They see Iran not as a threat to the national security of the United States – which Iran is not – but as an impediment to US imperial ambitions for completely dominating the Middle East and its natural resources. This, and only this, is the reason for the neoconservatives constantly trying to provoke a war with Iran.

Muhammad Sahimi is a professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. For the past two decades he has published extensively on Iran’s political developments and its nuclear program. He was a founding lead political analyst for the website PBS/Frontline: Tehran Bureau, and has also published extensively in major websites and print media. He is also the editor and publisher of Iran News and Middle East Reports and produces a weekly commentary for broadcasting that can be watched at http://www.ifttv.com/muhammad-sahimi.

by Muhammad Sahimi ,

September 27, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization members' families

Nejat members met the MKO hostage mother

Nejat Society members met the suffering, aged mother of Habibollah Qasemi . Habibollah is taken hostage by the Mujahedin-e Khalq Cult for many years.

The Nejat Society members showed the waiting mother, some new photos of Habibollah. Her eyes welled up with tears looking at her dear son’s photo.

September 26, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Don’t Let Trump Loose on Iran

Earlier this summer, the U.S. State Department released a long-anticipated retrospective volume of documents detailing the CIA-engineered coup that ousted Iran’s celebrated Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. The latest collection of memos and diplomatic cables chronicle “the use of covert operations by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations” to overthrow the popular prime minister — who successfully nationalized British oil assets in Iran — and restore the rule of a Western-friendly autocrat on the peacock throne in Tehran.

Nearly 65 years later, as historians and academics begin to sift through the updated records, the allure of regime change in Iran has not strayed far from the White House. Most recently, it has been reinvigorated by Donald Trump’s presidency.

Undermining the nuclear deal

President Donald Trump’s stated policy toward Iran has long been ambiguous and subject to platitudes and sudden shifts. On the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers — U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — Trump initially told Fox News that as a businessman, he likes “to honor deals,” but within months declared that his “number-one priority” would be to dismantle the “disastrous deal” with Tehran. Since his inauguration, Trump’s opposition to the accord — which prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in exchange for its reintegration into the global economy — has become a cornerstone of his time in office. But lost amid all the charged rhetoric, Trump has now twice certified Iran’s compliance with the agreement, just as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regularly has since the deal was implemented last year (most recently here). On the whole, while the Trump administration moved to put Iran’s government “on notice” shortly after taking office, the White House has since articulated little in the way of policy.

This lack of a comprehensive strategy is reportedly wreaking havoc within the administration. According to numerous news reports, Trump was reluctant to recertify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear accord in July despite the counsel of his senior advisers. “He had a bit of a meltdown,” one official said of Trump, when the president was forced to extend the deal for lack of a way out. Soon after, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump suggested that his administration was prepared to not recertify Iran’s compliance again in September. Instead, according to Foreign Policy magazine, the president has entrusted a unit of aides with conjuring up a case for America’s withdrawal from the agreement.

As demonstrated by his departure from the Paris climate accord, rails against trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and defunding of U.N. programs, Trump has disavowed the multilateral approach to addressing pressing international issues. In 2013, at the outset of the nuclear negotiations, President Barack Obama famously acknowledged “America’s role in overthrowing the Iranian government during the Cold War,” and sought to allay enduring fears by stating that his administration was “not seeking regime change” in Tehran. In 2015, after nearly two years of dogged diplomacy between several world powers and Iran, many viewed the announcement of the nuclear accord as an opportunity to begin a new chapter of relations between Tehran and many Western countries. But by repeatedly undermining the deal, akin to his campaign against the Affordable Care Act, a recalcitrant Trump is threatening to undo years of progress toward normalizing relations with Iran’s government. Such a move would signal a significant shift in policy toward Tehran, one that critics argue is geared toward confrontation and ultimately regime change.

Pressuring Tehran

As a citizen and then a candidate for office, Trump decried America’s historical role in overthrowing foreign governments and promoting democracy abroad. He routinely criticized the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in July, he shuttered a CIA program to arm and train anti-regime forces in Syria. In December, shortly after being elected president, Trump declared that his administration would “pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments.”

This has not been the case, however, when it comes to Tehran. Just days after Iran’s presidential elections in May, when nearly three-quarters of the electorate turned out to vote, Trump flew to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to instead call for Tehran’s isolation. In June, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson testified that the administration would look to support “elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.” That month, The New York Times reported that the CIA had assigned a new head of the agency’s Iran desk, signaling “a more muscular approach to covert operations” like the one that deposed Mossadegh. To top it off, important figures in the Trump campaign, including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, who have all reportedly vied for positions in the White House, have been parroting the agenda of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), a traitorous and illegitimate cult dedicated to overthrowing the government in Iran.

To be clear, none of this is taking place in a vacuum. Forces backed by both sides continue to battle in violent proxy wars across the Middle East. In recent months, there have been several skirmishes involving the American and Iranian navies in the Persian Gulf. Additionally, the Republican-dominated Congress in Washington has been particularly receptive to Trump’s aggressive posturing toward Iran, and voted last month to authorize additional sanctions on Tehran. Iran declared the sanctions a breach of the nuclear agreement and responded by test-firing a rocket into space.

This ongoing scenario of retaliatory measures could quickly escalate into a serious confrontation, particularly in the absence of a bilateral channel of talks established as a result of intense nuclear diplomacy. Various reports suggest that the White House is looking to provoke Tehran into withdrawing from the deal, perhaps by demanding access to sensitive military sites that Iran would almost certainly reject. By jeopardizing the nuclear deal, reinstating sanctions and rejecting diplomacy, Amir Handjani of the Atlantic Council contends that Trump “could force the Iranian leadership to believe that nuclear weapons are essential for their survival.”

One-man show

Unlike the early 1950s, however, when British interests aligned with Washington’s to make the coup of Mossadegh a reality, America is now alone is considering an alternative to Iran’s current government. The prevailing view among European leaders is that the nuclear accord offers an inclusive model of engagement that could further promote dialogue and help stabilize conflicts in the region. Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia have all heavily invested in Iran since last year, and in recent weeks, French President Emmanuel Macron has emerged as a key defender of the agreement. Earlier in August, Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief, attended the inauguration of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Tehran, where the incumbent called for the “mother of all negotiations, not the mother of all bombs.” Mogherini has long sought to safeguard the agreement from Trump’s onslaught. “There should be no doubt that the EU stands firmly by the deal, which is a multilateral endeavor,” she wrote in The Guardian this year, but it remains unclear exactly how far European leaders are willing to go to ensure the deal’s survival.

Even in Washington, where anti-Iran sentiments run high, the memories of the invasion of Iraq remain particularly potent. As two experts on regime change recently explain in the Washington Post, “the United States’ troubles in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are typical. Regime change often backfires. It does not improve relations. And it triggers civil wars that can draw the intervening nations into costly quagmires,” as illustrated by Trump’s recent decision to increase the U.S. military’s presence in Afghanistan.

Still, the president’s readiness to withdraw from the nuclear agreement has not wavered amid consultations with Washington’s military brass and key foreign policy advisers. Earlier in August, David S. Cohen, a former deputy director of the CIA, warned that despite “the aftermath of the episode regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” the White House may again attempt to politicize intelligence reports to support its belligerent policy toward Tehran. “If it’s politicized, that credibility and reliability is undermined,” he told CNN last week.

Ali Vaez, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, recently wrote in The New York Times that a decision by the Trump administration to “escalate regional tensions, deepen sectarian rifts, undermine the nuclear agreement, pursue regime change and eschew all diplomatic engagement would be a hazardous affair,” and risks “breeding another generation of enemies” in Iran.

In Trump’s provocative statements, many Iranians cannot help but recall 1953, when the U.S. and Britain moved to quell Iran’s budding democratic movement and laid the groundwork for revolution in 1979. As the White House prepares for a confrontation with Tehran, the international community would do well to look back to the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and restrain the Trump administration from igniting another futile conflict in the Middle East.

Sam Khanlari, theislamicmonthly,

September 26, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Delusion of the MKO: Regime Change by the people

United States involvement in regime change has entailed both overt and covert actions aimed at altering, replacing, or preserving foreign governments. Seemingly, regime change has been the cause not the consequence of a large number of wars. Regime change invasions have caused practically more death, destruction and suffering than the idiotic “war on terror”. Iranians inside and outside Iran hardly ever advocate for regime change witnessing the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. How could the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/MEK/PMOI/the Cult of Rajavi) claim that it is seeking “regime change by the people” rather than “regime change by war”?

In addition to the MKO, there are certain regime change activists in the US administration not in the people of Iran. Neo-cons like Senator John McCain who advocate for regime change wars in the Middle East are coincidently advocates of the MKO too. The investment of trillions of dollars and –countless lives– in a regime change invasion is the main strategy of money making for the US warmongers who are in bed with the MKO terrorist cult as well as the terrorists in Syria.

The best way for American warmongers to help end the violence is to stop deliberately arming these terrorist factions. However, terrorists such as the MKO have to maintain their survival by buying the support of such warmongers. Thus non-violent regime change by the side of the Western Neo-cons do not seem realistic. However, the MKO’s propaganda expert Ali Safavi claims, “Let’s wholeheartedly accept that a foreign military intervention is not the answer for Iran. It is the chants inside not the weapons outside that will make change happen”.

What is “the chant inside” that Ali Safavi is boastful about? Whether they are for the Islamic Republic or against it, Iranians do share one main idea about the MKO: They hate the MKO. Just one example of the demonstration of such hatred was the tweeter trend on the occasion of the group’s gathering in Paris a few months ago. Iranians contributed to #IranHatesMEK to debate those brainwashed or/and bribed authorities who had attended the event.

The MKO’s claim of representing the Iranian public opinion is so unrealistic that one may suggest that the group is not living on this planet. Is Ali Safavi so unaware of the aspirations of the Iranian public or is he just making efforts to run the group’s propaganda?

Definitely, Iran is almost the most stable country in the region. It enjoys a well-equipped military force and to tell the truth a large number of loyal soldiers. A war with Iran is very probably not a winning one for the West. That is why Israel has not tried to invade Iran yet–despite it really wants to.

Therefore, violent regime change does not seem to be an option for the West although Iran hawks constantly call for it. Non- violent regime change is not even an option; it is a delusion that only the MKO propaganda regime embraces.

By Mazda Parsi

September 25, 2017 0 comments

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 204

++ In Albania, former MEK members reacted to Maryam Rajavi’s promise to the UNHCR that she would reinstate payment of their refugee allowances to them. They say she is lying. “What she means is ‘do as I say’, and if you don’t she invents an excuse why you shouldn’t get paid. Such as, accusing you of talking to your mother and father and saying ‘therefore, you are an agent of the Iranian regime’ so I shouldn’t pay. This is how she keeps people trapped in the organisation. She uses every trick in the book. In some cases, she has said she will employ smugglers to take dissenting members to another country. It turns out they are not really smugglers. They sometimes just take the person down a back alley and beat them up really badly. Others, have been taken to neighbouring countries and handed over to the police who imprison them as illegal immigrants. All this is to prevent formers and dissident members from talking about conditions inside the MEK.”

++ World leaders listened open mouthed to Donald Trump’s speech to the UN. Afterwards, apart from Israeli PM Netanyahu, who indulged in a session of mutual praise with Trump, the only other person in the world who praised them both was Maryam Rajavi. Because of this she has made herself a laughing stock.

In English:

++ Nejat Society wrote a take-down of the MEK’s so-called election of a new Secretary General. “The approach adopted by the MKO in the so-called election is so ambiguous that no one can define the role of the elected secretary general and the differences between the authority of her and that of the disappeared leader Massoud Rajavi and even that of the alleged ‘president-elect’ Maryam Rajavi. The election is seemingly a performance of democracy rather than an authentic act of democracy in the cult of Rajavi.”

++ In an open letter addressed to Human Rights Watch and the ICRC, Sahar Family Foundation highlights the human rights abuses meted out to former members of the MEK in Albania. The letter accuses international humanitarian organisations of remaining silent over the MEK’s treatment of its members. “Today we learned that Maryam Rajavi has informed the UNHCR and some of the former members that they would start paying the allowances again according to their commitments. But the former members do not want their lives to be controlled and dictated by a destructive mind control cult which abuses the most basic human rights of its members. Such an arrangement allows the MEK to do and demand whatever they want and to hold the monthly allowances as ransom for these conditions. As an example, this cult coerces some of the former members to act against others and spy on them in order to get their own money.”

++ Juan Cole in Global Research asks, ‘What Will Iran Do if Trump Tears Up the Nuclear Agreement?’ Mentioning the MEK’s role in the affair Cole says “The cult, the Mojahedin-e Khalq or MEK, i.e the People’s Jihadis, is now pushing a line that something sinister is going on at the Parchin military base. The UN inspectors visited it in 2015 and are not interested in going there again. The Non-Proliferation Treaty excluded inspections of military facilities at US and USSR insistence, and the JCPOA followed that legal tradition. The MEK, which is a small terrorist organization that wants to overthrow the Iranian government in favor of its mixture of Shiite fundamentalism and Marxism, has some sort of shadowy and creepy relationship with AIPAC and the Israel lobbies. Giuliani regularly speaks for big bucks at their meetings. This sort of thing is much more suspicious than the Russian connection.”

++ Massoud and Anne Khodabandeh wrote an analysis in the Huffington Post of the ‘regime change platform’ espoused by Americans, Israelis and Saudi Arabians. The article concluded that support for the defunct MEK is evidence that nobody, not even Iran’s enemies, actually wants regime change. The reason? Iran is too strong, its military too advanced, and its civil population too stable to risk an even worse situation than pertains in Syria, Iraq, Libya etc.

++ Amirfarshad Ebrahimi has written a lengthy, detailed analysis of Half a Century with the MEK for the Global Institute of Democracy and Strategic Studies.

September 22, 2017

September 23, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Trump and Netanyahu ready united assault against Iran nuclear deal

The two are bound by their mutual loathing of Obama’s foreign policy deal, even as it sets them apart from other world leaders at the UN general assembly

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu will meet in New York on Monday, at the start of a week in which they intend to launch a concerted assault at the United Nations against the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

The US and Israeli leaders are expected to use their speeches to the UN general assembly on Tuesday to highlight the threat to Middle East stability and security represented by Tehran.

While anxiety about Iran’s expansive role in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon is widely shared, Trump and Netanyahu’s antipathy to the multilateral deal agreed in Vienna two years ago binds them together, even as it sets them apart from the overwhelming majority of other world leaders attending the annual UN summit.

Western allies in Europe – most notably the UK, France and Germany, co-signatories of the 2015 deal – remain committed to the agreement and have signalled they are willing to disagree sharply and openly with Trump on the issue.

Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN who made herself the principal channel for the president’s critique of the deal, has been a lonely voice against it on the Security Council.

The stance taken by Netanyahu and Trump has also set them apart from their most senior national security advisers.

On a visit to Buenos Aires on Tuesday, the Israeli prime minister declared: “Our position is straightforward. This is a bad deal. Either fix it – or cancel it.” Netanyahu is supported in that position by his defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, and the US ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer. But he is reportedly not backed by the Israeli defence and intelligence establishment, which believes Iran is abiding by the agreement and its strict limits on nuclear activities and stockpiles of fissile material.

“The nuclear agreement is a good example of the kind of solutions to which I aspired,” Carmi Gillon, a former chief of the internal security service Shin Bet, wrote in July. “It has neutralized a major threat to the world, while ensuring that the United States and its allies have the tools, the information and the leverage that they need to confront the Iranian danger and make the region, and the world, a safer place.”

Netanyahu’s view of Israeli security interests are markedly different, said Daniel Levy, head of the US Middle East Project.

“In line with Netanyahu’s perception of what serves Israel, his interest is in maintaining a strong American presence in the region including militarily and in a maximally adversarial US-Iran relationship,” Levy said. “Getting Trump to do his bidding on Iran also helps Netanyahu to present a domestic political image of being a winner.”

Trump has signalled his intention to withdraw certification of the Iran deal in a report the state department is due to submit to Congress by 15 October. Although that would not lead directly to the end of the agreement, it would open the door to new US sanctions which would represent a violation of the deal and trigger its unravelling.

Such a move is known to be opposed by both the secretaries of defense and state, James Mattis and Rex Tillerson. Both are generally hawkish on Iran but argue that the US should not provoke a new crisis – and possibly a nuclear arms race – in the Middle East in the midst of a tense nuclear and missile stand-off with North Korea.

The regional and global threat represented by Pyongyang’s rapidly accelerating nuclear weapons programme will be another theme of Trump’s first address to the UN. His administration has repeatedly threatened that it is ready to resort to military action if UN sanctions do not curb Iran’s missile and nuclear tests.

Global action to combat climate change will be a priority for many of the world leaders Trump will meet this week, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, who will have a bilateral meeting with the US president on Monday afternoon, after Netanyahu’s lunchtime session.

Trump – a climate sceptic – may not put much emphasis on the issue in his UN speech but Tillerson signalled on Sunday that the US may stay in the Paris climate change agreement if the right conditions can be negotiated.

If Trump’s vow to bail out of the Paris agreement is dropped it could redouble his resolve to dump the Iran nuclear deal, another Obama legacy. One of his avenues of attack, already outlined by Haley, will be to argue that the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is not being assertive enough in inspections of suspect military sites in Iran.

Netanyahu is likely to supply ammunition for that approach. Israeli officials told Haaretz the IAEA had been prevented by Tehran from visiting one site and had not asked to inspect others where suspected nuclear weapons research was going on, according to intelligence handed to the agency (presumably by Israel, though the report does not say that specifically).

The push for military base inspections, with its echoes of contentious UN meetings in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, is likely to meet stiff resistance in the security council. Even those capitals which might agree that the IAEA could be more assertive, point to the certain and tangible benefits of the Vienna deal, which has reduced the Iranian stockpile of low-enriched uranium by nearly 99%.

Analysis Volatile, thin-skinned, self-centered: Trump to meet his match in Netanyahu

The Israeli prime minister has echoed the US president’s view that there will be ‘no daylight’ between them on issues such as settlements and the Iran deal

Mattis, Tillerson and European US allies are reported to have suggested ways the US could take a tougher line with Iran in other arenas, like Yemen, Syria and Iraq, while staying in the nuclear deal.

However, Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, which advocates diplomacy and engagement with Tehran, says Trump is swayed by Netanyahu and the Saudi leadership, who oppose the nuclear deal, not primarily for nuclear-related reasons but because of the recognition it gives Iran’s role as a regional power-broker.

Barack Obama had an acrimonious relationship with the Israeli leader during his time in the White House.

“The perspective of those who didn’t like this deal, is that, at the end of the day, this deal is not just about the Iranian nuclear issue,” Parsi, the author of a book on the deal, Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy. “The most important thing is that beyond that, it ended three decades of American policy of containing Iran. It accepted than Iran is a major power in the region.”

Since making Riyadh the destination of his first foreign trip as president, Trump has stuck closely to Saudi side on its disputes with Iran and Qatar, to a degree that has frequently baffled some of his own advisers.

The president’s circle also includes several prominent US lobbyists for a violent Iranian opposition group, Mujahideen e-Khalq (MeK), including Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton and Elaine Chao, Trump’s transportation secretary.

Another driving motive appears to be a desire to undo as much of Obama’s presidential legacy as possible, at home and abroad.

“President Trump himself appears motivated to oppose reflexively nearly all of President Obama’s major agreements,” Nicholas Burns, a former undersecretary of state for political affairs. “That is a major mistake in judgement on his part.”

The desire to obliterate Obama’s mark on history may be something else that Trump and Netanyahu share. The Israeli leader had an acrimonious relationship with Obama, who successfully fended off Netanyahu’s bid to derail the Iran deal in the US Congress two years ago.

“What Netanyahu and Trump have in common, among other things, is their inability to accept criticism, their tendency to turn critics into enemies and their fervent wish to wipe the smile off what they see as Obama’s condescending face,” Israeli commentator Chemi Shalev, wrote in Haaretz on Sunday.

“This is the backdrop to the meeting in New York on Monday between Trump and Netanyahu, the two senior members of the Obama Victims Club, who are both seeking payback by trying to erase his signature foreign policy achievement.”

Julian Borger in New York, theguardian.com

September 23, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Half a century with MKO – Part II

Street assassinations in Tehran, Forough-e Javidan in Bagdad

During the 1980s, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran attempted bombing attacks and assassinations in the streets of Tehran and other cities in Iran; however, they practically continued their activities in Paris after the death of their military leader, Moussa Khyabani, in June 1981. In 1986, after the French government’s pressure, and not being accepted by any other European country, the MKO’s headquarters was moved from Paris to Baghdad.

Saddam Hussein, involved in a war with Iran at that time, welcomed Masoud Rajavi and ordered all the members of the organization to be stationed in Diyalah province, 80 kilometers from the borders of Iran. The camp was named after Ashraf Rabiei, Masoud Rajavi’s ex-wife, who was killed along with Moussa Khyabani and twenty other members of the MKO in an attack on Monday, February 8, 1982.

There is not much information about the way in which the MKO was living or managing in Ashraf. Most of the current information is based on the memoirs of members separated from the organization, or limited videos released by the organization about Ashraf Camp’s living style. In the videos released by the organization, the camp is introduced as a modern city campus with residential complexes, clean streets, educational and sports facilities, a museum, mosque, university and a graveyard.

A number of former members of the MKO, who escaped from the Ashraf Camp, talked about the commanders’ pressure on the members. They also talked about the lack of communication with outside the camp and not having access to telephone, mobile, Internet and media. They announced that they were only allowed to watch the organization’s TV. Additionally, they also admitted that exiting the camp was something costly and difficult.

Numerous detention centers, individual cells, interrogation rooms, as well as quarantine sections, were revealed when the Mujahedin was forced to leave Ashraf and the camp was eventually evacuated. Revealing such places in Ashraf Camp confirmed the former members’ claim about psychological stresses and physical torture on dissatisfied members and critics of the organization. 1

The Members of the organization arrived in Iraq in the 80’s and were organized in the “Liberation Army of Iran”. The actual number of the organization’s headquarters and camps in Iraq was announced at about sixteen. A number of them, which the MKO identified as official and independent bases, were basically inside the Iraqi military barracks and army camps. Except for the buildings in Baghdad, the rest of the camps and bases were on lands and areas belonging to the army or the presidential guard of Iraq. These sixteen bases were as follows:

Ashraf Camp (the headquarters of the organization): About 100 kilometers from the western borders of Iran and 100 kilometers from the north of Baghdad in Diyalah province and 40 kilometers from Khalis city; the camp was handed over to the Mujahedin by the Presidential Guard of Saddam in 1986. Other camps were: Anzali Camp, Alavi Foundation Base, Habib Base, Homayoun Base, Faizah Camp, Border Base (Persian, Hanif, Saeed Mohsen) Badia Camp, Jalula Camp, Debes Camp, Zakeri Camp, Khyabani and Zabeti Camp, Khaneqin Camp, and Jordan border headquarters. More than 15 bases were also announced by the organization as the urban headquarters.

Thus, with the financial and military support of the Iraqi Ba’ath regime, the small military units of the MKO were quickly organized and equipped. The organization claimed that thousands of Iranian armies were killed in 1982 and 1988 after the establishment of the National Liberation Army. MKO’s exaggerated statistics claim the death of thousands of fighters of the Islamic Republic of Iran in three operations of “Aftab, Chelcheraq, and Forouq-e Javidan”. In this regard, however, the two sides have undoubtedly presented exaggerated statistics; the more reliable sources in Iran estimates 1500 to 2000 Iranians killed in the last years of the war. The number of Mujahedin loss was announced as 2000 to 3000 killed. (2)

During the last days of the Iran-Iraq war, after the frequent defeat of Iran’s military forces, MKO, supported by Iraq, carried out two operations in mid-1988, named Aftab and Chelcheraq, seizing Mehran. The operations were preceded by the adoption of Resolution 598 and the announcement of a ceasefire between the Iraqi and Iranian forces. Following the adoption of Resolution 598, and prior to implementing the ceasefire, the organization launched its most extensive operation called Forough-e Javidan. MKO’s members were able to seize the cities of Ghasr-e Shirin, Sar Pol-e Zahab, West Karand and West Islamabad, moving toward Kermanshah; however, before arriving in Kermanshah and at Charzebar Camp, they were defeated as they encountered the Iranian forces’ strike, Mersad Operation, alongside the Iranian air strikes. Chasing the survived forces continued for a few days later. According to the Iranian government resources, more than 2,500 Mujahedin members were killed during the Mersad Operation. Mujahedin announced the number of 1,300 killed. The failure of the Forough-e Javidan operation was the end of the military operations of the “Liberation Army of Iran”, affiliated with MKO. Implementation of the cease-fire between Iran and Iraq, under the United Nations’ supervision on Saturday, August 20, 1988, banned Mojahedin from using Iraq to invade Iran.

Prior to the Forough-e Javidan operation, Mujahedin’s leaders gathered a large number of their supporters and beneficiaries from Europe to Iraq through a massive call without any prior notification about a military attack against Iran or any military training. They were sent to the Forough-e Javidan Operation with minor training in using Kalashnikovs.

The lack of military training, as well as the basic military equipment in a symmetric military warfare such as a tank, was the main reason for the operation’s failure. Most of the military equipment was wheeled Armored Personnel Carrier suitable for street battles and urban rebellion control.

Satisfied with the military equipment, air and ground support, and the endowed Iraqi forces, Masoud Rajavi presented delusional talks such as: “If you believe in strength, your power will increase metaphysically one and a half times”. On the night of the operation he said: (3) “based on the plans and the divisions, we will arrive in Tehran in 48 hours, and what we are going to do is something as powerful and unique as a superpower. Do not be afraid of the Nojheh Base. Iraqi fighter jets will be targeting Nojheh and Tabriz air bases every three hours. Iraqi Airline is our backbone. In addition to that, we have anti-aircraft and the Sam 7 missiles. The Iraqi airborne will be with our forces to Sar Pol-e Zahab, and all our combat vehicles will be arranged in columns.” (4)

He sent his troops all over to the abattoir within the next three days and, alongside Saddam in Persian Palace, he observed his mess. He named the failure the “organization’s insurance policy”, in order to escape from his dishonor. Concealing his accusations and mistakes, after a while, when his defeated troop returned from the operation, in a general meeting with the tired and defeated troops, Rajavi described the cause of the defeat as “the forces’ unwillingly fighting in the battle, thinking about women and life issues”; he considered these thoughts as the obstacles of effective combat and victory. In this scenario, those who had previously been brainwashed and forced to support Rajavi’s nonsense claims spoke out (5): “Yes, at the time of fighting in Chahar Zebar, and being involved in armed conflict, much of our minds were obsessed with women, life and our family issues; we did not think of leadership and victory, getting back alive for our desires was our preference.” Thus, Rajavi condemned the poor, captured soldiers for being ineffective and useless, establishing the belief of the founders’ mentally effeteness in an unbelievable act, so that the seat of the plaintiff and the accused was simply changed and the poured out blood was simply forgotten.

On the chart of the operation, the commander in chief was the lead and directed the operation through the authorities of the axis. Based on the importance of the mission, two or more brigades were assigned for each axis. The commanders and missions were as follows:

1-Mehdi Baraei, commander of the First Axis and responsible for conquering Islamabad.

2- Ibrahim Zakeri, commander of the Second Axis and responsible for the seizing of Bakhtaran.

3- Mahmoud Mahdavi, commander of the Third Axis and responsible for capturing Hamedan.

4- Mehdi Eftekhari, commander of the Fourth Axis and responsible for capturing Qazvin.

5-Mahmoud Ataee and his deputy, Hussein Abraisham Chi, commanders of the Fifth Axis and responsible for seizing Tehran.

In addition to the mentioned axis, Soraya Shahri was in charge of logistics; Mohammad Ali Jaberzadeh Ansari, Advertising Manager, Mohammad Seyed Al-Muhadethin, Chief Political Officer, and Shahrzad Haj Seyed Javadi, as the head of the office.

Mujahedin forces marched on 90 miles of Iran’s soil without any major obstacle. They had predicted that people would support them after seizing the area. Despite the prediction, the Kurds of the region, which had previously been repressed by Saddam Hussein, resisted them. The local resistance limited the speed of MKO’s military progress. Nevertheless, Rajavi forces were able to occupy and destroy the cities of Qasr-e Shirin, Sar Pol-e Zahab, West Karand, and West Islamabad, and marched quickly toward Kermanshah through the highway. (7)

On the other hand, the Islamic Republic launched the Mersad Operation and set off its troops against the Mujahedin forces. The operation lasted three days. On the first day, the goal was to block the invasion of the MKO; Air Force did not take part. At that time, the Nojheh Base was bombed, and the runway clearing operation took time; therefore, the Air Force commenced the operation with a one-day delay. On the second day, the Army’s movement was accompanied by the Air Force’s support. On the third day, Mujahedin’s units were completely destroyed. Forough-e Javidan’s failure broke the glory of Rajavi in a large number of the force’s mind and led to the collapse of the organization so that a large number of members and supporters left the organization.

One of the consequences of the operation was questioning the organization’s strategy, as well as Rajavi’s leadership. The organization had tested various strategies and programs since its establishment, especially after the Islamic Revolution’s victory. Starting the new phase, and the formation of the Liberation Army, all the various strategies were considered to be dismissed and the only way to fight and overthrow the regime was assumed through the armed battle and the modern warfare by the Liberation Army. The organization launched the operation and was defeated based on the idea of “Peace is Iran’s executing halter and they never go for it”. The Forough-e Javidan Operation was the end of the Liberation Army’s military movements at the borders of Iran. But more importantly, something happened on the members’ spirits in Ashraf to continue the psychological operations and brainwashing of MKO’s members.

As mentioned above, after the Forough-e Javidan Operation, a dispute on Rajavi’s competency started; however, Rajavi considered the dispute the main cause of the organization’s failure.

Returning from the operation, anyone who looked for their spouse was immediately marked as the “accuser” and was reminded that his spouse “belonged to the leadership” and they, therefore, had no right to enquire. Instead of questioning the leadership, the members of the organization ought to respond to the question why they were stuck behind the “mental trap of family” and could not take Maryam Mehr-e Taban of Freedom ( a title of Maryam Qajar Azdanlou, the wife of Masoud Rajavi) to Tehran.

another consequence of the operation was the condemnation of the organization and the Forough-e Javian operation by opposition groups. The majority of the opposition groups of the Islamic Republic, such as the Democratic Party of Kurdistan, the Left, and the Monarchists, considered the Forough Operation as a result of Rajavi’s illusions and fantasies; even the MKO was declared as the cause of unity in the Islamic Republic.

The other consequence of the Forough-e Javidan Operation was the massive loss of the operation. MKO officially confirmed 1304 killed and even published their photos and biographies. From a total of 51 executive boards of the organization (headquarters), at least 33 of them were involved in the operation, and 16 of them were killed. The total damage to the organization was 50 to 60 percent, and the total damage to the headquarters was approximately 30 percent. The number was in addition to the wounded and victims who were transported back.

Aims of attacking Iran

Establishing a “transitional Islamic Democratic Republic government” in Kermanshah after seizing the citybreakthrough the repression in Iran, signing a peace treaty with Iraq, seizing of Tehran and the abolition of the Islamic Republic of Iranwere the Mujahedin’s major goals of attacking Iran. On the other hand, Iranian military commanders gained comprehensive information about the axis and objectives of the operation and the number of involved forces. MKO reacted quickly by moving the units which had light and fast moving features. The forces controlled a number of mountains and intersections between Islamabad and Kermanshah and confronted the front lines of the Mujahedin. They were able to defeat the MKO’s forces and cut off their commuting routes in several roads when they were gearing up for the operation.

“The current strategy of the MKO and Iraq seems to be creating a free zone for Mujahedin so that the opposition organization of the Iranian regime will play a role in the final peace deal,” said Independent newspaper analyst Harvey Maurice, analyzing the goals and strategy of the MKO.

About one month prior to the joint operation of Iraq and Mujahedin, the Le Monde newspaper had stated that the “National Liberation Army of Iran” was an integral part of the military arrangement of the Iraqi army, and its military activity, without the permission of the Supreme Command of Iraq, could be impossible. In this regard, the Reuters news agency also quoted diplomats saying: “Given the peace talks at UN Headquarters in New York, diplomats suspect Baghdad using the National Liberation Army to maintain the military pressure on Tehran.”

The prompt destruction of the organization with such dimensions would be impossible except under the leadership of Masoud Rajavi.

The great lesson of history to the MKO and its leadership was that the outcome of implementing a misguided strategy by a leader, and his conspiring with a potential enemy of a nation, would bring nothing but disaster and extinction of the strategy.

[1] Ashraf Base Photographs by Bashgahe Khabarnegaran

2 Mujahedin Khalq Organization, Appearance to the End (1965-2005) Summary of the Three-volume Period, pp. 278 and 236-307

3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ8rgZ07SmA

4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtJOiHPfS50

5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuOtQtdnwVU

6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9gQMShE6hc

7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaaMtZlQKM4

GIDSS.com,By Amirfarshad Ebrahimi ,Photojournalist & Documentary producer

Half a century with MKO – Part1

September 21, 2017 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Half a Century with MKO – Part I

The People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MKO, MEK) is one of the Iranian political-military groups formed, in the mid-1960s, with the purpose of armed struggles against the Pahlavi regime. At that time, the organization was a political, radical Islamist group with a military structure.

Continuing its activities, the organization moved further away from the Islamic approach in 1978 and turned closer to Marxist trends instead. The above mentioned period, as well as the ideological gap within the organization, led many imprisoned members of the organization to split up. In addition, religious movements such as Islamic Coalition (Mo’talefeh-e Islami) and the clerics affected by Ayatollah Khomeini also stopped their support.

The Islamic Revolution in 1979 was a turning point for the organization, but the honeymoon did not last long since the MKO had taken the other way.

After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Mujahedin Organization of Iran considered itself the main pole and axis of the revolution. They believed that the ruling revolutionary forces were not able to lead the anti-imperialist struggle; therefore, people should only follow the MKO. Accordingly, based on occurring incidents and consecutive crises in the revolution, MKO insisted on continuing its monopoly jurisdiction, questioning other political currents while declaring its loyalty to Ayatollah Khomeini.

As an example of their various reactions toward the genuine stream of the Revolution, we can mention their non-returning of the weapons seized from bases during the revolution. They then started to set up an armed underground network, apparently to protect themselves; then training for guerrilla warfare in their safe houses was placed on their agenda.

Some of the most important attempts of the MKO’s opposition to the regime were their support for separatist revolts in Kurdistan, Turkmen Sahra and Gonbad, army disbandment plan, breach of the peace in the Assembly of Experts’ elections, and their non-participation in the constitutional referendum.

After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Mujahedin Organization of Iran considered itself the main pole and axis of the revolution

In spite of participating in the referendum in 1979, and voting in favor of the Islamic Republic, MKO did not attend the referendum on Islamic Law and denied it. However, they did not accept the Islamic Republic’s constitution; they were determined to attend the first presidential election.

Masoud Rajavi was nominated as a presidential candidate. The announcement of Rajavi’s nomination was confronted with opposition from various individuals and groups. Eventually, Ayatollah Khomeini, with a clear mandate, banned candidates who did not enact the referendum on the constitution. This was an explicit pretext, or order, for the newly established military institutions of the Islamic Revolution, such as the Revolutionary Guards and the Islamic Revolutionary Committees, to suppress the gatherings and meetings of the Mujahedin Organization.

Although the Mujahedin was suppressed and did not allow the taking part in the presidential elections, they were allowed to attend the elections for the first parliamentary term. In that election, none of their dozens of candidates, including Rajavi, was selected.

It is still unclear whether the Islamic Republic of Iran and its security institutions planned an engineering vote for the failure of the Mujahedin organization to enter the parliament, or if the society was strongly influenced by Ayatollah Khomeini not to vote for the candidates of the organization. But whatever was the cause, these two failures created another ground for victimization for their long-term organized disturbances in public and the terrorist activities of the organization. Eventually, in June 1981, Mujahedin and their loyal members raided the streets with all their military forces.

Since June 19, 1981, to the summer of 1982, MKO made every effort to overthrow the Islamic Republic’s regime through military actions, and assassinating the authorities of the regime; a set of actions that caused the heaviest damage to the Iranian government. Some of the most striking impacts of these actions were: “bringing a failure for the regime’s future” (eliminating the heirs of the revolution for the future of the Islamic regime), “breaching of the peace, security and the political stability of the country”, “stablishing the MKO’s military situation”, and “introducing themselves as the alternative for the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

At this point, after the departure of Rajavi and Bani-Sadr from Iran to Paris, the organization entered a military phase and carried out terrorist operations. At the same time, attempts were made to track the “failure future[1] for the regime” through operating terrorist activities inside the country, and assassinations of high ranking officials and influential Friday Imams.

The two major terrorist operations of this group were: bombing the Iranian prime minister’s building and the simultaneous assassination of the president and the prime minister on June 26, 1981, and bombing the Islamic Republic Party of Iran on August 29, 1981, which led to the martyrdom of 72 Islamic leaders such as Dr. Beheshti, some of the representatives of the Parliament, and some of the senior judges of the Supreme Court. In addition, the terrorist operations continued to the assassination of Mohammad Kachouei, the assassination of Friday Imams in various cities (assassination of Ayatollah Madani, Dast Ghegib, Sadoughi and Ashrafi Esfahani, and etc.), the assassination of Hasheminejad and Ayatollah Ali Ghodousi and so on.

The organization did not end up with terror and bombing attacks. In order to introduce themselves as an alternative for the Islamic Republic system of Iran, they gathered some overseas opposition groups against the Islamic Republic to expand political propaganda against the regime, setting up the National Council of Resistance in France.

Some other parties associated with the council, alongside the MKO, were: the Democratic Party of Kurdistan, the National Democratic Front of Iran, the Left United Council (Shora-ye Motahed-e Chap), the Organization of Associate Professors of Iranian Universities, Towhidi Merchants Guild, the Union of Freedom of Work, Aghameh Organization, and later, the Labor Party of Iran, the Labor Movement of Gilan and Mazandaran, and the Union of Iranian Communists (Sarbedaran). Considering the limited number of members of many of these organizations, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization had the role of Godfather for the council. The establishment of the council has been the only democratic exercise of the MKO over the past 50 years.

Since the organization’s method and policy were entirely monopolistic and dictatorial, all the political parties and groups opposing the Islamic Republic, which was attracted from all over the world, left the National Council of Resistance soon, one after another. At last, after only two years, it was just the MKO and the National Liberation Army remaining with the organization and the name “National Resistance Council” practically turned meaningless.

In the 1980s, the more the terrorist activities of the MKO increased, the more reason was there for the Islamic Republic’s military and security forces to crack down on them and other political opposition and critic groups against the Islamic Republic. It was assumed that the two sides had been involved in a marathon race of killing each other. For instance, according to Masoud Rajavi’s interview with an Arab-language publication, Al-Mosawar, the number of Iranian citizens who were killed by MKO was announced as more than 6,000 people since the entry of the organization until the end of 1983. Based on the organization’s sources, this number raises to 7,000 people, including those killed in Kurdistan and the borderlines. There were 1,200 attempts of operations and destructions in cities during the mentioned period.

Masoud Rajavi And Maryam Ghajar Azdanloo

On the other hand, unofficial statistics about killing detainees and suspects, as well as in street fighting and team houses by the Islamic Republic’s security and military forces, reached over 3,000 people. The MKO had moved to Iraq when Iran and Iraq were involved in a full-scale military battle.

Due to the pressures from the French government, and the rejection of other European countries, the People’s Mujahidin Organization of Iran moved its headquarter from Paris to Baghdad in 1986. Saddam Hussein, who was involved in a war with Iran at that time, welcomed Masoud Rajavi. All members of the organization were settled down at a location 80 miles from the Iranian borders, in Diyalah province.

The camp was named after Ashraf Rabiei, the first wife of Masoud Rajavi, who was killed along with Moussa Khiabani, the second-authority of the organization, and more than twenty other members in an attack to the team house of the Mujahidin Organization on February 8, 1982.

With the arrival of the Mujahedin to Ashraf, a complete quarantine of the members was carried out by the heads of the organization. In the videos of the MKO about life in the Ashraf Camp, the camp was introduced as a modern city campus with residential complexes, clean streets and educational facilities, with a museum, mosque, university and a graveyard.

A number of members of the MKO, who left or literally “escaped” from the Ashraf Camp, talked about the pressure of the commanders on the forces. They also admitted the lack of communication with outside of the base since they entered the camp, and the fact that they had been deprived from accessing telephone, mobile, internet and media, except the organization’s television, throughout their stay at the camp. They also called exiting the camp something costly and difficult.

At the end of the Iran-Iraq War, after the weaknesses and subsequent defeats of the Iranian armed forces, MKO, supported by the Iraqi Army, carried out two operations called Sunshine (Aftab) and Chandelier (Chelcheraq) in early 1988, which brought them some major successes such as the seizing of Mehran city.

Following the adoption of Resolution 598 by Iran, before the ceasefire was launched, the organization operated its most extensive attack called “Forough-e Javidan” against Iran. In this operation, the members of the MKO were able to quickly seize the cities of Qasr-e-Shirin, Sar Pol-e-Zahab, West Karand and West Islamabad, moving toward Kermanshah. However, before reaching Kermanshah, they encountered the Iranian forces’ attack at Charzebar Pass Camp and the Iranian Air strikes at the same time (called Mersad Operation) and were defeated.

Chasing the remained forces continued for a few days. According to Iranian government sources, more than 2,500 Mujahedin were killed during the Mersad Operation. MKO announced the number of 1,300 killed.

Failure of the Forough-e Javidan Operation was an end to the military operations of the “Military Liberation” affiliated to the MKO. In fact, with the implementation of the cease-fire between Iran and Iraq, under the supervision of the United Nations, on August 20, 1988, the use of Mujahedin from Iraqi territory to attack Iran was generally ruled out.

One of the most controversial issues regarding the presence of the MKO in Iraq is about their involvement with the Iraqi army in suppressing the Kurdish and Shiite forces after the First Persian Gulf War, which resulted in the death sentence for Saddam Hussein and Masoud Rajavi in courts. The former president, Saddam Hussein, was executed and Masoud Rajavi disappeared.

Appendix:

For further study on the MKO’s terrorist acts against the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Mohammad Sadegh Koushki, Assassins, Tehran, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Documentation Center, 2008, p. 403 – 331

Mohammad Sadegh Koushki, previous, p. 220

Mujahedin Khalgh Organization, The advent to the end (1965-2005), A summary of the Three-volume, p. 277

Interview with Ayatollah Mahdavi. The head of the time Islamic Revolutionary Committees with Qavamin Publication, June 1991

From start to the end, Revolutionary Guards War Research Center. Amir Farshad Ebrahimi. C 8, P. 164

In 1991, after coalition forces invaded Iraq, Kurds and Shiites rebelled against Saddam Hussein in the north and south of Iraq, which was repressed with much intensity. According to various statistics, 100 to 200 thousand people were killed and more than 2 million people were displaced in the crackdown.

Documentations and evidences about the MKO’s cooperation with Saddam’s regime in killing of Shiites have not been yet collected. For example, the prosecution of Saddam Hussein’s charges against him for the slaughter of Shiites in Dajail, occurred in 1982, was sentenced to death; however there is no evidence available that Saddam and Mujahedin collaborated with each other in other crimes against Shiites.

Iraqi Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Maryam Rajavi and 39 members of the MKO on the charges of crimes against humanity in July 2012, but in response to this ruling, MKO called the court”under the influence of the Maliki government”, the Iraqi prime minister, and the sentence as “a gift from the Iraqi government for Iran”.

GIDSS.com,By Amirfarshad Ebrahimi ,Photojournalist & Documentary producer

Half a century with MKO – Part II

September 20, 2017 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts