Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
Nejat Society
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
© 2003 - 2024 NEJAT Society. nejatngo.org
Massoud Rajavi

MEK desperate to keep its members in Iraq

This week it has been revealed that Massoud Rajavi released an audio message during the month of Ramezan addressing his 3000+ followers.

Rajavi tells them ‘anyone who wants to leave can go to Hell, as I have no use for you. If I have one thousand loyal devotees I can do anything’.This week it has been revealed that Massoud Rajavi

 According to this proclamation, ‘the MEK will not pay a penny for anyone if they choose to leave Iraq’, (even though they worked for tens of years for him for nothing).

This speech comes in the context that Rajavi has made it almost impossible to get out of the camp and also that the MEK has shown itself desperate to hold on to the 100+ residents who the UN have already transferred to Albania.

The MEK have sent commanders from Iraq and Paris to offer them material help and other forms of support in order to keep control of them. It is clear from the reports of the refugees that the MEK is trying to recreate Camp Ashraf/Liberty in Albania.

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

August 17, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

Engaging with Iran’s New President

The confirmation of Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s sixth president on August 4 will provide an opportunity for renewed engagement between Western governments and the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, the background Another move could be to reclassify the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) as a terrorist organization.and character of Rouhani raises pertinent questions regarding the type of engagement that his election calls for.

Educated at both the hawza ‘ilmiya in Qom and Glasgow Caledonian University, Rouhani has had a blend of classical Islamic tutelage and worldly engagement. His background is quite conventional. Many religious scholars in Iran often pursue secular educations simultaneously with their religious studies. The notion that Iran’s politicians are either radicals or moderates is based on the incorrect assumption that there is no middle-way in Iranian politics. This assumption guides the equally misplaced notion that either Rouhani’s worldview is narrowed by a ‘conservative’ religious establishment, or that his secular education and his calls for increased civil-liberties make him more ‘liberal’.

Without categorizing Rouhani politically, the West needs to engage with his government based on its actions. In 2001, then US President George W Bush listed Iran as part of an ‘axis of evil’. Paradoxically, this was shortly after the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) took part in a joint operation with US forces in Afghanistan against the Taliban. The episode illustrates how large-scale gestures can go ignored and only with hindsight be fully recognized as significant. Similarly, former Iranian presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-97) and Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) both found themselves isolated internationally at crucial points of their tenures. Only later – and during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-13) – were they reputed in the West as relatively moderate leaders.

What gestures could Rouhani realistically make in the short-term? He could offer to share more information on Al-Qaeda operatives that are detained in the country – an area where there is already a solid foundation for enhanced cooperation. ‘Secularizing’ the Supreme Leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons proliferation and possession in ordinary legislation would also be significant. In return,

The policy of engaging Iran today consists of alleviating some sanctions in the event that Iran concedes completely on the nuclear issue, or increasing economic and political pressure. Maintaining the current course would allow Rouhani very little room to manoeuvre. If the US and EU engage with the next government on the premise that Rouhani will tolerate this status-quo, or will proactively seek to challenge the Supreme Leader’s authority, then the opportunity for engagement will be lost. Enthusiasm for Iran’s new government must therefore be tempered by a realistic assessment of the nature of political change in Iran: where Rouhani might attempt to build trust and how the West can respond. This is important for it might be some time before another ‘Rouhani’ emerges.

Rouhani’s background as a cleric and as the Supreme Leader’s confidant should not be misread as obstacles to change. Western governments should instead take full advantage of these facts: they now deal with a leader who understands their perspectives and is well placed to assure Ayatollah Khamenei that a nuclear deal is in the Islamic Republic’s best interest. Political change in Iran has always been a gradual project of negotiation and renegotiation under the ruling Islamic framework, and this applies to identifying ‘national security’ priorities. Change will happen in Iran, including in its conduct of diplomacy, but not necessarily in the linear fashion some expect.

For the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic, foreign officials – including heads of states – were invited as guests to the inauguration of the president. It might be that initial small steps – and the recognition that both sides will be taking them – will lead to a more comprehensive settlement between Iran and the West.

Friday 2 August 2013

by Sasan Aghlani, Research Assistant, International Security, chathamhouse.org

August 15, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

An Open Letter to President Obama and Secretary Kerry

An Open Letter to President Obama and Secretary Kerry: The Contradictory Foreign Policy Of The United States

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

The Honorable John Kerry

United States Secretary of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20520

Subject:  An Open Letter; The Contradictory Foreign Policy of  the United States after President Truman

Dear President Obama and Secretary Kerry:

I write to you as a staunch supporter of the President during his entire tenure. Although I was a Republican until earlier this year, I campaigned for the President in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC and contributed to the campaign the maximum allowed financial support by borrowing the money. I am still paying my loan acquired in 2007. Likewise, I actively supported re-election of the President for a second term.

This letter is intended to communicate several serious concerns shared by me, many of my family members, and several friends who are Iranian-Americans and Americans, and vote as Democrats, Independent, and Republicans. Most of my family and friends persistently have supported the President at the levels similar to me.

Recently, an Iranian Terrorist organization (Mojahedin-e-Khagh or MEK), extremely despised by Iranians, held a Conference in Paris on June 22nd in Villepinte, a suburb of Paris. The conference notable for its list of attendees included several so-claimed “defenders of democracy and freedom” such as now the infamous Mayor of San Diego, former Mayor of New York Rudi Giuliani, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations John Bolton. Most speakers apparently received substantial fees for travel and/or speaking at the Conference.

A friend of mine sent to me a 30-minute video tape (available on youtube), showing the speakers and short segments of the lectures. The subjects of these lectures were not related to the sanctions against Iran! They were linked to so-called President-Elect, Maryam Rajavi (born in Tehran on December 4, 1953) who heads the MEK group (also known by various other acronyms such as the NCRI) which was recently delisted  from the Foreign Terrorist Organization.

What mystifies me the most is the presence of an esteemed Kennedy family member Patrick Kennedy at the Conference? One would expect an “experienced politician“ to seek assistance from the State Department and FBI about a visit to Paris and the wisdom of presenting a lecture to a group dubbed as a “Cult” by the well-respected Human Rights Watch and until recently, branded as terrorists by our  government.

Certainly, the CIA knows the history of murders committed by MEK against the citizens of Iran and America. For example, MEK worked with Saddam’s military to aid him in pinpointing civilian (yes – civilian) targets allowing for Iraqis to dose Iran with chemical weapons (in  artillery and missiles)!

Inarguably, political activity is part and parcel of a healthy democracy such as what we have in the United States; however, surely it is the duty of every American to avoid actions that would lead America to war again and again. I must ask these American “amplifiers of brutality” if they truly consider themselves patriots. Frankly, I consider them turncoats. Is the Conflict of Interest concept passe or unsuitable for former government officials? Please make the judgment! I hope both the State and the Justice  Departments are looking into this situation.

I am sure you realize the challenges you face in negotiating with Iranian leadership to settle deep-rooted outstanding disputes in a peaceful manner. These discussions are vital in bringing a lasting peace and durable tranquility to several counties in Middle East. Granted the Americans may exercise their freedoms of speech and travel. Yet, the American “loudspeakers” at the MEK organized and funded gathering have certainly disregarded vital interests of the United States by their war-mongering lectures and by accepting free trips and hefty speaker’s imbursements from this terrorist group. Surely, acting against America’s national interest warrants  investigation and retribution.

This country cannot embark on serious diplomacy and dialogue with the rulers in Iran when such “prominent members” support a human rights violator and a terrorist organization that until September 2012 was considered a terrorist group (MEK was delisted in September 2012) by the United States. Importantly, such reckless actions by the US government, coupled with new sanctions passed in the House, effectively help the Supreme Leader to convince Iranians that America does not intend to bring the long-lasting disputes to a reasonable conclusion in a peaceful manner. Aside from the Iranian regime, the highly intelligent people of Iran will undoubtedly infer that the delisting of MEK was accomplished to allow America to use MEK as a puppet, to attack Iran, similar to Saddam. Certainly, this type of  diplomacy reduces or eliminates any chance of peace.

Let us be reasonable. How can America fight and eliminate terrorism in this country or abroad by maintaining two sets of standards? Think about it. Is this not outright duplicity? Traitors and terrorists are always turncoats and assassins irrespective of their boss! Wherevers the outlaws go they bring miseries.

The lessons of times past are prized but evidently unlearned. One thing is patent. We cannot free Middle East, particularly my Jewish and Palestinian sisters and brothers, from war and destitution unless we craft a fresh foreign policy based on mutual respects, honest  admirations for human rights, and a genuine interest in seeking peace.

I this respect, I recall the aspiration and prized words of a Founding Father, John Adams, to exemplify the principles of a sound policy both internally and abroad. He stated America must accept “the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings . . . Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers are. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own . . . “Clearly, this “divine concept” has not been followed by the majority of American  politicians, particularly after President Truman.

We wish you success in coming to solid agreement with the regime in Iran. Doing so will ultimately lead to a free Iran. The brave people of my birth land have civilization of 17,000 years. Importantly, they have repeatedly civilized barbarians. As I wrote to the President on October 16, 2011, only Iranians know how to ultimately deal with their tormentors.

Blessings.

Respectfully,

Akbar Montaser

Professor of Chemistry (1981-2012)

Department of Chemistry

The George Washington University

Washington, DC 20052

Amestp@aol.com

From The noble 13th century Persian Sufi poet Rumi:

“I go to a synagogue, church, and mosque, and I see the same spirit and the same altar”.

Akbar Montaser, Payvan

August 14, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MKO- Israeli mutual Services

The Mujahedin Khalq Organization and its propaganda arm, National Council of Resistance resorting to all means to convince their narrow-minded audience that “moderation in Iran is a mirage”. As a matter of fact the audience for the MKO mostly includes neo-conservative warmongers especially American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that has recently pushed a bill to impose more severe sanctions against Iran’s oil exports. AIPAC actually follows Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu who calls the Iran’s newly elected President Hassan Rouhani a” wolf in sheep’s clothing”. And MKO is completely in line with its western masters in their animosity against the Iranian nation.

Less than a month after the election of Dr. Hassan Rouhani as the Iranian president the MKO propaganda claimed evidence of what he called a hidden nuclear site under mountains near Tehran. The news was nothing except some satellite photos that did not attract much attention. The images did not appear to constitute hard evidence to support the assertion that it was a planned nuclear facility, according to Reuters.[1]  The group also claimed that the recently elected president Hassan Ruhani, a former nuclear negotiator, had a “key role “in the program on several occasions, reported the AFP.[2]

The MKO’s so-called revelations on the Iranian nuclear program go back to 2002, when they published information on Natanz Uranium facility. Their report was soon come out to be leaked to them by Israeli Intelligence sources. In 2004, the American prominent journalist Seymour Hersh reported that IAEA official had told him that the information on the Iranian nuclear site had come from Israeli Intelligence, Mossad.[3]

The long time cooperation between the MKO and Israel is not restricted to spying operations. The mutual advantage they grant each other also include the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Following the assassination of Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan Richard Silverstein cited from his “own confidential Israeli source” who confirmed that “the murder was the work of the Mossad and MEK – he had previously asserted that Israel was utilizing the MKO operatives for the killing of other Iranian scientists Majid Shahriari and Massoud Ali Mohammadi. [4] Also, Richard Engel and Robert Winderm of NBC Television quoted US officials that the attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.”[5]

The most recent account on MKO-Israeli connections – meanwhile the oldest link between them – was published by Gareth Porter, the investigative journalist at IPS (Inter Press Service). Porter reported last week that “Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman based his 2006 warrant for the arrest of top Iranian officials in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 on the claims of representatives of the armed Iranian opposition Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK).”[6]

Based on Porter’s investigations, "the document which is available in English for the first time shows that Nisman’s only sources to accuse Iranian officials of Argentine Israeli Mutual Association bombing were members of the MKO". He calls Nisman’s 900-page arrest warrant a “rambling”,” repetitious” report that cites statement of four members of the terrorist National Council of resistance (NCR).

While Nisman describes MKO agents’ testimonies as “completely truthful”, Porter dismisses MKO’s claims as traditionally false. “The record of MEK officials over the years, however has been of putting out one communiqué after another that contained information about alleged covert Iranian work on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons”, states Porter,” nearly all of which turned out to be false when they were investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).”

Denouncing Nisman as a pro-Israel figure who “has long been treated in pro-Israel, anti-Iran political circles as the authoritative source on the AMIA bombing case and the broader subject of Iran and terrorism” Porter concludes that he is indeed “playing a political role on behalf of certain powerful interests rather than uncovering the facts.”[7]

The above mentioned facts – that are probably a few of numerous secret ties between the MKO and Israel – demonstrate that mutual interests make mutual services. The ugly truth is that the Zionist – Mujahedin nasty alliance in spying and murdering would be called terrorism only if the targeted victims were western citizens.

By Mazda Parsi.

References:

[1] Reuters, Exiled dissidents claim Iran building new nuclear site, July11, 2013

[2] AFP, Iran exile group claims evidence of hidden nuclear site, July11, 2013

[3] Porter, Gareth, Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing relied on MEK, August7th, 2013

[4] Engel, Richard & Windrem, Robert, Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, US officials tell NBC News, February 9th, 2012

[5] Silverstein, Ricahrd, Israeli Source: Assassination of Iranian Nuclear Scientist Joint Mossad – MEK operation, Tikun Olam, January 10th, 2012

[6]Porter, Gareth, Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing relied on MEK, Inter Press Service, August 7th, 2013

[7] ibid

August 13, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
MEK Camp Ashraf

Committee to stop MKO illegal activities

Mayer of Khalis, Adnan Al Khadran said on Sunday that the 100 remaining Mojahedin Khalq are still refusing to go from the province.

They are bringing excuses such as "selling their belongings to the Iraqis" which by itself is against the law.

A committee has been created by the local government, United Nations and the members of the central government to stop this and end the presence of them. 

Iran Interlink based on Arabic media

August 13, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

MKO tries to make another Camp Ashraf in Albania

Shirin Moini was deceived into the MKO when she was 20 and an undergraduate student at Isfahan University. She then Shirin Moiniwas transferred to the Camp Ashraf and broke all family ties for 9 years without her family knowing where she was.

Last month Shirin; now a dissent member within the organization transferred to Albania and managed to provide a mobile phone and contact her family asking for help. She informed family of her intention of living an ordinary life in the free world and out of the MKO cult’s boundaries.  She had no access to the Internet and had no e-mail address.

Her contact with the family cut, after her secret relations with her family revealed to the cult officials. It is now for several weeks that her family has no news of Shirin.

Zanan Iran Association- female dispatched members of MKO – has announced a plea for help to free Mrs Shirin Moini from the MKO.

Her father Mohammad Moini and her sisters in Iran are asking for help to be able to meet her. Her cousin is Zahra Moini, now in Germany, who had been in the MEK herself.

August 12, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 14

++ Several people have continued to write about the resignation of Ghassim and Rowhani from the NCRI, concluding that the MEK’s reaction toward them and toward Esmael Yaghmai and Iraj Mesdaghi only proves what the ex-members have been saying for the past twenty years about the cult nature of the Mojahedin Khalq.

++ Ghorban Ali Hossein Nejad has written in Arabic to Dr Valid Saleh to explain to him who the MEK are. The MEK claimed Dr Saleh would attend their Villipinte ceremony in Paris in June. Dr Saleh replied to the letter thanking Hossein Nejad for the information provided. But saying that in reality he has no relation with the MEK and will never attend any of their programmes, meetings or ceremonies. He did, however, acknowledge that the MEK have tried through many channels to persuade him to participate in their meetings and that he has always clearly rejected them.

++ Tens of articles continue to be written about the Forough Javidan (Eternal Light) operation looking at it from different angles; many try to get into the head of a cult leader and examine why he would start such a thing. Many of those who actually participated say they had not choice but to go to war, there was nothing they could have done to resist or refuse.

++ This week’s guests on Mardom TV were Nasrin Ebrahimi from Setarehgan website in Switzerland who talked about the situation of women in the MEK camps and also about the prison, and Batul Soltani from Zanan Iran in Germany who introduced Mrs Zahra Moini to talk about her involvement in the MEK.

++ Mohammad B expands on the argument between Karim Ghassim and Mohammad Reza Rowhani and the MEK, basically saying they are right to say Rajavi is not against the Iranian regime and that ‘toppling the regime’ is just an excuse for him. Whoever Rajavi’s first enemy is, he says, it is not the regime.

++ In Iraq, Al Maliki’s advisor Ali Al Mousavi reiterated in a TV interview there is no alternative for the MEK except that Iraq throw them out and emphasised that all parties have signed up for this including the UN, and there is no going back. He said that although many western governments support this group, the bottom line is none of them want to accept them on their soil, but Iraq has no other way except expelling them.

++In the second and third parts of his interview with the Reporters’ Club in Tehran, Ebrahim Khodabandeh talked about Massoud Rajavi and says that contrary to rumours he is alive and is being protected by some powers. Khodabandeh also talked about Maryam Rajavi’s hypocrisy over issues like wearing Hijab and shaking hands with members of the opposite sex. He says that when she attended court in France she went without Hijab. He says that one of the reasons he is confident Massoud Rajavi is still alive is because from personal experience he knows Maryam Rajavi is next to useless and cannot take responsibility even for herself and is incapable of doing anything even though it is a cult.

++ Mohammad Karami has written about two more cases of suspicious deaths in the MEK. One was Karim Pedram whom he knew personally and the other was Massoumeh Gheibipour about whom he recounts from the memoirs of Batul Soltani. Both died suspiciously in the MEK.

++ Iraqi parliamentarian Mohammad Reza Al Khaffaaji from Al Ahrar faction was interviewed by Central Iraqi News Agency. He claims the MEK is one of most dangerous terrorist organisations in the world. Another MP, Qayda Kambash from Al Araghieh coalition, emphasised again that there is no alternative to the expulsion of the MEK from Iraq.

++The Diyali Province Chief of Police announced this week ‘we have received orders to forcefully evacuate Camp Ashraf of the remaining 100 people within the next two weeks if they don’t leave voluntarily’.

++ Mohammad Alavi from Aryia Iran published an article in response to Ted Poe’s claim that the MEK works for US Intelligence. The article is titled ‘Mojahedin Khalq – People’s Warriors or Jihadists for the Intelligence Services?’

++ Parts five and six of Hanif Heydar Nejat’s account of his own experience of Forough Javidan was published in Pejvak Iran.

++ Esmail Yaghmai has published one of the MEK’s own propaganda rants on his weblog under the title ‘Believe you me, members and supporters of the MEK are not sheep’. The article features a photo-shopped picture conflating himself, Iraj Mesdaghi , Massoud Khodabandeh and Sa’id Shahsavandi together claiming they are all agents of the regime and hinting that they are working together. Many experts believe that the next big fear of the MEK and Rajavi after the collapse from within that we are now witnessing is that these individuals start to talk and get together, so the MEK’s next tactic is to try to make them afraid of talking to one another.

++ In another article, Mohammad B, writes about the clear silence of NCRI member Hezarkhani. He says he has reliable information from inside Auvers sur Oise that he has been put under serious pressure to swear at those who have left but that up to now he has resisted doing so.

++ Zanan Iran has announced a plea for help to free Mrs Shirin Moini from the MEK. She is now in Albania. Her father Mohammad Moini and her sisters in Iran are asking for help to be able to meet her. Another sister Alnaz Moini has asked for help. Her cousin is Zahra Moini, now in Germany, who had been in the MEK herself.

++ Said Soltanpour from Kaanun Bayan in Canada held a video interview as part of the oral history of recent events in Iran. He interviewed ‘Siamak’, one of the commanders in Forough Javidan about how it started, how it proceeded and how it ended going through the various meetings, preparations and orders etc.

++ Mahnaz Ghezlou, who last week accused Rajavi of living in a dream and shaking hands with his own ignorance, has come under internet attack and was called ‘a mercenary of the regime’. One of those who attacked her is a notorious lumpen of the MEK called Mansour Ghadarkhah. Ghezlou writes ‘Mr Rajavi I am not a mercenary but Mansour Ghadarkhal is!’ Apparently Ghadarkhah had mistakenly sent an email to her which was intended for his commander in Paris who also has the name Mahnaz. The email lays out his expenses for his trip to Paris and his month’s salary for October which he asks Mahnaz Salimian, Secretary of the NCRI, to pay him. Ghezlou goes on to say that when she started with the MEK she was a girl in Tehran and that at that time the Hizbollahis would taunt them saying they only like the MEK because they fancied sleeping with Massoud Rajavi. Now it has been revealed that Rajavi really has been sleeping with many of the women in Camp Ashraf.

++ In Iraq the parliamentarian Mashregh Naaji from Al Ahrar gave an interview to Fars News in which he claims Iraq has overwhelming proof that the continued existence of MEK in Iraq is only due to the severe pressure on Iraq from America. He says however that ‘we have told them no and we will not give in and they must take them home. We have no intention of using our land against our neighbours any more.’

++ Rassoul Taghinejad has written his fourth letter to Massoud Rajavi asking to allow him meet his brother Rashid Taghinejad whom he has not seen for the last 33 years. The family are wondering, he says, why human rights organisations have gone mum over this and why the MEK won’t even answer him.

++ Mohammad Razaghi sent an open letter to the Prime Minister of Albania presenting some documents and witness statements that the MEK are now trying to create a replica of Camp Ashraf Albania. The letter warns that Albania’s humanitarian efforts should not be hijacked by a terrorist cult.

++ Mehdi Khoshhaal has started new series of articles in Fanous website. His first article goes through some famous quotes from Massoud Rajavi, one of which is, ‘at the end of a horse race they don’t ask the winner how he won’. Khoshhaal reminds us that this may be true, but at the end of the race they give the prize to the rider not to the horse.

++ Zahra Moini in the third part of her interview with Zanan Iran recounts the burning to death of Homa Bashar Doust. Along with a picture of Homa’s grave in Camp Ashraf, Moini claims that herself and everyone else had serious doubts about the cause of this fire, which apparently happened when some petrol caught fire as Homa was cleaning her weapon.

Iran Interlink, August 09 2013

August 11, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Former Terrorist Group Gets Into Lobbying

As conflict in the Middle East rages on, this week’s Economist called for the West to stop the rise of Iranian power in the wake of Hassan Rouhani’s election as president and worried that “the balance of power between Former Terrorist Group Gets Into LobbyingIran and the rest of the world has been shifting in Iran’s favour.” Another voice has long been calling for the West — the United States, in particular — to counter the Iranian government. The most visible Iranian exile group in Washington, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, was taken off the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2012 after a robust lobbying campaign and they’ve kept lobbying since shedding the label.

Members of the MEK call for regime change in Iran as “the only option” and see their leader, Maryam Rajavi, as the legitimate successor to the seat of power. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, have been especially receptive to these claims, and not without some convincing: the MEK has invested heavily in getting members of Congress to see things its way.

This should sound familiar. Ahmed Chalabi was the head of the Iraqi National Congress when he pushed for the U.S. government to depose Saddam Hussein in 2003. His group’s coordinated calls for regime change led to a fruitless pursuit for weapons of mass destruction and large-scale distraction from the concurrent war in Afghanistan. So when an Iranian opposition group purports to be the preeminent resistance-in-exile, worthy of the spoils in the scenario of the Iranian government’s downfall, regarding the group’s ambitions with suspicion is only prudent.

Especially when nobody knows where the MEK gets its money.

The MEK is the main branch of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which was founded in 1981 in Tehran, according to the NCRI’s website. Penetrating their records has proven difficult. A 14-page Christian Science Monitor report from 2011 provides the most detail about who pays for MEK’s events and campaigns, but even that reporting only shows that the funding comes from various shell organizations around the country. That hardly answers the question.

According to a form submitted in compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act in May, the NCRI is registered as a foreign principal under Rosemont Associates, LLC. That company is owned by Robert G. Torricelli, a former Democratic U.S. senator from New Jersey. A man who picked up the company phone on Thursday morning wasn’t keen on chatting, and a receptionist who answered another call later that afternoon said Torricelli wasn’t in.

According to his company’s FARA filing, the NCRI pays Torricelli $420,000 per year for his services, which include lobbying executive and legislative branch officials. They also gave him $34,975 in March for speeches he gave in Europe.

Torricelli’s not the only former U.S. official to receive huge sums in exchange for lobbying and speeches on MEK’s behalf. Indeed, lavish compensation was the backbone of MEK’s effort to get off the State Department’s terrorist watch list, according to the Monitor report.

So where does the group get all this money? On another FARA form, this one submitted in April, the NCRI says it is not financed or subsidized by a foreign government, foreign political party, or other foreign principal. And since the U.S. has certainly never engaged in, or heard of, providing covert funding to militant opposition groups abroad, it’s safe to take these documents at face value. (Not.)

Wherever the funding and organizing comes from, MEK advocates are making good use of it. Groups of lobbyists who hail from the MEK-affiliate groups roam the halls in groups and eat in the Rayburn cafeteria every day. A Democratic staffer whose office is in Rayburn said, “They are here constantly. I probably see them every day.”

In March, MEK advocates appeared at a photo exhibit in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill for women and girls in Afghanistan. They invited me to attend their then-upcoming Persian New Year celebration, which was set to take place in the same building a few days later. I didn’t go — but if I had, I’m sure the hors d’oeuvres would have been top-notch.

Julie Ershadi is a writer based on Washington, D.C.  Capitol image courtesy of Big Stock Photo.

by Julie Ershadi ,Americas Future

August 11, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing Relied on MEK

Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman based his 2006 warrant for the arrest of top Iranian officials in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 on the claims of representatives of the armed Iranian opposition Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK), the full text of the document reveals.Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing Relied on MEK

The central piece of evidence cited in Nisman’s original 900-page arrest warrant against seven senior Iranian leaders is an alleged Aug. 14, 1993 meeting of top Iranian leaders, including both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and then president Hashemi Rafsanjani, at which Nisman claims the official decision was made to go ahead with the planning of the bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA).

But the document, recently available in English for the first time, shows that his only sources for the claim were representatives of the MEK or People’s Mujahideen of Iran. The MEK has an unsavoury history of terrorist bombings against civilian targets in Iran, as well as of serving as an Iraq-based mercenary army for Saddam Hussein’s forces during the Iran-Iraq War.

The organisation was removed from the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist groups last year after a campaign by prominent former U.S. officials who had gotten large payments from pro-MEK groups and individuals to call for its “delisting”.

Nisman’s rambling and repetitious report cites statements by four members of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which is the political arm of the MEK, as the sources for the charge that Iran decided on the AMIA bombing in August 1993.

The primary source is Reza Zakeri Kouchaksaraee, president of the Security and Intelligence Committee of the NCRI. The report quotes Kouchaksaraee as testifying to an Argentine Oral Court in 2003, “The decision was made by the Supreme National Security Council at a meeting that was held on 14 August, 1993. This meeting lasted only two hours from 4:30 to 6:30 pm.”

Nisman also quotes Hadi Roshanravani, a member of the International Affairs Committee of the NCRI, who claimed to know the same exact starting time of the meeting – 4:30 pm – but gave the date as Aug. 12, 1993 rather than Aug. 14.

Roshanravani also claimed to know the precise agenda of the meeting. The NCRI official said that three subjects were discussed: “The progress and assessment of the Palestinian Council; the strategy of exporting fundamentalism throughout the world; and the future of Iraq.” Roshanravani said “the idea for an attack in Argentina” had been discussed “during the dialogue on the second point”.

The NCRI/MEK was claiming that the Rafsanjani government had decided on a terrorist bombing of a Jewish community centre in Argentina as part of a policy of “exporting fundamentalism throughout the world”.

But that MEK propaganda line about the Iranian regime was contradicted by the U.S. intelligence assessment at the time. In its National Intelligence Estimate 34-91 on Iranian foreign policy, completed on Oct. 17, 1991, U.S. intelligence concluded that Rafsanjani had been “gradually turning away from the revolutionary excesses of the past decade…toward more conventional behavior” since taking over as president in 1989.

Ali Reza Ahmadi and Hamid Reza Eshagi, identified as “defectors” who were affiliated with NCRI, offered further corroboration of the testimony by the leading NCRI officials. Ahmadi was said by Nisman to have worked as an Iranian foreign service officer from 1981 to 1985. Eshagi is not otherwise identified.

Nisman quotes Ahmadi and Eshagi, who made only joint statements, as saying, “It was during a meeting held at 4:30 pm in August 1993 that the Supreme National Security Council decided to carry out activities in Argentina.”

Nisman does not cite any non-MEK source as claiming such a meeting took place. He cites court testimony by Abolghassem Mesbahi, a “defector” who had not worked for the Iranian intelligence agency since 1985, according to his own account, but only to the effect that the Iranian government made the decision on AMIA sometime in 1993. Mesbahi offered no evidence to support the claim.

Nisman repeatedly cites the same four NCRI members to document the alleged participation of each of the seven senior Iranians for whom he requested arrest warrants. A review of the entire document shows that Kouchaksaraee is cited by Nisman 29 times, Roshanravani 16 times and Ahmadi and Eshagi 16 times, always together making the same statement for a total of 61 references to their testimony.

Nisman cited no evidence or reason to believe that any of the MEK members were in a position to have known about such a high-level Iranian meeting. Although MEK propaganda has long claimed access to secrets, their information has been at best from low-level functionaries in the regime.

In using the testimony of the most violent opponents of the Iranian regime to accuse the most senior Iranian officials of having decided on the AMIA terrorist bombing, Nisman sought to deny the obvious political aim of all MEK information output of building support in the United States and Europe for the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

“The fact that the individuals are opponents of the Iranian regime does not detract in the least from the significance of their statements,” Nisman declared.

In an effort to lend the group’s testimony credibility, Nisman described their statements as being made “with honesty and rigor in a manner that respects nuances and details while still maintaining a sense of the larger picture”.

The MEK witnesses, Nisman wrote, could be trusted as “completely truthful”.

The record of MEK officials over the years, however, has been one of putting out one communiqué after another that contained information about alleged covert Iranian work on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, nearly all of which turned out to be false when they were investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The only significant exception to the MEK’s overall record of false information on the Iranian nuclear programme was its discovery of Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility and its Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.

But even in that case, the MEK official who announced the Natanz discovery, U.S. representative Alireza Jafarzadeh, incorrectly identified it as a “fuel fabrication facility” rather than as an enrichment facility. He also said it was near completion, although it was actually several months from having the equipment necessary to begin enrichment.

Contrary to the MEK claims that it got the information on Natanz from sources in the Iranian government, moreover, the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh reported, a “senior IAEA official” told him in 2004 that Israeli intelligence had passed their satellite intelligence on Natanz to the MEK.

An adviser to Reza Pahlavi, the heir to the Shah, later told journalist Connie Bruck that the information about Natanz had come from “a friendly government”, which had provided it to both the Pahlavi organisation and the MEK.

Nisman has long been treated in pro-Israel, anti-Iran political circles as the authoritative source on the AMIA bombing case and the broader subject of Iran and terrorism. Last May, Nisman issued a new 500-page report accusing Iran of creating terrorist networks in the Western hemisphere that builds on his indictment of Iran for the 1994 bombing.

But Nisman’s readiness to base the crucial accusation against Iran in the AMIA case solely on MEK sources and his denial of their obvious unreliability highlights the fact that he has been playing a political role on behalf of certain powerful interests rather than uncovering the facts.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

IPS

August 8, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

Human Shields to Protect MKO

MKO leaders adopt inhuman approaches to use members as human shields

Reportedly, Qayda Kambash, an Iraqi parliamentarian, in her latest comment has remarked that “the reason of delay in expulsion of MKO members from Iraq is due to the pressure put by MKO leaders on the members.” She has further added that “MKO leaders’ fear of devastation of their group has led them to use Ashraf and Liberty residents as human shields to protect their own lives. That is why the group has resorted to lies, deception and suppression of own members.”

Ms. Kambash is not the first to make a comment about the inhuman approach by MKO to use members as human shields. Through any taken opportunity in the past, there has been an attempt by ex-members and other experts to tell the world of the concerns about the members not living but enslaved by MKO against their own will. Of course, the world couldn’t but they could easily see how the terrorist cult was exploiting insiders as human shields to safeguard its own entity rather than being the least concerned about the members themselves. At least through the past two years and since the implementation of decision by the Iraqi government to relocate members from Camp Ashraf, the Rajavies proved to be determined to preserve the insiders as human shields to construct a secure bulwark against a national and global decisiveness.

The transfer of the control of Camp Ashraf to Iraqi forces since 2008 and the Iraqi government’s determination to make a decisive decision about the residents of Ashraf enraged the group’s leaders and soon MKO propaganda machine initiated an intensive campaign against the Iraqi government. MKO’s first reaction was arranging a series of suicidal operations. On July 29, 2009 there was a report of deadly clashes between hundreds of Iraqi police forces and the members of MKO residing in Camp Ashraf that left 11 members dead and scores injured from the both side. While the reasons for the clash was said to be unclear at first, few knew that it was a pre-organized self-destruction plan by a number of Rajavi’s devotees to provoke Iraqi forces to trigger the clash that was well videotaped and broadcasted by the organization itself.

While the Iraqi forces and their commanders were still under the shock of the suicidal and violent behavior of the camp residents, MKO felt easy to feed its propaganda machine for months. Of course, soon the Iraqi authorities, not at first acquainted with the group’s self-destructive tactics, became more cautious to adopt appropriate methods when dealing with MKO. Despite all these efforts, MKO has been focusing on an interlocking violent-political campaign to draw attention of the international community through fraudulent claims and misinformation, most of which are distributed and circulated by the group’s paid or naïve political advocates. By rising tension at the residential camps against the Iraqi plans that are aimed at rightful measures to have more control over the camp, MKO leaders also intend to show a martyred image of the residents to question the legitimacy and capability of the Iraqi government in holding the control of Camp Liberty.

Accommodated with all the means of comfort and luxury in their residences in European countries, leaders claim to be making their best to protect the members in Iraq. But none of them feels any responsibility to explain why the cost of defending MKO is to be paid just by the rank and files. As evidences show, many MKO high-rankings can leave Iraq and reside in another country if necessary. In other words, they are not at all worried about their own future and thus, there is no need to risk their life and line as human shields in protection of the group in Iraq. The best means at hand at the present are the residents at Camp Liberty to be victimized as human-shields to bulwark Rajavi’s cult structure. However, as the international community is misinformed of what is really happening within the camp, comments made by personalities like Ms. Kambash can be trusted as evidences that MKO leaders are determined to use members residing at Camp Liberty as hostages and human shields just for organizational purposes.

August 7, 2013 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Recent Posts

  • National Pride of Iranians: Reject the Rajavis and their Patrons

    July 22, 2026
  • Italian legislators fooled by MEK’s polished presentations

    July 18, 2026
  • The Rhetorical Style and Polemical Language of the MEK

    July 15, 2026
  • Death of Lindsey Graham, notorious hardliner against Iran

    July 13, 2026
  • Nejat Society Albania’s 2026 Peace Delegation

    July 11, 2026
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Youtube

© 2003 - 2025 NEJAT Society . All Rights Reserved. NejatNGO.org


Back To Top
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip