The only reason that makes advocates line in support of MKO is money and nothing more

No doubt, the existing criminal and counter-terrorism laws are not adequate to sufficiently deal with the ever-rising sophistication of terrorism because terrorists are now widespread, well-networked, with support links all over the democratic societies. Majority of terrorist groups active in exile far from their home countries tend to exploit the very values of democracy in host countries and take advantage of unplugged loopholes to a surprising level. These terrorists or ideologically violence-oriented groups acting in democratic disguise especially take advantage of all kinds of freedom, namely expression, movement and association, available in democratic systems and the existence of free media that gives them the adequate publicity they need. And the only means that provides for these non-democratic groups to avail themselves of the advantageous potentialities is money, an abundant revenue of which never reduces and whose sources remain a secret.

Devoted to a long career of violent warfare to topple regimes in Iran, first the Pahlavi’s regime and then the succeeding Islamic Republic, Mojahedin Khalq Organization MKO/MEK/NCR declared an overt bloody war against the established Islamic Republic when the group was denied an undue claimed share in the new ruling institutions. In fact, MKO failed to win a public trust in parliamentary and presidential campaign. Instigating a wave of revolt throughout the country, MKO ended with a statement declaring an all-out war against the regime that disturbed the county with a nightmare of successive heinous terrorist operations that left thousands of civilians and official heads dead.

The flight of its leaders to Iraq and alliance with Saddam highlighted greater aspects of its bellicose, anti-national nature. The extensive collaboration with the Iraqi dictator is an undeniably recorded global fact. Even more, MKO was one among many pinpointed causes to justify the invasion of Iraq by America and its allies. Recognizing Saddam as a sponsor of terrorist groups and harboring them in Iraq, the White House in its statement Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism asserted that “Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians”.

Although now disarmed in Iraq, MKO’s terrorist potentiality has never diminished as its ideological mindset has never changed. Demonstrating a typical type of terrorism, MKO is in the best way taking, or maybe allowed to take, advantage of democratic capacities in democratic countries where it is active under multitudes of front organizations for undemocratic ends. Of course, it is hard to believe that MKO is much smarter than many of its advocates and advertised high profile supporters many of whom occupied key posts in the administrations that enlisted MKO as a terrorist group. Then, what is the cause behind their enthusiastic support for its removal? Either their conscience is bothering them for a past unjust decision or there is another reason.

Thanks to the big amount of money MKO pockets and spends, the both sides are satisfied to continue a close cooperation based on the opinion that “money is the sinew of love as well as war”. Then, the appropriate way to reach at a point of agreement is money regardless of its demoralizing effects. And the only reason that makes advocates line in support of MKO is money and nothing more. Majority of them are ex-politicians now turning into businessmen making big money out of their past career that makes no difference at the present.

When Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York City, for instance sits chatting and laughing with Maryam Rajavi, leading MKO in Europe, in fact he is playing the role of a businessman in charge of Giuliani Partners, a security consulting business, whose business philosophy is “dedicated to helping leaders solve critical strategic issues, accelerate growth, and enhance the reputation and brand of their organizations in the context of strongly held values”.

When acting in the position of a businessman, none of these ex-politicians likes to lose the opportunity of gaining the easy money, but as experienced men of politics majority of these advertised high profile supporters are aware of the fact that the group lacks the minimum democratic capacities it chants. As former politicians, they are sure that MKO would never put into practice a single democratic principle; practically it is proven by the way it treats its own members in Iraq.

Speaking in behalf of MKO at the Senate Kennedy Caucus room, in part of his remarks the retired Col. Wesley Martin, who headed the US antiterrorism force in Iraq and got to know the MKO as the first US commander in charge of Camp Ashraf, said that the residents of Camps Ashraf and Liberty “Only want two things as designated by President Franklin Roosevelt, they want freedom from want and they want freedom from fear. Is that too much to ask?” But he knows better than any military expert close to MKO that the two have always been the core of controversy in group’s inter-organizational relations; under the prevalent fearful atmosphere of a cult, the insiders have long been deprived of availing the minimum rights of expression, movement and association. What MKO has learned in the democratic world is to repeatedly chant democratic slogans, but it has never developed the capacity of practicing them.