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
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Ex-UN Inspector Questions Authenticity of MKO’s Claims

Western and UN experts are expressing increasing doubt about the claims raised by the anti-Iran terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, saying David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector and director of the Institute for Science and International Securitythat the MKO merely wants to serve the neoconservative hawks in Washington.

David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector and director of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington is one of them.

"I can no more trust their information," David Albright said.

"It is like a barrage they are throwing up, making all of these accusations. That highly enriched uranium came from Pakistan. That there are two enrichment projects that are active. That bomb designs came from AQ Khan. There is not a single bit of evidence that has been offered to back any of this," the website of the Habilian association quoted Albright as saying.

While the MKO provides a major share of the US and Western intelligence on Iran’s nuclear activities, Albright said that their claims now reflect "a political agenda."

Meantime, in his piece, Iran’s Nuclear Power Play, Dilip Hiro reveals how Tehran was able to secure nuclear, political and trade concessions from the Europeans in return for agreeing to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment.

Washington and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, while they have never presented any corroborative evidence to substantiate their allegations. Iran denies the charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Despite the rules enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entitling every member state, including Iran, to the right of uranium enrichment, Tehran is now under four rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West’s calls to give up its right of uranium enrichment.

Tehran has dismissed West’s demands as politically tainted and illogical, stressing that sanctions and pressures merely consolidate Iranians’ national resolve to continue the path.

August 15, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

US puts pressure on Iraqis to keep the MEK terrorist group

The presence of the MKO camp in Iraq and the consequences of their remaining are among the main topics discussed in Iraq ‘s political circles. The presence of the MKO camp in Iraq and the consequences of their remaining are among the main topics discussed in Iraq's political circles.

In a conference organized by the Iraqi Center for Media Development, a number of Iraqi officials and ordinary people came together in capital Baghdad to talk about the MKO presence in Iraq.
The attendees stated that the brutality of the MKO members against the Iraqis in the 1991remind them of the bloody era of the dictator Saddam which lasted more than thirty five years.

The organizers said that the Iraqi government has decided to give the MKO members six months time to leave the country.

Many others showed frustration toward the intervention of the US government in this issue, saying that the US forces are putting pressures on the Iraqi officials to keep the MKO in Iraq. They said the main motive is to use MKO to launch attacks against the neighboring country.

Political analyst say that the Iraqi government should take some serious steps toward the expulsion of the MKO.

The group is especially notorious in Iran for having sided with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

Wisam al-Bayati

August 14, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Texas Congressman Praises MEK Terrorists as ‘Freedom Fighters’

Rep. Poe Termed Cult’s Iraq Camp a ‘Bastion of Freedom’

Reports on the millions of dollars the terrorist organization the Mujahiden-e Khalq has spread around in an effort to buy its way off the State Department’s terror list have added to scrutiny of its paid advocates. They haven’t, however, slowed the flow of advocacy.

Fresh off of hawkish British MP David Amess lauding the group on TheHill.com yesterday, his US equivalent, Rep. Ted Poe (R – TX) is in TheHill.com today cheering the group as a ticket to regime change in Iran.

Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the Amess and Poe pieces are not their differences, but their massive similarities. Both seem to be working off the same script, using the same list of talking points. Both praise the group as the only “real” opposition in Iran, while lashing the existing political opposition movement and accusing all critics of the MeK of a “policy of appeasement.”

Poe’s slavishly pro-MeK comments go yet farther, however, as he praises the cultish Marxist-Islamist group as “freedom fighters” that deserve American support. It is unclear if either MP Amess or Rep. Poe are among the hundreds of top officials who have been paid for their endorsements, or if they simply see the MeK as the surest road to a US war with Iran, which both also support.

Poe, however, has a long history of shilling for the group, sponsoring the bill pushing their removal from the State Department’s list while terming Camp Ashraf, an MeK camp in Iraq left over from the long-standing support for Saddam Hussein, a “bastion of freedom” that the US had to protect from Iran’s “proxies in Iraq.”

The MeK’s history of terrorist attacks includes repeated attacks on US businessmen and military personnel in pre-revolution Iran, and the group was one of the founding members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” list when it was created by the US State Department in 1997. The group is typified by its harsh reaction to any criticism, and was reported by Human Rights Watch to have run a private system of detention centers inside Iraq to detain (and in many cases torture) dissident members.

by Jason Ditz

August 14, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

An Iranian Cult and Its American Friends

Elizabeth Rubin is a contributor to The New York Times Magazine, where her article "The Cult of Rajavi" appeared in July 2003.

A FEW weeks ago I received an e-mail from an acquaintance with the subject line: Have you seen the video everyone is talking about? I clicked play, and there was Howard Dean, on March 19 in Berlin, at his most impassioned, extolling the virtues of a woman named Maryam Rajavi and insisting that America should recognize her as the president of Iran.

Ms. Rajavi and her husband, Massoud, are the leaders of a militant Iranian opposition group called the Mujahedeen Khalq, or Warriors of God. The group’s forces have been based for the last 25 years in Iraq, where I visited them shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

Mr. Dean’s speech stunned me. But then came Rudolph W. Giuliani saying virtually the same thing. At a conference in Paris last December, an emotional Mr. Giuliani told Ms. Rajavi, "These are the most important yearnings of the human soul that you support, and for your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just simply a disgrace." I thought I was watching The Onion News Network. Did Mr. Giuliani know whom he was talking about?

Evidently not. In fact, an unlikely chorus of the group’s backers – some of whom have received speaking fees, others of whom are inspired by their conviction that the Iranian government must fall at any cost – have gathered around Mujahedeen Khalq at conferences in capitals across the globe.

This group of luminaries includes two former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, Gens. Hugh H. Shelton and Peter Pace; Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO commander; Gen. James L. Jones, who was President Obama’s national security adviser; Louis J. Freeh, the former F.B.I. director; the former intelligence officials Dennis C. Blair and Michael V. Hayden; the former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson; the former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former congressman who was co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

Indeed, the Rajavis and Mujahedeen Khalq are spending millions in an attempt to persuade the Obama administration, and in particular Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to take them off the national list of terrorist groups, where the group was listed in 1997. Delisting the group would enable it to lobby Congress for support in the same way that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 allowed the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi to do.

Mrs. Clinton should ignore their P.R. campaign. Mujahedeen Khalq is not only irrelevant to the cause of Iran’s democratic activists, but a totalitarian cult that will come back to haunt us.

When I arrived at Camp Ashraf, the base of the group’s operations, in April 2003, I thought I’d entered a fictional world of female worker bees. Everywhere I saw women dressed exactly alike, in khaki uniforms and mud-colored head scarves, driving back and forth in white pickup trucks, staring ahead in a daze as if they were working at a factory in Maoist China. I met dozens of young women buried in the mouths of tanks, busily tinkering with the engines. One by one, the girls bounded up to me and my two minders to recite their transformations from human beings to acolytes of Ms. Rajavi. One said she had been suicidal in Iran until she found Ms. Rajavi on the Internet.

At Camp Ashraf, 40 miles north of Baghdad, near the Iranian border, 3,400 members of the militant group reside in total isolation on a 14-square-mile tract of harsh desert land. Access to the Internet, phones and information about the outside world is prohibited. Posters of Ms. Rajavi and her smiling green eyes abound. Meanwhile, she lives in luxury in France; her husband has remained in hiding since the United States occupied Iraq in 2003.

During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the group served as Mr. Hussein’s own private militia opposing the theocratic government in Tehran. For two decades, he gave the group money, weapons, jeeps and military bases along the border with Iran. In return, the Rajavis pledged their fealty .

In 1991, when Mr. Hussein crushed a Shiite uprising in the south and attempted to carry out a genocide against the Kurds in the north, the Rajavis and their army joined his forces in mowing down fleeing Kurds.

Ms. Rajavi told her disciples, "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." Many followers escaped in disgust.

So the Rajavis then began preying on Iranian refugees and asylum seekers in Europe to fill their ranks. The Rajavis promise them salaries, marriage, family, freedom and a great cause – fighting the Iranian government. Then the unwitting youths arrive in Iraq.

What is most disturbing is how the group treats its members. After the Iran-Iraq war, Mr. Rajavi orchestrated an ill-planned offensive, deploying thousands of young men and women into Iran on a mass martyrdom operation. Instead of capturing Iran, as they believed they would, thousands of them were slaughtered, including parents, husbands and wives of those I met in Iraq in 2003.

After my visit, I met and spoke to men and women who had escaped from the group’s clutches. Many had to be deprogrammed. They recounted how people were locked up if they disagreed with the leadership or tried to escape; some were even killed.

Friendships and all emotional relationships are forbidden. From the time they are toddlers, boys and girls are not allowed to speak to each other. Each day at Camp Ashraf you had to report your dreams and thoughts.

If a man was turned on by the scent of a woman or a whiff of perfume, he had to confess. Members had to attend weekly ideological cleansings in which they publicly confessed their sexual desires. Members were even forced to divorce and take a vow of lifelong celibacy to ensure that all their energy and love would be directed toward Maryam and Massoud.

Mr. Hamilton and Generals Jones and Clark have been paid speakers’ fees by front groups for Mujahedeen Khalq and have spoken in support of the group in public conferences. They claimed ignorance of how the group treated its members.

"I don’t know a lot about the group," Mr. Hamilton told me over the phone last week. But in 1994, when he was chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Hamilton received a report describing the group as a violent cult with a distinct ideology synthesizing Marxism and messianic Shiism.

At a February conference in Paris, Mr. Dean praised the group’s extraordinary "bill of rights." And General Jones said to Ms. Rajavi: "It is time for those of us from the United States who have come to know and admire you and your colleagues and your goals to do what is required to recognize the legitimacy of your movement and your ideals." When I asked General Jones last week if he knew that some considered the group a totalitarian cult, he replied, "This is the first time I’ve heard anything about this."

He said he’d checked with military and F.B.I. officials. "I wanted to make sure we weren’t supporting a group that was doing nefarious things that I don’t know about," he said. "Nobody brought it up, so I didn’t know what questions to ask."

IN fact, a 2004 F.B.I. report on the group detailed a joint investigation by the American and German police, which revealed that the group’s cell in Cologne, Germany, had used money from a complex fraud scheme to buy military equipment. The group used children with multiple identities to claim multiple benefit checks from the German government. Evidence also showed that the group had obtained money in Los Angeles to purchase GPS units to increase the accuracy of planned mortar attacks on Tehran.

It is possible that such plots do not bother General Jones and other supporters of the group. But Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence. Its government wants the Mujahedeen Khalq out of the country by the end of the year. In April, Iraqi forces attacked Camp Ashraf. General Jones and other supporters of the group were outraged.

They are right that we should have compassion for those trapped inside the camp. A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group’s members there were being held against their will. If the group’s American cheerleaders cared for those at the camp half as much as they did for the Rajavis, they would be insisting on private Red Cross visits with each man and woman at Camp Ashraf.

American officials who support the group like to quote the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." By this logic, the group’s opposition to the Tehran theocracy justifies American backing. But there is another saying to consider: "The means are the ends."

By using the Mujahedeen Khalq to provoke Tehran, we will end up damaging our integrity and reputation, and weaken the legitimate democracy movement within Iran.

As a senior State Department official told me, "They are the best financed and organized, but they are so despised inside Iran that they have no traction." Iranian democracy activists say the group, if it had had the chance, could have become the Khmer Rouge of Iran.
"They are considered traitors and killers of Iranian kids," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the Mujahedeen Khalq’s status on the terrorist list is under review. "They are so unpopular that we think any gesture of support to them would disqualify and discredit us as being interested in democratic reform."

If the group is taken off the terrorist list, it will be able to freely lobby the American government under the guise of an Iranian democracy movement. Recent history has shown that the United States often ends up misguidedly supporting not only the wrong exile groups in the Middle East, but the least relevant ones. We cannot afford to be so naïve or misguided again.

By ELIZABETH RUBIN

August 14, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Scott Horton Interviews Philip Giraldi

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi discusses the MEK’s rightful place on the State Department’s (admittedly flawed and politicized) terrorism list; why a lack of determined opposition (unlike to, say, Jonathan Pollard’s pardon) will probably get the MEK what it wants; why Americans never seem to catch on even after being lied into war again and again; Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper empire that specializes in printing propaganda about Iran from Israeli and British intelligence agencies; and the best way to get a “Persian summer” after the Arab spring: leave Iran alone and stop giving the regime an external enemy to blame for its problems.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and executive director of the Council for the National Interest. He writes regularly for Antiwar.com.
Download Scott Horton Interviews Philip Giraldi

August 13, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Scott Horton and Trita Parsi discuss MKO terror group

Trita Parsi, founder and president of the National Iranian American Council, discusses the Mujahideen-e Khalq’s tendency to accuse their critics of working for the Iranian government; how constant US belligerence and the MEK’s violent radicalism serve as useful foils for the Iranian regime – discrediting dissidents and keeping the people in fear; how violent coups beget radical authoritarian governments, while nonviolent methods often deliver democratic results; the many former US officials now employed as well-paid lobbyists, working toward the MEK’s de-listing from the State Department’s terrorist group list; and the implausibility of a Hamas, al-Qaeda or Hezbollah fundraising and lobbying event on Capitol Hill (though they share the same terrorist designation as the Congress-friendly MEK and MEK’s loyal service to Saddam Hussein, helping put down the 1991 uprisings and acting as his shock troops throughout the 1990s.

Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, recipient of the Council on Foreign Relation’s 2008 Arthur Ross Silver Medallion and the 2010 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.

He wrote his Doctoral thesis on Israeli-Iranian relations under Professor Francis Fukuyama (and Drs. Zbigniew Brzezinski, R. K. Ramazani, Jakub Grygiel, Charles Doran) at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies while heading the largest Iranian-American organization in the US, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).
Download Scott Horton interviews Trita Parsi

August 13, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MEK;U.S. politicians’ favorite terrorist group

Given the supreme importance of the fight against terrorism and the terrible ramifications which ostensibly exist for providing material support to terrorists, it is puzzling to see prominent individuals within the U.S. political establishment openly lobbying for, and taking money from, an Iranian organization which is designated by the State Department as a terrorist group.

Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) is an organization with a history of violent terrorism against Americans and others, and was a key strategic asset of Saddam Hussein during his brutal crackdown on Iraqi Kurds in the early 90’s. Despite being implicated in the deaths of numerous American and Iranian civilians, (and being designated as a terrorist organization by countries around the world for its actions) U.S. political figures such as Ed Rendell, Andrew Card and John Bolton are openly advocating for MEK and are in many cases receiving significant sums of money for doing so.

Supporting designated terrorist organizations, especially in the context of the indefinitely ongoing War on Terror, is something for which a great number of individuals in the United States are currently serving lengthy prison sentences. It seems to defy logic then that members of MEK, a group which has attacked U.S. interests all over the world, are able to stroll the halls of Congress and exercise significant financial influence over U.S. government representatives in order to achieve their objectives. Make no mistake, the MEK is no less “terrorist” than any of the other groups for which one can go to jail for merely having contact with. In addition to openly acknowledging to have killed thousands of Iranians, MEK is directly implicated in the deaths of American civilians and military officials in Tehran during the 1970’s, killings for which no MEK member has ever been brought to justice. As recently as 2007 the State Department had this to say about the organization which currently enjoys the open support of so many prominent figures within the U.S. political establishment:

"MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond."
"MEK has also displayed cult-like characteristics…. members are also required to undertake a vow of "eternal divorce" and participate in weekly "ideological cleansings." Additionally, children are reportedly separated from parents at a young age. MEK leader Maryam Rajavi has established a "cult of personality."
"….. uses propaganda and terrorism to achieve its objectives and has been supported by reprehensible regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein."

Not only did they receive the support and patronage of Saddam Hussein; the MEK were instrumental in the massacre of the Iraqi citizens whom the United States purportedly fought the Iraq War to "liberate." MEK leader Maryam Rajavi had these words for her followers about how to deal with Iraqi Kurds during the 1991 crackdown: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards"; this is the same woman about whom Howard Dean said last March, "Madame Rajavi does not sound like a terrorist to me; she sounds like a president….We should be recognizing her as the president of Iran." The fact that U.S. officials are lobbying for the leader of a cult-like terrorist group with zero popular support in Iran to become the next president of that country should surely be filed for future reference under the heading, "Why Do They Hate Us."

That an organization which is acknowledged to be involved in terrorism enjoys the open support of so many prominent figures in the U.S. political establishment is a prime example of the fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of the War on Terror. The fact that many of these individuals are receiving significant financial compensation in return for their support of MEK’s agenda is even more egregious; try and imagine the reaction if a non-favored terrorist group were using cash contributions to openly lobby the support of American politicians for its objectives.

What the U.S. relationship with Mujahedin-e-Khalq does is further clarify the inherent meaningless of the designation of individuals or groups as being "terrorist." For their perpetration of deadly attacks against civilians and for their links to brutal regimes, MEK members could perhaps expect to be interned in Guantanamo Bay without due process; instead they are unabashedly lobbying for their cause in Washington and using large sums of money to exert influence over U.S. politicians. That these politicians are engaged in providing support for an FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization), an activity for which countless individuals have been interned, tortured and killed, further illustrates that "supporting terrorism" in today’s parlance simply refers to providing support to an organization which commits violence of which the U.S. does not approve. MEK’s actions undoubtedly fit the objective definition of terrorism and they have been recognized for decades as being terrorists, but since their violence is convenient for U.S. foreign policy hawks at present they avoid that dangerous label and are instead able to freely propagate their agenda in the United States without fear of retribution.

The fact that U.S. officials are openly consorting with, and receiving funding from, a group with American blood on its hands in order to promote that group’s interests is something which may escape the notice of its citizenry, but it is keenly watched by Iranians and others who are looking to the gauge the level of integrity and consistency in U.S. policy. The selective application of the label of “terrorist” based on who the U.S. is choosing to fight at any given point is further evidence of the bankruptcy of this term. "Terrorists" are those who are interred in CIA black sites, subject to legally sanctioned torture and killed without public outcry; but as the case of the MEK shows the very definition of who is a terrorist is based not upon what acts individuals or groups commit, but upon how favorably or unfavorably those acts are viewed in Washington. The level to which the term is demonstrably hollow and meaningless can be glimpsed here in the fact that U.S. officials themselves feel little reticence about openly engaging in an act which they condemn others for; providing material support to terrorist groups.

By Murtaza Hussain – Salon.com

August 13, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Inside Mujahidin-e Khalq’s Massive Lobbying Push

The Christian Science Monitor has an extensive article on the Mujahidin-e Khalq’s lobbying efforts. It reviews the terrorist group’s history and the debate over removing it from the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list, but it goes into much greater detail in describing how the MEK has been getting the support of many prominent American advocates. The most disturbing thing in the article is the claim that top national security officials wouldn’t have heard about the MEK prior to being approached by the group’s representatives:

“Top-level national security officials never heard about the MEK; it never rose to their level until now,” says another US official. “So when MEK representatives show them a political platform comprised of the ’15 greatest ideas of Western civilization,’ it looks pretty compelling.”

If you knew nothing about the group until now, and you were extremely gullible, I suppose it could be. Ignorance would help to account for why so many former officials and politicians would be willing to associate themselves with the cause of a terrorist group, but it is hardly reassuring that “top-level” national security officials are so ignorant of the recent history of Iran and Iraq that being approached by representatives of this group wouldn’t raise any red flags. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that these officials don’t understand the region’s politics and history very well, but that is just one more reason not to heed their recommendations on how to treat the MEK.

The article goes on to list quotes from Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean, and a number of former Bush administration officials, all of whom are on the record saying embarrassing things in praise of the MEK. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell may have qualified for the most egregious flattery when he said, “MEK is a force for good, and the best hope we have.” While these people may not be able to appreciate what this sounds like to most Iranians, having so many prominent national figures in the U.S. singing this group’s praises signals to Iranians that Americans see both the Iranian people and the regime as our enemy. If the State Department were so unwise as to remove the MEK from the FTO list, that would mark this administration as being more hostile towards Iran than the two administrations before it.

Confirming just how creepy the cult of personality built around Maryam Rajavi is, the article describes Camp Ashraf:

Her portrait – along with that of husband and co-leader Massoud Rajavi, who has been in hiding since 2003 – is as ubiquitous at Camp Ashraf as Saddam Hussein’s once was across Iraq, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s still is in Iran. Every day at the camp, the MEK motto is heard: “Iran is Rajavi, Rajavi is Iran. Iran is Maryam, Maryam is Iran.”

Obviously, a new totalitarian political cult is not what Iranians need or want. The group has eagerly started saying all of the right things about democracy, but the group’s organization and practices show that it has no values in common with the Iranian opposition or with the United States. In the past, the State Department has understood this:

A US State Dept. report in 1994 dismissed MEK efforts to reinvent itself. Noting the MEK’s “dedication to armed struggle”; the “fact that they deny or distort sections of their history, such as the use of violence”; the “dictatorial methods” of their leadership; and the “cult-like behavior of its members,” the State Dept. concluded that the MEK’s “29-year record of behavior does not substantiate its capability or intention to be democratic.”

Nothing about the MEK has changed in the last seventeen years, except that it has become more adept at getting Americans opposed to the Iranian government to work on its behalf. As Trita Parsi explains, the only thing that has made the decision to keep the MEK on the list remotely controversial is that the group’s lobbying is much greater this time around:

The momentum to remove the terrorist status “is all about [the MEK’s] ability to muster a political lobbying campaign,” says Parsi. If the decision were based on “the merits of the case, this would be as uncontroversial as the four times that the Bush administration re-listed them. Four times. No controversy.”

Put another way, not even the Bush administration was willing to accept the MEK’s reinvention, and they were hardly interested in fostering good relations with Tehran. The Obama administration should likewise reject the appeals of these paid advocates for a terrorist group.

Daniel Larison

August 10, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MEK Threatens Antiwar Radio Guest

So say the Mujahedeen e-Khalq terrorists in the comment section below my recent interview of Huffington Post writer Shawn Amoei. They’re angry with him for having the temerity to say that they are the enemies of Iranian reformers and friends of the Israelis and Americans who want war with Iran. And that they are terrorists.

At least they only threatened to sue me. Not that I would mind making the case in court for what commie-murderer-cultist former puppets of the Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Donald Rumsfeld, disgraced neocons and the Israeli Mossad they are — or what a pathetic pile of lies their K-Street front, the NCRI, is constantly pushing about Iran’s nuclear program — not at all.

But fair warning. I’ll counter-sue for court costs. And will win. And will have fun humiliating you.
Herr Hillary, of course, is planning to de-list the MEK from the State Department’s list of officially designated terrorist organizations.

Speaking of which, here’s a nice little summary of the MEK’s crimes by the U.S. State Department:

“The group’s worldwide campaign against the Iranian government uses propaganda and terrorism to achieve its objectives and has been supported by reprehensible regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein. During the 1970s, the MEK assassinated several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the violent takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Despite U.S. efforts, MEK members have never been brought to justice for the group’s role in these illegal acts.

“In 1981, MEK leadership attempted to overthrow the newly installed Islamic regime; Iranian security forces subsequently initiated a crackdown on the group. The MEK instigated a bombing campaign, including an attack against the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Prime Minister’s office, which killed some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. These attacks resulted in a popular uprising against the MEK and an expanded Iranian government crackdown which forced MEK leaders to flee to France. For five years, the MEK continued to wage its terrorist campaign from its Paris headquarters. Expelled by France in 1986, MEK leaders turned to Saddam Hussein’s regime for basing, financial support, and training. Near the end of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Baghdad armed the MEK with heavy military equipment and deployed thousands of MEK fighters in suicidal, mass wave attacks against Iranian forces.

“The MEK’s relationship with the former Iraqi regime continued through the 1990s. In 1991, the group reportedly assisted in the Iraqi Republican Guard’s bloody crackdown on Iraqi Shia and Kurds who rose up against Saddam Hussein’s regime; press reports cite MEK leader Maryam Rajavi encouraging MEK members to ‘take the Kurds under your tanks.’”

And I don’t know what they’re saying here, but the MEK’s former cult leader (it’s now run by his widow, the cult leader runner-up) looks like he had a much warmer thing going with Saddam Hussein, that great ally of the Iranian people, than even Rumsfeld had back in their mutual good old days:

Scott Horton

August 10, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
MEK Camp Ashraf

What to do about Camp Ashraf

Any day now the U.S Department of State will announce whether or not it will remove the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from its Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. Well-funded and mostly unmonitored lobbying activities led to the group’s delisting in the EU and UK and now leader What to do about Camp AshrafMaryam Rajavi (her husband Masoud Rajavi mysteriously disappeared in 2003) is standing outside the U.S.’s door. (I examine the group and some of its U.S. supporters in Al Jazeera English.)

Some Washington-based US-Iran analysts argue that the Obama Administration views the MEK as an annoyance and is dragging its feet on the decision to delist or not because of the human rights concerns at Camp Ashraf. The 3,000+ inhabitants there face a serious threat by the Iraqi government which has carried out deadly raids against them. But Rajavi refuses to allow human rights organizations full access to the inhabitants so they can assess the situation clearly. She also won’t allow the members to accept refugee status so they can be relocated elsewhere. Once armed to the teeth by Saddam Hussein’s regime, the inhabitants are now living in a country that does not want them, near the border of a government that they have been at war with for most of their existence. They are in a political no man’s land, but as I argue in my article, to conflate this issue with the decidedly political question of delisting may only exacerbate the already fragile US-Iran relations.

After reading reports by Human Rights Watch, the RAND Corporation and conducting an interview with a former member, there is no doubt that this group operates as a cult and that many of the Ashraf inhabitants want to leave. (Also see this 2007 documentary by Maziar Bahari). It is also undeniable that the Rajavis will do anything to maintain their power and funding sources (which are unknown) and go to extremes to reach their goal. Now more than ever human rights groups need access to the people there and I sincerely hope they will help them reunite with their families which they were forced to give up.

But according to veteran U.S. diplomat Ambassador John W. Limbert who has years of experience with Iran, the solution to the human rights issues at Camp Ashraf is clear and is only complicated because of broken US-Iran relations:

…Perhaps 90-95 percent of Camp Ashraf residents could return to Iran under International Red Cross supervision, abandon their MEK activity, and benefit from an amnesty that, by all accounts, the Tehran authorities have respected for earlier returnees. Once that group has left Iraq, those hard-core members remaining–perhaps fewer than 50–would be a very different and much more manageable problem.

Except for the MEK’s hired mouthpieces, everyone can see this obvious solution that removes a major irritant to all parties. Once again, however, the two sides’ historic inability to “get to yes” at the same time has played havoc with rational policy. The crux of the problem is this: any deal one side accepts or proposes is, by definition, seen as bad for the other. Each is convinced that the other’s purpose in life is to annoy and mislead “our side”. Therefore–in this curious universe–both sides assume that anything the other proposes or accepts contains a hidden motive to deceive.

Others have suggested relocating the members to developing countries, but Rajavi, who is based out of Paris, insists that they must remain in Iraq even though the MEK never formally sought citizenship.

lobelog.com – By Jasmin Ramsey

August 10, 2011 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Recent Posts

  • Expectations of human rights bodies regarding censorship within the MEK

    October 13, 2026
  • The Jamalis’ Plea for Help: Save Our Brother from the MEK!

    October 11, 2026
  • Testimonies of Participants in the MEK’s Staged Propaganda Stunt in Karaj

    October 7, 2026
  • Giuliani’s MEK ties have dogged him for years

    October 6, 2026
  • The Tragic Impact of MEK Isolation on Yazdan Teimorian and His Family

    October 5, 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