Page 780 – Nejat Society

Motaki: World opinion believes Britain is an advocate of terrorists and criminals

Iran: Britain supports terrorist Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) Broadcast live from London

The world public opinion believed Britain is an advocate of terrorists and criminals, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said.

Mottaki made the remarks in a meeting with the head and members of a committee in charge of defending the rights of victims of a terrorist act against Iranian embassy in London in 1980.

Iran’s embassy in London was seized by six gunmen who attacked the Iranian mission on April 30, 1980 and took hostage its 26 workers. The siege ended after six-day following an operation by British Special Air Service (SAS) which led to freedom of 19 hostages while seven others were dead and many were injured.

Iran’s former charge d’affaires in London and head of the committee said the terrorist act occurred under the aegis of British security forces.

In those days, he said, Iranian diplomats in London had repeatedly received many threats from terrorist groups.

“The cases were reported to the British officials by sending official notes from Iran’s embassy, but they kept telling that there was no reason for concern.”

Expressing regret over the terrorist act, Mottaki said that the incident was a result of negligence of British officials and their support for terrorism.

Criticizing a recent strange decision by a British court over possible release of the only surviving member of the terrorist group responsible for the seizure, Mottaki expressed hope that British officials would extradite him to Iran to stand a fair trial.

The minister said recent moves by the British government, including concocting a case against a former Iranian diplomat, a recent ruling by a British court on removing the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) from the list of terrorist groups and supporting the terrorist organization to broadcast live programs in Persian from London, have clearly indicated London’s double-standard approach toward terrorism.

Stressing that Tehran had held many rounds of direct talks with London over the case, Mottaki said the issue was at the agenda of Iran’s talks with Britain. Advocates of Terrorists

May 12, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Questions over American policy toward MEK in Iraq

If, as seems likely, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MKO, MEK, PMOI) is de-proscribed in the UK, this ought to be good news for the group’s 3,300 members in Iraq. I reported on the situation there back in February and concluded that since the Iraqi Government is adamant that the MKO be expelled from the country as a foreign terrorist entity, the only practical solution was for a western government (most probably the UK) to de-proscribe the group so that the members currently trapped in Camp Ashraf could gain safe refuge there.

I am looking to see whether the MKO’s western backers will now push for this solution.

But I don’t hold much hope of that. If I am able to read the situation correctly, the MKO members in Camp Ashraf will be direct victims of the UK court ruling. By now they will have been ‘congratulated’ on their victory against the Iranian regime and told they will ‘soon be in Tehran’, although they will not be told how this is to be achieved.

It is clear that the group has deliberately been kept intact for five years and the obvious reason this would be done is so the group can be re-armed at Terrorists being rearmed - a threat to all some point and re-deployed against Iran – this time not by Saddam Hussein but by the US Administration. Last December American forces removed half the MKO dissidents from the TIPF adjacent to Camp Ashraf. (One of them drowned recently in a border incident in Turkey, others are still missing, some are in Iraqi Kurdistan and some clandestinely in Turkey. A few have gained safe refuge in Europe.)

Dahuk On Friday May 2, 2008 American forces completely closed TIPF and transferred the remaining people to Dahouk in Kurdistan. They have been housed for two months and have food rations, but have been told they will then be given over to the UN refugee agency. This leaves many, many questions, and to date no official American answer has been forthcoming.

I would like to know:

Now TIPF has been removed, where can MKO members go if they want to leave the organisation? Are they condemned to stay and serve as "good terrorists" whether on the terrorist lists or not?

Now TIPF has been removed, what are American forces protecting (after 5 years of blaming others for allegedly supporting terrorists)? A terrorist camp? (It must not be forgotten that even if the whole western world removes the MKO from the terrorist lists, they are still regarded – and with good reason – as foreign terrorists in Iraq.)

If, as I have been told, the uniformed militants in Camp Ashraf are free to leave anytime they want, why are MNF forces there ‘protecting’ them?

If, as has been rumoured, the Americans will hand over Camp Ashraf to the Iraqis by the end of the year, what will happen to the uniformed militants who are now protected there?

Will the likes of Lord Corbett and company, who have been supporting terrorism in Iran and Iraq under the banner of the MKO’s Klashinkov for the past thirty years, now at least sponsor a handful of those same people who have been abused by his cult and bring them to safety? Some of them surely are ready to retire on even a small pension!

Have efforts to have the MKO de-proscribed been so that the cult’s leaders, including cult guru Massoud Rajavi, can take up residence in London but the members stay to kill and be killed in Iraq and Iran?

At the invitation of Ms Batul Soltani (representative of Sahar NGO in Baghdad) I have visited Turkey to attend various meetings concerning the situation of former MKO people (from TIPF) who are trying to leave Iraq and Turkey. After talking with some of them, it is becoming clear they are facing obstacles and counter measures so that they fail (and even get killed in the way).

The repeated accusation – from a wide range of observers, not only the direct victims – is that the American approach to the MKO has been to deliberately stop people leaving this terrorist cult; that the MKO is maintained by interests who play the card of ‘taking them off the list’ with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Ultimately, those who had the power but who have failed or been unable or refused to dismantle a tiny foreign terrorist camp and its military structure in Iraq – despite continued requests by the Iraqi government to do so – are responsible for whatever disaster befalls its victims there.

By Massoud Khodabandeh – Iran-Interlink – May 11, 2008

May 11, 2008 0 comments

Duplicity of the MEK nature

Iraqi official:MKO terrorists sighted among British troops

Iraqi official: Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) terrorists sighted among British troops in American uniforms a week after Britain took them off its list of terror

British marines seen near Iran border

Roughly 60 British marines have been seen patrolling along Iraq’s border with Iran near the Shalamcheh border crossing, sources have said.

"Close to 60 British marines were seen patrolling near the Iranian border of Shalamcheh in groups of 20, carryig light weapons and with the apparent intention of monitoring the condition of the sealed border crossing," sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity told PRESS TV.

The Iraqi government officially closed the Shalamcheh border crossing in Iran’s southwestern Khuzestan province on April 24.

These British units are deployed along the Iraqi border with Iran, using Apache helicopters, the sources said.

Over 300 American and British forces are currently stationed some 10 km from the Iranian border of Shalamcheh in the Iraqi town of Tanumeh.

Members of the terrorist group, the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), have reportedly been sighted among them in American uniforms.

Press TV, May 10, 2008

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=55023&sectionid=351020101

May 10, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

The Cult of Mojahedin; Falling Short of International Legitimacy

One of the conditions of an alternative selected by the US or other European countries in order to substitute opposing governments or those that do not satisfy the demands of such powers is that the alternative has to weigh an international legitimacy and support besides the internal support. In spite of being a banned terrorist group whose offices are closed in the US, there is a question that what legitimate connection there could be found between MKO’s status in the US and its ability to liberate Iranians. After all, the group claims at every available opportunity that it relies entirely on its boundless popularity in Iran and therefore needs no foreign sponsor.

Unfortunately, some groups and organizations wish to believe that MKO’s actions have legitimacy since they are under a heavy propaganda bombardment of hollow claims that it is a legitimate resistance movement. However, beguiled by these propagandas, they sometimes forget that, by its own previously released accounts, the group has used and ideologically believes in terrorism and violence to achieve organizational ambitions rather than fulfilling the national wills and demands. How can possibly such a group be given support and legitimacy when it uses the same methodology and reasoning of similar notorious groups such as Al-Qaeda?

Despite its violent history, MKO would like to gain international legitimacy as Iran’s "government in exile." Its immediate goal is to get its name off the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations; to that end, it now purports to support a host of democratic ideals, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to freedom of religion and the free market. Furthermore, its political representatives in the US have worked hard to repackage the group as a legitimate dissident organization fighting for democracy in Iran through whitewashing its past terrorist records.

The widespread belief is that the mission of MKO and its alias the National Council of Resistance is to overthrow the Iranian regime, an aim increasingly in line with the Bush administration, yet the administration has stopped direct supporting of the group as a US ally since it is known to be an act of illogic to unleash a horde of insane cultists whose first step to settle any dispute, if assumed the power, would be a genocidal act. As explicitly stated in the State Department’s report presented to Congress on the People’s Mojahedin of Iran in 1994 concerning the structure of MKO we read:

“The internal organizational structure of the Mojahedin has varied little throughout the group’s history. Importantly, the autocratic decision-making style of the leadership and the cult-like behavior of its members–two defining patterns of the organization’s operations–have combined to deny the Mojahedin the support of most Iranians, who fear that a "Mojahedin" alternative would be as or worse than the current clerical regime.”

Even the group’s own insiders were well aware of its fabrications when it boasted to be the suitable alternative to end the dominant despotism in Iran. The ex-members’ criticism is best reserved for observers who might question the organization’s sincerity in its claims. Victor Charbonnier’s attempt to give a clear picture of MKO’s undemocratic nature reaches ultimate by presenting quotes made by ex-members:

Quassim Salhi quickly understood that the organization was based on lies and double-talk. He recalls: "They repeated over and over again that the power structure in Iran was religious and despotic. It barred all opposing opinions, even points of view that were somewhat different from the regime’s. But inside the organization, we were no better off. We were forced to give up any personal ideas, to melt completely into the group and to stop asking any questions. Is there any dictatorship worse than that?” 1

The group’s transfer to Iraq got it into a worse international status. Saddam tensions in international community on the one hand and the close accomplice of Mojahedin with him on the other hand made Mojahedin suffer an increasingly lack of international legitimacy and support. Surprisingly, in a time period when Saddam was under political and diplomatic boycott as a sponsor of terrorism, Mojahedin insisted on his internal and international legitimacy and supported him fully. As such, Saddam recognized Mojahedin as the legitimate opposition of the Iranian government and his best allies.

Being deprived of a powerful sponsor following the fall of Saddam, it became even worse when the group was disarmed and came under the surveillance of the US forces that turned it into a displaced object of pity demanding support on the part of human right institutes. In an attempt to mislead the public opinion and open a new gate onto the political scene to start a novel phase of pro-democratic activities, the group’s guru gave way to his wife as the symbol of freedom and went into the hideout himself. It does not necessarily mean that the West was unaware of the cunningly made plots by the terrorists. Reported by Figaro soon after Maryam Rajavi’s return to France, French Counter-intelligence (DST) had already warned about her arrival to embark on a new scenario:

Her return to France in the beginning of 2003 alerted the DST. Flanked by senior officials, Maryam Rajavi had mysteriously left Iraq to return to Auvers-sur-Oise. This was a worrying decision for those who for almost thirty years were watching this woman, sometimes a seductive Ambassadress, sometimes an implacable fighter. She was armed all too often with false papers and borrowed names to pursue ‘the armed struggle’. Between the democratic facade and tile life and death struggle against the Iranian regime, Maryam Rajavi’s history is bonded to that of her organization. 2

A Part of westerners’ fear is due to the cultist structure and conducts of Mojahedin and their hypocrisy. Western governments are well aware of false claims of Mojahedin in the media and the fact that they have two contradictory approaches in dealing with outsiders and insiders. Marianne describes such a dual strategy as follows:

"This woman, with her emerald eyes and so sweet a smile, is a pathological ‘case’. Withdrawn, secretive, unburdened by too low an opinion of herself, Maryam Rajavi, the Mistress and Muse of I the People’s Mojahedin, is a surprise for the rare visitors she deigns to receive in Auvers-sur-Seine. With her hair always hidden under her Islamic scarf, the person whom the militants call the ‘Sun of the Revolution’ is a consummate user of political slogans and jargon. Denouncing the obscurantism of the mullahs in power in Teheran, she presents her organisation as a democratic model along Western lines preaching moderate Islam, which includes women’s rights. Of course, this position is at the opposite extreme from the Islamist-Marxism, in Red and Green, which never wavered throughout their years of struggle. 3

Gessler, a researcher of cold war period, well aware of the effects of propaganda blitz of Mojahedin expounds on the group’s demand of gaining political legitimacy on the part of the West:

In addition, the Mojahedin are superb lobbyists, "tracking" down political officials, deputies, senators, etc., to get a signature which is supposed to support the PMOI’s fight and provide .recognition to it as the only legitimate opposition: "The Mojahedin conducted a public relations campaign among the Western press and among political personalities, looking for political support and financial reinforcement. Exploiting the West’s dislike for the behaviour of the Iranian regime, the Mojahedin put themselves forward as the alternative. To achieve their goals, they claimed the support of the majority of Iranians". 4

All these evidences imply the fact that Mojahedin suffer the lack of international legitimacy and support. An important point is that the US has developed a much deeper understanding of Mojahedin than European countries. It was the US that in its report on April 2003 called Mojahedin a cult. Although France had accused Mojahedin as a sect before, but it was the first time that the cultist relations of Mojahedin were publically and officially announced. Surprisingly, Mojahedin have not yet protested against the announced cult accusation. The reason may be their fear of the probable consequences of such an action. On the whole, it is evident that no government uses such a cultist group for the settlement of political disputes with Iran or against it. The outcome will be so much the worse for the sponsors facing them with the worst to deal with.

References

Victor Charbonnier; The People’s Mojahedin of Iran: A struggle for what?,Translated by Dr Thomas R. Forstenzer, RSA, Part Two: Former Members.

Gessler, A.; The autopsy of an ideological drift, p. 015.

Ibid, 148.

Ibid, 164.

Research Bureau- Mojahedin.ws – May 10, 2008

May 10, 2008 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Activity at Camp Ashraf – will Rajavi cult victims be rescued soon?

The Bulgarian unit has been relocated from Camp Ashraf TIPF and now “a few of them, along with some American soldiers, are protecting only the remaining US property at the Center.” As stated by Bulgaria’s News Agency, the Bulgarian mission had been to “control the Center’s regime and provide order and protection of the property and the Iraqi [sic] citizens with refugee status temporary placed there.”

With the closure of TIPF and re-deployment of soldiers guarding it, the future of Camp Ashraf itself is under question. How many American soldiers are still protecting the foreign terrorist group in Iraq? And how long will it be before they hand over control of the camp to the Iraqi Government and military?

Perhaps the plan is to now re-locate the 3,300 uniformed militants from Camp Ashraf to other places in Iraq.

The MKO leader Massoud Rajavi is waiting to have his uniformed combatants re-armed and re-deployed against Iran by the American Administration. It may be that he will not have long to wait.

However, the moment the MKO is re-armed in Iraq it will be a legitimate target for anyone and everyone who bears a grudge against the group – and the MKO has many, many enemies in Iraq.

In these circumstances, as soon as the MKO is de-proscribed in the UK, the militants in Camp Ashraf must be given asylum there, so that they can continue what Maryam Rajavi describes as their peaceful opposition to the Iranian regime. Any other course of action will leave them vulnerable to a potential massacre. The MKO’s supporters in the British parliament who led the campaign to have the group de-proscribed now have the task of rescuing the group’s members in Iraq before they are killed.

Iran-Interlink, May 9, 2008

Bulgarian News Agency report:

Future of Bulgaria Military Mission in Iraq to Be Decided in One Week

Sofia Weekly, May 9, 2008

The decision regarding the future of the Bulgarian military contingent in Iraq could be made as early as a week from today.

This statement was made Friday by General Zlatan Stoykov, Chief of Staff of the Bulgarian Armed Forces, after the official ceremony commemorating the end of World War II.

The decision is a political one and will be made by the Bulgarian Council of Ministers, according to the General. The current government decision about the Bulgarian military mission in Iraq provides for the mission to continue till the end of 2008.

At the moment, Bulgarian rangers serving in Iraq have been relocated from the Temporary Detainee Center "Ashraf". Right now a few of them, along with some American soldiers, are protecting only the remaining US property at the Center.

According to General Stoykov, the current plans are for the Bulgarian soldiers to be withdrawn from Iraq. There is, however, another possible outcome since the US has made a proposal for the dislocation of the soldiers to two other military bases near Baghdad – "Future" and "Copper".

If Bulgaria accepts this proposal, the entire formula of the Bulgarian mission in Iraq will have to be changed since the offer provides for the Bulgarian army to take care of the complete security of either of the two bases, as Stoykov stated.

General Stoykov believes that the option to increase the number of the Bulgarian contingent in Iraq does not exist since a similar move will require additional funds.

The Bulgarian contingent in Iraq is about 150 military servicemen and women. They have been in the Temporary Detainee Center "Ashraf" since May of 2006 to control the Center’s regime and provide order and protection of the property and the Iraqi [sic] citizens with refugee status temporary placed there.

At the same time, as announced by the Bulgarian National Radio, the return of Bulgarian soldiers from Afghanistan is expected today.

These are two military companies deployed in Kandahar and Kabul, where they were executing assignments for the NATO operation in the country.

May 9, 2008 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

MKO Should Be listed a Terrorist Group

Expounded by Sattar Orangi on April 19, 2008, the poisonous Barren Land that has devastated many lives of its own inhabitants and was the main terrorist bastion in accomplice with Saddam to plot against Iranian people cannot possibly bloom flowers of peace and democracy. The piece of land the ousted dictator once granted to the vipers is still the focus of a global dispute; cooperating with Saddam Hussein ironically called a city of resistance, Camp Ashraf is now the prison of about 3,500 MKO’s members who are held against their will under the protection of the coalition forces. How can a military camp that its leaders violate and disrespect all principles of freedom and democracy can be called a bastion of freedom as Brian Binley, a Member of Parliament from the British Conservative Party, claims?

In an article published in The Middle East Times, he claims that Camp Ashraf stands as a symbol of democratic freedom in the middle of Iraq’s barren land. Surprisingly, he further states that “very little has been heard here in the West about this bastion of freedom which shines as a beacon for the Iranian people and lovers of democracy worldwide. In other words we have a duty to defend and protect Ashraf not only for the sake of the Iranians who continue to oppose the evil regime in Tehran but also for our own sake”.

He might be right that little has been heard there in the West about such forlorn bastion of freedom but the torments of a remarkable number of human souls that are putting up with the most unbearable cult-like conditions and pressures within the walls of the oddest bastion of freedom is a reality no conscious soul can ever overlook. Thus, for sure some people are concerned about the plights of these enslaved human beings under the auspices of their occupying forces when their related courts decide that it would be unjust to rule in any way that might lead to the freedom of these forgotten people.

As reported by the International Herald Tribune publishing an Associated Press news release, the British Court of Appeal on Wednesday affirmed a lower court ruling that Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) should not be listed as a terrorist organization. Reportedly, three justices led by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Philips, rejected an appeal by the Home Office against a lower court ruling in November in favor of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran.

"An organization that has temporarily ceased from terrorist activities for tactical reasons is to be contrasted with an organization that has decided to attempt to achieve its aims by other than violent means," the judge said. "The latter cannot be said to be ‘concerned in terrorism,’ even if the possibility exists that it might decide to revert to terrorism in the future," he said.

Then, as the judges have concluded, the current act of inflicting unbearable torments by the organization in the question on its own insiders kept against their will in the heart of a desert can in no way be regarded an act of terrorism. They believe that MKO is terrorist only if it targets Westerners or blast bombs in their cities. A truth to be digested by the unaware is that terrorism is innate the organization’s ideology and it can never split the natural instinct off in the same way a leopard cannot change its spots.

Mojahedi.ws – May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Camp Ashraf residents victims in latest propaganda

Camp Ashraf residents victims in latest propaganda move by Mojahedin-e Khalq

According to a Court of Appeal ruling, the UK Government is now being urged to recognize the Mojahedin-e Khalq as an organisation which does not believe in violence to achieve its political aims – although the MKO has never formally announced in either English or Farsi that it intends to renounce violence.

Iran-Interlink reported from Iraq in February about the plight of MKO members trapped in Camp Ashraf under American protection. The report highlighted the Iraqi Government’s insistence that the foreign terrorist group be expelled from Iraq. The problem was that western countries also classified the group as terrorist. With the MKO de-proscribed in the UK, moves should immediately be underway to have the Camp Ashraf militants moved to safety in the UK where they can continue their peaceful opposition to the Iranian regime. The MKO’s supporters in the UK parliament will no doubt be active in this respect. They have used the group for thirty years and cannot now abandon them.

At present, the prisoners in Camp Ashraf will be being congratulated on their huge victory over the Iranian regime and told that they will ‘soon be in Tehran’, although nobody will tell them how this is to be achieved. Iran-Interlink, May 7, 2008

———————————–

Iranian resistance wins ruling against UK ban

By Mark Trevelyan

Reuters, May 7, 2008

LONDON, May 7 (Reuters) – An Iranian resistance group claimed victory on Wednesday in a seven-year legal battle when three top judges upheld a ruling that the British government was wrong to ban it as a terrorist organisation.

The judges at the Court of Appeal threw out a government challenge to a ruling last November that its refusal to remove the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) from its list of proscribed terrorist organisations was perverse.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Nicholas Phillips, said the appeal bid by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had "no reasonable prospect of success", and added: "The appropriate course is to dismiss her application."

Maryam Rajavi, head of the PMOI’s political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, told Reuters: "The ruling proves the terror label against the PMOI was unjust."

In a telephone interview from Paris, she said: "Western governments and the UK owe the Iranian people and the resistance an apology for this disgraceful labelling. It’s time for them to recognise the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy."

Removal from the British list will unblock frozen assets of the PMOI and enable it to raise funds from supporters in Britain, Rajavi said, adding that she hoped the ruling would lead to the end of similar sanctions by the European Union.

Britain and the EU should recognise and open negotiations with the Iranian resistance, she said.

"Regime change by the Iranian people and organised resistance is the only option to confront the increasing threat of the mullahs’ regime."

The PMOI began as a leftist-Islamist opposition to the late Shah of Iran but fell out with Shi’ite clerics who took power after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Western analysts say it has little support in Iran because it joined Iraqi forces fighting Iran during the two countries’ 1980-88 war.

Rajavi rejected that view, saying Iranians were not free to show their real support for the movement and that Tehran’s concerns about it were a sign of its strength. (Editing by Keith Weir)

May 7, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MEK and the Terror Lists

Following my response to Patrick Clawson’s piece of April 25, I received several inquiries about my views of MEK and its recent launching of a massive deceptive campaign aiming to remove the group from the list of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) published and maintained by the State Department in the United States. This article is intended to clarify my views on MEK and that why the US and EU need to maintain the group in their respective terror lists.

Whether you refer to them as MEK, MKO, PMOI, OMPI, NCR, NCRI, or NLA etc., you are essentially referring to the same entity with diverse multiple aliases. When the NCRI’s office was shut in Washington, MEK challenged the State Department in court. MEK argued that NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran) is a different entity than MEK, and that MEK’s designation as an FTO should not have been extended to the NCRI. On April 2, 2004 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia heard the MEK arguments, and on July 9, 2004 denied MEK’s petition for review. The court noted: “after an extensive investigation of MEK and NCRI… the NCRI is not a separate organization, but is instead, and has been, an integral part of MEK at all relevant times.” [362 U.S. App. D.C. 143; 373 F.3d 152, &158; 2004 U.S. App.]

NCRI has portrayed itself as a pervasive coalition of which MEK is just a member. In the same opinion, the above court noted: “Contrary to NCRI’s portrayal of itself as an umbrella organization, of which the MEK was just one member… it is NCRI that is the political branch of MEK.”

Much to my regret, the EU has failed to recognize this symbiotic existence of the two, and consequently has banned only the MEK. In my opinion, EU needs to recognize that NCRI is just a vanity for MEK to legitimize its existence on EU soil. I know that our president, Mr. Sarkozy, is personally aware of this fact, and has refused to meet with any representatives of the MEK under the disguise of the NCRI. Nevertheless the EU needs to understand this as well in order to enlist the NCRI in the terror list. It is also noteworthy to mention that the Farsi version of the NCRI’s constitution refers to violence as the pivotal means by which the regime change will come about.

Denouncing Terrorism!

The pivotal arguments favoring de-proscribing MEK from the terror list revolve around two factors: Alleged MEK denouncement of terrorism; and lack of violent activity in the last 5 years. To understand the trickery and even demagoguery in such arguments, one needs to be familiar with the culture and lingo of terror groups. Like many recognized cultic organizations, MEK has its own definitions of words and terms commonly used in everyday conversations. For example, MEK has never acknowledged his involvement in terrorism. Indeed it claims to be the “victim” of the regime’s terrorist operations. Therefore when MEK privately denounces terrorism, it is not referring to its own actions. Instead, it merely condemns actions deemed as terrorism in its own narrow vision. MEK has labeled its terrorist activities as “revolutionary military resistance” since June 20, 1981. This is true for almost all terror groups like MEK. They never agree with objective reviews of their actions labeled as terrorism. Even the current regime in Tehran, rightly known as the godfather of terrorism, routinely denounces terrorism, and considers itself as the “victim” of such acts. The disingenuous denouncement of terrorism by MEK and other terror groups can be easily countered by asking a few direct questions from such claimants- Do you believe that MEK was involved in terrorism in the past, say prior to 2003? If so, when, where, and how? A logical follow up question would be, has MEK publicly announced such denouncement in its Farsi Language publications? If so, where is the evidence? The truth of the matter is, not only has MEK refused to denounce violence in its Farsi publications, but a review of its recent Farsi materials reveals the opposite. A true denouncement of terrorism should start with a publicly-stated commitment to peaceful and non-violent agenda in the group’s mainstream media, and in its native language (remember that Iranians speak in Farsi as their main language, and MEK publishes its materials mainly in Farsi). To whisper anti-terror statements with non-Iranian audience without first defining terrorism, and yet publicly glorifying violence under the façade of “revolutionary military resistance” is a known deceptive tactic for those familiar with terror groups.

When PLO decided to abandon its military campaign against Israel, and before it was taken seriously by the international community, they publicly announced the shift in their views for their own people in their native tongue, Arabic. PLO also publicly vouched for its commitment to peaceful settlement of its conflicts with Israel followed by announcing its readiness to join the negotiation table. This is a good paradigm to gauge MEK’s sincerity in its non-violent and peaceful approach, if indeed such commitment exists.

With regard to the absence of terror activities by MEK in the past five years (supposedly the threshold period for removal from the FTO list), it would suffice to keep in mind the English maxim that “the wolf may lose his teeth but never his nature.” Violence is, and has always been, the MEK’s pivotal form of settling conflicts with others. A glance at the group emblem and logo make it clear what the group is all about. As seen in the picture below, there is a Koran verse that sits on top of a globe. The informal translation of this verse is that “God has given His priority and special blessings to the warriors (Mujahedin) of His path than the non-warriors (sitters).” This crystallises MEK’s core ideology to establish a world under the Islamic laws. The Earth meridian on the left side of the globe emphasises MEK’s internationalism. Also as evident in the emblem, the term Mojahed has graphically metamorphosed into an arm bearing a gun. This is meant to portray MEK’s core philosophy that military might is the only means of achieving the organization’s goals. I can’t help but to say no wonder that the MEK has reportedly been favored by individuals known to many as war-mongers, George Bush, Dick Chaney, and Dick Armey, to name just a few. In short, use of violence and terror is in the core existence of MEK as portrayed in their organizational logo. Therefore, it is natural to say that “the wolf” has kept his nature, and only the gullible would drift into its deceptive tactics.

It is prudent to maintain the MEK in the terror list to better monitor its activities. It is a naiveté to accept the group’s private statements as a real commitment to a peaceful and non-violent agenda. A true departure from violence starts with an honest review of one’s past, admitting to past mistakes, defining terrorism, and a public pledge to a peaceful and non-violent campaign.

By Ahmad Baaraan, Paris
ABaaraan@yahoo.fr

May 6, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Bush: Thou shalt kill Iranians

US President George W. Bush has reportedly authorized a covert operation to set the stage for a military offensive against Iran. According to Counterpunch magazine, President Bush signed a secret finding in March authorizing a covert offensive against Iran, which those familiar with its contents believe to be ‘unprecedented in its scope’. Actions permitted under the secret directive include ‘the assassination of targeted officials’ along with operations across an extensive geographic area from Lebanon to Afghanistan. The ruling is believed to be an initiative in line with President Bush’s sweeping chief executive powers, which will enable him to arm and fund terrorist groups such as the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and the Jundullah (army of god) militants stationed across the Afghan border in Baluchistan. Furthermore, efforts to destabilize the Syrian government and operations against the Hezbollah Movement in Lebanon will be stepped up, the report says. An initial outlay of $300 million has reportedly been approved to finance the implementation of the clandestine operation. Observers believe the former Centcom Commander Admiral William Fallon, who fiercely opposed a Bush military strike on Iran, was the main obstacle in the way of Washington’s policies against the Islamic Republic. Following Fallon’s resignation in March and with Bush’s favorite general David Petraeus set to assume his position, speculation is high that Middle Eastern nations should prepare for yet another war in the region. May 4, 2008

May 4, 2008 0 comments

USA

The Cult of Mojahedin; Fit to Be an Alternative?

The anatomy of the contemporary political build indicates that the U.S has been always using oppositions as an internal tool in order to maintain its presence in other countries. Following a new doctrine named neocolonialism as a modern colonization, this policy has even encouraged some expansionist countries to use the oppositions as the tool in some cases. Adopting this policy mostly contributes to the abolition of various systems such as direct interference, military revolts, conducting campaigns based on true or false pretexts, and changes in military and political equilibriums and relations. In The Cult of Mojahedin;Fit to be an Alternative? contrast to the past when the U.S replaced Alende and the Chile’s legitimate government with Pinochet using direct military coup d’etat, today they replace seemingly democratic alternatives with governments and dictators under the pretext of the development of democracy or by using similar tools that are likely to be even more appealing to the public. Considering whether the U.S is in all honesty and what is lying behind, is not the subject of this article, but is to consider the various aspects of how much the U.S can count on the oppositions such as Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) in order to subvert the Islamic Republic.

There are many instances of the US’s neo-colonialism meddling the last of which is the Iraq’s crisis; it would not be wrong to say that the existing crises in Iraq rocketed as a result of Ahmad Chalabi’s providing the US with disinformation. Not taking this case into consideration, yet there are discords within the U.S administration disputing whether to use the oppositions as a tool. In the present article it has been tried to evaluate the contingencies and hypotheses about the subject based upon the opposition’s current conditions and the U.S strategic aims in the region. Before any further discussion, it has to be pointed out that there are some factors and criterions that each opposition group should met to be appraised as an instrumental opposition by the US in the accomplishment of the objectives.

Now it has to be investigated that does MKO meet these standards to become a liable alternative to aid the US achieve its aims concerning Iran? These factors and criteria can be enumerated as the follow:

1. Having a sense of affinity with American political idealism

2. Holding a minimum of internal legitimacy

3. Being a reliable and trustful group

4. Having records of preceding collaboration with the US

5. Benefiting an international legitimacy

6. A minimum obligation of respecting the principles of human rights

7. Holding democratic capacity

8. Taking unambiguous position toward the left and Marxism

9. Standing by moral and ethical obligations

It is certain that these factors are contemplated outwardly whereas there are probably some other factors and unwritten parameters lying behind. For the present we just want to see to what degree MKO meet each of the mentioned criteria.

Having a sense of affinity with American political idealism

Considering the prolongation of the U.S interests as the first proviso of choosing an alternative, the most important proviso for the U.S or any other state is its affinity with that alternative in both politics and thoughts. In the past (dividing camps into Eastern and Western or capitalism and communism), The US was always seeking the choices which were inclined to be perceptible close in politics and thoughts with capitalism. This attitude was being adopted as opposed to leftist and radical tendencies regarding capitalism. It is worth mentioning that MKO from the very beginning recognized the US as the symbol of the capitalist camp and an imperialist. Besides, MKO ideologically considered imperialism opposing to its eclectic ideology and believed imperialism was historically doomed to annihilation.

In their early pamphlet and leader’s speeches Mojahein-e Khalq strongly denounced imperialism and capitalism. Being tried in Pahlavi’s court after his arrest, Massoud Rajavi in his testimonies stated that:

… most of the world’s problems had been created by imperialism; that the developing countries were exploited by Western banks and multinational corporations; and that the United States was propping up reactionary regimes in Vietnam, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. He continued by arguing that US imperialism was undoubtedly the main enemy of Iran, in part because it had overthrown Mosaddeq, and in part because it had armed the bloodthirsty regime that had perpetrated the crimes of June 1963. ‘Thus’, Rajavi insisted, ‘the main goal now is to free Iran of US imperialism.’ [1]

The state department of the U.S. in its first report on The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran in 1994 openly discussed the group’s ideology:

The MKO’s embrace of armed struggle flows from the group’s ideology. Its conceptual framework was painstakingly developed through years of study and discourse and aggressively disseminated throughout Tehran. A renowned scholar of the Mojahedin defines the group’s ideology as:”a combination of Muslim themes: Shi’a notions of martyrdom: classical Marxist theories of class struggle and historical determinism: and neo-Marxist concepts of armed struggle, guerrilla warfare and revolutionary heroism.”8 The adoption of Marxist tenets distinguished the Mojahedin from other Iranian opposition movements: the Mojahedin argued that the struggle against the Shah was part of a larger struggle against imperialism led by the,”world-devouring”United States. [2]

In fact, both the U.S. and Mojahedin are well aware of each other’s political and ideological orientation, that is, Imperialism and anti-Imperialism respectively. Therefore, it is self-evident that the U.S. never submits to the selection of its antithesis as an alternative and MKO hardly meets the first criterion.

Holding a minimum of internal legitimacy

In today’s international political relations, no legitimate alternative can lead on unless winning a minimum of public support. That is just the case with Iraq’s today situation. Therefore the U.S has to rely on an opposition that is in a relatively good position among the public. In addition it would be much more appreciated if the opposition is having a good position among intelligentsias and the educated class. In Iran, for sure, MKO is not the least supported by people in spite of falsely made claims. Based on the U.S. State Department’s report of 30 April,2007, Mojahedin suffer the loss of social support among Iranian people as well as other political opposition parties in Iran and abroad:

Following its participation in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the group rapidly fell out of favor with the Iranian people. The new Iranian government under Supreme Leader Khomeini systematically arrested and targeted many MEK members, causing most MEK leadership to flee to Europe. [3]

In addition, Yan Richard, an Islamic scholar in I.F.R.I centre of France, expounds on the position of Mojahedin in Iran and writes:

Very much a fringe movement on the Iranian political scene, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran have always demonstrated their incapacity to take power by classical democratic means (votes, electoral campaigns, etc,). In their political logic, there is no other way to achieve their goal but by revolution, just as Mao foresaw. [4]

Exactly under the eyes of many westerners, MKO started a bloody chapter in Iran’s contemporary history following declaration of an armed struggle since it could not tolerate a widespread public rejection. It is still under illusion to gain what has long lost:

In their frenzied rejection of what they were politically and of the things they did in the context of their fight, the Mojahedin are trying to recreate a long lost virginity. They want to appear to public opinion as acceptable and legitimate. It is precisely this legitimacy that they lack in Iran. So they do everything to find it, especially in Europe. Yet they still have to jettison a heavy past. It betrays them in the present and echoes down the future. [5]

A variety of Investigations have been done on the position of MKO among Iranian intelligentsias and technocrats; there is a consensus that for sure would not be the alternative. A casual glance at the opposition-run media outside the country reveals that in case there would be any change in Iran, the Iranian demands would be far above the capacity of MKO to fulfil. Besides, there is a general belief that the life of ideological regimes like that of MKO has ended in Iran forever As a result, it is evident that the US will never turn to such an illegitimate and cultist opposition as a capable alternative.

References:

1. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN; The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press New Haven and London, p. 134.

2. The US State Department Report on The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, by Kenneth Katzman. Washington, Nov 1992. 6 p.

(Doc. call no.: M-U 42953-1 no.92-824F)

3. The U.S. state department report on 30 April.

4. Gessler, Antoine; the autopsy of an ideological drift, p. 116.

5. Ibid, p. 62.

Research Bureau – Mojahedin.ws – May 3, 2008

May 3, 2008 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts