EU human rights and civil foundations despite Zionist lobby’s efforts aimed at removal of MKO’s name from international terror organs, stress need for maintaining grouplet’s name in that list. Political and media circles within the European Union reflected those foundations’ demand during the Tuesday session of the European Parliament at that body’s EU-IRI Parliamentary Relations Commission. Among the other issues addressed at the session, there were discussions on a recent visit by an EU parliamentary delegation to the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the session which was held in the presence of the members of Iran-EU Parliamentary Relations Commission, EC representatives, EP members, and the head of the MKO, one more time the terrorist nature of that anti-Iranian organization was stressed. The head of MKO had attended the session on an invitation sent to her by a pro-Zionist EP member, but was seriously humiliated due to the heavy anti-MKO atmosphere of the meeting.
Based on the finding that the proscribed Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) has ceased its military and terrorist operations since June 2001, the UK POAC ruled de-proscription of the group. The court puts emphasis on the proof that “There is no evidence relied on by the Respondent that the PMOI has at any stage subsequently sought to obtain weapons of any type or undertaken any type of military operations, military training of personnel or recruitment of individuals for potential military operations”. That is a good idea if a terrorist group has decided to renounce terrorism and dissolve military units. But MKO’s aired TV programs, especially following the court’s judgment, are in absolute contradiction with its claims. MKO’s TV network is repetitively broadcasting clips from its military operations, manoeuvres and marches in which women’s presence seems to have greater significance. Even the music concerts are performed in a militaristic atmosphere with choir and singers in military uniforms. Do these programs broadcasted by the official TV network of a proscribed organization corroborate its claims of abandoning terrorism and militarism? These pictures and clips well indicate that claims and words can never be trusted unless proved by action.
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 192-i
House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE LIAISON COMMITTEE THE PRIME MINISTER
Thursday 13 December 2007
RT HON GORDO.jpg)
N BROWN MP Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 – 120 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. …. Q97 Malcolm Bruce: Just on that, Prime Minister, the main democratic opposition to the Iranian regime is the People’s Mujahideen organisation of Iran, which has been proscribed in this country. The proscribed organisation’s appeals committee have said that they are not involved in terrorism and that the refusal of the Home Secretary to de-proscribe them was flawed, perverse and must be set aside. Why does the Government not accept that?
Mr Brown: I have looked at that issue that you raise. It is certainly, however, the case that the organisation that you describe has been, in the past, involved in terrorist activity, and I do not think there is any doubt about the evidence that that has been the case. Therefore, to proscribe an organisation that has been involved in terrorist activity seems the right thing to do by the decisions of this Government to be consistent with other decisions that we make. Q98 Malcolm Bruce: We have accepted sometimes that terrorist organisations can change their ways? Mr Brown: But I do not think we have that evidence.
House of COMMONS
Link to the video broadcast of the session: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/VideoPlayer.aspx?meetingId=665
EU lawmaker, Emma Nicholson has proclaimed that a British court, not government, believes in lifting the ban on MKO terrorist group. In an exclusive interview with Press TV, member of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the European Parliament, Emma Nicholson, said that a special new court has been convened and decided that the British government acted in haste in putting the Mujahedin Khalq Organization on the terrorist list. Nicholson said the findings were that the British government’s actions on putting the MKO on the list had not been carried out properly.”But the British government does not agree. The British government is appealing and is against that judgment,”she added. Concerning the MKO presence and operations in Iraq, Nicholson said the sovereign nation of Iraq has to decide about this terrorist group’s presence in the country. The situation requires a dialogue between the Iranian and Iraqi governments, adding that the expulsion of MKO members has nothing to do with the US or UK forces in Iraq. When asked why Britain still supports tougher sanctions against Iran with respect to IAEA and NIE reports proving that Iran is not involved in a military program, Nicholson stated that Iran did not fully explore the European Union’s offer in 2006 which suggested Iran stop its uranium enrichment and in return, the European Union would lift sanctions. In response to a question regarding the West’s increasing pressure on Iran to stop nuclear enrichment which is completely in line with IAEA regulations, Nicholson answered,”There has been a loss of confidence on both sides – a loss of trust.”When asked if Britain is following US policy and not making independent choices, Nicholson replied that Britain, Germany and France began negotiations with Iran from “a specifically European Union position”. Asked if the International Atomic Energy Agency is not the legal referee in decisions about Iran’s nuclear case rather than the UN Security Council, she replied,”Because the nuclear issue is so important, it has gone up to the Security Council level.”
TEHRAN — Iraqi chief prosecutor Jafar al-Musawi has said that Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) members in all countries should be extradited to Iran to face trial. An examining magistrate and a special prosecutor have been appointed to conduct an investigation into the MKO case, al-Musawi told the Mehr News Agency on the sidelines of the conference of Islamic states ‘ judiciary chiefs, which was held in Tehran earlier this month. Iraqi officials have contacted the Iraqi citizens who intend to press charges against the members of this terrorist group, he said, adding that the plaintiffs’ statements would be heard and collected, and based on the Iraqi Constitution, the appropriate ruling will be made. Originally Marxist-Islamist, the Mojahedin Khalq Organization was set up in the mid-1960s to oppose the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It participated in the country’s revolution but soon launched a campaign of assassinations and bombings in Iran. The group moved to Iraq in the early 1980s and it fought Iran from there until the United States invaded in 2003. The U.S. military has since disarmed thousands of the group’s members and confined them to a camp near Baghdad.
Asked whether Maryam and Masoud Rajavi, the ringleaders of the MKO terrorist group, are currently in Iraq, the Iraqi chief prosecutor replied, “I don’t think so, but wherever they are, they must be extradited according to international law and judicial verdicts.” Asked why no action has been taken in regard to the arrest warrants issued by Interpol for MKO members, al-Musawi said the examining magistrate has not passed a verdict against them yet, but once the current proceedings end, they will be prosecuted. Tehran Times, December 13, 2007 http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=159088
I have recently posted an interesting piece by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich entitled "Iran Intelligence Report: Another Psychological Warfare?". This was not the first time I had read Soraya’s very interesting and insightful articles about Iran and this latest piece prompted me to contact Soraya and ask her for an interview. Soraya kindly agreed to my request and it is my real pleasure today to resume my "Saker interviews" series with a (virtual) conversation with her.
——-
Q: First, could you please introduce yourself in a couple of words. I know that you have an interesting bio and that you lived in several countries, including Iran. Could you please give us some details about yourself?
A. I am an Iranian-American with a degree from International Relations from U.S. As an independent researcher, I have focused on U.S. foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program and the role of lobby groups in foreign policy decisions. I think of myself as a peace activist and have become a political essayist because I think that building awareness is important and people can make a change. I am also a public speaker and radio commentator.
Q: Also, just to set the record straight, do you consider yourself a supporter or an opponent of the current government of the Islamic Republic of Iran?
A. I support a secular democracy. Having said that, I must emphasize that there is a clear distinction between Iran as a country, as a nation with over 10,000 years of history, and the current government policies. While I disagree with the internal policies of the Islamic Regime of Iran regarding human rights and democracy, I strongly support Iran’s right for independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Q: In your article you mention the Mojahedeen-e Khalgh (MEK) group. In the western corporate media it is very rarely mentioned. This group is listed on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations but a number of observers have also alleged that this group is supported by the USA and especially the CIA. What can you tell us about this group, its activities in Iran and its relationship with the USA?
A. Mojahedeen-e Khalgh/National Council of Resistance (also known by their acronyms MEK/MKO/NCRI) is a terrorist group in every sense. U.S. and EU also consider them as a terrorist group, and yet they are supported by the United States. In act, it is such an irony that Mr. Bush declares a war on terror, depletes our treasury, American soldiers die in order to keep us safe from terrorists, yet our tax dollars are being spent not on keeping terrorists in comfort. Upon invading Iraq, 3800 MEK terrorists were given special persons status by the orders of this administration. When this order was issued, there was considerable surprise even at the State Department briefing (source: US State Department Daily Briefing).
These sentiments are echoed in Europe where their leader roams around the European parliament. Hardly the treatment a terrorist should receive.
As for their relation with Iran – The MEK is deeply hated by the majority of Iranians because of their [alliance] with Saddam Hossein during the Iran-Iraq war. The MEK are responsible for killing Iranians and the American government now thinks they can install them as a substitute to the Iranian regime.
The MEK claims to have exposed Iran’s nuclear plant under construction “ however, Sy Hersh exposed their Israeli connections. And the essay I wrote, further exposed the role the US/Israel has in mind for them.
Q: Even before the publication of the 2007 NIE it was quite obvious that all this nonsense about an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program being developed right under the noses of the IAEA inspectors was just a pretext for "regime change" in Iran. But what about the accusation that Iran is training, funding, arming and even possibly directly supporting various Shia factions in Iraq, including the Badr Corps and the Mehdi Army? What do you make of the US accusation that the Pasdaran’s Quds Force is operating in Iraq against US occupation forces?
A. I have not seen any credible evidence to support these accusations. But, the Iraqi government at the highest level such as Prime Minister Nouri Maleki, Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari, all have repeatedly appreciated Iranian cooperation for Iraq’s stability and security. However, I just find it odd that the U.S. is always losing military equipment. Not only was the war planning poor, but it seems that the arms are coming from the US, and not from Iran. In the latest scandal it has been discovered that $1 billion in military equipment is missing in Iraq.
Laura Strickler, CBS News, said, "Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted-for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit."
Q: In his testimony to Congress General Petraeus said: In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps’ Qods Force. A Hezbollah "department 2800" directed by the Quds Force, that sounds very specific. What do you make of that accusation?
A. This is curious indeed. World Public Opinion came out with a poll taken in 4 Moslem countries, Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia, and Pakistan. With a vast margin, they all thought that the US is seeking to undermine Islam. Every time there is news of an incident, it is reported as ‘Islamist radicals, Islamist terrorist, racial Islam’ and so forth. Not a single terrorist is identified by his or her nationality, they are always identified by their religion, I presume because we lack the intelligence to identify the perpetrator’s nationality – unless we want to make a point about Islam being a terrorist religion. – which could explain why the Moslem world is so apprehensive about America. So I am dumbfounded how in Iraq, General Petraeus who I dare say is the Green Zone, managed to know exactly who is training a specific group in such minute detail. One must also understand that Hezbollah has fought hard to become a legitimate group in Lebanon – it is one thing to fight against Israel as a force, another to be ‘terrorists’ in Iraq. Moreover, if Iran wants to do something in Iraq, regretfully, it has its own people.
Q: The Neocons have succeeded in getting Congress to pass a resolution declaring that the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (Pasdaran) is a ‘terrorist’ organization. Since the latter are under the direct command of Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, does that not amount to declaring him and the entire Iranian government as ‘terrorist’?
A. Since Ayatollah Khamenei is the chief commander of Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guards as well, then one might assume that Ayatollah himself is accused indirectly. I forget how many years it has been since they have said Iran is a state sponsor of terrorists. But, I don’t think those who passed this resolution, really meant the Ayatollah. I think the main purpose of this resolution is to create a dispute between the two main branches of Iranian military organization–the regular Army and the Revolutionary Guards on one hand and also to justify economic pressure on the Revolutionary Guards, such as blocking its assets outside Iran.
However, Mr. Rafsanjani (the former president and the current Chairman of the Assembly of Experts) responded to this law that it is against the entire Iranian nation. And even the moderates such a former president Khatami expressed almost the same opinion, but in a different way. Moreover, it seems that there is not much enthusiasm to enforce this resolution.
Q: Speaking of Ali Khamenei, he is a very interesting figure. According to Wikipedia, he is not Persian but Azeri and even though he is at the helm of a majority Persian country he is also the spiritual leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah (even though most Lebanese Shia are followers of Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Lebanese Arab). What is your take on this little know personality (at least in the West), on his role in today’s Iran, and on his relationship with President Ahmadinejad?
A. Yes, that’s true Ali Khamenei as a religious leader and as an Ayatollah has many followers and not just in Lebanon. In Shia, there is no Pope-like figure that everyone follows. All Shia Grand Ayatollahs, whether Arab or Iranian, while they have common and extremely close perception of Shiism even as they hold different view in many details. For example, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Najaf, who was born in the Iranian city of Mashhad is the most influential man in Iraq, who can send shockwaves through Iraq with a Fatwa. All Iraqi Shias listen to him and follow his command in despite of Iraqis being Arabs.
So, the same holds for Lebanon; many Shias despite being Arabs follow Ayatollah Khamenei as their spiritual leader while others follow Grand Ayatollah Fadl-Allah – These two are close friends. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah is a political leader and not a spiritual leader, though he is a medium rank Shia cleric. Nasrallah came out as a hero for defending Lebanon against Israel during the 33-day war – Ahamadinejad is a hero to many for resisting the U.S. intimidation and defending Iran’s sovereign right.
Q: There have been a number of changes at the head of the Pasdaran recently with Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jaafari replacing Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi who was appointed to the position of Senior Advisor to the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for Military Affairs. Similarly, Saeed Jalili has replaced Ali Larijani as Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator. What do you make of these changes? Are they are reflection of infighting among various groups inside the Iranian government?
A. It is hard to say, it could be because of many reasons. As you may know, it is a policy in any country that no one should occupy a key position, specially in the military and security for a long period. That is what happens and even in the U.S. high-ranking generals, in spite of their loyalty and service are replaced all the time. I think, this could be the main reason for the recent changes in Sepah (the IRGC or Pasdaran. VS), though, I do not exclude other possibilities.
Q: What kind of political opposition is there in Iran today? What has been going on between the ‘Conservative’ and ‘Reformist’ parties in Iran? What about the so-called ‘ultra-conservatives’ lead by Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi? It is often said that President Ahmadinejad has disappointed his supporters? Is that true and, if yes, who do you believe might succeed him?
A. "Ahmadinejad: rock star in rural Iran" (see CS monitor article)
Q: According to Wikipedia, Iran is only 51% Persian. The US has often used the ethnic diversity of the countries who dared to refuse its supremacy to break them apart into smaller, subservient, parts fully dependent on Washington’s goodwill. One only needs to see how the US financed and supported the various nationalist movements in the former Soviet Union or former Yugoslavia to impose its rule by the old ‘divide and conquer’ tactic. Is there are risk that the USA might repeat this with Iran?
A. Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. As you know, very often some people might change and edit the posted material. Furthermore, nobody knows exactly the precise percentage of ethnic diversity of Iran. Even the Iranian government can’t give the exact figure, what is at hand is based on guestimations. For centuries, Iranians have intermingled from different parts of Iran, greater Persian Empire and even different parts of the Middle East. So, it is really foolish to map out Iran based on ethnicity.
But, the second part of your question about the possibility of creating ethnic problem for Iran, I say yes, there might be small groups of western-supported separatists, like PJAK [Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan] who commit terrorism. Please see the article Movers and Shakes of U.S. foreign Policy
But the analogy of the former Soviet Union or even former Yugoslavia is not appropriate here. The former Soviet Union was made of different Nations occupied by Russia. The former Yugoslavia came to existence only after World War I. On the other hand, Iran has been a nation for more than 2500 years. The sense of national pride and long history is very strong amongst the vast majority of Iranians.
by VINEYARDSAKER
Mojahedin Khalq terrorists the sources that America uses it in its allegations against Iran and the IAEA has repeatedly rebuked the allegations of the White House in its reports Iranian leader tempers anti-U.S. rhetoric; Ahmadinejad takes a softer tone in the wake of a U.S. report that says Tehran had halted its nuclear arms program. Ramin Mostaghim and Borzou Daragahi Special to The Times 12 December 2007 Los Angeles Times Home Edition TEHRAN In his first formal news conference since a U.S. intelligence report last week undercut claims that Iran was secretly developing nuclear weapons, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck an unusually mild tone Tuesday, calling for dialogue with Washington and forgoing his usual anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric. He also denied that Iran had resumed a secret nuclear weapons program, a claim made by an Iranian exile group, the Mujahedin Khalq, which has been listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and the European Union. The group cited unidentified sources in Iran as saying the Islamic Republic had restarted its program in 2004. A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate released last week concludes that Iran halted its weapons program in 2003. Tehran denies ever having such a program. Ahmadinejad initially gloated over the report as vindication for Iran, though it says his country continued to enrich uranium and that Iran easily could restart its weapons program. But at the two-hour news conference, Ahmadinejad described the report as "a positive and forward step" by the U.S. to ease tensions in the Middle East. "We do hope there will be one or two steps forward so as to make a different atmosphere for finding solutions," he told reporters. "If further steps are taken, then our problems will be less complicated."
Despite the softened tone, Ahmadinejad said Iran would continue its uranium enrichment program in defiance of international standards. He predicted Iran would have the ability to run 50,000 high-speed centrifuges within five years. Iran has about 3,000 centrifuges, which if run continuously for a year could in theory produce enough highly enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, though inspectors have not detected high levels of enrichment at Iran’s facility in Natanz.
Many officials in Iran viewed the U.S. report as an olive branch, and some analysts have urged the Iranian leadership to take the opportunity to enhance ties or at least reopen channels of communication between Tehran and Washington. The two nations have had a hostile relationship since the 1979 revolution in Iran.
U.S. and Iranian officials are scheduled to meet in Baghdad on Dec. 18 for the fourth round of talks over securing Iraq. Such meetings have usually been preceded by chest-thumping and accusations on both sides. But at Tuesday’s news conference, his eighth since taking office in 2005, Ahmadinejad expressed confidence that the meetings would eventually produce positive results for bolstering security in Iraq.
Regardless of what the U.S. report concludes, Iran still faces the prospect of a third round of international sanctions over its enrichment of uranium. A team of International Atomic Energy Agency experts arrived in Tehran on Sunday in an attempt to clear up lingering questions over the country’s nuclear program. Iran insists its goal is to generate electricity, but the West suspects the effort is a cornerstone for an eventual weapons program.
Iran’s nuclear program and political and material support for armed groups fighting Israel have brought Tehran under heightened international scrutiny. Ahmadinejad and his circle also have come under enormous pressure from multiple quarters within Iran’s fractured political class.
On Monday, influential lawmaker Ahmad Tavakoli criticized Ahmadinejad for gloating over the U.S. report, which Tavakoli said contains many allegations that cast Iran in a negative light.
"By expressing happiness we may increase the credibility of these kinds of reports," said Tavakoli, a former ally of Ahmadinejad. "In the future, they may release some reports which will have more credibility and are against the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Former President Mohammad Khatami, who tried unsuccessfully to liberalize Iran’s Islamic system, told students at Chamran University on Tuesday that people should not be "Islamicized by force," a criticism of Ahmadinejad’s hard-line social policies.
Witnesses said students chanted, "Death to despotism!" Hundreds of students demonstrating at Tehran University on Sunday burst through the campus gates, chanting, "Ahmadi-Pinochet, Iran will not be Chile!" before they were dispersed by riot police.
Rival conservative, moderate and reformist Iranian political factions see Ahmadinejad and his loyalists as vulnerable in upcoming March parliamentary elections, primarily because of his administration’s failure to curb inflation, create jobs or draw foreign investment.
Although he confidently answered questions about Iran’s nuclear program, the security situation in Iraq and his country’s opposition to Israel, Ahmadinejad brushed aside a question about the reason for recent increases in the price of dairy products and other foods.
"In the near future," he said, "I will explain it in a press conference to the people."
daragahi@latimes.com
Mostaghim is a special correspondent and Daragahi a Times staff writer.
Reports by LATimes (USA) and ISNA (Iran), December 12, 2007
————-
BBC Monitoring Middle East, December 11, 2007
Text of report by semi-official Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) website
MKO claims Iran resumed nuclear weapon programme in 2004 – Agency
Tehran, 11 December: The terrorist group of hypocrites [a reference to Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, MKO] claimed that America’s intelligence estimates in which it had been said that Tehran has stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 is true, but Iran has resumed this programme since 2004.
According to Wall Street Journal, this claim of the terrorist group of hypocrites, that is going to be announced publicly today, is in tandem to the claims by American Conservatives’ war-mongers who say that the National Intelligence Estimate has brought about the misunderstanding that Iran’s nuclear programme is not considered a critical threat.
The terrorist group of hypocrites is among the sources that America uses it in its allegations against Iran and the IAEA has repeatedly rebuked the allegations of the White House in its reports.
The American Conservatives has called that the process which led to this estimate should be reviewed.
But Iran has repetitively emphasized the peacefulness of its nuclear plans and after the release of this estimate on last Monday [4 December], Iran has emphasized that it had no nuclear weapons programme.
The National Intelligence Estimate has raised new questions regarding the damaged credibility of the White House regarding war [with Iran].
The estimate, which is the result of a consensus among 16 American intelligence agencies, declares that it is not clear whether Iran pursues nuclear weapons or not. By stopping its programme, Iran has shown that it has been more responsive in the face of international pressures than what had been estimated.
At the same time, the National Intelligence Estimate’s report warns that the Islamic Republic still has kept the nuclear option open and rejects the international society’s demand for suspending uranium enrichment and it is possible that Tehran could produce nuclear weapons between 2010 to 2015.
By claiming that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapon programme in 2003, this intelligence report adds: The decision of Tehran for stopping the nuclear programme shows that Iran is not as determined in producing nuclear weapons as we had estimated in 2005.
Source: ISNA website, Tehran, in Persian 0930 gmt 11 Dec 07
Danish Ambassador to Tehran Soren Haslund conferred on Wednesday with Head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi on expansion of parliamentary cooperation between the two countries.
At the meeting, the Danish ambassador lauded the positive role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in fostering peace and stability in Afghanistan.
He said Denmark and Iran have common goals in restoring security and stability to Afghanistan and in anti drug fight in that country which could help broaden cooperation between the two countries.
Europe attaches importance to Iran’s decisive role in anti drug campaign in the region, he said.
Calling the MKO as a terrorist group, the Danish ambassador underlined that the Danish government is determined to prevent activities of the grouplet in the country.
Boroujerdi, for his part, referred to exchange of visits between the European and Iranian parliamentary delegations and said the two countries enjoyed ample potential which should be explored.
Role of parliaments in expanding and consolidating ties among countries are of prime importance, Boroujerdi said.
Referring to crises in the region mainly in Afghanistan, he described them as very complicated. He said increasing
terrorist acts and unprecedented production of narcotic drugs in Afghanistan is a cause of concern for all countries in the region.
Campaign against drug trafficking would have an effective impact on activities of terrorist groups in Afghanistan and the region, he pointed out.
Criticizing the weak role of Europe in anti-drug fight, he called for more active role on the part of Europe in dealing with the issue.
Preceding articles investigated two major factors leading to the development of internal ideological revolution of Mojahedin and the role they played therein. The encountered crises following declaration of armed struggle as well as the failed strategy of overthrow were grave challenges threatening the organization. Rajavi’s hurried and unreasoning resort to armed phase followed by an illogically drawn timetable of short-term toppling of Iranian regime heavily affected the internal and external relations of Mojahedin. The third factor that forced the organization to cling to the alternate of the ideological revolution was the gradual dwindling of its social prestige and legitimacy. Besides, feelings of distrust began to arise among the cadres as a result of observing ever increasing anti-democratic relations within the organization.
Gradual dwindling of MKO’s social prestige
An optimistic analysis of MKO’s failure in the accomplishment of its short-term promise of overthrowing Iranian regime well indicate that Rajavi had an incorrect and subjective evaluation of the public element, namely, masses. His alliance with Bani-Sadr and confidence in the supposed potentiality of sympathizers and members gave him the illusion that Mojahedin was highly supported. He was under the false impression that the march of a number of members and sympathizers might lead to the elimination of any public fear that prevented masses from entering onto the scene in support of the group. The failed rally on 27 September 1991 made it clear to Mojahedin that masses walked in an opposite track which totally disappointed them of relying on social support as their last winning card from the very beginning months of the armed phase. However, the overall failure of this event was a severe put-down to the false illusion of Rajavi. Niyabati, in his review of this phase of armed struggle, points to the fact that it had no gain for Mojahedin but disappointment. He also believes that the September rally made Rajavi reconsider about having any faith in masses’ support. In fact, it was a test that convinced Mojahedin not only people accounted them no political-ideological legitimacy but also would engage in battle against them if needed:
After the wide-range military offences of Mojahedin in the summer 1981, the organization withdrew to take a defensive position; it was decided to test the social element once more. As such, Mojahedin started masterminding armed rallies in late summer 1981 in order to prompt people onto the scene. At the peak of these rallies, the test of the social element was ascertained to be negative. (1)
The confession well approves the strategic miscalculation on the part of Rajavi and Mojahedin. Although Niyabati tries to hide the lack of social support under the banner of the controlling strategies used by the regime, he acknowledges the fact that Mojahedin came to realize that they could in no way rely on the masses to bring about regime’s downfall:
The fact was that Mojahedin were still facing the problem of mobilizing masses for armed struggle that was known to be a locked strategic bolt and the three-year-long plan to overthrow the regime proved to a an absolute failure.(2)
The test being failed, Mojahedin turned to target the ‘social elements’, besides top official figures, to retaliate the defeats. His hopes totally frustrated, Rajavi this time termed the ‘social element’ as tip-fingers of the regime to intensify challenging ordinary people. He states that against his expectation, the masses had played a different role against Mojahedin. Elaborating on Mojahedin’s shift of attitudes in terrorist actions Niyabati has said:
The failure of Mojahedin in bringing the social element onto the scene, so as to unite them with the vanguard forces, through organizing rallies sheltered by Mojahedin’s military units results in the continuation of resistance by cutting the tip-fingers of the regime. (3)
Hadi Shams-Haeri, an MKO ex-member, analyses the 27 September rally as follows:
The organization’s analysis was that people supported the rally in heart but did not dare to participate since they were not armed. So we had to assure them that we would support them in case of firing from the side of [regime’s] guards to encourage them. Therefore, the 27 September rally was organized but again the masses refused to come and the strategy failed. The organization had predicted that 27 September was the regime’s last day and it would assume the power in the evening, but nothing happened. (4)
It is self-evident that the leadership’s miscalculations not only failed to work up support but also took away the little prestige it had already gained. Besides, the organization had to deal with the consequent challenges faced from within. Although it took some time to get internal tensions externalized, their invisible internal impacts cannot to be ignored. To curb internal reactions of any form, a number of decisive decisions had to be made.
The increase of distrust in the leadership
The first serious and critical consequences were the rapid grow of distrust in Rajavi’s leadership. Rajavi’s egocentric decision makings all resulting in strategic failures put the blame on him and made many doubtful about Rajavi’s ideological and political qualification. In spite of the fact that his inefficiency came to be even more palpable after the ideological revolution, according to Mehdi Abrishamchi, in any circumstance Rajavi was the one who said the last word:
Even prior to the internal ideological revolution, it was evident to all of us that Massoud was the key answer to all the ideological necessities of revolution in this historical phase. (5)
As such, it goes without saying that the leader was the one mostly met by crises and the consequent result would be escalation of distrust. As Niyabati openly points out:
The failure of Mojahedin in the short-term overthrowing of the regime as well as the failure of NCRI, considered as the sole democratic alternative, in recruiting all the anti-Shah and anti-sheikh political forces made Mojahedin subject to intolerable pressure both from inside and outside of NCRI. Evidently, the main target of all pressures in the first place was Massoud Rajavi. (6)
The rapid swelling of distrust within the organization put no other solution before the leadership but to resort to preventive measures to meet internal challenges.
The increase of anti-democratic relations in MKO
The only solution to the internally threatening critical conditions was to put an end to the question of leadership and his criticism forever. Cultivation of anti-democratic relations in MKO and NCRI was Rajavi’s short-term solution. However, a fundamental change in the organization’s internal and ideological structure deemed necessary. Still, before the initiation of the ideological revolution, the encountered serious backlashes were severely repressed in a variety of forms. Going into details about organizational reactions, Norooz-Ali Rezvani has said:
In 1984, MKO imprisoned more than 700 members out of whom 73 members, including me, had criticized the organization’s ideological, strategic flaws like accuracy of armed warfare and lack of any democratic internal relations and violation of the members’ democratic rights. I spent 10 days in gaol and 47 days in solitary confinement in the cities of Kahrizeh and Soleymanieh [in Iraq]. Finally, we cut our ideological connection with the organization and announced we were ideologically detached. (7)
The dispersion of organization’s forces
Rajavi called upon all members of the resistance cells and sympathizers inside Iran to leave the country. It led to the dispersion of members who now completely desolate, had to submit to Rajavi’s hegemony. Therefore, the reformation and revival of organizational relations and exercise of hegemony on members demanded a new mechanism to bring and control all the members under a single leadership:
It seemed something much unattainable at the end of 1984 if the past [organizational] framework had to be maintained. Therefore, to safeguard the new revolution and prevent another failure of Iranian people in struggle against repression and colonialism, the integrity and strategic stability of the leading organization had to be preserved. (8)
References:
1. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at Mojahedin’s Ideological Revolution, Khavaran Publication, p.14.
2. ibid, p.16
3. ibid, p.54
4. Shams-Haeri, H. (1996). The Swamp, vol 2. Khavaran publication, p.90
5. The lecture delivered by Mehdi Abrishamchi on the ideological revolution.
6. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at Mojahedin’s Ideological Revolution, Khavaran Publication, p.15.
7. Rezvani, n. (1996). Neo-Scholasticism in Rajavi’s cult, p.8.
8. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at Mojahedin’s Ideological Revolution, Khavaran Publication, p.18.
Bahar Irani,Mojahedin.ws,December 14, 2007
“Iran: Fact & Fiction”
On December 8, 2007, CNN’s Special Investigations Unit started televising “Iran: Fact & Fiction” with Campbell Brown and Frank Sesno. Currently, the scheduled showings are 7 and 11 P.M. (Eastern Time) on December 8 and 9, 2007.
The major theme of the program is missed opportunities by political leaders in America and in Iran for peace. After years of television programs on the Fox News Channel and elsewhere promoting America’s worst enemies, the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) who want to bomb Iran, this CNN program provides some attempts to learn from past missed opportunities for peace.
Iran helped America fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, Fall 2001
Following September 11, 2001, the Islamic Republic of Iran helped America fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. CNN provided only a few of the examples of Iran’s help, such as providing safe passage for humanitarian supplies going to Afghanistan and offering to work with the American military in providing military training for a new government in Afghanistan. How did President George W. Bush thank Iran for Iran’s sacrifices and help? In his January 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said that Iran is a member of the axis of evil. James Dobbins, a former State Department official, reported the extent of Iran’s help.
Iran’s Unsigned 2003 Memorandum
Switzerland passed to the American government an unsigned 2003 memorandum from the Iranian government suggesting in detail ways to resolve differences between Iran and America. This television program showed only a portion of the 2003 memorandum. That portion included a discussion of the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists. Brown and Sesno did not explain that President George W. Bush had used the MEK as a pretext for the Iraq War in 2002 and then protected America’s terrorist enemies at Camp Ashraf, Iraq in 2003.
Nicholas Burns, responsible for Iran at the State Department now (but not in 2003), appeared to lack knowledge of, and interest in, the 2003 memorandum.
Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), expressed her satisfaction that the Swiss official who passed the Iranian memorandum to American officials lost his job. She noted that America’s ambassadors to Iraq and to the United Nations meet with Iranian officials but nothing results from the meetings.
Brown and Sesno should have interviewed Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), author of “The Guldimann Memorandum: The Iranian ‘roadmap’ wasn’t a roadmap and wasn’t Iranian” (Weekly Standard, October 22, 2007).
Trita Parsi, National Iranian American Council (NIAC), regarded the Bush Administration’s failure to respond to the 2003 memorandum a missed opportunity.
Mohammad Khatami’s Election as President of Iran, 1997
This program included details of the efforts of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who served in the Clinton administration, to respond to the opportunity provided by the election of Mohammad Khatami as President of Iran in 1997:
1. Albright gave speeches responding favorably to themes expressed in Khatami’s speeches.
2. America relaxed visa restrictions on Iranians.
3. Iranian scholars were permitted to visit America.
4. America wrestlers competed in Iran.
5. Albright gave a speech admitting American errors to a meeting of Professor Hooshang Amirahmadi’s American Iranian Council (AIC).
This program included an appearance by Kenneth Pollack, formerly with the National Security Council, who noted that Iran’s Supreme Leader responded unfavorably to America’s friendly overtures. Brown and Sesno failed to disclose relevant details about Pollack, such as:
1. Pollack is the author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Pollack has admitted that he understands very little Arabic.
2. Pollack is the author of The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America. At the end of this book, Pollack admitted that he has never been to Iran and does not know Persian (Farsi).
Trita Parsi explained correctly that it was a mistake for America’s political leaders to reach out to only one person or one faction in the Iranian government.
Frank Sesno explained correctly that many Iranians do not trust America’s political leaders because of American support for the Shah of Iran and of American support for Saddam Hussein against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.
Unfortunately, Brown and Sesno did not mention that President Bill Clinton had given a speech to the World Jewish Congress (WJC) on April 30, 1995 pleasing Zionists with trade sanctions against Iran.
Nuclear Inspections
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei noted that Iran’s work with centrifuges is a political act. He reported that Iran does not allow surprise inspections or as complete access to its nuclear facilities as it did in the past. His advice for America was to “cool it”. While some American political leaders want a pressure cooker to explode, a cooler approach could result in being able to trust Iran in the future.
Former United Nations inspector David Kay regarded current Iranian leaders as dangerous but expressed the view that America has a 6 to 8 year opportunity to achieve a secure basis for peace.
Unfortunately, no one made comparisons with Israel, India, Pakistan, and with North Korea. America’s current political leaders have rewarded countries who did not even sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea is an evil communist, totalitarian regime guilty of torturing and of murdering Christians and persons who attempt to flee from North Korea. Many nuclear analysts that North Korea will never comply with agreements to end its nuclear weapons program.
2008 Presidential Candidates
Joe Klein, author of “Iran’s Nukes: Now They Tell Us” (Time magazine, December 6, 2007) noted that there is a real opportunity now for an opening with Iran, but President George W. Bush will fail to seize the opportunity. Klein predicted that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) will hurt the saber rattling Republican presidential candidates. Rudy Giuliani, with a staff of neoconservative advisers, might be hurt the most. Among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton could be hurt because of her vote on a Senate resolution. Iranian leaders are hurting the opportunity by enriching uranium and by supporting Hezbollah. However, Iran is not building nuclear weapons.
David Gergen agreed that Republican presidential candidates who have supported President George W. Bush’s excessive war rhetoric will be hurt.
Saturday December 8, 2007 – 09:13pm (PST) Permanent Link
—————————
London Meetings with Members of Parliament, November 22, 2007
Paul Sheldon Foote,November 23, 2007
On Thursday, November 22, 2007 (Thanksgiving Day in America), some Members of Parliament experienced separate talks with questions and answers by Professor Raymond Tanter [President, Iran Policy Committee; promoting the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists] and Professor Paul Sheldon Foote [opposing the MEK terrorists and neoconservatives].
The Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) arranged for my meeting with Members of Parliament.
http://www.cmec.org.uk
The following is my PowerPoint outline submitted to the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) following the meeting. My talk covered many, but not all, of the topics in this outline during the time period available for the meeting with some Members of Parliament.
US Division of Foreign Policy Towards Iran
Paul Sheldon Foote
Academic Credentials
• Professor of Accounting, California State University, Fullerton
• BBA, University of Michigan—Ann Arbor; MBA, Harvard Business School; Ph.D., Michigan State University
Marriage in Iran
• Married an Iranian khanam in Tehran, Iran, 1968
• Met my wife in London, 1967, when we worked at the Chief Foreign Branch of Barclays Bank (Fenchurch at Lombard streets)
Military Service
• Army lieutenant, Vietnam War
• Volunteered and served in Vietnam, 1968-1969, to fight communists
• Real veteran and conservative, not a neoconservative chickenhawk
Irandoost
• Lover of Iran
• Persian language studies, Harvard University, 1971-1972
• Professor Richard Frye, Greater Iran
• Sir Roger Stevens, The Land of the Great Sophy
International Work Experience
• Government of Norway, Oslo, 1967
• Barclays Bank, London, 1967
• U.S. Army, Vietnam, 1968 – 1969
• American Embassy, Tehran, Iran, 1970
International Work Experience 2
• Citibank, Lebanon and India, 1972-1973
• Singer Sewing Machine Company, Greece, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, 1974 – 1975
International Work Experience 3
• Sultan Qaboos University, Oman, 1994 – 1996.
• English language teaching, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1995, 1996.
• Fraud consulting, Oman, 1998.
Republican Party Credentials
• Lifelong registered Republican, never a neoconservative admirer of Trotsky or of communism
• Elected: Los Angeles Republican County Central Committee, 1990
Republican Party Credentials 2
• Republican candidate for California State Assembly, 1992
Ron Paul
Republican Congressman: I support for President in 2008
• Libertarian Party presidential candidate, 1988
• “Neo-CONNED” speech to Congress, 2003
Patrick J. Buchanan
• Right From The Beginning, 1988 political autobiography
• Neoconservatives, claiming to be former communists, cannot dupe real conservatives.
Patrick J. Buchanan 2
• A Republic, Not an Empire (2002)
• Real American conservatives support setting an example of how to have a great republic at home, not how to invade other countries to steal resources.
Patrick J. Buchanan 3
• Where the Right Went Wrong (2005)
• Neoconservatives (Neo-Trotskyites) are not anti-communist because they opposed the Soviet Union after Stalin’s murder of Trotsky.
Patrick J. Buchanan 4
• “Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.”
Justin Raimondo
• Director, Antiwar.com
• Former public office candidate: Libertarian and Republican parties
• Articles critical of neoconservatives (Trotskycons) and of MEK
Justin Raimondo 2
• Book: Reclaiming The American Right
Claes Ryn
• Professor, Catholic University of America
• Book: America the Virtuous
• Parallels between neoconservatives (neo-Jacobins) and the Reign of Terror of French Revolution
Lew Rockwell
• Libertarian articles critical of neoconservatives and of MEK posted at LewRockwell.com
Renew Diplomatic Relations
• Bruce Laingen, Republican and highest ranking diplomatic hostage in Iran, has supported talks and diplomatic relations with Iran
• Example: March 6, 1998 PBS News Hour
End Western Support of Terrorists
• There are no good terrorists.
• Western countries need to stop all operations of Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists.
Close Camp Ashraf, Iraq
• September 2002: President Bush used MEK as pretext for Iraq War.
• 2003: American and coalition forces attacked Camp Ashraf.
• 2007: America protects its communist enemies.
End Trade Sanctions
• President Clinton, a Democrat, at the World Jewish Congress Dinner (New York City, April 30, 1995) announced he would sign executive orders stopping investment in Iran.
End Trade Sanctions 2
• Clinton thanked Edgar Bronfman, a major shareholder in Conoco, for stopping Conoco from investing $1 billion in Iran’s petroleum industry.
• Clinton noted Bronfman’s Zionist ties.
End Trade Sanctions 3
• “I know he was the President of the World Jewish Congress, the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.” –Clinton, April 30, 1995
End Trade Sanctions 4
• The West has promoted trade and investment involving tens of thousands of factories in Communist China.
• China has millions of political prisoners and executes many for religious or political beliefs.
End Trade Sanctions 5
• Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has a policy of nonintervention
• Contrary to neoconservative lies, real conservatives are not isolationists. We support world trade, not endless wars.
Condemn Zionist Racism
• “A million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail.” –Rabbi Yaacov Perrin at 1994 funeral for Baruch Goldstein, charter member of Jewish Defense League who murdered 29 Muslims.
Stop Strangling Iran
• Neoconservatives lie about exporting democracy.
• European powers crushed Persia’s 1906 Constitutional Revolution.
• Iranians struggled for democracy a century ago.
Reject Zionist Claims to Palestine
• For an honest history of the 7th Century conversion of King Bulan and of the Khazars to Judaism, read Chagall’s Target.
• Ashkenazics were descendents of Noah’s son Japhet, not Shem.
-Finns, not Semites and not “Chosen”.
Do not reward NPT non-signers
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty non-signers:
• India
• Israel
• North Korea
• Pakistan
Stop Stealing Resources
• The 1872 Reuter’s Concession (or Reuter Concession) described by Lord Curzon as ‘the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign [i.e. British] hands’
• Newspapers published editorials and articles expressing shock at Baron de Reuter’s concession from Persia’s Shah.
Stop Stealing Resources 2
• The Shah of Iran squandered the wealth of the Iranian people for the benefit of American interests.
• The Shah of Iran abolished political parties and created a one-party totalitarian state.
• Interlock: The untold story of American banks, oil interests, the Shah’s money, debts, and the astounding connections between them
book by Mark Hulbert
Stop Stealing Resources 3
• Stop using the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other international organizations to control and impoverish countries.
Stop Stealing Resources 4
• Neoconservatives lied about exporting democracy and fighting terrorism in Iraq.
• Be honest about petrodollar warfare: “It is the crude, dude.”
Contact Information
• Professor Paul Sheldon Foote
• Department of Accounting
• California State University, Fullerton
• PO Box 6848
• Fullerton, CA 92834-6848 USA
• (714) 278-2682
• Email: pfoote@fullerton.edu
• Skype Name: paulsheldonfoote
Blog and Political Forum
•http://360.yahoo.com/paulsheldonfoote
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/
Professor Paul shedon Foote, December 08, 2007