A present for cults’ leader
Disclosing the US’s aggressive meddling in Iran, Selig S. Harrison in an article published in The Indypendent states that covert action to undermine the Tehran regime has already been under way intermittently for the past decade. Until now, however, the CIA has operated without a by using proxies. Pakistan and Israel, for example, provide weapons and money to insurgent groups in southeast and northwest Iran.
The efforts by the US to undermine Tehran’s regime has escalated the already existing tension between the two countries. The best way for the United States to start rolling back its regime change policy, as many Iranians believe, would be to dismantle a US-backed militia of Iranian exiles based in Iraq, known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). The MEK supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and subsequently its 3,600 fighters, many of them women, stayed on in Iraq.
According to US sources, since the invasion of Iraq US intelligence agencies have disarmed the fighters but have kept the MEK camps near the Iranian border intact, using MEK operatives for espionage and sabotage in Iran and to interrogate Iranians accused of aiding Shia militias in Iraq.
Until recently, MEK radio and TV stations broadcasting to Iran were based in Iraq, but Iranian pressure on the Baghdad government forced their relocation to London. When the moderate Mohammad Khatami was elected president of Iran in 1997, the State Department made a conciliatory gesture by listing the MEK as a terrorist organisation guilty of human rights violations, and it is still on the list.
Dismantling the MEK paramilitary forces would be an effective way to signal US readiness to accommodate Tehran, suggested Abbas Maleki, an adviser to the National Security Council, since it is the only militarised exile group seeking to overthrow the Islamic Republic and is the darling of the Washington lobby for regime change in Iran. Alireza Jaffarzadeh, chairman of the MEK’s front group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, appears regularly on the conservative TV channel Fox News as its Iran expert, rather like the pro-US Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi before the Iraq invasion, rallying Congressional and media support for military action against Iran.
Two Swedish lawmakers have been criticized after their recent participation in a panel organized by an anti-Iranian terrorist group.
The Members of Parliament Anne Ludvigsson and Bjorn Leivik attended a panel debate entitled Human Rights in Iran aimed at removing the terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO) from the EU’s terror list.
“The meeting was reportedly organized by the Organization of the United Associations for a Free Iran (FFFI) [affiliated to the MKO],”the Swedish SvD daily wrote.
It is inappropriate for Bjorn Leivik and Anne Ludvigsson to have participated in a panel debate arranged by an organization known to be terrorist, cult-like and brutal, said Majed Safaee, an Iranian blogger residing in Sweden.
He also underlined that Human Rights Watch has described how the group had harassed ex-members and used torture at their camps in Iraq under Saddam’s rule.
The MKO has committed terrorist acts against the Iranian nation and collaborated with Saddam’s regime in its bloody crackdown on Iraqi Kurds and Shias.
Iraqi officials have long tried to bring the group’s leader Masoud Rajavi to justice over his role in the massacre of Iraqi people. ————- Human Rights Abuses Inside the Mojahedin Khalq Camps (HRW, May 2005) http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0505/ Exit NoHuman Rights Abuses Inside the Mojahedin Khalq Camps I. Summary Methodology II. Background III. Rise of Dissent inside the MKO Operation Eternal Light Compulsory Divorce Security Clearances IV. Human Rights Abuses in the MKO Camps V. Testimonies Mohammad Hussein Sobhani Yasser Ezati Farhad Javaheri-Yar Ali Ghashghavi Alireza Mir Asgari Akbar Akbari Sayed Amir Mowaseghi May 2005
Press TV, reprting from SvD daily, Sweden, November 15, 2007
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=31188§ionid=351020101
Bid to overturn refugee board decision
TORONTO – A lawyer accused a Middle Eastern guerrilla group yesterday of luring a teenaged Toronto girl to a paramilitary camp in Iraq and brainwashing her into staying.
Pamila Bhardwaj told a Federal Court judge that Somayeh Mohammady had effectively been kidnapped by the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, a rebel group based in Iraq.
The lawyer made the accusation at a court hearing that could ultimately decide whether Ms. Mohammady will be allowed to return to Canada after a decade with the guerrillas.
The MEK, a designated terrorist organization under Canadian law, says it aims to use”physical force, armed struggle or jihad”to overthrow Iran’s repressive government, according to Ottawa.
In the 1990s, the MEK was recruiting within Canada’s Iranian community and Ms. Mohammady, a refugee from Iran, volunteered with the blessing of her parents, both MEK activists.
In 1997, at the age of 17, she travelled to Camp Ashraf, the MEK guerrilla base north of Baghdad from which it launched its attacks on Iran.
She has been there ever since.
While she was away, the rest of the family became Canadian citizens. But Ms. Mohammady’s landed immigrant status expired because she was not residing in Canada as required by law.
The MEK base was disarmed after the U.S. military invaded Iraq in 2003, but hundreds of guerrillas remain at the camp, including Ms. Mohammady.
Mustafa Mohammady, her father, has made several trips to Iraq hoping to bring her back to Canada, but Canadian officials will not let her return because she no longer has immigration status here.
The family challenged that decision at the Immigration and Refugee Board last year but Ms. Mohammady torpedoed her own case when she testified by phone from Iraq that she did not want to return to Canada.”I would like to be here,”she said,”because I’m Mujahedin myself and I want to be here.”
Her family believes she has been brainwashed or is afraid to speak her mind, and Ms. Bhardwaj said human rights groups have reported that”defectors”who try to leave the camp are routinely beaten and detained.”She’s under mind control of the MEK,”Mr. Bhardwaj said.
Ms. Bhardwaj told the court yesterday the refugee board’s ruling should be overturned because it did not take that into account, nor did it consider that Ms. Mohammady was a minor when she was recruited into the MEK.
“This decision simply cannot stand,”she said.
But Martin Anderson, the lawyer representing the government in the case, said there was insufficient evidence Ms. Mohammady had been subjected to psychological pressure.”That may be, but there’s not enough evidence before the panel to establish that.”
He also said that even though she was a minor when she first left Canada for the paramilitary camp, she had turned 18 in 1998.”After that time, she’s an adult,”Mr. Anderson said.
Stewart Bell – sbell@nationalpost.com
Massoud Rajavi, leader of the Mojahedin-é Khalq Organisation (MKO), issued a statement from his hiding on 29th October 2007 (7th Aban 1358) which appeared on the organisation’s website "hambastegimeli" on 1st November 2007 (10th Aban 1358).
In his lengthy statement he has tried to encourage the US administration to launch a full-scale military attack against Iran and has also tried to provide as many excuses as possible for that purpose. He clearly complains why the Americans are in the state of "no war" with the Islamic Republic of Iran and why they don’t finish off the job.
Towards the end of his statement, Rajavi who is addressing the Iranian regime in Tehran warns them:
وعده نهايي ارتش آزادي با شما در تهران…….
"The last engagement of the Liberation Army with you is in Tehran". That is, the National Liberation Army (NLA) will fight all the way through to Tehran and topple the mullahs’ regime forcibly.
In his statement Rajavi clearly threatens anybody who is not advocating war and is opposing the regime peacefully. The title of his message of course is "War or Peace with Religious Fascism?" and Rajavi clearly emphasises that they [NLA combatants] will not give up their war with the regime.
Rajavi ends his statement by declaring that:
راه حل مريم در پايتخت شيروخورشيد پيروز ميشود……
"Maryam’s solution will win in the capital of the lion and the sun".
Maryam Rajavi has proposed that the NLA be armed and backed by the US Army in Iraq and assisted to enter Iranian territory and fight against the Iranians and move towards Tehran. She has also offered that her forces in Iraq be helped and used by the Americans to perform sabotage activities in Tehran and other major Iranian cities.
Rajavi’s statement clearly shows that by no means does he favour any peaceful solution to the Iran problem and is absolutely certain that he will use violence to reach his political goals.
Ebrahim Khodabandeh, November 11, 2007
Ebrahim_khodabandeh_2006@yahoo.com
Iranian MPs criticized German counterparts for having link with terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Iranian women deputies discuss judicial coop with Germany A group of female parliamentarians from Iran continued their high-level political talks in Berlin on Wednesday, meeting with German Deputy Justice Minister Lutz Diwell.
Briefing the Iranian side on the German judicial system, the official expressed his country’s interest in exchanging judicial experts and officials in the area of juvenile rights and crimes.
Meanwhile, the head of the Iranian delegation, Fatemeh Alia reiterated that Iran’s present judicial system was based on Islamic teachings and justice.
She lambasted reports by certain segments of the international media about heavy judicial verdicts against young adults, branding them baseless and fraud.
Alia hailed Germany’s anti-Iraq war stance, saying Berlin’s position on the US military aggression could be interpreted as support for the rights of Iraqi civilians, especially women and children.
In other related news, another member of the Iranian parliamentary delegation, Eshrat Shayegh, called for tougher court verdicts against the producers and distributors of narcotics.
The Iranian MPs met earlier with members of the German-Iranian parliamentary friendship group.
Talks dwelt on boosting cooperation in the sphere of fighting drug trade.
The Iranian female lawmakers also criticized a number of their German counterparts for having links with counter-revolutionary terrorist groups like the MKO grouplet and Pejak
Cheney linked to Mojahedin Khalq Terrorist cult in Iraq
Congressman Dennis Kucinich says he will offer a resolution to the House of Representatives to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.
The Democratic lawmaker who will introduce his privileged resolution next week said on Friday that the momentum is built for Cheney’s impeachment.
"Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress to stand up against the Vice President’s abuse of power," Kucinich said.
"The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran," added the US presidential hopeful.
While the American media has decided to keep Kucinich’s announcement on a low profile 54 percent of the Americans are in favor of impeaching Cheney according to an American Research Group survey conducted last July.
Analysts believe the number of pro-impeachment Americans is on the rise due to Cheney’s hawkish policies towards the Islamic republic.
the resolution reads:
…
(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.
…
————-
Iran Interlink reported on 4 July 2007
http://iran-interlink.org/index.php?mod=view&id=2720
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Cheney linked to Mojahedin Khalq Terrorist cult in Iraq
News has emerged that US Vice President Dick Cheney is subject to impeachment. Part of the accusation against him involves links with the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq cult as highlighted in article 3 below:
(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:
(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.
———-
Full Report:
Press Release
US House Resolution 333
Dennis Kucinich
4 July 2007
04:15
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 333
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 24, 2007
Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:
(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.’ March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.
(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.’ March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.
(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .’ March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We know he’s got chemicals and biological and we know he’s working on nuclear.’ May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.’ August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.
(F) `Based on intelligence that’s becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.
(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq’s weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration’s policy objectives accounts.
(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.
(3) The Vice President’s actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President’s actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.
(A) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it’s nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.’.
(B) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.’.
(C) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.’.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article II
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:
(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.’ December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.
(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.’ January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.
(C) `We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .’ September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.’ October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney ’04 Fundraiser in Iowa.
(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.’ October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.
(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.’ January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.’ January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(I) `First of all, on the question of–of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.’ June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:
(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda’.
(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’.
(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network’.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article III
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:
(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:
(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.’ March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.
(B) `But we’ve also made it clear that all options are on the table.’ January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.
(C) `When we–as the President did, for example, recently–deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.’ January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `But I’ve also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.’ February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.
(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:
(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.’ Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council’. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.
(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.’ Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:
(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.
(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.
(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.
(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.
(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.
(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution’s adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.
(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.
(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’ The threat of force is illegal.
(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’ Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.
The Vice President’s deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President’s recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Press TV, November 04, 2007
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=29792§ionid=3510203
A Masqueraded Partisan of Democracy Preaching War
In contrast to its widespread propaganda to have adopted a strategy of pro-democracy in its struggle, MKO’s bellicosely terrorist nature pops out of its leader’s messages. In most of speeches delivered by Maryam Rajavi after the organization’s great shift following the fall of Saddam, she has put forth the third option of democratic change in Iran. The organization has also expressly renounced all military activities since June 2001, as stated in the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The spell seems to have worked on some European lawmakers and American congressmen since they might have been kept in dark about the true nature of the organization that for solid evidences occupies a permanent position on global terrorist lists.
While in Western countries MKO’s appointed agents are in a ceaseless attempt to remove the terrorist tag from the group through advertising pseudo-democratic claims, the leader’s message to the insiders residing in Camp Ashraf, and of course the sympathizers throughout the world, aims to bolsters the members’ combative morale and contains military threats against Iran. The gist of Massoud Rajavi’s latest message issued from his hideout on 29 October is that the organization never withdraws from its long-advocated policy of resorting to terrorism and militarism to assume political power. Addressing Iranian statesmen Rajavi concludes:
But if you paid no heed and fancied that there would possibly be no war and no land forces,… the final rendezvous of the National Liberation Army (NLA) with you would be in Tehran.
It is an evident fact that Mojahedin adopted the policy of armed struggle not since it was deemed to be a necessity but much because it is innately instituted in its ideology. A review of the organization’s early pamphlets and publications proves that resort to militarism and armed warfare before delineating the struggle strategy is a solution to the vital question of to be or not to be. Renunciation of terrorism and militarism, although MKO has refrained to denounce publicly, first needs a through ideological polish, something MKO has dodged to go through at least up to now.
The main problem lies in the fact that many have failed to grasp the seriousness of the threat. By taking advantage of the global underestimation, Mojahedin play for time through a disguise of pro-democracy. The world has the right to know, so as to be protected against the horrors and atrocities of terrorism, that what the organization advertises and practices in the face of the public is in total contradiction with its ideological bindings. And the world has the right to know why Massoud Rajavi’s messages, originally in Farsi, are rarely translated into other languages while his wife’s speeches are translated into many languages before they are delivered!
Mojahedin.ws, November 9, 2007
http://www.mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=1464
Abdolaziz Hakim says US opposition to the extradition of MKO terrorists from Iraq is the main reason behind their stay in the country.
"Washington considers members of the terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization as political refugees. Due to this attitude, MKO members have not been extradited from Iraq," Head of United Iraq Coalition Seyyed Abdolaziz Hakim told IRNA.
Referring to the Iraqi government’s decision to deport the Mujahedin Khalq terrorist group from Iraq in 2004 and the disagreement of the US, Hakim stated, "Deportation of MKO members from Iraq has always been one of the subjects of discussion among Iraqi and US officials."
Hakim added that the Iraqi people and government consistently demand the expulsion of the MKO terrorists from Iraq due to the atrocities committed by the group against the Iranian and Iraqi people during Saddam’s regime, but they always encounter US opposition.
The Iraqi official also dismissed allegations of Iran’s interference in Iraq, saying the Islamic Republic supported Iraq’s transitional council and the Iraqi government after the collapse of the Saddam regime
PressTV
Nov. 11, 2007
The Dual Stance and Global Order In an article contributed for Dailystar, Manouchehr Mottaki, Iranian Foreign Minister, condemned the US bellicose attitudes toward Iran and its dual stance in dealing with terrorism. He said:
With regard to international terrorism, Iran, as a victim of terrorism, condemns it in all its forms. But the same double standards are apparent here. The US has used and is still using extremist organizations to promote its foreign policy goals. This could be said of US conduct with regard to Al-Qaeda’s precursors in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and of its current dealings with terrorist groups such as the People’s Mujahadeen Organization (MKO), and the Kurdish PEJAK and PKK. The MKO, which was once on Saddam Hussein’s payroll and responsible for the loss of many innocent lives in Iran and Iraq, is now under the protection of the US government in Iraq and operates freely in the US itself.
November 10, 2007
Here is the full text:
Iran’s quest for a just global order By Manouchehr Mottaki, Dailystar, Thursday, November 08, 2007
A major shortcoming in today’s world is the persistence of a zero-sum sense of geopolitics. The world expected something different in the post-Cold War era to promote peace and stability. Instead, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, momentum swung toward a”global war on terror”that, in practice, became the rationale for maintaining a Cold War mentality and supporting strategies of pre-emptive war and regime change that have intensified insecurity, instability and international terrorism.
Consider my country, Iran, which has not invaded any country in the past 250 years. After decades of struggle against dictatorship and foreign domination, we secured our freedom and independence in 1979 by establishing a political system of our own choosing. But instead of establishing friendly relations with Iran based on this new reality, the United States has consistently sought to restore its domination, even providing massive diplomatic, financial and military support to Saddam Hussein in his war against my country during the 1980’s.
The current dispute over Iran’s peaceful and legal nuclear program is part of this pattern, replete with unfounded accusations, double standards, and moral and legal inconsistency, all hidden behind the alleged threat of proliferation. But Iran’s peaceful nuclear program originates from the late 1960s and 1970s. Iran’s energy demand will exceed its supply, possibly reducing or even eliminating its oil export capacity in the near future. Thus, Iran urgently needs to produce 20,000 megawatts of nuclear power by 2020. As long ago as 1973, the US government itself saw that Iran would need nuclear power. Indeed, the US expected that Iran would be capable of generating 20,000 megawatts by 1994. Despite the encouragement of Iran’s civil nuclear program by the US, Britain, Germany, and France, they all ultimately reneged on their contractual commitments after our revolution in 1979. Today, some of these governments are even questioning Iran’s need for nuclear energy – a matter that was obvious to them 30 years ago.
Iran does not need nuclear weapons to protect its regional interests, and such weapons have no place in Iran’s security strategy. It seeks to win the confidence of its neighbors and has remained within the confines of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency has verified that there has been no diversion of Iran’s civil nuclear program to weapons development. Iran has even proposed regional and multinational participation in its uranium enrichment facilities – only to be met by resounding silence from the Western powers.
Meanwhile, US policy toward nuclear non-proliferation and the NPT regime is a case in point of double standards and the lack of sensitivity to other countries’ security concerns. While the US seeks to use unilateral and unlawful pressure to preclude Iran’s legitimate right to peaceful nuclear energy, it has assisted in developing Israel’s nuclear capabilities. Indeed, the US has acted as a buffer to insulate Israel – whose prime minister has boasted about its nuclear weapons – from any international scrutiny, while ignoring calls by Iran and other countries to create a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone.
With regard to international terrorism, Iran, as a victim of terrorism, condemns it in all its forms. But the same double standards are apparent here. The US has used and is still using extremist organizations to promote its foreign policy goals.
This could be said of US conduct with regard to Al-Qaeda’s precursors in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and of its current dealings with terrorist groups such as the People’s Mujahadeen Organization (MKO), and the Kurdish PEJAK and PKK. The MKO, which was once on Saddam Hussein’s payroll and responsible for the loss of many innocent lives in Iran and Iraq, is now under the protection of the US government in Iraq and operates freely in the US itself. Iran has always considered regional stability to be in the vital interest of its own security and development. Our efforts to establish a regional security and cooperation arrangement in the Persian Gulf date back to 1986, at the height of the war with Iraq. We have continued to pursue these initiatives in the post-Saddam era, engaging in confidence-building measures with our immediate neighbors in order to offset extra-regional agitations.
Iran currently applies the same policy considerations to Iraq and Afghanistan, despite its opposition to the US-led invasions of these countries. Iran has established excellent relations with post-Taliban Afghanistan and post-Saddam Iraq, and the most senior officials of both countries consistently reject US allegations of Iranian interference. These accusations are designed to portray Iran as a threat to regional stability and frighten other countries into creating an anti-Iran coalition, with the aim of diverting attention from the consequences of failed US policies not only in Iraq, but also in Lebanon and with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The world deserves better. A just global order must be defined in terms of peace and security, alleviation of poverty, a fairer distribution of wealth, better protection of the environment, and respect for local cultural particularities. We can build a global order based on justice, one that negates the current unipolar order by developing tolerance for diversity instead of seeking imposition and assimilation.
Such an order will be culturally inclusive and less hegemonic, encompassing states, non-state actors and social groups to minimize violence and maximize economic well-being.
Erich Fromm, the late German psychologist and philosopher, once said that”history is a graveyard of cultures that came to their catastrophic ends because of their incapacity for planned and rational voluntary reaction to challenges.”We cannot predict our fate, but we can be certain that security will only come through real solidarity and global partnership.
Manouchehr Mottaki is foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This commentary is published in collaboration with Project Syndicate/Asia Society (c)