Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO Spies on Iranian Immigrants

Ten days after MKO agents’ bludgeoning in Paris, NCRI’s Commission of Political Studies eventually released its report on the seminar of "Association for the Protection of Iranian Immigrants in France"!

The report*, modeled after Sherlock Holmes stories, stresses that "the invitation for the seminar said that it was free for all Iranians, the address was also mentioned…so it could be understood from such new propagandistic move that Iranian Intelligence Ministry has put new purposes in its agenda against Iranian immigrants and opponents abroad."

The purpose of this seminar was mentioned in MKO’s so-called revealing statement as follows:

"Recruiting spies and trapping asylum seekers and Iranian immigrants in France"

Elsewhere, they quoted an unknown "French Committee for a Democratic Iran" claiming that "the said association was established in order to penetrate among opponents of the Iranian regime."

The report details the full biography of all participants in Seminar, which can be fulfilled only by months of intelligence operations; for instance, they mention when and where Mr. Firoozmand was employed by Construction Company of Mr. Shadanloo and From this viewpoint, one should congratulate French security services for having an active intelligence network under their nose (which monitors the activities of Iranian immigrants in that country).

However, even if MKO’s claims were true and the mentioned association was established to recruit Iranians for spying, the sponsors wouldn’t like to disrupt the seminar by scuffling with others!

MKO’s Gestapo should be asked why they helped the sponsors achieve their goals to "trap immigrants" by deploying their supporters and members to the seminar.

NCRI’s report says that MKO members were deployed to the place to disrupt the session and that they had purposes, which resulted in clashes. The report says:

"Meanwhile, a number of political immigrants, informed about the seminar by the invitations, went to the place…immigrants exposed mullahs’ agents without surrendering or physical reaction."

The question is that why these immigrants took part in a seminar when the MKO has boycotted all Farsi media (whether supporter or opponent of the Islamic Republic)?

On the other hand, MKO’s history and records in Europe in the past 26 years show that they have always disrupted meetings, beaten speakers, attacked Iranian officials and even Iranian embassies…then one can understand where these players got their orders from.

What remains is the role of so-called NCRI’s Commission of Political Studies in spying on Iranian immigrants in France and other European countries, an example of which has been published as this report.

————————————————–

* This report was published by MKO on June 17

Irandidban, June 27, 2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Two Agendas: Why Iran, U.S. Stand Far Apart

Two Agendas: Why Iran, U.S. Stand Far Apart — Tehran Seeks End to Bid to Destabilize Regime; Washington Wants Insurgent Backing in Iraq to Stop

 Washington — As the U.S. and Iran consider a second round of talks aimed at stabilizing Iraq, Tehran is calling for the U.S. to stop actions it claims are aimed at stirring trouble within Iran. Iran’s list of concerns underscores the deep divisions separating the two sides — and could stymie any hoped-for cooperation on Iraq.

For its part, Washington claims Iran is backing Iraqi insurgent groups that are attacking U.S. forces and wants it to stop. But the Iranians are countering with demands, both in public and through private channels, that the Bush administration break up an Iranian terrorist group, the Mujahedin e-Khalq, or MEK, that opposes the Iranian government and is being sheltered by U.S. forces in Iraq near the Iranian border, senior U.S. officials and academics said.

"The MEK has been a constant irritant to the Iranians, and they have brought [the group] up repeatedly, both directly and indirectly," said a senior U.S. official working on Iran.

Iran has listed other issues it wants addressed, as the U.S. pushes it to help tame sectarian violence and weapons proliferation in Iraq. These include an end to Washington’s alleged support of ethnic insurgent groups, which Tehran views as part of a broader destabilization campaign against the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tehran also wants the U.S. to return five Iranian officials detained in Iraq by the Pentagon in January and to set a firm timetable for a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

Iran’s demands, and particularly its fixation on the MEK, illustrate the increasingly tit-for-tat approach Tehran is employing in its growing contretemps with Washington and its Western allies over Iraq and over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear know-how. The demands also reflect a growing anxiety sweeping Mr. Ahmadinejad’s government about the perceived threat posed by the U.S. and its allies to Iran’s internal stability, U.S. officials and analysts said.

In recent months, Tehran has detained four Iranian-American academics on espionage charges, as well as 15 British marines and naval officers — since released — who it alleged had illegally entered Iranian waters.

The Iranian government is facing mounting public unrest at home amid signs that the economy is suffering. International financial sanctions pushed by the U.S. in response to Tehran’s nuclear activities could further damage the country’s economy and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s political standing.

Iran has emerged as an increasingly influential player in the Middle East, as Shiite Muslim political parties and militant groups bolster their presence across the region. In Iraq, the Bush administration believes Tehran is supplying weapons and training to Shiite militias fighting against Sunni Muslims and American forces, in a bid to undermine Washington’s Iraq mission. Iranians officials, who declined to comment for this article, have previously denied the country is training or arming militias in Iraq.

In the first direct talks between Washington and Tehran in decades, held on May 28 in Baghdad, the U.S. delegation, led by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, demanded that Iran move to stop its support of Iraqi militia groups. The Iranians raised some of their concerns in response, with Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Quomi, bringing up the MEK.

Now Iran is pushing for a second round, but U.S. officials said the White House hasn’t decided whether more talks would be useful at this moment. Mr. Crocker and other officials described the first session as a largely formal, four-hour presentation of each country’s views on Iraq, and what each thought the other could do to lessen the violence.

Washington’s position on the MEK has emerged as a litmus test in Tehran’s eyes of the Bush administration’s overall posture toward Iran, and could help determine the success of any future talks between the two countries.

Selig Harrison, a scholar based in Washington who recently met with Iranian officials in Tehran, said the Iranian government views the dismantling of the MEK "as a key barometer of the U.S.’s goodwill."

The issue may also be the only one among Iran’s demands on which the U.S. has some flexibility. U.S. officials said they are weighing ideas on how to remove the group from its U.S.-protected base in Iraq. But they conceded that any decision would have to overcome numerous legal and other obstacles, as well as heavy criticism on Capitol Hill.

The U.S. State Department considers the MEK a terrorist organization for its role in assassinating American and Iranian officials, and its military alliance with deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and ’90s.

Even so, the Pentagon continues to safeguard more than 3,000 MEK members and their families at an Iraqi military base near the Iranian border under an international covenant protecting displaced peoples. The U.S. command has allowed the group to use Camp Ashraf as a base to orchestrate anti-Iranian political and propaganda programs, though it has disarmed MEK fighters.

Members of the MEK and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, have emerged as a source of intelligence for Washington on Iran’s nuclear programs and paramilitary operations. And thanks to a healthy lobbying operation, the organization enjoys strong support in Congress, where some sympathetic lawmakers view it as a potential democratic counterweight to Tehran.

Mr. Harrison, who is based at the Center for International Policy and visited Tehran three weeks ago, said aides to Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told him that Washington’s partnership with the MEK was viewed as part of a broader U.S. campaign to use ethnic insurgent groups to challenge Tehran.

Iran has charged the U.S. with supporting ethnic militias in Iraqi Kurdistan and Pakistan’s Baluchistan province in a bid to strike Iranian military assets.

The Pentagon and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency have denied using these militias, or the MEK itself, as military tools against Iran.

Iranian officials have floated proposals at international events that would allow agencies such as the Red Cross to oversee the resettlement of MEK personnel out of Camp Ashraf either back to Iran or to third countries.

Other Iran analysts said the stalemate between Washington and Tehran over the MEK underscores the high distrust between the countries. In the late 1990s, the Clinton administration listed the MEK as a terrorist organization, partly in an effort to build bridges to reformist elements in Iran. Now, there appears to be no middle ground between the countries on the MEK and other issues.

"The MEK was always a small price to pay" for Washington to improve ties with Iran, said Vali Nasr, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "The problem is that Washington is not interested anymore in paying any price."

 

—

 

Fickle Friends

Washington’s history with the Mujahedin e-Khalq

— 1970s: MEK operatives, seeking to overthrow the Shah, kill American diplomats, contractors seen backing Iran’s regime

— 1979-86: MEK initially backs Islamists’ ouster of the Shah, but members flee after incurring mullahs’ mistrust and set up bases in neighboring Iraq

— 1997: Clinton administration, pursuing better ties with Iran, places MEK on State Department terrorist list

— 2002: MEK officials in Washington disclose intelligence on secret Iranian nuclear activities in city of Natanz

— April 2003: U.S. designates MEK political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a terrorist entity

— May 2003: U.S. launches raids on MEK camps in Iraq, cease-fire eventually signed by two sides

— June 2003: French antiterrorism officials, with support from U.S. intelligence, seize MEK property and personnel outside Paris

— 2004: Pentagon grants amnesty to roughly 3,500 MEK personnel in Iraq under Fourth Geneva Convention

— 2007: Iran, U.S. discuss dismantling MEK infrastructure in Iraq

 

By Jay Solomon and Neil King Jr.

The Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2007

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The Ideology of the MEK

The Leadership Hegemony after the Ideological Revolution (2)

In the first section of the article, it was discussed that in MKO’s ideological revolution, one of the basic principles of organization, council leadership or democratic centralism, was denied; hence many members of the organization got separated. Members’ detachment violated none of the organizational principles of MKO as in one of the instructional pamphlets of organization titled ‘A Survey of the Possibility of Deviation in Democratic Centralism or the Difference between Scientific and Non-scientific Suspicion in Organizational issues’ it had been asserted that members could willfully leave the organization and even establish a new organization or branch in case democratic centralism took a course of deviation:

The possibility of deviation of democratic centralism in future, as it happened in the past, is self-evident. However, the question is what we should do? Shall we withdraw and remain passive? [1]

As noted, the possibility of deviation of democratic centralism was a taken for granted issue and the separation of members did not necessarily led to a state of passivity and the cease of struggle, rather the separated members were obliged to continue the line of struggle and to unmask the deviants. Taking the possibility into consideration, the process of fighting against deviation of democratic centralism was thus phased:

If deviation or an act of revisionism is proven, that is, any principally adopted political and ideological components is neglected, the internal opposition takes the first step to initiate a non-aggressive confrontation against the move. [2]

The next step, in case the deviated leading cell failed to ameliorate, would inevitably be the separation, schism and even uncovering the instances of deviation:

Yet, in the next phase and in case our attempts yielded no results, the schism is the solution to an organization which is not likely to revise its position. The schism is requisite in such cases as there are precedents for many revolutionary parties. [3]

In respect to the necessity of the continuation of struggle following the schism we read:

Then we have to be engaged in a wide struggle in a new front against the new opportunist and revisionist move by taking advantage of appropriate modes of struggle. [4]

As such, separation and even act of disclosing are considered as democratic rights on the part of the members. In this regard, the separation of Parviz Ya’qubi, one of the high-ranking members of organization, and his initiation of a new organization called ‘the Followers of the Path of Mussa’ may be considered as exercising organizational and democratic rights of members far from unfounded claims made by Rajavi accusing Ya’qubi. After the declaration of the first phase of the ideological revolution in 1985, a great number of members criticized Rajavi for denouncing council leadership. Ali Akbar Rastgoo, one of the ex-members of MKO, refers to Rajavi’s egocentric moves as the main cause of disintegrating the organization [5]. Mojahedin denied democratic centralism and declared openly the formation of a new leadership led by Rajavi:

A full comprehension of such a great revolution… is in fact a deep grasp of the elevated combination of a belief in the new leadership of Massoud and Maryam and the ideological obedience to them [6].

In this regard, it has been pointed out that Mojahedin have denied the most important achievement of contemporary movements. Niybati describes such an achievement from a different angle:

It was the first time in the history of contemporary revolutions that an organization denied the principle of democratic centralism, a principle achieved after several hundred years of revolutionary struggle, and (correctly or incorrectly) handed over the overall authority to a leader who is accountable only to God. [7]

The ideological revolution was in itself a result of the organization’s failures during 1981-1985 and aimed at preventing separation of the members and disunity. However, in this process, Rajavi’s hegemony turned to be the major cause behind all deviations and failures of organization. In this regard, Massoud Jabani writes:

Most of the principles and regulations of organization are there but on the paper and have no practical function, like the council leadership, democratic centralism and internal criticism. Rajavi launched a coup d’etat under the pretext of probable coup d’etats made against him and the organization in order to subordinate members by means of brainwashing. [8]

Bijan Niyabati asserts that Mojahedin’s ideological revolution was at first the outcome of the strategic failures of the organization from 1981 to 1985 and then, an attempt to prevent disintegration of the organization:

To protect revolution against reactionary moves and practices of exploitation, the sole solution is to immune the organization and its leadership against splitting and disintegration. [9]

 

Taking the above-mentioned points into consideration, we may come to the following conclusions:

1. Based on the theoretical principles of organization, separation, schism and disclosure of any instance of deviation from ideological and political principles in general and the principle of council leadership (democratic centralism) in particular is regarded as the absolute and democratic right of members.

2. Mojahedin themselves acknowledge the ideological revolution and negation of democratic centralism and, thus, the separation from organization may be an inevitable and predictable reaction on the part of the members.

3. Ideological revolution occurred as a result of deviation and strategic failure of the organization; Rajavi’s hegemony was an attempt to confront probable schism and members’ detachment.

4. Mojahedin’s exposed accusations against the separated members is an unjustly adopted tactic to avoid further criticism and to wrestle with the internal crises.

References

1. A Survey of the Possibility of Deviation of Democratic Centralism or the Difference between Scientific and Non-Scientific Suspicion in Organizational Issues. (1979). Tehran: MKO publications. p.54.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid, 59.

4. Ibid.

5. Rastgoo, Ali-Akbar; Mojahedin in the Mirror of the History, 259.

6. Mojahed , No. 242.

7. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at Mojahedin’s Ideological Revolution, Khavaran Publication, 35.

8. Jabani, M; Psychology of Aggression and Terror, pp. 87-90.

9. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at Mojahedin’s Ideological Revolution, Khavaran Publication, 21.

Mojahedin.ws  – June 25, 2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran

Iran is America’s best hope for stability in the Gulf

Iran is ready to help the US stabilise both Iraq and Afghanistan, but only for a price: a gradual accommodation between Washington and Tehran, starting with the complete cessation of CIA and Pentagon covert operations designed to promote "regime change". "The United States is like a fox caught in a trap" in Iraq, said Amir Mahebian, editor of the conservative daily Reselat, in a recent Tehran conversation. "Why should we free the fox so he can make a dinner out of us?"

In the most widely reported covert operations under way in Iran, the US is smuggling weapons and money to disaffected non-Persian ethnic minority factions. But at the recent Iran-US talks in Baghdad, Iranian delegates focused on less publicized sabotage and espionage missions in the Persian heartland of Iran by a US-backed militia of Persian exiles known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). The MEK backed Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and its 3,600 fighters stayed on in Iraq afterwards. Since the invasion of Iraq, US intelligence agencies have disarmed the fighters but have kept the base camps intact and have used MEK operatives for missions in Iran, even though the State Department lists it as a terrorist organisation.

In the Baghdad talks, Iran rejected a US offer to transfer the camps to Morocco, aides to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, told me. What Tehran wants is a complete dismantling of MEK paramilitary forces, starting with a screening process in which the Red Cross would arrange reunions between MEK members and their families. Members opting to return to Iran would get an amnesty.

Dismantling the MEK would be the best way to signal US readiness for an accommodation with Tehran, since it is the only militarised exile group seeking to overthrow the Islamic Republic and is the darling of the Washington "regime change" lobby. Alireza Jafarzadeh, chairman of an MEK front group,the National Council of Resistance of Iran, appears regularly on Fox News and is playing a role like that of Ahmad Chalabi in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, rallying congressional and media support for bombing the Natanz nuclear site.

The dominant impression emerging from a week of high-level conversations in Tehran cutting across the ideological spectrum is that Ayatollah Khamenei and the pragmatists in his National Security Council, not the fire-breathing president, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, control foreign and defence policy; and that most outstanding issues, including the nuclear issue, can be defused over time if the US moves towards recognition of the Islamic Republic and keeps out of the internal Iranian struggle between hardliners and moderates.

It was a naive blunder for George W. Bush, US president, to announce that $75m was being funnelled to Iranians "seeking to promote openness and freedom for the Iranian people". This gave hardliners their excuse for the unconscionable recent arrests of four Iranian-American dual citizens. Similarly, hardline elements are strengthened by pressure tactics on the nuclear issue, such as United Nations sanctions, harassing Iranian banks and stationing two aircraft carriers equipped with nuclear-capable aircraft off Iran’s coast.

What, specifically, is Iran prepared to do in Iraq and Afghanistan? The quickest pay-off would come in intelligence-sharing, help in training security forces and reconstruction assistance. In Iraq, Iranian officials say, they would help in breaking up Sunni terrorist networks and, as relations with Washington improved, in moderating the role of the Shia militias. Iran agrees with the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, they say, that a timetable for the departure of US combat forces is necessary to calm the nationalist passions that fuel insurgent activity. In Afghanistan, said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis (parliament) foreign affairs commission, Iran is ready to expand its economic aid, accelerate anti-narcotics operations and intensify co-operation against the Taliban. What he did not say is that, if US covert operations continue, Iran can retaliate by helping the Taliban.

Even with Iranian help, the future in both Baghdad and Kabul is likely to be tempestuous, but co-operation between Washington and Tehran offers the best hope for damage limitation. This is especially true in Iraq, where the destruction of the Sunni-dominated Saddam regime predictably set the stage for an Iran-tilted Shia majority regime and has made the search for a US-Iranian accommodation throughout the Persian Gulf region an increasingly unavoidable geopolitical necessity.

The writer is director of the Asia programme at the Center for International Policy in Washington

THE FINANCIAL TIMES – By Selig Harrison – June 20, 2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

What makes a terrorist?

The U.S. State Department supplied over 30 reasons for classifying the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a terrorist organization. Among those reasons, "[S]tresing the ability and the will of MKO members and leadership to conduct terrorist operations across the world." Yet, U.S. Army Military Police guard the organization’s bases in Iraq and maintain control over the traffic and supplies heading in and out.

This parallel cooperation/condemnation has long been criticized by news agencies such as Al Jazeera, and rose to prominence in 2003. That year, many allege the CIA promoted MEK-sponsored attacks along the Iraq/Iran border.

The Pentagon and White House seem happy to use this group to their own end. In 2002, The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the public arm of the MEK, was cited as the prime source for revealing Iran’s nuclear program. At the time, Bush and other officials denied their praise of NCRI and MEK signaled a shift in the United States’ official position toward the organization, but it didn’t stop the praise.

Of course this is nothing new. Supporting groups like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan or the Kurds in Northern Iraq has long been considered a foolproof formula for maintaining a strict foreign policy without getting our hands dirty. However, it seems foolhardy to pick our terrorist organizations. Just because an organization is using terrorist tactics to unseat power in Iran doesn’t make it any less terrorist.

Who separates a terrorist from a freedom fighter? Depends on the context, I suppose.

The White House is peopled by students of Kissinger, so it comes as no surprise the White House and Pentagon are using Kissinger’s doctrine to make lemonade out of their Iraq-war lemons. Just as the U.S. normalized relations with China (effectively ending the cold war in the east), relations with Iran will eventually become more friendly (particularly if the U.S. can count on cooperation from the likes of Turkey and Saudi Arabia). If our foreign policy follows history, the first people who will suffer for those normalized relations will be the MEK in southern Iran and (perhaps) the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

It’s happened before:

When Kissinger arrived in China, one of the first demands met was that all covert military actions against China cease immediately. Perhaps that came as solace to the family of Stephen "Gip" Kasarda Jr., who had given his life supporting CIA missions into Tibet, where many Tibetans, who had been trained at Fort McHale, Colorado, were waging a guerilla war against China. It probably came as no small consolation to the Tibetans, however, as the U.S. immediately withdrew official support and the Chinese army moved in to many locations that had been taken and held by the Tibetan freedom fighters.

How many more U.S. soldiers and operatives will be sacrificed "fighting freedom"? How many more groups who have counted on U.S. support over the years will be stranded and forgotten as the U.S. makes compromises across the world? Foreign policy is a complex issue, and no doubt many who gave their lives understood it was a distinct possibility—maybe even a guarantee. However, shouldn’t the United States’ war on terror extend to all terrorist organizations? If not, why not? And who will provide us the classification system that enables us to tell the good guys from the bad?

 

 

Independentreport.org –  June 05, 2007

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Missions of Nejat Society

Open letter to the State Department

The State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism on April 30 released the list of designated terrorist organizations. What is the focus of attention concerning the list is not that Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK, MKO) continues to occupy the status it has held since 1997, but the report has a more critical tone on the MKO than previous reports when it comes to describe the organization.

Noted in the released report, “In addition to its terrorist credentials, the MEK has also displayed cult-like characteristics”. It also adds that “MEK leader Maryam Rajavi has established a ‘cult of personality’". Such remarks are promising in that the emergence of another al-Qaeda are anticipated and thus prevented. The very identical structural, ideological, and cult-like characteristics of MKO with that of al-Qaeda denote that, regardless of quantitative differences between the two, both maintain potential threat against global peace and security.

But it has to be acknowledged that terrorist phenomena like that of MKO and al-Qaeda before anything are products of political miscalculations and dereliction of the contemporary history, as al-Qaeda was supposed to be an instrument to confront what was presumed to frustrate accomplishment of democracy. But the fact was disregarded that such instruments initially diverge from the route of democracy. The paramount challenge of the latter years of the past decade proved to be injection of wrong policies, in an attempt to apply low-cost but useful strategies, in confrontation of unproven threats. Many political analysers, for instance, have come to unanimous agreement that al-Qaeda was an outcome of a rush by the US that was obsessed with the imagined threat of rising Communism in the region and resolved on an alternative to combat the threat. Recurrence of another similar phenomenon depends on your earnest endeavour to develop a deep and non-instrumental recognition of MKO.

Although bitter, the experience of al-Qaeda proved that curbed passionate drives and rationality can possibly frustrate repetition of tragic disasters. Your insistence to keep MKO on the list of designated terrorist organizations well indicates that how logically and deeply you have perceived unfathomed threat of the group regardless of a number of “members of Congress from opposite sides” who seemingly have come to recognition that the group can be effectively used as an instrumental client to accomplish certain political goals. The “displayed cult-like characteristics” you have referred to in the report are definitely the result of a complicated phenomenon within Mojahedin called Ideological revolution, an incident that, in spite of its significance for MKO, the group shuns revealing its contents for the world outside. No doubt, Mojahedin will be greatly perturbed to be under scrutiny when it is discovered that their opportunistic political mottos are in total contradiction with unrevealed principles of their ideological revolution.

To develop a good understanding of MKO’s ideological revolution and how the group managed to conceal the contents depend on the will of the parties that advocate utilization of MKO against Iran even though they are well aware of the fact that the group maintains no political weight and legitimacy. But it should be noted that the same very small protection the group receives, compared with the high price the public opinion and the world in general have to pay, can help embolden it indulge in further belligerently terrorist and cultic activities.

However, your latest position accusing MKO of cult-like practices, which ex-members avow to have been under its predominant influence, might compel the group, regardless of its propaganda blitz and bombastic claims, to present justifiable reasons, if there are any, to defend allegations. Of course, the ex-member activists in the recent years have published documentaries and memoirs unfolding facts about the group’s medieval cultist features. Besides, there are also evidences corroborated by MKO itself that not only appreciate the ideological revolution within the group, but also impart its significant impacts on the insiders. A look at Bijan Niyabati’s “A Different Look at Mojahedins’ Ideological Revolution”, originally in Persian, is one of the best instances drafted by an enthusiastically devoted member. No doubt, you would be amazed to discover how the contents of this book contradict the group’s media rhetoric denying cult allegations. Furthermore, it is depleted with heaps of evidences that contributes to undeceive the deluded Western advocates.

To have MKO under control in Camp Ashraf is a serious responsibility on your shoulders. Of course, in the near future the group has to face its destiny and be expelled from Iraq. But it would not be the tragic end awaiting MKO. Camp Ashraf demonstrates the crystallization of MKO’s adopted cult-like strategy and ideology; the members within the camp have to be regarded as victims of a cult who need to be rehabilitated.

The transfer of these members to any other place out of Iraq is nothing more than an impetuous political move to diminish the group’s threat in Iraq. But it should be noted that relocation of the group, now discredited as pariah, with those same retained cultist features, in no way reduces the cult potentialities that perforce threatens the psychological health of the citizen wherein they are to reside as well as aggravating the psychological affliction of the forcibly held members. Another point, MKO’s prime moves to start its internal revolution and to transform into a cult was instigated when the group was in France. That is a good circumstantial evidence that Mojahedin are capable of accomplishing their objectives and stabilizing their position regardless of the domicile.

With respect to the complexity of MKO now regarded as a cult, let’s look at it from a different angle. That is, regardless of any political consideration, consider it an abnormally diseased body that needs circumspect attention to recover. Cults are an ever-growing social problem in the Western countries and the emphasis is today on helping the victims of cults to recover and treat the effects of emotional, physical, and sexual trauma. MKO is not an exception. Its members need counsel and therapy before they are physically freed from the cult’s holding and released into a free world. Otherwise they will be turned into a much greater problem and threat hard to deal with. Tragic precedents, as you have pointed out, were the self-immolations in Paris and a number of other European cities that led to the death of two female members. There are much more horrible potentialities that Mojahedin maintain.

Your report states that “Despite U.S. efforts, MEK members have never been brought to justice for the group’s role in these illegal acts”. Your delinquency in the past has imposed high prices on the world to pay. To keep MKO on the terrorist list fails to be the sole solution to confront the threat of the group as a cult and the remiss in efforts has to be redressed.

What seems to be urgent at the present, before dealing with the MKO’s terrorist crimes and before the members are dispersed, is to avail assistance of the professionals with expertise in dealing with the dangers of the cults and helping the therapy and recovery of the members. Your domination over the Camp Ashraf entrust you the duty of taking measures to ensure that the world will be safe against the cultic harms and threats of the Mojahedin cult in case the group is unleashed from the bounds of Ashraf.

Mojahedin.ws  – June 24, 2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Terrorists’ Justified Armed Resistance

It is much disappointing to come across accounts that, to appease terrorists for certain personal or political concerns, try to justify blatant terrorist moves perpetrated by a globally proscribed terrorist group as “a just armed resistance”. No doubt, the composers of these accounts can hardly differentiate between terrorism and resistance.

Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization has recently started a new move in Scandinavian countries against the EU to remove its name from the terrorist list. Of course, many of those who concur with MKO to antagonize its proscription, are not fully or at all acquainted with the group’s past history of bloody terrorist moves against innocent Iranian civilians and have not developed a good understanding of its hypocritical nature.

For instance, a Danish columnist, Ole Damkjær, in an article released in Berlingske Tidende, criticizes the EU’s approach to keep MEK in the terrorist list. The writer states that:

Opposition in the Danish Parliament along with other oppositions in EU countries have criticized the government for not abiding by the ruling of the EU Court as well as not presenting any evidence on the reason for inclusion of MEK in the list. The Foreign Minister Per Stig Muller has yielded to Parliament’s European Committee and sent them a top secret letter which specifies the reasons for inclusion of MEK in the terrorist list.

This document which Berlingske has obtained lists five violent activities between 1980 and 2001 and MEK renounced violence in 2001. In none of these 5 operations of the Iranian organization any terrorist activities such as those of Al-Qaeda’s have been utilized. The first reason the EU presented for including the Mojahedin in the list is concerning that MEK in 1980 that carried out operations across the border from their bases in Iraq. Other reasons are as follows:

In 1992 MEK had terrorist operations against 13 Iranian embassies and establishments.

In 1993 right before the Presidential election in Iran, the organization claimed the responsibility for attacks on Iranian oil facilities such as Iran’s largest refinery.

In 1999 MEK assassinated deputy commander of Iran’s armed forces.

In 2000 and 2001 MEK announced that its members were involved in attacks on Iranian armed forces, police and governmental offices near Iran Iraq border.

These are activities that EU lists in a document and emphasizes on and calls them terrorist activities. But their reasons are questioned not only by MEK but increasingly by a great number of EU Parliamentarians. They say MEK has only carried a just armed resistance against the brutal mullahs’ regime.

I do not know if these Danish advocates of MKO would maintain the same idea about “a just armed resistance” in case a group carried out the same “questioned” operations in a European country. The terrorists that demolished the Twin-Towers in 9/11 or blasted the London Subway had also justifiable reasons for themselves. Then, why a global war on terrorism is declared? If all dissidents and resistances were engaged in armed moves, what the world would be like?

Besides, the above mentioned reasons compared with the group’s unmentioned black file of terrorist atrocities are of no significance. A look at some counter-MKO websites, mojahedin.ws, iran-intrlink, irandidban and …, that present instances of the group’s terrorist operations will contribute to further information. For instance, MKO claim it has denounced terrorist activities since 2001. Can you believe it? Here are evidences that are excerpts from the group’s organ, Mojahed.

Furthermore, I do not think anybody can challenge the State Department’s recent report on MKO. Either all those countries that have proscribed MKO as a terrorist group are mistaken or MKO is lying to dupe the world. It is betrayal of moral standards to take safe refuge behind the globally accepted counter-terrorism laws to chant in favor of terrorists. One should choose to stand either in the former or the latter front.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

MKO’s Recent Meeting Widely Condemned in Iraq

An Iraqi MP, from Diyala province, condemned the meeting of MKO in its Ashraf Camp, in the city of al-Khales, on Saturday.

Taha Dar’alsadi, from Unified Iraqi Coalition, the biggest faction in the Iraqi parliament, said: "We condemn this meeting that was held with the assistance of some Sunni tribes and also Saleh Mutlaq, the head of Iraqi Dialog Front.

"Mojahedin-e Khalq organization is involved in religious tensions in Diyala province and the continuation of its activities and the presence of its camps in al-Khales are not acceptable," he said.

"Some of its elements directly involved in the unrest in the province and particularly in Abu-Seid have been identified by the residents."

He also said that the MKO started its movements to divide Shiites and Sunnis and destabilize the province since the fall of Saddam Hussein and his regime.

The recent meeting of MKO has received a big wave of protests inside Iraq; in the meeting, Saleh Mutlaq (anti-Iran figure) was introduced as the honorary head of MKO’s annual congress.

A number of governmental and independent committees and associations have condemned this meeting.

This gathering was held by the MKO and with the security assistance of American forces and some Iraqi groups, which oppose Islamic Republic.

Iraqi Governing Council issued an order for MKO’s expulsion in 2003 and current government also has repeatedly asked for its expulsion but US forces oppose the decision.

Iraqi Center for International Dialog and Research held a conference last February, by the support of Deputy PM in Security Affairs, and asked the government to take necessary steps in order for the expulsion of MKO.

IRNA –  2007/06/21

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Hayati sent from Iraq to Assassinate Human Rights activist

According to a report by Iran Ghalam Association (Pen) in Germany, the attack by around fifty thugs associated with the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (MKO) to disrupt a seminar in Paris on Sunday June 17th was planned and orchestrated from the Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) HQ in Paris.

Mr. Mohammad Hussein Sobhani, a human rights activist, who was invited to give a speech at the meeting, was attacked by four members of the cult. The four attackers were led by Mr. Mohammad Hayati who three months ago had been in an Iraqi camp under the control of the American Army in Iraq.

The known terrorist Mohammad Hayati is a leader in the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation with a history of violence going back to the time of the late Shah of Iran. Mohammad Hayati has also been named as a torturer during the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Mohammad Hayati sent from Iraq to Assassinate Human Rights Activist Mr. Sobhani, who has survived the infamous Abu Ghraib prison where he was incarcerated for opposing the internal human rights violations of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, was deliberately targeted by Mohammad Hayati and three other cult members who were waiting for his arrival at the FIAP building where the meeting was to be held.

He was rescued by French Police and spent the next three days in a Paris hospital where he was treated for injuries to his head and his back.

Mohammad Hussein Sobhani was a witness in the Human Rights Watch report "NO EXIT" published in May 2005

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0505

Mr. Sobhani frequently appears in the media and in reports by human rights organisations. He was a guest speaker in the European Parliament in February 2007.

http://www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=1863

According to Pen Association, Mr. Sobhani who was released from hospital yesterday, has filed a complaint with the French judiciary against Mr. Hayati and three other cult members emphasising the deliberate, organised attacks orchestrated by Maryam Rajavi from the cult HQ in Auvers-sur-Oise, north of Paris.

The arrival of Mohammad Hayati in Paris and the subsequent terrorist operation he headed has been raising serious questions about the capability and the possible role of the American Forces in Iraq who claim to have been keeping the terrorist organisation confined to Camp Ashraf since 2003.

following pictures are taken a couple of days later in the hospital (with the permission of Mr. Sobhani):

Iran Ghalam (PEN) Association, June 21, 2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
France

Iranian Woman Vs. MKO in French Court

"French judicial sources announced that an Iranian woman, who was injured in a terrorist operation by MKO in 2000 in Tehran, met French investigator after fours years of filing her complaint," AP reported from France.

Osaneh Mahmoudi had filed a complaint against terrorist organization of Mojahedin-e Khalq in France in 2003, because she had been injured in MKO’s terrorist operation. This session was the first to hear this diplomatic-judicial case in France.

Paris court started to investigate the complaint a year after it was submitted and then announced that French Judiciary is entitled to prosecute the MKO, which has been based in Auer-Sur-Oise for more than 20 years.

Several rockets were fired on two governmental buildings in Tehran on February 5, 2000. One person was killed and many other injured in the incident. MKO claimed responsibility for this terrorist act a few days later.

Mahmoudi’s attorney said that 7 people who were injured in the incident should file complaint.

French Judiciary started the investigation on the MKO in 2001. Paris court first investigated the group’s sabotaging operations but later, in June 2003, and then in March 2007, expanded its investigations to the group’s financial support for terrorism.

Nearly 170 MKO members of the MKO were arrested on June 17, 2003, but only 17 of them, including Maryam Rajavi, were prosecuted.

Entekhab reporting from AP, June 24, 2007

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts