Page 836 – Nejat Society

West’s duplicity in war on terror

Iran’s permanent envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency has criticized the approach taken by certain nations in countering terrorism.

"The unsuccessful experience of major powers in their superficial, improper and biased approach to combating terrorism has been ineffective in decreasing terrorist threats," said Ali Asghar Soltanieh.

"Worse of all are the attempts made to associate terrorism with a certain religion and culture," he added.

Soltanieh made the remarks Thursday in the Austrian capital Vienna during a conference for the United Nations Global Counter Terrorism Strategy.

He also touched on terrorist groups such as the anti-Iranian Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) operating under the patronage of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The MKO were also supported by several western countries while launching their terrorist attacks inside and outside of Iran.

"These double standards are at odds with the UN resolutions. The best way to ensure we are on the right path is to take all the measures to combat terrorism in the UN paradigm," Soltanieh said.

"Countering terrorism must be based on rules and respecting human rights. Acts such as secret arrests of terrorist suspects and sending them to clandestine prisons is against humanitarian rights,” he continued.

Soltanieh said fighting terrorism demands a multidirectional approach based mainly on confronting the roots of terrorism.

"Foreign occupation, isolation along with double standards and the political and economic policies of certain hegemonic powers, merely fuel violence and terrorism," he said, reiterating such issues must be dealt with at a fundamental level.

Elsewhere in his remarks Soltanieh described "state terrorism" as simply another form of the overall phenomenon of terrorist, and called it "a menace to joint measures in countering terrorism."

"The international community should prevent the bombardment of residential areas and the massacre of innocent people including children under the pretext of fighting terrorism," he reiterated.

Press TV – 18/05/2007

May 21, 2007 0 comments

Iran

FT interview with Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy FM for legal and international affairs

Gareth Smyth, the FT’s Tehran correspondent, interviewed Mr Araghchi at the foreign ministry in Tehran on Tuesday May 8 2007. The interview was conducted in English.

Financial Times: What is the big obstacle to Iran and the US talking to each other?

Abbas Araghchi: We had no plan to do so, although the Americans were obviously interested … We didn’t think the theatrical behaviour would help with this very complicated situation, and the difficult relationship between the two sides … We need understanding of each other, and understanding of the situation in Iraq. If the US wants to solve their problems in Iraq, they should understand their mistakes so far.

Their invasion was a disaster – let there not be a double disaster with a disastrous withdrawal. If they have the good will to solve problems, they should introduce an exist strategy, and then there can be a face-saving withdrawal.

FT: So Iraq is the first step to wider progress?

AA: We want to bring stability back to Iraq – this is very important. We are interested in the peace and security of Iraq, its unity, its territorial integrity, that it be at peace with its neighbours. We consider peace and security in Iraq [to be] our own peace and security.

It is very important for us to see that the Iraqi government and prime minister [Nouri] Maliki are successful, because …the only alternative is absolute chaos, maybe civil war or the breaking of Iraq into different pieces.

Iran would be the first to benefit from the return of peace and security in Iraq.

FT: And peace and security cannot come without a US withdrawal from Iraq?

AA: This is what we understand. Iraq is suffering a vicious cycle. There are foreign forces who have occupied Iraq, and justify their presence on the pretext of the ‘war on terror’ and terrorists who claim they are fighting occupiers …Each is justified by the other.

The only solution is to end occupation, and this means a well-planned strategy.

In his speech at Sharm el-Shiekh, Mr [Manouchehr] Mottaki [the Iranian foreign minister] tried to give some guiding principles … First of all, the government of Iraq should be supported and strengthened, it needs to be helped, and not only the government, but the whole political establishment, which is the result of a democratic process …

Second, the government should be given more responsibility – political, economic and especially in security matters. The security file should be given to the Iraqi government. It is not acceptable, not useful, for the Americans to continue to manage security by themselves ….The Iraqi government should have authority and responsibility, and then it can be held accountable.

Thirdly, enough facilities, equipment and training should be given to the Iraqi armed forces and police, to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities ….

Fourthly, help for reconstruction in Iraq. Without improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis, we cannot expect the return of peace and security. Why, for example, in Baghdad, is there only two or three hours of electricity a day? Why is there not enough safe water, or enough schools?

An exit strategy should include these principles, these guidelines. Together Iraq’s neighbouring countries and foreign forces, we can help the Iraqi government and have a clear prospect for the future, a bright horizon … Iran is completely ready to help in that direction. There should be good will on the other side, and a road-map and sense of co-operation.

FT: The US would say they agree with these principles. But their disagreement would be over their withdrawal. They do not seem to want to accept a timetable for a withdrawal.

AA: This is why I’m talking about an exit strategy. They think it’s premature to talk about a timetable, they are afraid of ‘premature’ withdrawal. But this should not mean we have nothing, and continue like this … We should clear the prospects and talk about co-operation, and America should encourage the same approach by other countries in the region. To some extent, this happened in Sharm el-Sheikh. We saw more support for Iraq’s government and its political establishment. The final statement … has expressed and emphasised full support for prime minister Maliki, and the government and the political establishment. That was good.

We can continue our efforts, to build more support, to remove the concerns of some other parties in the region, to convince some Sunni groups and their supporters that in a democratic process they can achieve what they want …If they are not happy, there are mechanisms in the constitution they can use.

We need good-will first of all, and the Americans should stop accusing others for mistakes they have made themselves. It is useless to accuse Iran of supporting foreign fighters or sending arms. Why should we do that? We have the same interests in Iraq? Why should we undermine the Iraqi government?

Terrorist groups are against Iran as well. Al-Qaeda, for example, is a sworn enemy of Iran …. We are the first victim of terrorism ourselves.

FT: You said the US was afraid of withdrawal. What do you think they are afraid of?

AA: You should ask them.

I think there should be no place for being afraid of their withdrawal. Yes, immediate withdrawal could lead to chaos, civil war, could turn Iraq into a failed state. This is a fact. No-one is asking for immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. But there should be a plan … if we continue like this, there will be more excuses for terrorists …

I don’t think they are afraid of withdrawal, they just don’t know how to do it … The whole world, the region, expect the Americans, just as they had a military plan for the invasion, to have a political plan for withdrawal from Iraq. This is a reasonable, legitimate expectation, and if they fail to introduce an exit strategy, there will be a double failure.

Their invasion was a disaster – let there not be a double disaster with a disastrous withdrawal … If they have the good will to solve problems, then there can be a face-saving withdrawal.

FT: There was a report in al-Hayat [London-based, Saudi-owned Arabic newspaper] the other day that Iran was unhappy that the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, had met Condoleezza Rice …

AA: Syria has its own interests and policies. We are neither encouraging nor discouraging them from meeting Americans or anybody else. When they met Ms Rice at Sharm el-Sheikh, they briefed us what happened between the two ministers. We had no objection.

FT: Would you say the Syrians agree with the process you have outlined for the future of Iraq?

AA: They have their own concerns and interests, each country does. We advise the Americans to acknowledge these …. In the case of Iran, we had eight years of war [with Iraq, 1980-8], and we have suffered from the dictator in Iraq [Saddam Hussein]… We have a long boundary with Iraq, and a shared history … We share religion and culture.

So we have legitimate concerns and interests. The same is true for other neighbours – Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey. There is no way other than including all these countries’ concerns.

This is why we insisted the meeting of Iran’s neighbouring countries should stay as it is. We don’t think the addition of more countries to this institution can help … the P5 or G8. We have no problems with these countries, but we should keep this institution of neighboring countries so as not to complicate the decision-making process …

On reconstruction, we can have a large number of countries, as we did at Sharm el-Sheikh on the first day for the International Compact on Iraq. We had something about 70 countries. Yes, they can express their wishes to help Iraq, Iraqi reconstruction, their pledges for help, loans, grants, things like that … but when it comes to the question of security, to the question of political issues, I don’t know that countries who are thousands of kilometers far from Iraq how they can help.

So we shouldn’t complicate the process. We should keep the neighbouring countries’ meeting as it is. In Sharm el-Shiekh, more and more neighbours understood the points we have said before: that we need closer contact among each other … we should have our own [foreign] ministerial meetings for neighbouring countries, and [also meetings of] ministers of interior …

FT: How do you assess the Saudi role in Iraq, particularly their relationship with some Sunni militants?

AA: The Saudis are trying to be constructive. We acknowledge that they also have their own concerns, and I think we should find a way to accommodate the concerns of all countries in the region. With the Saudis, we have always good and close consultation, and they know our concerns, and we try and develop understanding among each other – on the question of Iraq, on the question of Lebanon we have had good consultations. On other issues – security issues in the Persian Gulf region – we are in close contact ….

We hope that a positive climate can be developed among all countries in the region, based on which we can develop a security arrangement for the region in which there would be no need for foreign forces. We think that the security of the region should be provided by the countries of the same region – I’m talking about the Persian Gulf.

FT: Do you think Saudi Arabia – and all significant forces in Saudi Arabia – are reconciled to a Shia-led Iraq?

AA: I think we should all accept a democratic process in Iraq…. We should respect the will of Iraqis … because otherwise we would have fighting and clashes between different tribes, sects, between Shi-ites and Sunnis, between Kurds and others. There is one solution – to have a democratic structure for Iraq, and there have been good achievements so far: a general assembly, a constitution, then a constitutional-based government … so we have to admire these achievements, we shouldn’t try to undermine them….

Of course there is always place for the improvement of everything. Iraq has a federal system now, and it should remain as it is. We shouldn’t consider it as a Shi-ite-led government. It is a federal one, and the political structure is based on proportional representation. The prime minister is Shi-ite, the president is a Kurd, and the head of parliament is a Sunni. It’s a very good combination of different parties in Iraq, we should respect this.

If we think there is something wrong with that, we have to go though democratic processes to correct it …

FT: What do you know about the Americans’ relationship with Pejak, the so-called Iranian wing of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party)?

AA: We have some information, and some indication, that contrary to what the Americans claim, there has been some contact with some terrorist groups.

This is why I talked about good will at the beginning. One of the bad policies of the United States is this double standard towards terrorism, to divide terrorists into good and bad terrorists. This is the source of so many problems.

You named one of those groups. We may name others as well – the MKO [the Mujahedin-e Khalq], for example, which is based in Iraq under the protection of the Americans. They are terrorists, recognised by the European Union, by the United States, and they should be sent to trial.

FT: Where do you think [Massoud] Rajavi [the MKO leader] is?

AA: I don’t know. He is either in Iraq or somewhere in western countries, I don’t know, I have no information, no intelligence. But the kind of MKO terrorists we know are either in Iraq or in European countries, and in the US. This is very bad. We see they are doing whatever they want in European countries, in Britain, in France, in Germany. Of course, under the cover of different names, but everyone knows they are the same group.

They killed Americans before the Revolution in Iran, they have killed so many Iranian officials after the Revolution, Iranian people, and they are proud of that. Then they went to Iraq, helping Saddam Hussein in fighting with Iran during the war, then fighting with Shi-ities and Kurds during the 1991 uprising, giving Saddam Hussein intelligence and every assistance. Now they are in Iraq. A good number of them have already been transferred to Europe, but some foot-soldiers – worthless in the current situation – have remained in camp Ashraf.

We have tried hard – from a humanitarian point of view – to help those people in Ashraf camp. We have given them an amnesty if they return to Iran. A group – 500 all together – has already returned to Iran, and they have joined their families. The Red Cross has their records, they know they have started a new life …

If they come back to Iran, they are welcomed by their families … If they have done a crime inside Iran, they should be sent to trial, but we know that most of them have done nothing ….

FT: Do the Americans have relationships with other groups that have carried out violent acts in Iran – Baluchi groups, or Arab groups in Ahvaz?

AA: Well, we have some indications. Our intelligence ministry has said they have some indications of contacts between both American and British soldiers in Iraq with this kind of group …

FT: Have you made any estimation of the amount of arms that have come in Iran from Iraq since the 2003 invasion?

AA: I don’t have any figures, but the number is high, as you can see by reading the page of incidents [crime page] of Iranian newspapers … in almost all of them where a person has killed someone, he says he bought the gun from Iraq …‘it was so cheap, I got one’.

So we have a problem with the number of individuals who buy guns from Iraq.. Terrorist groups as well as criminals see Iraq as an opportunity.

FT: The Americans accuse Iran of supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq, particular kinds of weapons [armour-piercing explosive devices]. Why don’t you counter that by pointing out the amount of weapons coming the other way?

AA: Their claim that Iran is sending arms to Iraq is baseless. They have never been able to present any acceptable documents, valid proof that Iran has sent arms to Iraq. Even some of their own officials have questioned publicly the validity of these claims. The only things they have presented so far is that some arms, munitions they have found in Iraq are manufactured in Iran. This cannot prove anything, it cannot prove the involvement of any agency from Iran.

If governments were to be held responsible for the use by terrorists of all the weapons manufactured in their country, the Americans should be blamed first.

They haven’t been able to provide any valid proof – and there is also no reason. Why should we help them? Why should we arm them? We are suffering from the same problem [“terrorism”]. Both us and other groups [countries], both us and Turkey and others. This is why in the statement of the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting [paragraph 4], it is said that the transit of arms to and from Iraq should be stopped. This recognises that there is a problem for neighbouring countries, that arms are coming from Iraq into their countries as well.

FT: Again on good will. What is the latest on the ‘Arbil Five’, the five Iranians arrested in Arbil in January?

AA: We have just received a good will sign, that the Americans have [agreed to] let their families meet them. This will be done perhaps by the end of this Iranian week. We arranged that with the help of the Red Cross.

They have been able to send letters to their families, and even telephone calls .. in at least one case I know …

There are also some indications by Iraqi officials they have received promises they might be released soon. Certainly, their release is very important for us, and it would be considered a good step forward. Their abduction is against international conventions, it is against the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, it undermines the government …. And very importantly, it discourages other countries from having diplomatic missions in Iraq, something the Iraqis are encouraging …

FT: How do you explain the confusion over whether the Iranian ‘consulate’ in Arbil was or was not a consulate?

AA: We have passed from that question, it is already solved. Our mission, our office in Arbil has been there since 15-16 years, after 1991. It has worked with the permission of Kurdish officials there. It didn’t have the condition of other diplomatic missions because of the special environment in Kurdistan, but even that problem has been solved. Just a couple of months before the American invasion of our consulate [in January] …unintelligible… were exchanged between the two countries, between the Iraqi and Iranian foreign ministers, and they accepted the diplomatic status of our office in Arbil.

FT: So the Iraqi government did accept this was a consulate?

AA: Yes. In the meeting in Baghdad, in March this year, when I raised the issue in the meeting, and Mr [Zilmay] Khalilzad [then the US ambassador in Iraq CHECK] claimed they were not diplomats, Mr [Hoshyar] Zebari [the Iraqi foreign minister] intervened himself and said no, the Iraqi government recognised their status as diplomats, and the Iranians consulate in Arbil as an official diplomatic mission.

The Iraqis have asked the Americans to show good will, and tell us they insist …on their release.

It was a very unreasonable act by the Americans. Why did they abduct them? What is it good for?

FT: They say the five were involved in organising insurgents.

AA: We already talked about that. The whole idea is unreasonable. Why should we do that? Why should we undermine a government in Iraq that we support more than anybody else?

FT: They would say you want to encourage the Americans to withdraw.

AA: This is not a good excuse. There are other ways, we are always encouraging the Americans to do that. They know themselves that they should withdraw.

FT: Can I ask you about the American who disappeared in Kish, Mr Levinson? Do you have information about him, whether he has left Iran?

AA: We have heard rumours, but we have no information about him, and this is what our intelligence ministry and other relevant organisations have said. We have tried hard to help investigate the case in Kish, and we have let the Americans know we are trying our best to find the gentleman, if he is in Iran, but we haven’t found anything yet.

FT: He was in Iran, wasn’t he?

AA: Apparently, he has been in Iran.

FT: Well, then you would know [from entry-exit information] whether he has left.

AA: We have no information.

FT: Turning to the nuclear programme, are the talks with Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, going anywhere? They seem to be turning in a big circle.

AA:They [Mr Solana, and Ali Larijani, Iran’s leading security official] met in Ankara and decided to continue. That itself was good news. Some new ideas and initiatives were raised in their meeting, and they preferred to have more talks, more thinking on those ideas, and to meet each other at a later time.

The western side should find a more logical and reasonable way to deal with this issue. They tried [UN security council] resolutions, and it proved unhelpful. There are two paths, two options – confrontation and co-operation. Each one has its own requirements.

If they prefer confrontation, okay. Let’s go together. But they cannot sanction us, adopt resolutions against us, add pressure on us, and expect co-operation from us. The two options cannot go side by side – there is either co-operation or confrontation.

What has been the result of three [UN] security council resolutions, two introducing sanctions? Iran has quickened the pace of its peaceful activities, and reduced its co-operation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], of course within the framework of the NPT and Safeguards, so [there is] less transparency, and less confidence and trust. Because the core of this problem is trust, and trust is a two-way road. They don’t trust us, we don’t trust them either. We cannot solve this problem unless we build confidence and trust between the two sides. Resolutions have not helped, they have worsened the case …

They can continue. They could adopt a new resolution, more sanctions, and they know what would be Iran’s reaction. We have no way to react but to reduce our co-operation with the agency, we may decide to go out of our relations ….

FT: Which relations?

AA: … Safeguards, and international rules and regulations, because our people would ask: ‘They are sanctioning you, what is the use of co-operating?’

FT: Are you talking about leaving the NPT?

AA: Well, we are not talking about this. But you know there are serious debates, in the parliament, among some political people … what is the good of remaining in the NPT? …When you cannot enjoy the benefits of NPT, why have you remained there? We hope not to find ourselves in a position where we cannot answer that question.

Another resolution, harsher reactions by Iran, which would lead to another resolution and more sanctions. There is action and reaction. Step by step, we would reach the point where we have few options on the table … This can go on, but the result is escalation of the crisis whose end result will be a ‘lose-lose’ situation.

There are other ways. The line of co-operation is not closed. What we want is only our rights, and the materialisation of our rights… We are confident about the peaceful nature of our programme and we are prepared to share that confidence. They cannot ask us to give up our rights, but they can ask us for clarification, for asking their questions about diversion.

They have concerns that the Iranian programme might be diverted into non-peaceful purposes in the future. Let’s find a solution. Why are they sanctioning us because they think maybe in the future, Iran would go for military purposes ..? They have doubts about our intentions, they have found nothing in the ground. So they are punishing us for crimes we have not committed yet! This is not fair, the resolutions are not fair.

They want to be ensured about the peaceful nature of our programme. Okay, let’s work together … let’s concentrate on the question of non-diversion, which can be a good subject for negotiations …There are different ideas and initiatives [on] how we can ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s programme in the future. A good one is the idea of consortium, we may go for consortium based on the proposal of our president in the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2005. If they want to be assured about our programme, okay, they can be a part of it, they can be present in a joint venture …

There might be other ideas, how we can have enough guarantees that Iran’s programme would remain peaceful. We are prepared to talk about that, to negotiate that. They should not ask to give up our rights, to stop our programme, but they are entitled to ask anything else.

But we will pay the price for [continuing] our nuclear programme. We know it may be a costly way, but this is an important juncture in our history.

The British went to the UN security council over Iran’s nationalization of oil [in 1951] – saying it was a threat to the peace of the world …

The Iranian people resisted …and paid a price. There was a [US engineered] coup [in 1953] …and 26 years of dictatorship [under Shah Mohammad Reza, overthrown in 1979]. But if we had not paid that price, people would still be buying Iranian oil from BP.

Interview transcript: Abbas Araghchi – May 10 2007

May 21, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO Admits Iran’s Nuclear Achievements

After Iran announced that it had achieved industrial level of uranium enrichment despite all pressures and sanctions, elements of Rajavi’s gang tried to deny the facts and they suddenly stopped their so-called revelations on Iran’s nuclear program.

At that time, Irandidban said that the MKO has been stripped of its ability to maneuver on Iran’s nuclear program and that they have become silent fearing that Iranian nuclear project may be taken into account seriously.

It seems that MKO leaders have forgotten their previous gestures (denying Iran’s advances) and believe that they should exaggerate Iran’s achievements to get to their goals.

MKO, which earlier denied Iran’s ability to have even the nuclear technology, has been forced now to admit the realities they don’t like.

MKO leaders have always been criticized for mixing their so-called political analyses with their dreams and feeding them to their restricted forces.

This is an undeniable characteristic of MKO leaders, and Rajavi himself in particular, but this is not the whole deviation by the gang of Rajavi. The fact is that he is a liar who deals with realities with censorship and sarcasm.

That is why the MKO has lagged behind in political issues.

Denying the facts of Iran’s advances and its political, social and scientific achievements is part of this illness, which results in censorship and restricting the members in Camp Ashraf.

Irandidban – 2007/05/19

May 21, 2007 0 comments

USA

The US and a Decision to Show Good-Will

According to released reports approved by officials from the two nations, the U.S. and Iran will hold rare meetings within the next few weeks in Baghdad to discuss the dominant disorder and insurgency in Iraq, "The purpose is to try to make sure that the Iranians play a productive role in Iraq," said Gordon Johndroe, a National Security Council spokesman. "This is not about the United States and Iran. This is about Iraq."

But there is a big question mark here. Among the many questions imposed by Iranian side concerning Iraq would be the US forces’ supporting of a terrorist group blacklisted by its own State Department. If the both countries are indeed concerned about the troubled situation in Iraq, first they should deal with the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq or the Mojahedin cult that has long threatened the security of certain Iraqi regions.

The Iranian side might at least require the US officials to respect the facts they have released on MKO in the State Department’s 30 April report on the designated terrorist organizations. It is a good opportunity for the US to show its good-will and that the actions speak louder than the words.

14/05/2007

May 17, 2007 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Cult-like characteristics

The State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism on April 30 released the list of designated terrorist organizations. Once again Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) continues to occupy the status it has been designated since 1997.in one part we read: "In addition to its terrorist credentials, the MEK has also displayed cult-like characteristics. Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in MEK ideology and revisionist Iranian history. Members are also required to undertake a vow of "eternal divorce" and participate in weekly "ideological cleansings" . children are reportedly separated from parents at a young age. "

Cult-like characteristics

May 16, 2007 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Mrs. Marzieh Qorsi joined her beloved son

Mrs. Marzieh Qorsi returned home and after a longtime of separation from her beloved son, saw him, embraced him warmly with tearful eyes.

Mrs. Marzieh Qorsi joined her beloved son

May 14, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

America’s Covert Terror War Against Iran

The Bush Regime is sponsoring terrorist attacks as a means of ratcheting up its campaign of aggression against Iran A US-backed militant Pakistani Islamist group has carried out a string of terrorist attacks against Iranian targets The group known as Jundullah (Army of God), a Sunni militant organization made up of members of the Baluchi tribe, “has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005” as it has carried out its deadly operations inside Iran This US-backed terrorist group has close ties to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, supposedly the principal enemies in Washington’s “global war on terrorism”

A leading government official in Teheran charged Thursday that the Bush Regime is sponsoring terrorist attacks as a means of ratcheting up its campaign of aggression against Iran.

The charge by the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Gholamali Haddadadel, followed a report by ABC News in the US that Washington has been covertly aiding and advising a militant Pakistani Islamist group that has carried out a string of terrorist attacks against Iranian targets.

“There is no doubt in our minds that the United States spares no efforts to put pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iraq,” Haddadadel told reporters following a meeting with Pakistani officials in Islamabad.

“The best indication of United States support to a particular terrorist group is that one of the leaders of his terrorist group was given the opportunity to speak on VoA [Voice of America] after committing the crime.”

In its report aired first on Tuesday night, ABC charged that a group known as Jundullah (Army of God), a Sunni militant organization made up of members of the Baluchi tribe, “has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005” as it has carried out its deadly operations inside Iran.

According to numerous published reports, this US-backed terrorist group has close ties to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, supposedly the principal enemies in Washington’s “global war on terrorism.”

The organization is also believed to be involved in narcotics trafficking across the porous Iranian-Pakistani border.

Jundullah’s attacks have centered on the Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchestan, which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In February, Jundullah terrorists carried out a car bomb attack on a bus in the Iranian city of Zehedan, killing at least 11 Iranians, most of them apparently members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Another 31 people were wounded in the blast.

Other bloody attacks included a May 2006 bombing of a motorcade, which claimed the lives of at least 20. The group has also filmed the beheadings of captured Iranian soldiers and officials.

According to the ABC report, Pakistani intelligence sources said that the covert terror campaign was a central topic of discussion when US Vice President Dick Cheney met Pakistan’s dictator, President Pervez Musharraf, in February.

When asked by the Reuters news agency about this account, a spokeswoman for Cheney replied, “We don’t discuss conversations between the vice president and foreign leaders.”

Haddadadel, who was in Islamabad in part to seek Pakistani cooperation in stemming the cross-border attacks, dismissed this aspect of the ABC report.

“Some of the militants…are active in our border areas and we should work with Pakistan in order to increase security cooperation,” he said.

“There is no news, no evidence, and we don’t have any reason to believe that the military establishment in Pakistan is also supporting such militant groups.”

ABC indicated that the US-sponsored terrorism is an “off-the-books” operation, which some officials told the network was reminiscent of the illegal covert US “contra” war against Nicaragua under the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

Money, according to ABC’s sources, is funneled through Iranian exile groups in Europe and elsewhere to Jundullah’s leader, Abd el Malik Regi. Counterrorism expert Alexis Debat told ABC that Regi “used to fight with the Taliban. He’s part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist.”

The purpose of this arrangement, US officials told the network is to avoid the necessity of “an official presidential order or ‘finding’ as well as congressional oversight.”

It is evident that the covert US links with Jundullah are only part of a broader destabilization campaign being waged by Washington with the aim of fomenting conflict between Iran’s Shia majority and a Sunni minority that accounts for nearly 12 percent of the country’s 70 million people.

The largest component of this Sunni population is made up of Kurds, followed by the Baluch and then the Turkoman, based in the northeast.

The CIA is also reportedly funding the Iran-based Kurdistan Free Life party to destabilize the Iranian government.

And Washington has come into conflict with the Iraqi regime over the presence in Iraq of some 3,800 expatriate Iranian members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, which has claimed responsibility for numerous terrorist attacks against Iran.

Even though the State Department has classified the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization, and the Iraqi regime accuses it of acting as an arm of the Saddam Hussein regime security forces, the Pentagon and CIA have provided it with protection at a base outside Baghdad and have reportedly sponsored its operations inside Iran.

Washington’s covert terror war against Iran is aimed at furthering a goal of “regime change” in Teheran. It is likewise designed to pave the way for a far more direct US military intervention.

As ABC aired its report of US-sponsored terrorism, a third US nuclear aircraft carrier battle group set sail for the Persian Gulf.

The USS Nimitz and its accompanying warships left San Diego on Monday, supposedly to relieve the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The John C. Stennis Strike Group is also in the Gulf. Obviously, the Pentagon has the option of reversing the order to withdraw the Eisenhower, thereby concentrating unprecedented firepower against Iran.

The preparations for a US war against Iran are being carried out—with support from both Democrats and Republicans in Washington—under the same propaganda slogans used to justify the attack on Iraq: the threat from a supposed drive to build “weapons of mass destruction” and terrorist ties.

But, as the ABC report indicates, Washington itself appears to be pursuing its militarist policy by funding and advising a terrorist group connected to Al Qaeda, the organization blamed for the September 11, 2001, attacks. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/iran-a06.shtml

The Best That’s Left 8 April 2007

May 14, 2007 0 comments

Iraq

MKO, the Invisible Occupiers

MKO as well as its critics and its ex-members acknowledge the fact that Camp Ashraf, symbolizing MKO’s ideological capacity, is of a high strategic significance. The insistence of MKO on its stay in Iraq needs more time to be reflected upon. MKO does not submit to departure from Iraq for two main reasons:

1. Any change of location inevitably makes internal relation of the organization to be broken off. It is a fact that MKO can not bear its existing relations anywhere but in the city of Ashraf in Iraq now turned into an ideological and strategic fortress. Any circumstantial replacement on the part of the organization takes a considerable amount of time to establish a second Ashraf. Moreover, the prerequisite of their admission to other countries is the individual asylum of members so the organization can not preserve its cohesion by means of psychological levers anywhere but in Iraq. Camp Ashraf, considered similar to Alamout of Hassan Sabbah Assassins, is indeed a fortress.

2. Another reason is their strategic position on Iraqi soil. Maryam Rajavi has repeatedly drawn the attention of the Americans to the fact that they can take advantage of MKO’s so-called Liberation Army for any move against the Iranian soil is. MKO convince its members residing in Camp Ashraf that their stay in Iraq is the sole possible solution of overthrowing Iranian regime. They insist on saying that such a supposition is unlikely to come true unless they remain in Iraq.

Mojahedin have to make their destiny tied with their stay in Iraq. However, the insistence of Iraqi government to expel MKO for its interference in internal affairs and its link with questionable groups indicates that MKO’s present stay in Iraq is indebted to the Iraq’s instable situation. The comments of Shirvan al-Vaeli, Iraq’s security minister published in ‘Al-Hayat’ newspaper in London indicates that "Initial agreements have been reached between Iraqi government and the US” concerning the situating of MKO in Iraq. He urged once more for the expulsion of MKO from Iraq declaring that some European countries have announced preparedness to accept MKO members. Although MKO transfer from Iraq is costly, it gives members an opportunity to make their mind for their future far from any threat or enticing. The present position of MKO implies that they are not going to exit Iraq under any condition. They have even threatened Iraqi and the U.S. authorities that they would strongly resist against any decision of the kind.

Comments of Iraq’s security minister maintain Iraq’s decision to expel MKO. Now, the confrontation of Iraqi government and MKO has entered a critical phase. It seems that MKO would persistently resist the made decision and reject the facilities provided by the US for their settlement in another country. MKO’s offensive and even threatening position toward the EU and the others is a good example of its indifference to and disobedience of international statements and regulations. Likewise, their current position in Iraq confirms the fact that MKO is not a legally granted asylum in Iraq, rather it is an invisible occupier, disregarding the heavy costs it impose on Iraqi people.

Omid Pouya – Mojahedin.ws – May 13, 2007

May 14, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

MKO’s Hypocrisy in Renunciation of Terrorism

The terrorist organizations that for national causes decide to forswear violent campaign and practice of terrorism may be granted the opportunity to accomplish their political demands through peaceful avenues. The groups and organizations that claim to have renounced armed campaign are mostly judged by their actions rather than the words. There are groups that indeed mean what they say and declare it publicly for the world to see and judge. On the contrary, there exist groups that their non-proclaimed but quoted claims of renouncing terrorism corroborate the intention of evading a just judgment rather than adhering to non-violent practices to fulfill the rightful objectives.

The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) is a loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland which was formed in 1966. Formed as an armed group from the very beginning, it declared war on the IRA, and made note of the fact that they were "heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause”.

In the course of its forty-year long armed activities, UVF has been reportedly responsible for the killing of some 550 people. Whatever the cause, it had created a nightmare of terrorism threat that led to its proscription as a terrorist group. Although the group had declared a ceasefire 13 years ago, but since then its members have been blamed for more than 20 murders. However, through an officially issued statement, UVF declared that “as of 12 midnight, Thursday 3 May 2007, the Ulster Volunteer Force and Red Hand Commando will assume a non-military, civilianised, role”.

Transformation from a terrorist to a civilian organization includes measures as stated in the statement: “All recruitment has ceased; military training has ceased; targeting has ceased and all intelligence rendered obsolete; all active service units have been de-activated; all ordinance has been put beyond reach and the IICD instructed accordingly”.

The statement seems to be a sensible recognition of a new political reality that the world is no more a place for armed or violent actions, rather any pro-democratic move is welcomed if the repentant armed groups really mean it.

The Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) is also a proscribed terrorist group with a forty-year long history of violence and the most vicious terrorist activities against Iranian people. There is no exact number of the victims of its atrocities but it is believed to reach thousands. Habilian Association has announced that it has collected a list of 12000 terrorism victims that have been killed and assassinated by the terrorist agents of MKO across Iran.

Failing to accomplish its political ambitions after the Islamic revolution in Iran, MKO declared war against the newly established government and its heads fled to France. In a 54-page booklet entitled “Resistance on the Rise” which was published by MKO as a hallmark of its military operations in 1987, the group gave a detailed account of more than 20 terrorist operations perpetrated by its terrorists teams in various Iranian regions and cities. In these attacks, Mojahedin’s operation teams killed and wounded hundreds of Iranian officials and innocent civilians. The State Department’s report on the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran presents an evidential summary of the group’s bloody history although leaves many other details untold.

Expelled by France in 1986, MKO leaders turned to Saddam Hussein who invited them and granted them military base, equipment and training as well as financial support. Settled near the Iran-Iraq borderlines, the group operation teams had the precious opportunity to plan and carry out their terrorist operations across the border onto the Iranian territories. Soon they turned into Saddam’s mercenaries and assisted his regimes in its bloody crackdown on Iraqi Shiits and Kurds who rose up against Saddam Hussein’s regime. But it was not the end of the group’ decadence. Desperately attempting to survive the political cul-de-sac, the group underwent a total change and transformed into a cult with an ideologically terrorist infrastructure.

The threat of MKO’s terrorist members at the service of the tyrant Saddam and a great number of them then known as the insiders of a destructive cult being at large in Western countries caused its proscription on the US State Department’s list of the terrorist organizations which was updated on April 30, 2007.

An example of the group’s cult-terrorist operations in the European countries occurred in June 2003 after the French anti-terrorist forces arrested 164 suspected members of the group including the head of the group, Maryam Rajavi, on charges of planning “terrorist activities, association with a terrorist organization and financing terrorist operations”. Immediately following the arrest, the group’s protesting members and sympathizers poured into the streets of Paris and some other European cities and a number of them set themselves on fire. These human torches forced the French authorities to set the she-guru free.

In May 2002 the Council of the European Union, in order to implement the Security Council Resolution 1373 to combat terrorism, proscribed, as the United Kingdom in March 2001 had already done, MKO as a terrorist group whose funds and other financial assets or economic resources had to be frozen. In reaction to the Council’s decision, MKO brought an action against the Council of the European Union before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2002. In an attempt to win the judicial decision against the Council, MKO claimed that “it and all its members have expressly renounced all military activity since June 2001 and it no longer has an armed structure at the present time”.

However, there are broad evidences of many instances of launching mortar attacks and detonating bombs inside Iran after the claimed renunciation of military activities since June 2001. The evidences are all rendered as official reports published in Mojahed, the official organ of MKO.

These evidences, along with the self-immolations of June 2003, well indicate that MKO neither has forsworn violence and terrorism nor intends to do so. If MKO is really sincere in its decision to assume a non-military campaign, a legally gifted right to many other political campaigners, then, why it does not issue a statement to declare it forswears violence and terrorism as UVF did? Unless MKO officially declares renunciation of terrorism, its leaders’ wear of pro-democracy in Western countries are doomed to be counterproductive and short-sting.

The people who claim to be supporting the establishment of democracy in Iran should first themselves adopt the principles of democracy. To run a military camp in Iraq, Camp Ashraf, with some 3400 insiders held against their will, in no way corresponds with the tenets of democracy the group advertises in the European communities.

Furthermore, recently we encounter a widespread rallies and demonstrations orchestrated by MKO in a number of European capitals demanding to be removed from the terror list of the EU. The demand might be liable to reconsideration on condition MKO declares renunciation of terrorism and disbands its military bases.

The European backers of MKO, especially those in the UK parliament including Lord Tavern, Roger Gale, Brian Binley, and Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, should give a good account of their backing if they have concluded to support a proscribed group that has bought their support with a pro-democratic wear for whatever collective political cause. The reasons for the inclusion of MKO on the terror list are unquestioned, and if the group’s backers indeed follow peaceful causes, which is appreciated by the public opinion, the best they can do is to encourage MKO to officially forswear terrorism, as UVF did. It is practically a good test for both the group and its backers to prove they mean what they say.

Mojahedin.ws – May 13, 2007

May 14, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Rajavi’s Gang, From National to Global Terrorism

There’s no doubt that the appeasement of the West, particularly the US, with terrorists is the most important factor in endangering the countries of the world and their people; the issue has become so significant that today "International terrorism" is considered to be one of the main international security threats and controlling it requires considerable attention by governments and international community.

Two clear examples of this issue (appeasement with terrorists) are those of Al-Qaeda and Mujahieen-e Khalq.

What started during the Cold War by the US in Afghanistan- against the Soviet Union- and later took the form of Taliban to protect the interests of oil companies and secure oil pipes has turned into today’s "Al-Qaeda", which is responsible for many of bloody terrorist operations in the world.

Terrorist organization of Mojahedin-e khalq also has similar situation. When the Western countries ignored its terrorist operations, they didn’t think that it would become a threat for their own national security.

Terrorist organization of Mojahedin-e Khalq, led by the murderous gang of Rajavi, has for years tried- by bribery and interfering in election campaigns- to help the victory of people they thought would be supporters of the group.

This is not the whole story; facing deep and unsolvable problems, the bankrupt gang of Rajavi resorts to interference in other countries’ internal affairs with mafia-like methods to achieve their goals.

In addition to documents on MKO’s interference in parliamentary elections in UK and the US and bribing some individuals and groups, murderers of Rajavi in Iraq hired remnants of Baath party and Saddam regime to effect the process of elections in Iraq. They acted extremely against Shiites and went further to the level of threatening independent political forces.

MKO was emboldened by the experience of interfering in Iraqi elections, where no one had protested to its activities. Therefore, they decided to do the same in French presidential campains.

Like Al-Qaeda, MKO needs terrorist activities in order to hide their failures and to come out of crisis.

Reports from France indicate that remnants of Rajavi have taken part in clashes after the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy and that they have been involved in organizing some of the unrest in parts of Paris and Parisian.

The gang of Rajavi has ordered its members and the people they hired (nearly 2000) to avoid direct clashes with police and of course being chased and only engage in instigating young immigrants.

Heinous acts by the MKO in 2003 and after Maryam Rajavi’s detention in France, bloody interferences of this group in Iraq that still continue as well as its interferences in political affairs of France show well that the group has changed from "national terrorist" group to an "international terrorist organization".

This function indicates that the bankrupt remnants of Rajavi are desperately trying the last resorts and have serous plans for encountering the Western countries. From now on, we would witness more of such encounters.

This is undoubtedly a small part of threats by Rajavi’s terrorist group against the Western countries. These threats are the outcomes of Western politicians’ appeasement with MKO when taking advantage of this group.

Irandidban – 2007/05/10

May 14, 2007 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts