Page 853 – Nejat Society

Scooter Libby and World War III

How the Libby trial could impact US foreign policy

Cowed into funding a war neither they nor the majority of Americans believe in, congressional Democrats are taking the line that what’s needed are some "benchmarks" “ well-defined criteria by which to assess whether our efforts are paying off. The idea is to make continued U.S. support contingent on the Iraqis measuring up to these benchmarks. Hillary Clinton even says we should withdraw aid providing for the security of elected Iraqi political leaders if they fail to make the grade. Now that’s a way to kill someone off without leaving any fingerprints! (And a good lesson to any other would-be U.S. sock puppets who think they can take the money and run.)

The big problem with this approach, however, is that it fails to understand the dynamics of our continued presence in Iraq. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee given on Feb. 1, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the hawkish former national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, made a statement that should have set off alarm bells and sent everyone rushing for the lifeboats:

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

Every moment we stay in Iraq increases the likelihood of war with Iran “ that, in my view, is the most powerful argument, aside from this one, for a rapid withdrawal. No sooner had Brzezinski uttered these words than the administration began a concerted campaign to blame the Iranians for U.S. failure in Iraq, and accused Tehran of having a direct hand in the killing of American troops.

We hear much about these accusations on the front pages of American newspapers, but what we don’t hear about are acts of terrorism directed at both civilian and military targets by Iranian "dissidents," who are reportedly receiving covert U.S. assistance. These groups include the Jundallah organization in Baluchistan, said to be affiliated with al-Qaeda, and the sinister, cult-like Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), a shadowy Marxoid group that was supported by Saddam Hussein and still maintains a presence at Camp Ashraf [.pdf] in Iraq, as well as enjoying a wide array of bipartisan support in Congress.

Jundallah recently struck southeastern Iran, in Sistan-Baluchistan, with a series of attacks, including a car bomb in the provincial capital of Zahedan. The Iranians claim that the Jundallah militants are trained in Pakistan, and Iran has displayed samples of alleged captured armaments with "Made in USA" stamped all over them. The leader of Jundallah reportedly announced the attacks on MKO-TV, the satellite television station run out of Great Britain by the MEK, a few minutes before they started.

In an interview with the Telegraph, a Jundallah guerrilla fighter sounded very much like he was advertising his services to U.S. policymakers:

"Asked whether the satellite telephone he was holding might not lead to his being located, he allowed himself a smile. ‘We are not fighting against America,’ he said. Support for Jundallah was growing, he said. ‘There are hundreds of others who are desperate to sign in, but we ask them to wait because we do not have enough weapons or camps.’"

That was last year: surely by this time the Jundallah "freedom fighters" have more than enough weapons and camps, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Scott Ritter, in his book Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change, has described CIA-MEK cross-border operations, in which the Americans “ and the Israelis “ are conducting provocations that could lead to an open conflict with Iran. The focus of these efforts, he says, is on Baluchistan and Khuzestan.

With strong bipartisan support, Congress recently appropriated millions of dollars in aid to Iranian "resistance" groups, with practically no oversight as to how that money is being used “ and the scramble for American gold is on. The American front group for the MEK, the National Council of Resistance, has plenty of high-level contacts in Washington, just as Ahmed Chalabi did in the run-up to war with Iraq. The MEK and other Iranian exile groups are busily lobbying for a similar gig as the administration escalates its plans for "regime change" in Tehran.

The Iraqi government has recently reiterated its position that the MEK is a terrorist organization, an opinion shared by the European Union and the U.S. Department of State. However, not everyone in the U.S. administration agrees. And what are we to make of the near-total redaction of a mysterious document that came to light in the Libby trial “ a memo to Libby from John Hannah detailing "views of MEK leaders on continuing role in Iraq"? That’s all we’re allowed to know: aside from a reference to MEK briefing slides, the rest is blanked out.

The Office of the Vice President (OVP), which sponsored Chalabi, is just as intimately connected to the campaign to gin up a war with Iran as it was with the effort to lie us into war with Iraq. It is reasonable to assume the OVP is just as supportive of the MEK, and may even be directing its activities in collusion with its allies in the Pentagon.

Given that U.S. foreign policy is, to a large degree, driven by domestic politics, the motive on the part of the administration to escalate provocative covert actions inside Iran has never been greater. With Scooter Libby likely to be convicted and Fitzgerald’s sights increasingly turned on Cheney, the War Party, cornered, has every reason to lash out in one last desperate bid to save its political skin.

Fitzgerald, by all indications, is coming for Cheney. After the trial but before the sentencing, Fitz will make a strenuous effort to "flip" Scooter and use his testimony to target the vice president. Murray Waas reports in the National Journal that Cheney wasn’t taken in with Libby’s Tim Russert fabrication for a moment:

"At the time that Libby offered his explanation to Cheney, the vice president already had reason to know that Libby’s account to him was untrue, according to sources familiar with still-secret grand jury testimony and evidence in the CIA leak probe."

The Fitzgerald probe is a dagger pointed at the dark heart of the administration, the OVP, and the climactic moment of this epic battle is fast approaching. In the early days of the investigation, left-liberal bloggers were exulting in the possibility that they would see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House, but the trial has shown that Rove and Libby were antagonists rather than allies. Before it’s all over we may yet see the vice president frog-marched out of the White House “ at least metaphorically, in the form of an indictment with Dick Cheney’s name on it.

What better way to distract attention away from this coming political bombshell than by dropping some real bombs on Iran?

In the midst of the regional conflagration feared by Brzezinski, prosecuting the Vice President for obstruction of justice and/or perjury would be problematic, at best. In any case, the widening of the war would drive the story off the front pages “ think of this as a grand-scale version of Clinton’s bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory just as the Monica Lewinsky was returning to the grand jury.

U.S. war plans against Iran have apparently been in the making for quite some time, but the ratcheting-up of both the rhetoric and the actual war preparations indicates a new level of seriousness on the part of this administration. While most reports reassure us that the decision to go to war has not yet been made, one wonders what turn of events would push the key decision-makers, Bush and Cheney, over the line. A direct threat to one “ or both “ of them coming out of the Libby trial may be all the impetus they need. A cornered rat is dangerous.

by Justin Raimondo – February 21, 2007

February 26, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO’s So-Called Legal Claims Futile

Terrorist group of Mojahedin has published a letter of its lawyers, written in protest to the comments of Iraqi government’s spokesman on group’s expulsion from Iraq.

First, this letter should be considered in the framework of a psychological war by the gang of Rajavi against the Iraqi government and also as an effort to frighten the Iraqi officials.

However, it contains some points that reveal MKO’s efforts to prevent the process of expulsion from Iraq; indeed, it shows the MKO efforts against the government that is determined to expel the group are all futile.

Since the stances of MKO spokespersons are illegal, MKO leaders use expensive lawyers to threaten Iraqi officials. This time also, their lawyer has stressed that there should be no force, but he has also resorted to other leverages that expose the illegality of MKO’s claims. Francois Serres writes:

"Deputy Commander of Coalition forces in Iraq wrote in his letter to MKO General Secretary, on Feb. 16, 2006, that "Coalition Forces in Iraq are aware of their responsibilities with civilians with respect to Geneva Convention 1949. Particularly, we are bound to the Article 45, according to which transferring a protected person to another country in which he may be bothered because of his political or religious opinions."

MKO lawyers try to hide themselves behind US forces and prevent the Iraqi government from doing their decisions by deception and fraud.

MKO and their lawyers know well that their claims are all worthless and therefore, they resort to the occupiers. However, they don’t know that despite the statements, US forces have given the last word to the MKO leaders in Camp Ashraf and have announced that they won’t be able to stop the Iraqi government.

What’s clear and has been stressed by Iraqi government spokesman Mr. Al-Dabbagh is that the Iraqi government considers international rules in its decision-making processes and by relying on these very rules, it’s emphasizing on the expulsion of Rajavi’s gang from Iraq.

Irandidban – 2007/02/22

February 26, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Some Westerners Support MKO; Why?!

Interview with Lord Corbett and… about Rajavi cult

Early February, 35 British Parliament members asked the government officially to lift the name of MKO from the Britain’s list of terrorist organizations.

This group was headed by Lord Corbett, member of House of Lords from Labour Party, who’s collecting signatures to force Home Office to present its reasons for designating the MKO as a terrorist group.

Five years ago, the British government added the MKO to its list of terrorist organization. Now, Lord Corbett and his friends say despite MKO’s history of armed struggle, it’s now acting peacefully and is no threat to Britain or any other country.

We have interviewed Lord Corbett on the issue, and then we have discussed British government’s reasoning for designating the MKO as a terrorist entity. In the end, in an interview with Arvand Abrahamian, Iranian historian, we have asked why some Westerners support the MKO.

We asked Lord Corbett on his efforts to take out MKO from terror list. He responded as follows:

"The only reason for banning the group was that Mullahs had asked Jack Straw to do so. To sit at negotiation table, Iranians had set forth this condition."

– Don’t you think that they were added to the list because they had performed terrorist attacks against Iran? They assassinated a number of senior Iranian officials.

"They did it but it was done before 2001. They never targeted civilians. But about government officials; they killed a known criminal who was in charge of Evin Prison. He had been involved in killing tens of thousands of people. In such situation, the attacks are acceptable. however, the main point is that the group was added to the list in 2001 and at that time it was clear that the MKO had no organizational structure in Britain and that there was no evidence showing hostile activities by the MKO against Britain."

– But this is conventional in talks between governments. Each side asks for advantages in exchange for agreements. Don’t you think that even if Britain gave an advantage, it was right?

"This is no important whether it was conventional or not. My point is that such considerations can’t be regarded as enough reasons for designating a group. Honestly, I believe that in 2001, when the list was being provided, no one of the groups was given a chance to have a fair hearing or comment on the accusations."

-Personally, why do you think the MKO shouldn’t be on terror list?

"With Iran’s brutal regime, a group that seeks nonreligious democratic government should be supported".

– Do you think that British government’s decision was wrong? Why other European countries and the US have banned the group?

"This is a contagious issue. When the British government did this, the EU and the US also follow the example. However, this doesn’t prove that Britain’s first decision was right."

Lord Corbett said Human Rights Watch’s report on repeated cases of human rights violations in the MKO were baseless and lacked enough evidence. Former members of the group, who have repeatedly charged the group with torture and abuse in MKO’s camps in Iraq, were also accused of being tied to Iranian regime by Lord Corbett.

MKO and British Government

In 2000, a new antiterrorism law was passed in Britain.

According to this law, British government added 44 armed groups active across the world to its list of banned groups.

This list covered groups from North Africa to the Middle East, Pakistan and Sri Lanka; the MKO was among these groups.

The reasoning of British and other European government was and has been that 1990s was the era of political extremism growth and at that time many groups resorted to violence and bloody methods. Since it’s easy to immigrate and establish communication nowadays, such groups have created financial, recruiting, communication and back up networks in European countries.

The purpose of UK Terrorism Act 2000 was to ban the activities of such groups and giving more authority to the judicial system in order to prosecute these people and stop their activities.

The rules were passed by UK parliament when Jack Straw was in Home Office. Restricting the overt activities of MKO- including holding gatherings, raising money and propagandistic activities in Britain- was one of the consequences of these rules.

The MKO protested to the decision and claimed that it was done in favor of Iranian regime. Claiming that it has quitted armed opposition since 2001, the group wants the UK government to lift its name from terror list.

We called Home Office but they said they couldn’t comment on the issue since the MKO has officially asked legal institutions to review its status.

According to the rules, related to UK Terrorism Act 2000, Home Office has banned the MKO according to its own regulations and keeps the group on the list of the majority of MPs don’t protest. However, there’s an independent group called "Appealing Commission for Banned groups", to which real and legal entities can appeal.

This group has received MKO’s appeal, which would be reviewed this fall.

Meanwhile, Home Office told BBC Persian that according to British laws, the decisions of this Commission are not binding for Home Office. Therefore, even if the Commission accepts MKO’s protest, there’s no necessity for Home Office to lift MKO’s name from the list.

Interview with Arvand Abrahamian

This is not the first time the MKO’s political fate has become controversial due to its history and methods.

Islamic Republic has always considered it a terrorist group and has proposed that other countries ban the group if they wanted good relations with Tehran.

Meanwhile, 25 years after leaving Iran, the MKO is still continuing to live and sometimes creates tension.

In an interview with Arvand Abrahamian, professor of Iran’s political history and author of the first authentic book on the MKO, we asked about the MKO, about its nature, why Iranian government is sensitive towards it and how it’s identified in the Western political circles.

– How do you interpret the protest of a group of British MPs to banning the MKO?

"The term often used to describe this group is ‘terrorist’, but I believe that the concept of ‘terrorist’ has been used repeatedly and sometimes wrongly. So, it might not give a precise description of the MKO. This group is similar to a cult whose members are ready to do leaders’ orders in any way possible. So far, the group has changed its policies, methods and even internal relations several time and what has remained under the command of Massoud Rajavi is a group of people who obey the orders blindly and are ready to kill, die and even commit suicide for him; these are all signs of an organized cult."

– With these characteristics, why the MKO has a place in political equations? Why is the Iranian government sensitive about it? Is the group popular in Iran?

"No. In years leading to the revolution and in 1979, we could consider it a popular movement but after it settled in Iraq and following its cooperation with Saddam Hussein government, and with its violent methods inside Iran, I don’t think the group is popular and that it has any support in Iran. We shouldn’t forget that this group assassinated several senior Iranian officials, especially between 1981 to 1984. this wave of violence and its consequences for many Iranians has put the MKO beside the wave of horror and fear."

– If, as you say, the MKO is a cult-like group with terrorist history, lacking popularity inside Iran, why is that some Westerner politicians are supporting it and consider it as a democratic alternative for current regime?

"In an impartial view of their support for the group, we can say that they don’t know what they’re precisely supporting. Sometimes, these politicians sing petitions for the sake of humanitarian issues or democratic issues in Iran without knowing that a group like the MKO could be behind it."

– The final issue is about their financial strength, their equipments and their propaganda!

"Financially, they’re strong and the question is that where do they receive these equipments. An organized system is acting. Many believe that when Saddam had a good benefit from oil revenues, the MKO received large amounts of financial aids from the dictator. However, some observers say that it’s likely that some Middle Eastern states help the group. I don’t think anyone in the US government or European states is doing that since the group is on terror list but I don’t reject the idea that some pro-American governments in the Middle East may be helping the group covertly."

BBC persian, February 23, 2007

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2007/02/070223_mf_mko_uk.shtml#a

February 26, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

From Jaderieh Prison to Hakim’s Base!

A year and half ago, the criminal gang of Rajavi obliterated two of its members in Iraq and then claimed that agents with Iraqi Interior Ministry’s uniforms had kidnapped them (in order to accuse the Shiites) and had taken them to Jaderieh prison!

After a while, the prison was shut and prisoners were all freed. Then, MKO’s lies on the issue were exposed and it became clear that the two members had not been in that prison. MKO spread lies at that time in order to instigate the US military.

Now, a year and half on, the MKO is again repeating its claims on its two members (obliterated by the group itself) to provoke US’s news sensitivities in Iraq and pave the way for confronting the Shiites.

The terrorist MKO, resorting to its exposed tactic, has claimed:

"In the summer of last year, following the kidnapping of two MKO members, Hussein Pouyan and Mohammed Ali Zahedi, who had been taken to Iraqi interior ministry, investigations of Coalition Forces indicated that these two members had been taken to the base of SCIRI and Abdul Aziz Hakim. There, they had been interrogated by intelligence agents and forces of Qods Force. There’s no doubt that if coalition had entered Hakim’s base last year, the kidnapped MKO members would have been saved."

It’s clear that the criminal gang of Rajavi is always resorting to old tactics to hide its role in the issue and put the US forces and Shiite Iraqis in front of each other. However, with the exposure of its lies, the role of Ashraf’s Gestapo in obliterating the two members of MKO becomes more and more clear.

Irandidban – 2007/02/21

February 26, 2007 0 comments

Bulgaria

Bulgarians’ Warning on MKO

Websites linked to the terrorist group of Mojahedin-e Khalq quoted Al-Hurra news channel saying: "Bulgaria has warned about possible provocative activities against Camp Ashraf in Iraq."

Bulgarian sources had earlier reported that the mission of Bulgarian forces for protecting Camp Ashraf has been extended for another year. However, the Gestapo of Ashraf each time denies that Bulgarian forces are guarding MKO’s camp and try to convince others that they’re under the protection of US forces!

Irandidban – 2007/02/24

February 26, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO Defends Terrorist Acts in Zahedan

Despite the condemnation of terrorist operations in Zahedan by the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council and their call for the prosecution of those behind the attacks, terrorist group of Mojahedin-e Khalq supported the terrorists under the name of "National Council of Resistance" and asked for the freedom of criminal terrorists who are seeking sectarian and religious divisions.

MKO’s statement says:

"Suppression in Sistan and Baluchistan province has taken new dimensions in recent days Meanwhile, by establishing injustice unofficial courts, regime is going to execute a number of arrested people as quickly as possible in order to frighten the people.

Iranian resistance, calls on humanitarian communities and organizations to condemn the criminal behavior of mullahs’ regime in Sistan and Baluchistan province and try to save the arrested people".

Iran didban, February 22, 2007

February 26, 2007 0 comments

Duplicity of the MEK nature

For Whom the Terrorists Beg Mercy

When a terrorist group wears the mask of pro-democracy, it means that temporally it holsters the gun to start a double-dealing business. In fact, there is no difference between the terrorists that directly target civilians and those that advocate the perpetrated atrocities.

For instance, following the arrestment of the members of a terrorist group that had terrorized the Iranian southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchistan killing a number of people, the blacklisted terrorist MKO, claiming to have renounced terrorist moves, has started appealing to international organization for the freedom of the arrested terrorists. Exactly the same as it usually did when its members would be captured by the Iranian security forces. The following is the NCRI’s released condemnation of the arrestment. Pay attention that the referred term of "youths" in MKO’s lexicon means terrorists.

February 21, 2007

NCRI – In past few days, the mullahs’ regime has stepped up its suppressive measures against people in unprecedented dimensions in Sistan and Baluchestan Province. The State Security Forces (SSF) arrested hundreds of youths in raids on the residents of innocent people in provincial capital, Zahedan, in south-east Iran. The barbaric attacks by SSF were such that many children were arrested with their parents.

At the same time, the regime has organized summary trials to execute some detainees with the aim of creating fear among the local population.

The Iranian Resistance calls on all international human rights organizations to condemn the suppressive measure by the Iranian regime in Sistan and Baluchestan Province and try to free all prisoners.

mojahedin.ws – 25/02/2007

February 26, 2007 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO, Israel’s Intelligence Dealer

The Mojahedin-e Khalq [aka Rajavi cult] managed the meeting of two Iraqi Sunni representatives with Israelis in Brussels.

Some western journalists in Brussels are surprised to see the volume of cooperation and coordination between the MKO and Iraq’s Sunni oppositions. These journalists state that they had earlier received reports that Sunni oppositions had talked about the dangers of Safawis of Iraq and their threat and in response to questions that who they meant by Safawis they pointed to Iranians and Iraqi Shiites who support Iranians. Journalists say what surprised them was the presence of Iraq’s Sunni leaders in Brussels and that MKO was fully responsible for coordinating their affairs! The MKO had provided the Iraqi group with Iranians who were fluent in Arabic. It’s enough to say that Sunni delegation headed by Adnan Al-Dulaimi was the guest of MKO and not the European Parliament. It’s amazing! If the Iranians were Safawis, how a Sunni group would make alliance with them?

According to the reports, there are deep differences between the members of this political Sunni delegation and each one of them tried to manage his own meetings with European representatives. The tension intensified so that sometimes they accused each other; for instance, Khalf Al-Alyan denied the position of Adnan Al-Dulami and competed with Saleh Motlaq in establishing ties with European Parliament’s diplomats.

A diplomat in the EU said: "The Sunni’s delegation had entered Brussels through improper channels and it could have achieved far better results if I had come by the invitation of Arab League or some Arab states. However, they came here by a notorious organization that is being punished for its terrorist designation. Although the organization opposes the Islamic regime of Iran, the group itself has not a proper political situation. Therefore, it can’t be considered a good mediator between Iraqi Sunnis and the EU.

Press sources have stressed that the MKO has used its ties with Israeli diplomats in Brussels to manage a meeting between two Sunni representatives and some Israeli figures. In the meetings, the two Sunnis have been given missions to pursue in Iraq. It’s been said that the Israelis were Mossad Agents. The two Sunni representatives knew the Israelis were intelligence agents.

According to sources, whose reports are based on the intelligence of Belgian security forces (responsible for monitoring and protecting this delegation), these two Sunnis were "Khalf Al-Ayan" and "Zafer Alaani". The sources added that other members of the delegation also might have met the Israelis.

"Khalf Al-Ayan" is trying to prevent the ruling of Shiites over Iraq. Having been an army officer in the former regime and serving in Iraq-Iran war, he strongly opposes Iran," sources added.

"Khalf Al-Ayan and other members of the delegation are going to affront Shiite religious leaders, particularly Ayatollah Ali Sistani."

In this regard, Al-Alyan had said that he had rejected meetings with Ayatollah Sistani because he didn’t want to recognize his role, or that of other religious leaders, in Iraq.

The delegation, headed by Adnan Al-Dulaimi, included a number of Iraqi Parliament members such as Khalf Al-Ayan, Saleh Motlaq, Zafer Alaani, and Sheikh Khaled Al-Bar’ a leader of Sunni tribe of Al-Dulaim and General Ali Khalifeh, a commander of former regime’s army.

After the EU court ruled that restrictions on MKO properties should be lifted, Adnan Al-Dulaimi, Khalf Al-Alyan and Saleh Motlaq contacted MKO leaders and congratulated them on the issue. They expressed hope that the group could continue its activities as the past 20 years.

It shold be noted that the MKO’s relations with this group is not limited to Brussels’ visit, but the intelligence exposed two years ago indicated that there were wide security, military and political relations between the two sides and that these ties were encouraged by US’s ambassador to Iraq, Zalmi Khalilzad. So far, these relations were kept secretly but after Maliki’s government pressurized the group to leave Iraq, the MKO asked Iraqi groups to announce their support for the group in public so that the entire world would know that there are Iraqis who don’t like MKO’s expulsion!

To show that Sunni Arabs support the group, MKO asked Paulo Casaca, a member of European Parliament and a stronger supporter of the group, to manage the visit of Iraqi Sunnis to Brussels.

It should be noted that the visit has had high costs for the group. It’s also said that the Iraqi Sunnis received gifts from the group.

In this regard, Nahrainnet was informed that there were 20 in the delegation that left Jordan to Brussels, while only 13 have returned. It seems that others have found the opportunity to seek asylum in Germany and Netherlands.

Nahrainnet.net, February 11, 2007

http://www.nahrainnet.net/news/52/ARTICLE/9515/2007-02-11.html

February 24, 2007 0 comments

Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

Iraqi government clarified its position regarding MKO

In a report from Baghdad on security measures in to combat insurgent activity, the Iraqi government again clarified its position regarding the Mojahedin Khalq organization (aka Rajavi cult). 18 February 2007 Meanwhile, Iraqi cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabagh said the government regarded the Iranian [Mojahedin] Khalq opposition group, which Iraq harboured during former President Saddam Hussein’s reign, as “a terrorist” group. Al Dabagh said that the group should be forced to leave since “the constitution forbids the presence of any organization that is engaged in or supports in terrorism in the Iraqi territories.” Less than a month before Al Dabagh’s comments, a [Mojahedin] Khalq spokeswoman had told pan-Arab Al Sharq Al Awsat that the group’s faction in Iraq, which lives in a camp east of Baghdad, has stopped its activities. “We only have around 4,000 men, women and children who reside in Ashraf camp near Diyali,” Dawla Norouzi said, adding: “We respect the Iraqi government.” Norouzi said that [Mojahedin] Khalq activities in were reduced to “cultural and educational” activities. [Mojahedin] Khalq has been struggling against the Iranian regime for more than two decades.

February 22, 2007 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts