A video on YouTube shows the European Deputy from Portugal Paulo Casaca dancing with members of the group Mojahedin of the People of Iran (MKO), an organization classified as terrorists by the European Union and US. Note:
( This video was first removed from YouTube after protest from Mr. Paulo Casaca. Iranpeyvand website has reuploaded the video on YouTube under a different title but with the same content. The new title is:”PAULO CASACA, DANCES WITH WOLVES”. )
Below is a letter of complaint to the Sunday Herald newspaper by Jamshid Tafrishi. Tafrishi was once a member of the Mojahedin-e Khalq, and joined the National Liberation Army in . But soon rejected the organisation and became an outspoken critic.
Since he left, the Mojahedin have been misusing his name over the past years in every possible way, publishing articles on their websites (Iranfocus, Iranterror and PauloCasaca.net) which are their version of his views, but never publishing any direct response from him. In this way the MKO has variously claimed that Tafrishi ‘admitted’ working for the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, then ‘admitted’ to be working for the MKO and etc, without any direct word from Mr Tafrishi himself.
Recently, the Mojahedin told journalists that Tafrishi had written a letter to a court in the supporting their claims. For the first time an independent newspaper, the Sunday Herald, has printed the lies broadcast by the Mojahedin and Mr Tafrishi has taken the opportunity to clear his name by writing the following letter to the Editor, Mr Richard Walker.
Dear Sir,
It appears that the proscribed terrorist organisation, Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (MKO) which is on the list of terrorist organisations in US, , European Union, and the rest of the free world has published an article in your weekly publication and repeated its contents throughout its various official and clandestine websites.
The Mojahedin Organisation has made false allegations against me and I would like you to publish my response to their lies in the same page and column according to the usual rights considered by publications. I reserve my right to pursue legal avenues in the against this proscribed terrorist organisation as well as any provider for them.
The terrorist Mojahedin Organisation has falsely claimed that I have written a letter to a court in the (of course without even mentioning what and where and…) and have made further comments on this.
I have been, and I am declaring again, that from 1991 when I left Mojahedin Khalq Organisation and exposed the true terrorist nature of this cult, I have been under attack by the Mojahedin Khalq wherever possible by them.
From 1991 I have tried to take the mask off the face of this organisation. I have written hundreds of letters to many officials including United Nations officials, sub-commissions of the UN, various humanitarian organisations and even the US State Department and the US Congress. I have been one of the witnesses testifying to the massacre of Iraqi Kurds by the Mojahedin Khalq under direct order of Saddam Hussein. I testified in the United Nations Minorities Rights Commission which resulted in the Commission’s acknowledgment and condemnation of their crimes.
My testimonies, together with tens of other testimonies from the people who had survived the cult, along with other documents presented to the world, resulted in worldwide condemnation of the Mojahedin Khalq, and the US, UK, European Union and Canada have entered its name – and its aliases – in their lists of proscribed terrorist organisations.
Therefore, claiming that I have written such a letter as is referred to in your weekly publication in the words of a terrorist organisation is as ridiculous and false as their claim that they would have any minor support in the Iranian community inside or outside Iran, or representing themselves as an alternative to the ruling regime of Iran.
The charlatanism and mafia like tactics used by this terrorist cult are self-explanatory. It is not the first time they have used these criminal tactics to discredit their critics.
I have instructed my lawyers to investigate the false allegations published in your paper and the source of the claim that I have written a letter to a court. I will follow every legal avenue according to my lawyers’ advice. This is yet another fraud committed by the Rajavi cult (MKO) which should be exposed.
But it is worth mentioning the reasons behind such a desperate attempt by Rajavi and his terrorist cult. Is this not because of the panic after the death of their benefactor Saddam Hussein? Of course the other interpretation of this obvious lie in the middle of daylight would be that the Rajavis have lost their minds completely due to the heat after the fall of their benefactor.
It is clearly very regrettable to see that the Sunday Herald publication has mentioned the name of this proscribed terrorist cult which is hated by every Iranian inside and outside for their war crimes and crimes against humanity under Saddam Hussein, as a “Democratic Alternative”.
Finally, I would propose that I meet with your papers’ representatives so as to expose and refute all the lies which have been published in your paper under the influence of this terrorist organisation and deny publicly all the false quotes alleged on my behalf.
Jamshid Tafrishi,
E mail : jam_taf@hotmail.com
Jamshid Tafrishi, January 22, 2007
LONDON, January 22 (IranMania) – The terrorist group Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO) should remain on the list of banned US and European terrorist groups, the British civil entity Iran-Interlink’s Spokesman Massoud Khodabandeh said, IRNA reported.
Talking to IRNA, Khodabandeh also said MKO remains a banned terrorist group although a court in Luxembourg has voted for the release of its blocked assets last month.
"The verdict of this court does not change the illegal status of this terrorist cult,” he said, adding that new rules have been ratified in Europe for controlling the assets of terrorist groups.
Khodabandeh, who is a former MKO member, said the US Supreme Court did not exclude MKO from the list of banned terrorist groups after the Luxembourg court issued its verdict.
According to him, a team of British lawyers, sponsored by the British government, are currently engaged in discussing mechanisms for imposing restrictions and sanctions on international terrorist groups such as the MKO, Al-Qaeda and the PKK.
“The British government on Thursday urged representatives of the House of Commons that the MKO assets will remain blocked in Britain according to domestic rules,” he said.
“The US and European governments are reluctant to cooperate with MKO transparently. However, in some cases, foreign security officials in Iraq contact MKO members and seek their cooperation. “
Khodabandeh noted that more than 50 senior MKO members are under Interpol prosecution.
The MKO has been labeled as a terrorist group by the US State Department, the British government and the European Union states.
Iran-Interlink is a non-governmental consultancy organization that renders support to members who have abandoned MKO and their family.
IranMania.com – January 22, 2007
Note: the MKO is referred to by various names such as MEK or PLOI depending on the source.
Well oiled from the current war, U.S.A.’s propaganda machine has geared up for a possible war against Iran. As U.S. warships and the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower wait ominously in the Persian Gulf1, the media is launching a war of its own, using their patented method of demonizing Arabs as anti-Semites, misogynists and terrorists. Yet behind the scenes, the US government is collaborating with a group they define as terrorists- a group they cited to prove that Saddam Hussein had connections to terrorist organizations.
The Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) identifies themselves as a Marxist-Islamist guerilla army, but has a long and complex history of violence and betrayal that makes it difficult to understand exactly who and what they stand for. Their recent collaboration with the U.S. intelligence and military blurs their identity ever more.
Send in the Terrorists
In an April, 2006 article from the alternative news website, The Raw Story, Larisa Alexandrova interviewed several former intelligence officials who implicated the U.S. in what appears to be the initial plans for a war with Iran. One of her sources said, “The US army secured a key MEK facility 60 miles northwest of Baghdad shortly after the 2003 invasion, but they did not secure the MEK and let them basically be because [then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz was thinking ahead to Iran.”
“These guys are nuts,” another former intelligence source was quoted as saying. “[Stephen] Cambone [the Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence] and those guys made MEK
members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.”
The sources also indicated that among the US supporters of the MKO are former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld; the latter two were responsible for the aforementioned plan to “convert” the MKO into democratic freedom fighters.2 “In 2000,” Wikipedia’s article on the MKO reads, “200 US congress members signed a statement endorsing the organization’s cause.”3
“Nucuelar” Un-intelligence
According to Green Left Online, some of the US intelligence on alleged nuclear weapons development came from Alireza Jafarzadeh, former spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the semi-legitimate political arm of the MKO. Jafarzadeh apparently provided US agents with drawings of planned underground tunnels where nuclear weapons were to be developed and tested.4
Which Side are They on?
I have to admit that as a western radical, at first glance the MKO is enticing. They formed in the 1960’s as a people’s liberation army, with a mix of Marx and Mohammed fighting against the Shah and, later, the oppressive clerical regime that has made a thousand empty promises to the poor of Iran. However, we shouldn’t fetishize or idealize the MKO, in the exact same way that western leftists in the early 70’s idealized the Khmer Rouge, right before they revealed themselves as genocidal psychotics in the vast killing fields of Cambodia.
To their credit, the MKO fought bravely and successfully to free Iran from the Shah and his puppet-masters, assassinating US officials and launching a guerilla war that helped turn the tides of the Iranian revolution. At one point in time the MKO were truly fighting for, and alongside, the people of Iran and had a good chance of gaining popular support for a full-scale revolution. But that time ended as the Ayatollah outlawed and began to persecute the MKO. It was then in the early 80’s during the Iran-Iraq war that they sought the assistance of Saddam Hussein, even as he murdered Iranians with bombs and mustard gas. Hussein armed and funded the MKO during and after the war in an attempt to destabilize Iran- the same strategy the US is now attempting. It failed for Saddam. In fact, Khomeini consolidated his power through the opposition of Iraq and the MKO.3
In 1989, the MKO moved their base of operations to Iraq, after being exiled from both Iran and France. They fought for Saddam, aiding him in his brutal campaign against both the Shiites and the Kurds. The instances of Hussein’s cruelty have been well documented by the mainstream media, so I won’t go into detail, but a quote from a former MKO leader will concisely illustrate their involvement: “Take the Kurds under your tanks and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.”5
In the spring of 2005, Human Rights Watch interviewed 12 former members of the MKO, five of whom were held in Abu Ghraib after the MKO turned them over to Saddam Hussein’s regime. The interviews revealed MKO practices of “… detention and persecution of ordinary members wishing to leave the organization …” and “… lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings, and torture of dissident members.” The Iraqi Republican Guard sent one of the men to Abu Ghraib and held him in solitary confinement for over eight years.6
A Deadly Hypocrisy
So after all of this the US is using the MKO to support their claims of an Iranian nuclear arms program and as a proxy-army to clear the way for a US occupation. The MKO, in turn, has no qualms about accepting the support of a foreign aggressor whose war will invariably cost many Iranian lives. This two-faced policy is obviously nothing new. Look no further than Saddam Hussein, Nicole Cescareau, Slobodan Milosevic or Alqueda and Bin-Laden himself and you will find a history of foreign policy rich in hypocrisy and the empire’s ability to turn their lackeys into monsters when they become inconvenient.
It is hard to wade through the propaganda of all sides and figure out exactly what the MKO are fighting for. Are they terrorists? A people’s liberation army? Are they even Marxists anymore? Although they still identify themselves as Marxist-Islamists, according to Wikipedia one of their demands is a free market economy in Iran.3 And the Raw Story article about CIA-MKO collaboration refers to them as “a right wing terrorist organization.” 2
Regardless of their ideology, the MKO supported Saddam in his attacks against Iranians and now appears like they will help the US military slaughter more of their own people. One can only imagine how the organization, with their unpopularity in Iran, will go after civilians who oppose them, as they have in the past. Unless the MKO dramatically changes its ways, its tarnished name and key members, it is no longer a viable means for Iranian liberation. The students, workers and youth on the other hand …
The defenstrator – By Colin Cascia – 2006-11-30
In a CNN special report on January 15, Alireza Jafarzadeh joined with Lou Dobbs.in a debate on Iran and the US. Jafarzadeh’s comments contained many notable as well as ambiguous points. Regardless of his stress on encouraging and advocating the US military moves in the region, his justification of such moves somehow indicates that he is anticipating promising results out of the expansion of the US militarism. During the talk, Lou Dobbs made interruptions to react against Jafarzadeh’s baseless comments on Iran’s internal situation and its nuclear program. In answer to Lou Dobbs’ question that "How effective, how significant is U.S. military power in the equation of Iran in its thinking?" Jafarzadeh said:
Well, I think there’s a big difference between Iran and Iraq, not only in terms of the size and the population, but the overall strategy, impact, the population in Iran, the very defiant population that you really didn’t have in the case of Iraq.
In fact, Mr. Jafarzadeh’s answer implies that the US main problem in Iraq is that it is confronting people who reject to disapprove Saddam’s ousted regime while the US might be much successful in respect to Iran because the majority of people there are dissatisfied of the ruling regime that is susceptible to fall. His comments not only exculpate Saddam of his crimes and atrocities done against people and signal a green light to his supporters, but also distinguish between the two Ian-Iraq nations referring to the latter as a "defiant population".
Jafarzadeh intends to say that if the US is caught in Iraq that is because it challenged a legitimate regime much supported by people. He might be criticizing the US for not invading Iran prior to Iraq. That is just what Mohammad Mohadessin referred to in one of his Direct Talk programs aired by Mojahedin’s TV network as he enunciated on the UN Security Council’s resolution issued against Iran. Discussing Iraq’s invasion into Kuwait, he stated that for years they had been reiterating that to have a peaceful Middle-East, the solution was to topple the Islamic Republic. Implicitly he stated that Saddam was following the line of a second attack against Iran, when invaded Kuwait, in an attempt to stabilize the disturbed region.
A remarkable point in Jafarzadeh’s interview is his criticism of the US for not investing on Mojahedin as the main democratic alternative. The crisis in Iraq, he believes, is the outcome of a lack of alternative there while Iranian are not deprived of such an alternative. As a solution to end Mojahedin’s stalemate and the US problems, he said:
The third option, which is reaching out to the Iranian people, empowering the Iranian opposition, who are already calling for regime change in Iran. This is the option the United States needs to pursue. And this is something that has not been done.
Jafarzadeh’s comments contained much more interesting points. Out of the three proposed antidote to restore stability in Iraq, that is to say – an increase in the number of troops there, withdrawal of the troops, and confronting Iran – Mr. Jafarzadeh asserts the last one and forewarns Mr. Bush that the crises in Iraq last forever unless the Islamic Republic is dealt with. He seems to have forgotten that the alternative he is referring to has occupied an everlasting status on the list of the US blacklisted terrorists.
Omid Pouya, Mojahedin.ws, January 24, 2007
Alireza Jafarzadeh, member and spokesman of terrorist MKO, acting as Middle East analyst who’s serving Israelis’ lobby in Warmongers’ TV channel, suggested to Bush’s government in an interview with CNN to use the terrorist group of Mojahedin-e Khalq instead of attacking Iran.*
Jafarzadeh and leaders of the cult (of Rajavi), who have created this theory to impose the group on the US, know it’s really sarcastic and that’s why they speak of so-called "popular protests" and "explosive situation"!
For years, the MKO has repeated contradictory claims on the internal situation of Iran in order to receive advantages from the West, and the US in particular. Now, these claims have become so unbearable that even CNN’s presenter turns on Jafarzadeh asking him: "what internal situation are you talking about?"
In response to Jafarzadeh’s request from the West to put pressure on Iran and focus on internal situation, CNN’s Lou Dobbs asks:
"We have heard these things for years that there’s dissatisfaction. That there was opposition to Ayatollah Khomeini. Then there was Khatami. Then they said that Ahmadinejad has come to help the regime because the regime is facing pro-democracy youths and so on. Don’t you think these are all only rhetoric?"
(In this question, Dobbs questions Rajavi’s analyses and makes them invalid)
Jafarzadeh, unable to answer the questions in a meaningful manner, resorted to a stupid comparison (that has been repeated by the MKO for 25 years) and said: "We saw that Shah, with all military power and after 37 years of ruling the country, was eventually toppled by Iranians. There is a limitation for dictatorship."
Dobbs had a stronger answer: "I’m not anyone to question the will of any nation’s people. But I’m confused why there’s no sign of this opposition to state Islamic radicalism and why it’s not negated."
Jafarzadeh tried to introduce the protests to the Iranian President as a sign of revolution, saying: "Ahmadinejad is being negated widely. When he was speaking last month in Amirkabir University, students protested to him despite the pressure by Revolutionary Guards Corps and practically forced Ahmadinejad out of the auditorium."
In the end, using a very simple example, Lou Dobbs showed how discredited MKO analyses on Iran and Iranian are: "I tell you that in this very country, when you hear the name of George Bush in a University you think a revolution is going to take place"!
This short interview proves that Rajavi’s current policy is not useful and that the US needs a group or solution that can resolve its problems in practice.
refore, even if the MKO succeeds to impose itself on a Zionist or American party, it would be the beginning of being exposed and discredited.
———————————————————
* CNN’s interview with Jafarzadeh on his new book, "Iran’s Threat"
Irandidban -2007/01/23
The high court is right: Prosecuting alleged contributors to a ‘terrorist’ group isn’t a 1st Amendment issue.
THE SUPREME COURT has rightly refused to block the trial of seven Los Angeles residents accused of contributing funds to an Iranian opposition movement that the State Department has branded a terrorist group.
The high court let stand a ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that prosecuting the defendants ” who are innocent until proved guilty ” posed no 1st Amendment problem. As Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld pithily put it: "Sometimes money serves as a proxy for speech, and sometimes it buys goods and services that are not speech. Guns and bombs are not speech."
In 1997, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright designated the Marxist group Mujahedin Khalq, or MEK, as a "foreign terrorist organization," a designation reaffirmed in 1999. Formed in the 1960s to oppose the rule of the shah of Iran, MEK now opposes the Islamic regime in Tehran and, according to the State Department, engaged in terrorism against Iran between 1997 and 2001.
Under the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, it’s a crime to knowingly provide material support to an organization that appears on the State Department’s list. The defendants in the Los Angeles case are accused of soliciting donations for MEK in Los Angeles and of wiring at least several hundred thousand dollars to an MEK bank account in Turkey.
The truth of those allegations is a matter for a jury. What the defendants sought from the 9th Circuit was a ruling that their prosecution violated the 1st Amendment because of flaws in the way MEK was designated a terrorist organization.
Yet, as Kleinfeld noted, MEK’s own description of its activities supported the terrorist designation. The designation was on the books when the defendants allegedly contributed to the group. More to the point, as the Supreme Court has recognized in upholding restrictions on contributions to election campaigns, money cannot always simplistically be equated with speech even in a domestic context. The "money is speech" mantra makes even less sense when the money buys guns.
Of course, the State Department should use care in designating a group as a terrorist organization. Such designations can be challenged though not ignored. Individuals accused of providing such a group with material support shouldn’t be able to substitute their judgment for the department’s any more than consumers should be able to substitute their judgment about a dangerous drug for that of the Food and Drug Administration. Neither case is a free-speech issue.
Mojahedin a bargaining chip in Iran – US negotiations transcribtion of BBC 2- News Night program on MKO
For two decades it was one of the oddest armies on the earth.
Prevailed to overthrow the ayatollahs in Iran, The widow Maryam Rajavi stuck amongst fanatical devotion. She is accused by some of running a crew, a manipulative cult. 
The America which protects the now-disarmed fighters in Iraq can’t decide what to do about them, it runs the people Mujahedin, also known as MEK or MKO as terrorists but according to some politicians it is still a potential ally.
Bob Filner (Democrat):
I know the MEK supports a secular democratic, non nuclear Iran. What’s there to oppose them? We should be a help to them in any way we can.
The Mujahedin’s position in Iraq now is a desperate uncomfortable one. Just north of Baqdad you find Ashraf in a vast desert. This land was given to them by Saddam Hussein but the new Iraqi government wants them out. And even though President Bush has so far rejected propose to talk to Iran. American policy makers believe the Mujahedin would actually have to be scarified for better relations with Iran. 
Keneth Pollak:
Iran and the US need to work together to stabilize Iraq which will be disastrous for both countries if it’s led to civil war. We also have the nuclear negotiations which are very very delicate and we don’t want the MKO to make muddy those already troubled waters. The other matter is that the US does need to take charges against the MKO that is a terrorist organization.
We are in a house in the suburb of Leeds.
Ann Singleton and her husband Masud also are ex-Mujahedin activists who now campaign against the movement that commanded them absolute loyalty for twenty years. She joined MKO when she was a student in Manchester University in the late 1970’s when the students believed that they can change the world.
Ann Singleton :
The only organization which I had access to directly and that would actually going out to doing something was the Mujahedin. They would ask for donations of course and that is how they recruited the crew I guess. The process started with me. They would ask for money and I would give them more than that they asked for to show them my commitment.
Mujahedin began as a guerrilla group fighting the shah of Iran. Along side the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, they succeeded to overthrow the Pahlavies in 1979.
But afterwards ayatollah Khomeini was not willing to share the power with them. Mujahedin rose to debate him but they were defeated.
From then on the organization was bored with the Islamic Republic. Hundred of Iranian officials were killed or wounded by Mujahedin’s bombs. In one attack the country’s current supreme leader Ayatollah Khameneiee lost his right arm.
In several times in the 1980’s these fighters invaded Iran from Iraq. Meanwhile thousands of Mujahedin members were executed in Iranian jails. The leader of the organization and many supporters fled to the West.
Ali Safavi who works for Muajhedin’s umbrella organization, NCRI, he has convinced many politicians that this movement which has left violence is a democratic alternative to the Islamic Republic:”All accusations against them”he says”are organized by Iran”.
Ali Safavi:
“they view the people ‘s Mujahedin as an existential threat because they know that the Mujahedin has a large support among the Iranian people and that is why they have spent no effort in fight to illegalize the Mujahedin by engaging in a massive expensive propaganda Campaign to demonize the Muajhedin.
But there is no evidence that Abbas Sadeqinejad relates to Iranian intelligence. This former Mujahedin member who now lives in Germany with his family that he thought he had lost for ever when he fled Iran. The years when he stayed in Camp Ashraf he believed what the Mujahedin had told him that his wife and his new born daughter were dead.
Sadeqi:
“they told me that they set two people to find my wife and one of them was killed by the Regime but they said that they persued my case with a second and they found out that my wife had died when giving birth to my daughter . That’s how they cut my ties with my family. Same time, they told my wife that I was killed by the Regime as I was leaving the country.
“Psychological manipulation”as described to Newsnight by many interviewed former members. This part of the system of control by Masud Rajavi and his new wife Maryam was established in Iraq in the 80’s and 90’s. They launched what they called”Ideological Revolution”. The women got key jobs. The announcement of sexual feelings became forbidden and divorce became obligatory.
Singlton:
they decreed that every member should divorce. All your thought and feeling and energy, your whole being have to be devoted to the Rajavis. That was a forced system of reporting, any erotic fantasy they had for example they have aroused by sister so so or by what’s his name brother. They were expected to tell everything totally open, any thing was in your mind or you feel with your heart.
Reporter: were all members forced to divorce? Safavi: No, every individual member of the Mojahedin decided on his own to forget family life, those who were married of course.
Reporter: all of them? Safavi: yes. Yes. All of them.
– So every single married member in Ashraf at that time made the voluntary decision to divorce or forget the family life?
-yes
-How many people where there?
-I don’t exactly know what the number was but hundreds people ,yes every member of the hundreds.
– Hundreds?
-yes
– Hundreds. Every single one voluntarily to divorce!
– Yes.
– Isn’t it implausible to see that hundreds of members, all voluntarily take a decision to divorce?
-Not at all.
The level of devotion expended to the members’ squirm of suicide feared European citizens in 2003. To protest the temporary arrest of Maryam Rajavi
. The Newsnight has serious accounts that in the 1990’s those who seemed less reliable were tortured in the confinement of the organization’s Camp in Iraq.
Sadeqi: they hit my knees so hard. “ He pulled my hair and said that he would teach me a lesson I would never get. He put handcuff on me and hung me from my right hand”. I shouted why you are hitting a member of the organization. But they hung me like that for twenty minutes”
Mujahedin were the guests for Saddam Hussein in 1980’s when he was the ally in war with Iran of the West. He offered them the most convenient bases. It was certain that their association with the Iraqi traitor would become their big terrible trouble. In the 1990’s after the Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam became the West’s enemy. Meanwhile in 1997,when the new reformist president Muhammad Khatami was elected in Tehran, in that year America listed the Mujahedin as terrorists, something that weakened their abilities to work on fund raising in West. Some believe that the move was a coquetry just to appease Iran.
Kenneth Polack:
There was definitely a debate within the US government. As to whether or not the MKO should be added to the list but the ultimate decision that was made was that the US needs to be consistent at the application of its standards. That no country would take the US seriously if the only groups that are put on the list of terrorists were the groups who are at war with the US and its allies.
In 2001, the US attacked Afghanistan. Both America and Iran after the remove of Taliban had a reason to talk. One of the deals the officials looked around was that the US and Iran talk about the existence of Mujahedin.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson:
We had some intelligence, indicated that some key senior officials of AlQaida might have gone to Iran. Just casual conversations suggested that Iran should be willing to turn over those AlQaida figures and we had to give them a probe and whenever speaking of the pre-proposed proba MEK was there. It happened around discussions almost all the time because it was clear that Iran is very concerned about the MEK.
Laurence Wilkerson and his boss Collin Powell weren’t sure how high in the Iranian government the approach came from. They didn’t listen to the offer but a year and a half later there was a better chance to deal.
After the US-led invasion of Iraq, Iran sent Washington a secret letter proposing talks.
Here, we have a copy of the letter; it’s not signed but the State Department understood that it came with the approval of the highest authorities in Tehran and that offers exactly what many in Washington, believe America should have been seeking from Iran.
Tehran offered to use its influence to support stabilization in Iraq and to have full transparency on its nuclear programme and remarkably end the military support to the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah and aid to the Palestinian Hamas. In return it wanted t US to halt hostile behavior, abolition of all sanctions and specifically pursuit of the Mujahedin and repatriation of their members.
Wilkerson: and we thought, it was precious moment to do that. I think the Secretary of State and Deputy of the Secretary of State just thought at the same time but when it got to the White House and to the Vice-President’s Office, the old mantra that we don’t talk to the evils which includes the guy of Pyongyang, North Korea and includes the guy of Tehran, Iran. Reasserted itself and to our embarrassment, State as far as I’m concerned the cable that I saw go back to the Swiss, ashly upbraided the Swiss to being so bold and audacious to present such a proposal to us on behalf of Iran.
It was the Zenith of American strength in the region, a natural time for republicans of the White House to wonder if the regime change in Iraq could be followed by the regime change in Iran
Mujahedin obvious allies in a research campaign have been bombed by the US during the invasion in Iraq and afterwards the State Department ordered Them to be disarmed but the especial Pentagon forces sent to perform that task found out so instantly how useful the exiled fighters could be.
Military Lawyer (Vivian Gembara): they were a formidable fighting force there, I mean but it was not the best equipped force that we have ever seen. A Force which is led by women. It’s such a unique: I mean it sounds like almost fiction.
And the US army’s instant infatuation with Muajhedin fully were recruited a very pragmatic force that was so loyal to Saddam, now apparently wanted to serve America in any way it could.
Military lawyer: we wanted to disband them essentially and that was what we had a problem with because they still wanted to work with us.
Back in Washington the state of Department wasn’t interested”
Wilkerson: everyday from Monday to Friday we had meetings at the State Department from 8:30 and one of the questions that came up almost everyday was what we have to do with the MEK, the MEK were still wondering around Iraq, still they had their arms .they are still a cohesive body of people saying what’s happening? They’re a terrorist organization we declare them ourselves. The President, himself does agree that we should do something about the MEK but nothing is happening. The Defense Department doesn’t do any thing. By their actions, I must say that Secretary of Defense and his underlings and the Vice President’s Office must have thought that the MEK might prove the fruitful instrument in the future and therefore they don’t want to take any drastic action against the MEK.
President Bush has now relinquished the services of the former Defense Secretary Donald Ramsfeld but Newsnight understands that still the strong pro-Mujahedin lobby within the administration, one of the possibilities ,apparently have been concerning is to use the group as a go-between to help American forces reach outs to Sunni insurgence.
Meanwhile in Europe the charismatic leader of the Iranian resistance Maryam Rajavi has been rallying among her supporters with talking of victory. The Mujahedin have just wanted the Judgment of European court of justice on freezing their assets that they believe it’s the first step to removing the terrorist tag, that still haunts them. Though their last attack was in 1999 and they have since renounced any military role.
Ali Safavi: Instead of tying engaged with Mullahs in Tehran the international community has to reach out to the democratic opposition and the very opposition which by the key reveal allegations on the Iran’s nuclear weapons program. In some sense really the international community and the Western countries owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Mujahedin.
In fact there’s no more much sign of support for the Mujahedin in Iran. Since they moved to Iraq they’ve been widely regarded as traitors. The disbanding of the group plays as the key goal for Tehran. In the short term chances of the US-Iranian relations is very little. President Ahmadinejad and President Bush both talk with the language of confrontation but many in Washington regret that.
Wilkerson: I think the failure of the US to make some sort of meaningful overtures to Tehran has been a terrible mistake that has put Iran in a strategic position in the Middle East that she couldn’t have gained by her own magi. We have through our inaptitude and our refusal of the talk, it is certainly giving Iran the cat-bird seat in the region.
Published by the Mujahedin’s latest promotional material, the 3500 remaining residents of Ashraf deprived of their military role enjoy a cultural life in the middle of the Iraqi desert. They even revived their own form of dance.
The organization believe that they can survive here under the protection of Geneva and again one day play a big role in the Iranian political scene but as Tehran strengthens its influence in Iraq and the US runs an eventual plan the Mujahedin’s time must have been running out.
BBC 2- News Night program
Download Mojahedin a bargaining chip in Iran – US negotiations
Despite being a strong supporter of Israel, at least Kenneth R. Timmerman antagonizes MKO’s seizing the power in Iran, indicating that the group is not at all a pro-democratic activist as it advertises. A journalist, policy advocate, and activist, R. Timmerman directs the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, which he founded in 1995 with two other neoconservatives, Joshua Muravchik and Peter Rodman. The National Endowment for Democracy provided the initial funding to the group.
Strongly denouncing the recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group that the United States should engage in direct talks with Syria and Iran, Timmerman praises the Bush administration’s increased commitment to Iran regime change through support of dissidents inside and outside of Iran and believes that the United States must devote serious assets to helping pro-democracy forces to help the regime change. Seeing that the administration still has no plan of how to do it, Timmerman has recently proposed a new plan released in Front Page Magazine on January 18. He states:
I believe the United States should be prepared to commit a minimum of $300 million over an initial six month period if we are to have any hope of a successful outcome.
The very first step must be the appointment by the President of a Special Envoy for Iran, with full presidential authority to convene a loyal type meeting of several hundred prominent Iranian leaders. The majority of those able to attend such a meeting will of necessity come from the diaspora; some will come secretly from the inside.
In his drafting a detailed game plane, he suggests organizing massive non-violent protests against the current Iranian rule in Tehran. But he does not throw caution into the wind to warn about MKO’s potential exploitation of opportunities. He also draws the strategy for “preventing the Islamic-Marxist Mujahedin Khalq from exploiting the situation and seizing power in a putsch’.
Mr. Timmerman’s strategy for establishing democracy through a regime change plan in Iran utilizing the Iranian themselves does not, however, mean that he and his colleagues are really concerned about Iranian people but that it is the easiest and most sensible strategy to avoid confrontation while ensuring the best results for the US.
Supporting regime change by Iranians, while containing Syria, not only makes the best strategic sense for America, it is the right thing to do.
Mojahedin.ws -Sattar Orangi -January 21, 2007
While the stupid propaganda system of Mojahedin has focused on warmongering and repeating the confused policies of Bush to deploy more troops to Iraq and threatening other countries, the reports published around the world represent the image of opposition to US’s fascist warmongering policies; of course, the cult of Rajavi censors all such reports so as to prevent them from being heard by its desperate members.
Tom Lantos, the head of Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee said on Wednesday, Jan. 17, that he’s ready to go to Iran along with a delegation.
Speaking in Foreign Relations Committee, Tom Lantos, Dem. From California, added that Iranian officials have so far refused to issue visas for Congressmen.
He also added that Americans should also be blamed for obstructing the process of talks to the US.
"I’m ready to take a delegation from Foreign Relations Committee to Tehran at any time in order to talk on all issues without conditions," he said.
Madlin Albright, former US Secretary of State during the presidency of Clinton, who was also in the meeting, said: "The US should sit to talk with Iran without any conditions". (1)
"By preparing a draft resolution that will be put to voting next week, three senior Senators protested to Bush’s policy of deploying plus 20000 more troops to Iraq and said that it was not good for national interest of the country.
Chuck Higel, along with influential congressmen Karl Levin and Josef Biden, announced in a press conference that their resolution is aimed at convincing the president to give the duty of establishing security and stability to Iraqis themselves instead of increasing the number of US troops". (2)
"Opposition to the war in Iraq has extended to US troops so that 1085 soldiers have initiated "War Against War" campaign.
The more it passes, the more the number of anti-war US troops becomes. They say that the war was both wrong and futile. They also want to use legal ways available to make their protests public." (3)
Since the MKO leaders believe in another war for the survival of the group, and since they have already started supporting military clashes between the US and Iran (they have put their members in Camp Ashraf in "ready" situation), therefore they censor all reports on moves against US policies."
However, since the remnants of Rajavi want to convince the members in Camp Ashraf that "Americans have gotten their message and are following them"!, and regarding the facts above, it should be said that "opposition to war and Zionist policies of Neocons is increasing and also, those who support unconditional talks with Iran (called by MKO as "compromisers) have formed a stronger front and declare this policy louder than ever before.
———————————————–
1. Radio Farda
2. BBC
3. Radio Germany (Deutewelle)
Irandidban -2007/01/20
