Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
Nejat Society
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
© 2003 - 2024 NEJAT Society. nejatngo.org
Raymond Tanter

Tanter, A Mediator Between MKO and Israel

Professor Raymond Tanter of Georgetown U. and the head of the Iran Policy Committee, has concluded that supporting the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) is in America’s interest. Though this amounts to making a pact with the devil, he believes that the only way to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons is to replace the religious regime in Iran with a democratic one, and that only MEK can do that. But there are several problems with MEK. The U.S. declared it a terror organization, and most Iranians consider MEK members traitors, because they supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Here is Tanter’s viewpoint in a nutshell: "Israel does not have the military strength to attack Iran’s nuclear installations…Only the United States can do that…on condition that there isn’t a Democratic president in the White House. A Republican administration is more likely to attack in the absence of a political regime change policy, whether there are good military opportunities or not. But attacking will not provide a fundamental solution to the (nuclear) problem…only delay it. In order to bring about a halt to the nuclear program, there has to be a regime change (that) can take place…in less time than it takes the regime of the ayatollahs to obtain nuclear weapons."

How much time are we talking about?

Tanter believes that Iran will have nuclear weapons within one to three years. His ten-point plan has clear guidelines: The U.S. should remove MEK from the list of terror organizations and allow it to operate from Iraq against the regime in Iran. "We believe that the moment the organization is able to operate from Iraq it will gain public favor in Iran…They will shoot at demonstrators, a civil war will break out, and then…the army will intervene, stop the bloodshed, remove the ayatollahs and take over."

But even then there will be no guarantee that Iran will stop trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

"Mujahideen-e-Khalq have already declared that they are not interested in manufacturing nuclear weapons. But no one cares if a democratic Iran has nuclear weapons. Who cares if Israel or India has nuclear weapons?"

MEK was founded in the 1960s by Iranian students with Marxist views, who were opposed to the Shah’s pro-Western policy. They joined Ayatollah Khomeini in the Islamic Revolution, but in 1981 the group was expelled from Iran. Saddam Hussein then enabled them to operate from Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. This was seen as betrayal by most of the Iranians, even opponents of the regime. At the end of the war, MEK established headquarters in Paris, and since then they have guerrilla and terrorist activities to their "credit". When the U.S. invaded Iraq, it disarmed the organization.

Tanter believes that Israel can help legitimize Mujahideen-e-Khalq: "I’m not asking the Mossad to join them and cooperate with them…But Israel has supporters and a lobby in the U.S. and it can ask them to have MEK removed from the State Department’s list of terror organizations…MEK is the only game in town if we want to bring about regime change in Iran. To paraphrase Churchill: Mujahideen-e-Khalq is the worst option, except for all the other alternatives.

Infoisrael quoting Haaretz/ Yossi Melman –  2006/10/21

October 31, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Raymond Tanter

MKO; A Tool for Warmongers in Elections

Raymond Tanter, arms dealer and a supporter of contras who’s now trying to sell the MKO to the Israeli regime, has expressed amazing comments on Iran and the MKO; the comments that prove that Tanter is trying to sell the MKO to either the US or Israel. The issue is who pays the higher price.

For instance, he has said that "We believe that the moment the organization is able to operate from Iraq it will gain public favor in Iran".

It seems that Tanter thinks the MKO has arrived in Iraq just yesterday that it would gain public favor (in the case of being allowed to operate)! Or, he may think that the MKO has been doing nothing in Iraq for the past 25 years!

More interesting is that Tanter is going to take advantage of the MKO in his election campaigns in the favor of Neoconservatives and warmongers.

Although the MKO has tried to influence the elections in the US in the past (in the favor of potential supporters of MKO), this time they are going to serve the warmongers in all aspects.

Tanter, who earlier in an interview with Australia’s SBS TV channel announced his intentions to use the MKO for the purposes of warmongers, now tries to sell the MKO in the election campaigns.

Tanter tries to pretend that Iran’s pursuing nuclear weapons programs and that the US should attack Iran to stop the process. He says that only Neocons will be able to do this, so people should vote in favor of them. Meanwhile, the Americans have turned their backs to the warmongering policies of Bush and it’s predicted that there would be a big blow to republicans in the congress.

On the other hand, by betting on a dead horse, Tanter tries to get the highest price while stupidly talking about a civil war in Iran by the MKO! With this, he may be able to buy more votes for warmongers.

The problem with the comments of Mr. Tanter lies within the fact that he lags 25 years behind the current situation in Iran and that he speaks against the historical realities.

Irandidban  –   2006/10/21

October 31, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Belgium

Iran-Europe Game in Brussels

Maryam Rajavi visited Belgium’s senate. It was a real visit, since a guide showed her the hall and rooms of the Senate and explained the uses of each one. It had been emphasized that Maryam Rajavi should enter the Senate from the entrance doors so that reporters (who had been alerted of the event by MKO as well as Iran’s warning to the Belgian ambassador to Tehran) could film the moments of her arrival with a special car provided by a security services company.

The MKO’s show was great. However, as soon as she entered the Senate building, MKO’s propagandistic theatre came to a halt. To justify his illegal act of inviting the head of a terrorist group, Vankrunkelsven Patrik referred to a legislation according to which senators can invite individuals. (1)

Spokesperson for the foreign ministry of Belgium said Rajavi was not in Brussels as the representative of Mojahedin, which is a terrorist organization.

The head of the Senate reminds that "this meeting is not official". (2)

Instead, Maryam Rajavi tried to compensate her unimportant visit by wishing to visit other European countries (3); she took advantage of Iran’s sensitivity on her visit and claimed that her visit was very important.

Taking part in a press conference with 5 Belgian senators, Rajavi explained her group’s major problem (Iraq’s decision to expel the group from Iraq) and asked European countries to prevent this by lifting the name of MKO from terror list.

It seems that the comments by Belgian Foreign Ministry (that Maryam Rajavi’s presence in Belgium has nothing to do with the terrorist MKO) show the policy of Belgian government and other European countries on the MKO and this leads to the failure of the purpose of the visit (posing the name of MKO).

Another goal the MKO may pursue in the following days is to perform similar activities in European countries to disrupt the relationship of Iran with these countries.

However, it seems that the real message behind these visits is from European governments that want to say to Iran that they might give more freedom to the MKO if Iran doesn’t accept their conditions.

European politicians have always tried to show that they don’t need Iran in their relations. They think that the issue of MKO and restricting this group is of great importance for Iran.

Also, a few months ago, when restrictions on Maryam Rajavi were lifted by French authorities, European side was trying to put pressure on Iran to accept the conditions.

Europeans want to use this card in their game without taking an official stance in favor this group because they never believe in the MKO as an alternative.

On the other hand, with any activity by the MKO, Iran accuses the European side of resorting to double standards in fighting terrorism; in fact, Iran forces Europeans to renounce terrorism and MKO.

Europeans’ use of the MKO shows that Iran has the upper hand in the game. They know that this card is not valuable but they have no other option. They are well aware that if their ties with Iran worsen, they will have to be pioneers for restricting the MKO and normalizing the relations with Tehran.

—————————————————–

1. Reuters, quoting Belgium’s "Standard"

2. AFP

3. AFP: Rajavi said she hoped this (being welcomed in Belgian senate) could be an example for other countries

Irandidban  –  2006/10/29

October 31, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Maryam Rajavi

For Whom The Bell Rings?

MKO leaders held ceremonies to commemorate the anniversary of Maryam Rajavi’s election by Massoud Rajavi (as elect-president, the head of the MKO and …) and boasted about it.

Although such ceremonies have been designed to make MKO forces (restricted to Camp Ashraf) busy so as not to think about the current situation, the group is following other purposes (for instance, they want to convey some messages to their colonialist masters).

In the ceremonies, it was repeatedly said by MKO officials that Maryam Rajavi is the sole leader of the resistance! And that the MKO has only one duty: to get her to Tehran by any means!

By this stupid tactic, remnants of Rajavi are pursuing a number of purposes:

1. Save Massoud Rajavi from the pressure of being the head of a terrorist group.

2. Transfer the responsibilities of the organization to Maryam without any formal announcement or change in policies.

3. Turn the challenges from MKO’s terrorist nature and activities to so-called political activities of the group in Europe and pave the way for being accepted by Zionist lobby and the US.

Meanwhile, what’s happening is that the MKO leaders are giving in to the plans of those who control the group (who believe that Rajavi should leave the group and NLA should be dismantled if the group wants to continue activities).

However, current masters of terrorist MKO say that the group should repent for its terrorist activities and dismantle NLA before they can remove Rajavi from the equation.

It should be noted that this situation is not in contrast with the will of Pentagonist for using MKO in an invasion against Iran. However, since the issue of MKO’s expulsion from Iraq and determining their fate has become a major issue for occupiers, it’s not possible to keep them for a possible invasion against Iran; in addition, some US parties are not interested in taking advantage of them.

Irandidban  –   2006/10/22

October 31, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

Petition asking for the indictment of Masud and Maryam Rajavi

Petition asking for the indictment of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, lifetime, self- appointed heads of the horrifying Mojahedin Khalq Organization.

Iran-Sabz – Petition

Petition asking for the indictment of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, lifetime, self- appointed heads of the horrifying Mojahedin Khalq Organization.

We, the undersigned, demand the indictment and trial of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi lifetime, self-appointed heads of the horrifying Mojahedin Khalq Organization by a Court of Justice according to international law and in the presence of journalists and representatives of international human rights organizations. The evidence and documents testifying to the engagement of these two terrorists in war crimes and crimes against humanity are undeniable.

We the undersigned demand that Massoud and Maryam Rajavi and their representatives attend such a court to answer the overwhelming evidence and documents, videos and tapes as well as the surviving witnesses testifying to their role during the last quarter of a century under the protection of Saddam Hussein’s toppled dictatorship and his secret services which have been given under the following headings:

1- the role of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi as the leaders of Mojahedin Khalq Organization in the suppression of the uprising of the people of Iraq in 1991 in the north and the south of Iraq especially their direct involvement as the commanders of Mojahedin paramilitary forces armed to the teeth by Saddam Hussein in the massacre of women and children of villages in the Kurdish areas of the north and the Shiites in the south of Iraq by their direct order and in return for payment by Saddam Hussein’s fallen regime.

2- The role of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi in the commanding, planning, organization and execution of blind terrorist operations inside Iran during the last 25 years especially the deliberate massacre of unsuspecting civilian citizens and the destruction of houses as well as public buildings using arms such as mortar launchers or bombs used in crowded public places.

3- The role of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi in publicly praising and endorsing every kind of violent criminal act with whatever justification in Iraq and Iran.

4- The role of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi in insistence on the continuation of terror and the blind killing of innocent people as a way to achieve power even after the disaster of September 11 and the international consequences of that horrifying event and in a time that no Iranian opposition group inside or outside Iran would accept such an inhuman means to achieve political goals.

5- The role of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi in the imprisonment, mental and physical torture and the deliberate killing of disaffected members of the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (the cult of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi) for which evidence would be the testimonies and documents indicating their direct involvement in systematic imprisonment and torture of long serving members of the Mojahedin Khalq Organization in the hands of the secret services of Saddam Hussein’s regime in various places such as Abu Ghraib prison.

6- The role of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi in the use of psychological manipulation and mind control tactics (used by cults) in brainwashing resulting in self-immolation of some members under the direct influence of the cult and with their direct order and direct pressure so that the members would commit such self-immolation in the streets of European capitals which resulted in two deaths and the permanent disability of some others.

7- The role of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi in the leadership, planning, organization and execution of sets of action in order to restrict the physical and mental freedom of the people confined in Ashraf camp (where the remaining cult members have been disarmed and kept by the American forces) and the continuation of the abuse of their most fundamental human rights which have been emphasized in the 4th Geneva Convention.

Considering that the terrorist nature of the Mojahedin Khalq Organization and therefore that of the lifetime self-appointed leaders, Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi, has been accepted officially by most of the countries in the world;

Considering that over 3 years have passed since the fall Saddam Hussein the benefactor of Mojahedin Khalq Organization and Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. During these times it was impossible to bring these people to justice.

Considering the overwhelming evidence and documents which have been surfacing and have been put out in the public domain during the past 3 years,

We, the undersigned, ask the international judicial systems, human rights organizations and the heads of the judicial systems of democratic countries to help establish the process of indictment in a just court in which Massoud and Maryam Rajavi could answer the overwhelming evidence and documents indicating their direct involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity. This would certainly show the will and determination of the international community and its seriousness in fighting terrorism and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

To add your name to the list of signatories please email us mentioning the word "petition" in the title.

info@iran-sabz.com

Mail_iransabz@yahoo.com

www.iran-sabz.com

CC:

The President of Iraq

The Prime Minister of Iraq

The Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Iraqi Ministry of Justice

The Prime Minister of Ferance

Secretary General of the United Nations

 

The signatories (Associations):

1- Payvand Association (Netherlands)

2- Iran Bastan Association (France)

3- Family Network Association (Sweden)

4- Iran Pars Association (Canada)

5- Iran-Interlink Association (Great Britain)

6- Falagh Association (Germany)

7- Awaa Association (Germany)

8- Iran- Sabz Association (Germany)

9- Rahai Association (Netherlands)

10- Neghanhe No (Norway)

The signatories (individuals):

1- Alishahi, Behzad

2- Mohammed Nejad, Rassoul

3- Sadeghi, Abbass

4- Mehdi Gholi, Gholam

5- Malek, Marjan

6- Haghi, Karim

7- Ahmadi, Parvaneh

8- Sharokhi, Robabeh

9- Kord Rostami, Amir Hussein

10- Tahmasbi, Jamshid

11- Sobhani, Mohammed Hussein

12- Shams, Hadi

13- Jabani, Massoud

14- Yousefi, Mitra

15- Noroozi, Soheila

16- Noroozi, Elham

17- Khorami, Habib

18- Janesaran, Khosro

19- Rastgoo, Aliakbar

20- Ariaee, Milad

21- Khodabandeh, Massoud

22- Singleton, Anne

23- Maleki, Batool

24- Mohammady Mostafa (and family)

25- Khoshal, Mehdi

26- Baghal Nejad, Jafar

27- Lotfi, Zahra

28- Sadeghi, Hassan

29- Khodabakhsh Roodgar, Saeed

30- Haji, Mahrokh

31- Rezvani, Naser

32- Termado, Edward

33- Akbari, Akbar

34- Ezati, Yaser

35- Mirasgari, Ali Reza

36- Ghashghavi, Ali

37- Ahmadi, Jafar

38- Ahmadi, Omid

39- Ahmadi, Farshid

40- Soltanpoor, Saeed

41- Farzinfar, Farzad

42- Bagherzadeh, Kambiz

43- Bashiri, Ali

44- Bashiri, Nooshin

45- Farzin, Asghar,

46- Hemati ghalai mostafa

47- Jomhori angaali hamad

48- Mosavi seyd mohamad

49- Lavar makan masood

50- Kaf mardi hassan

51- Rezaii babadi manocher

52- Abdali por hassan

53- Shabani mohamad

54- Hajeb shokroolaa

55- Hayavai eghball

56-zaeran abass

57-hssein hidari

58-namdar jamali

59-hora shalchi

60-saeed dylami

61- Biabani Iraj

62-Ebrahim Kedri

63-Teymoor nejad Taleb

64-Samati Poor arash

65-Amin Babak

66-Hazbawi Yabar

67-Poorkhafajia Kazem

68-nikbayan Ali

69-Ekrami Ali

70-Assgari Iman

71-Sorkhian Ali

72-Pirghanavati

73-Dehdar Hamid

74-Karimi Adam

75-mohamadi Alireza

56-Azizi Kamandali

77-Eskandari Samad

78-Eskandari Fatolah

79-Nasrolahi Farshid

80-Waliolah Ghafari

81-Ghnbari Rahim

82-Rahmani Alireza

83-Yanpi Yoones

84-Lotfi Amir

85-Kordi mohamad Mehdi

86-Mazanderani Ghafoor

87-Aleavz Mohamad

88-Bahrami Mohamad Hussein

89-Palangi Hassan

90-Tawakoli Manssoor

91-Shahzi Mohamadreza

92-Taane Ebrahim

93-ranjbarsiaghi Alireza

94-Arabroostai Issa

95-Ghasemidamavandi Abdoolrahman

96-Gharanjik Ali

97-Ghoraishi Bahman

98-Tajmohamad Mirzaali

99-yalghi Osman

100-soortij Ghasem

101-Sarai Jamshid

102-Sarai Ahad

103-Karimi Karim

104-goolcheshme Mohamad

105-hajilidooji Hussein

106-ghazalsaflo Noorolla

107-ziarati Hussein

108-mirzai Ali

109-nasserimoghadam Hadi

110-Salimnia Nasser

111-Nazari Samad

112-Salehi Iraj

113-Afghan Abdolla

114-shabani Hadi

115-Daryabari Massud

116-Bahri Alireza

117-Baradaran Ghorbanali

118-farahi Doostmohamad

119-Alizadeh Hussein

120-Rahmani Ghader

121-Tanhai Mansoor

122-Aghai Fatollah

123-darbandi Saaid

124-Jafarzadeh Afshin

125-jafarzadeh Morteza

126-Iraqi Mohamad

127-Seadbabai Nasser

128-Mehmankhah Hamed

129-Akbarieghdam Mahmood

130-ghorsi Marzie

131-Dehghan Shahram

132-shirdam Nasser

133-poormeshki Farhad

134-nazaryan Behrooz

135-barootyan Sadegh

136-Rigi Hassan

137-Ghanbari Gholamreza

138-Amini Aliasghar

139-moosavi Ghoolamreza

140-karimdadi Mehran

141-Yoosefi Bahman

142-Yoosefi Gholamreza

143-Sadeghi Gholamhussein

144-Moyeni Mohamad

145-Salmanyan Hassan

146-Basri Fowad

147-Farhadi Fazel

148-Zarchi Hassan

149-Husseini Taha

150-Firoozi Saaid

151Shirvani Farhad

152-Rahanjam Soleiman

153-Jalilyan Taleb

154-Doosti Wali

155-Biglari Ali

156-Ahmadi Arkan

157-Aboolfazli Mohsen

158-Almasi Reza

159-Eshghnia Gholamreza

160-Esmaili Tezmoor

161-Amini Mehdi

162-Ghanbari Gholamreza

163-Behroozi Gholamreza

164-Gohari Reza

165Khanlo Hekmatolah

166- Haidari Davood

167-Afshar Hussein

168-SolaimaniBahman

169-Heidari Hussein

170-Jocar&Familly

171-Baloochi Essa

172-Moradi Ali

173-Almasi Eshagh

174-Karimi Mohamad

175-momtaz Alireza

176-Akbarzadegan Akbar

177-Heidari Nasir

178-Darmani Alireza

179-Hassanwand Mojtaba

180-Falahi Habibolah

181-Darwishi Ardeshir

182-Soltani Jamshid

183-Maroofi Esmail

184-Mirhashemi Sajad

185-Abdoolakejad Karim

186-Mosafai Aboubakr

187-Namakian Ali

188- Maryami Hassan

189-Zeanali. N. Ali

190-Sadrabadi R Aboolghasem

191-Naimi. J. Ahmad

192-Shamsabadi.S.Hojat

193-Ferdosie.Gh.Mohamadreza

194-Amiritangani Ahmad

195-Hesanikermani Ahmad

196-Mahaipoor Eshagh

197-Dastjerdi Piri

198-Hajmohamadi Reza

199-Astbargh Abbas

200-Golmoradi Abdolhussein

201-Poorkhaje.Z.Ataolah

202-Aminabasi Aaliakbar

203-Zangiabadi Mohamdhussein

204-Zarandi.I.mohamadreza

205-Ferdosi Mohamad

206-Fekrisafarzadeh Mohamad

207-Asemanpanah Mahmood

208-Esmaili Mahmood

209-Nakhai.S.Nasrolah

210-Dahani Ahmad

211-Paraki Mohamadakbar

212-Dahani Dormohamad

213-Najarian Shahram

214-Sepahi Abdolghafoor

215-Ghalandar.Z.Mohamad

216-Noorparaki Mohamad

217-Iranpanah Heshnatolah

218-Salehi Amanolah

219-Irannejad Amirhamzeh

220-Sirzai Abdolmalek

221-Iranpanah Jalal

222-Majkoori Khaled

223-Iranpanah Abidolah

October 31, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The Ideology of the MEK

Crisis of MKO Families Hightens

Nasrallah Majidi, former MKO commander, expelled from the group by Rajavi during cleansing operations in 1994 and tortured severely by MKO torturers (which caused him psychological problems), was forced this week by Camp Ashraf’s Gestapo to appear on TV and take position against his family!

In recent weeks, MKO leaders have repeatedly forced MKO members to stand against their families; these families had asked to meet their loved ones or they had written letters to the international communities asking for the savior of their loved ones.

MKO’s Gestapo has also forced these members to go to the US forces guarding Camp Ashraf and complaint about their families!

The presence of families in Camp Ashraf created a big crisis for the Gestapo of MKO so that they are still trying to resolve the issue and keep the members in the Camp.

The truth is that in order to keep the members inside the Camp, the MKO has always tried to cut the relation of its members with their families; they do not allow the members become aware of their families’ efforts to return their loved ones.

Following the fall of Saddam and breaking the censorship imposed by former security services of Iraq, MKO members sometimes find a chance to become informed of what their families do; in order to neutralize such efforts, the MKO forces the members to take stance against their families and say that their families work for the Iranian intelligence ministry!

However, despite all these efforts, more MKO members ask to meet their families.

The gang of Rajavi is determined to do anything in order not to allow the families to meet their loved ones. MKO leaders have recently admitted in MKO’s TV programs that they have interrogated, physically searched and pressed the families coming to Camp Ashraf to meet their children. Now, by going to US forces and complaining about families, they are taking a new step. We should expect more efforts by the MKO to resolve the crisis. This crisis is intensifying and it reveals more of the real nature of MKO and the relationships inside their camp.

Irandidban –  2006/10/18

October 31, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The cult of Rajavi

Dream of liberation

No Comments

No Comments

October 31, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

Iraq will not tolerate terrorist Mojahedin Khalq

LONDON, September 24 (IranMania) – Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki said that from the beginning Iran accepted the new situation in Iraq and established political ties with it, and “this is laudable“.

In an interview with the international Jaam-e Jam TV Network, Maliki added that these are important steps and Iraqi politicians must praise Iran’s standpoint, because these steps can help establish strong and sound bilateral bonds, IRNA reported.

Commenting on the presence of the members of the banned Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO) in Iraq, he said, “The Prime Minister’s office has notified the terrorist group to leave Iraq within six months. We will not permit them to stay in Iraq after this period and international institutions are responsible for their prolonged stay. MKO cooperated with the former Iraqi regime and is the accomplice of terrorists. They do not have a good image in Iraq and we do not want a group in our country which is opposed to our good neighbor.“

With regard to Iraq’s insecurity, he said, “Terrorists in Iraq are followers of the former Baathist and extremist forces, and are backed by foreign elements.“

He stressed that the Iraqi government has devised plans and tactics for confronting the terrorists.

“We have been successful to an extent. Restoring security to Iraq paves the ground for economic development and political reforms,“ he said.

Maliki emphasized that terrorists know no limits and believe in no religions.

In relation to Saddam’s trial, Maliki said, “This is being followed up by the Iraqi judiciary and nobody has the right to interfere in this issue.“

IranMania, September 24, 2006

October 30, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

U.S. citizen found in Iraq charged with supporting terror group-MEK

 LOS ANGELES A naturalized U.S. citizen from Iran who was found in Iraq was indicted on charges of providing support to a terrorist organization that seeks to overthrow the current Iranian regime, federal prosecutors said.

Zeinab Taleb-Jedi, 51, was indicted Friday by a federal grand jury in New York on one count of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. She faces up to 15 years in federal prison if convicted.

Taleb-Jedi went to Iraq in 1999 to attend a training camp run by the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles said in a statement.

"During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Taleb-Jedi was discovered by coalition forces in an MEK training camp called Ashraf Base," about 40 miles (65 kilometers) northwest of Baghdad, the statement said.

U.S. forces took control of the camp and sent many members back to Iran on condition that they defect from MEK, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office. He said Taleb-Jedi was in Iraq from August 1999 until this past March, when she agreed to return to the United States.

"An investigation reveals that she played an active role at the camp," Mrozek said.

An arraignment date has not been set, Mrozek said. She was assigned a federal public defender in New York and was released on bond.

Taleb-Jedi was being prosecuted in New York because her plane landed at John F. Kennedy International Airport on March 31 upon her return from Iraq. The case was being handled by Los Angeles-based prosecutors who have been involved in MEK-related investigations since the 1990s.

Taleb-Jedi immigrated to the United States from Iran in 1978 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1996, the government said. Her aliases include Nayer Taleb-Jedi or Nire Taleb-Jedi, according to the two-page indictment.

The U.S. attorney’s office did not release any information on the woman’s occupation.

The group was founded in the 1960s and moved to Iraq in the early 1980s to base its activities against Iran’s government. The group had sided with Iraq in its 1980-88 war against Iran.

The State Department says the MEK groups were funded by Saddam Hussein, supported the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and are responsible for the deaths of Americans in the 1970s.

But there have been attempts in recent years by some members of the U.S. Congress advocating the group’s removal from the list because of its stance against the Iranian regime and because it does not pose a direct threat to the U.S.

The Associated Press –  September 29, 2006

October 30, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
UK

MKO’s political recruits still battling against British interests

Excerpts:

 Brian Binley (Northampton South, Conservative)

I notice that the Foreign Secretary did not touch on the question of external resistance to the Iranian regime. Some time ago, the Americans gave protected persons status to the Mujaheddin of Iran in Camp Ashraf. Later, the German courts reconfirmed the rights of political asylum for Iranian refugees, whose status had previously been suspended. Only 11 days ago, the French lifted all restrictions on the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Is it not now time to urge the Home Office to take positive steps to improve relations with the Iranian resistance movement, both for their sake and in our national interest?

 Margaret Beckett (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office)

I am confident that the Home Office keeps those issues under review. I will, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman’s observations to its attention…

 Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West, Labour)

I was part of the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Iran. Everybody whom we met made it very clear that the MEK, to which the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) referred, is widely regarded as a terrorist group that was funded by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. They said that, if we wanted a productive dialogue with Iran about its nuclear policy, the last thing that we, the Americans or any other EU member state should do is suggest that the terrorists in the MEK should be rehabilitated.

Margaret Beckett (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office)

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point, based on her recent experience in Iran. As I told the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), the international community’s overriding priority is with the present Government of Iran. We believe that our proposals are very fair and very much to the advantage of Iran’s Government and people. We hope that the proposals will be considered speedily and fully.

Debate in full:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk

 

Iran

2. Mr. Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): What recent discussions she has had with her US counterpart on the political situation in Iran. [80211]

27 Jun 2006 : Column 116

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I discuss Iran frequently with Dr. Rice. When we met in Vienna on 1 June, we agreed an imaginative set of proposals with our French, German, Russian and Chinese counterparts and Javier Solana. These offer Iran a way forward to resolve international concerns over its nuclear activities while enabling it, if it chooses, to develop a modern civil nuclear power programme. In making those proposals, we have again shown flexibility and commitment to a diplomatic solution.

Iran faces a clear choice. I hope that it will take the positive path being extended, and I look forward to an early response.

Mr. Binley: I notice that the Foreign Secretary did not touch on the question of external resistance to the Iranian regime. Some time ago, the Americans gave protected persons status to the Mujaheddin of Iran in Camp Ashraf. Later, the German courts reconfirmed the rights of political asylum for Iranian refugees, whose status had previously been suspended. Only 11 days ago, the French lifted all restrictions on the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Is it not now time to urge the Home Office to take positive steps to improve relations with the Iranian resistance movement, both for their sake and in our national interest?

Margaret Beckett: I am confident that the Home Office keeps those issues under review. I will, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman’s observations to its attention. Our chief concern at present is with the present Government of Iran and the considerable desire of the international community to introduce successful negotiations with them to restore confidence in their intentions.

Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the level of support in Iran for nuclear power or nuclear weapons? What sympathy is given to public opinion in Iran, the articulation of which seems to provide the President with his mandate?

Margaret Beckett: It is a little hard to analyse that from outside Iran. There appears to be a good measure of popular support for the Iranian Government’s assertions about their rights, which are understood. Obviously, there is a desire in Iran for access to civil nuclear power, and those of us dealing with the issue internationally believe very strongly that that is a clear possibility if the country abides by the proposals that we have set out. We hope that that will convince the Iranian Government that entering negotiations is in their interest as well the wider international community’s.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): The rather uncomfortable implication of the Foreign Secretary’s words is that Iran faces a fundamental choice between peace and conflict. Will the right hon. Lady make it clear that the situation is not as stark as that, and that a policy of diplomatic engagement will continue to be followed by the UK and the powers referred to in her answer to the original question?

27 Jun 2006 : Column 117

Margaret Beckett: It would be understandable if the hon. Gentleman had not had an opportunity to study the exact words that we used in Vienna. The statement then was made on a united basis, by all participants. Our clear offer to Iran was that we were prepared to resume negotiations if it resumed the suspension of enrichment. However, if Iran does not feel able to do that, the action being considered in the Security Council is something that we would have to consider resuming.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West) (Lab): I was part of the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Iran. Everybody whom we met made it very clear that the MEK, to which the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) referred, is widely regarded as a terrorist group that was funded by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. They said that, if we wanted a productive dialogue with Iran about its nuclear policy, the last thing that we, the Americans or any other EU member state should do is suggest that the terrorists in the MEK should be rehabilitated.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point, based on her recent experience in Iran. As I told the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), the international community’s overriding priority is with the present Government of Iran. We believe that our proposals are very fair and very much to the advantage of Iran’s Government and people. We hope that the proposals will be considered speedily and fully.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UN announcement of 6 June was remarkable for its unanimity, especially given that it included China and Russia? Has she had any indication, either from her colleagues in the US Administration or from Tehran, that the proposals are receiving positive approval? They are comprehensive and complex, so should we not give Iran time to respond? If it makes a concrete response, would not that be a positive sign that we could move away from confrontation? That would benefit the whole world, but especially the people of Iran.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right that the proposals are both comprehensive and complex, but that is why we are suggesting negotiation. Concern would arise if it appeared that we were entering into a period of negotiation about negotiations. I am sure that he will know that the indications made to us, publicly as well as privately, by the Iranian Government are that they see ambiguities in the proposals. We are keen to ensure that any ambiguities are resolved. We continue to press the Iranian Government for a further meeting between Javier Solana and colleagues, and Larijani. I hope that such a meeting will take place in the near future.

House of Commons debate, June 27, 2006

source, Hansard

October 29, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Recent Posts

  • Rebranding, too Difficult for the MEK

    December 27, 2025
  • The black box of the torture camps of the MEK

    December 24, 2025
  • Pregnancy was taboo in the MEK

    December 22, 2025
  • MEPs who lack awareness about the MEK’s nature

    December 20, 2025
  • Why did Massoud Rajavi enforce divorces in the MEK?

    December 15, 2025
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Youtube

© 2003 - 2025 NEJAT Society . All Rights Reserved. NejatNGO.org


Back To Top
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip