Page 890 – Nejat Society

Paris Appeals Court’s Ruling on MKO

A French appeals court on Friday eased restrictions on an Iranian exiled opposition group with links to an armed guerrilla movement which is listed as a terrorist group by the United States.

The appeals court ruled that 18 members of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which seeks to oust Iran’s clerical leaders and is the political wing of the People’s Mujahideen, had the right to travel abroad, go to the organisation’s headquarters outside Paris, and communicate with each other.

But it upheld a ban that prevents them from owning weapons, collecting funds from the public for organisations linked to their cause, or having contacts with donors.

Eleven members of the NCRI, including its leader, Maryam Rajavi, were imprisoned in 2003 on a charge of "association with criminals in connection with a terrorist enterprise" but were released at the order of the Paris appeals court.

More than 1 million dollars were confiscated from MKO headquarters at that time.

Several supporters of the group had set themselves on fire in Paris, London, Rome and Berne to protest the arrest of Rajavi, the wife of the Mujahideen main figure Massoud Rajavi.

Formed in the 1960s, the Mujahideen fled to Iraq in the 1980s after falling foul of Islamic leaders after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Reuters, June 18, 2006

June 21, 2006 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

A Recruited Member of MKO

June 21, 2006 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

When will justice be served?

Three years ago, on Tuesday, 17 June 2003, over 1200 police officers carried out a huge raid in a Paris suburb. The target was a large complex of houses in Auvers-sur-Oise which had been turned into the international headquarters of the Mojahedin-e Khalq organisation (aka National Council of Resistance of Iran or NCRI). Up until March-April 2003, the Mojahedin/NCRI command centre had been in Iraq. It moved from there with the outbreak of war. Mojahedin co-leader Maryam Rajavi and about 160 of her closest aides were arrested during the raid.

In taking this action, France became the first Western country to take seriously the danger posed by the Mojahedin organization (aka PMOI, MEK or MKO). The operation was aimed, according to the French Interior Ministry, above all,“at the leaders of an organisation which threatened public order and is planning or preparing

to finance terrorist acts”. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin declared that the police operations were aimed,“at the central nervous system of a terrorist organisation”.

He made clear that, “it is in our national interest to make sure that all structures sheltering terrorists on our soil be dismantled.” During an international meeting at the Prime Minister’s office, Nicolas Sarkozy, Minister of the Interior, emphasised that the materials seized at Auvers-sur-Oise justified the operation.

Immediately the MKO mobilised its supporters throughout Europe. They set off a well rehearsed series of actions which deeply shocked a European public opinion with little exposure to such extreme methods. French Government spokesperson, Jean- rancois Copé,characterised the self immolations as “obviously, extremely dramatic”. He added,“Alas! It also tells us a great deal about the mindset of their leadership”. The protests showed that the outright fanaticism of the MKO was true: that the denunciations of former Mojahedin who had escaped the organisation’s clutches were reliable.These men and women had been speaking out for years about the internal practises of the MKO, yet they had been stigmatised by the leadership and their sympathisers as Tehran’s agents.

Massoud Rajavi, the Spiritual Leader of the Mojahedin-e Khalq organisation, the Chairman of the National Council of Resistance (NCR),and the Commander-in-Chief of the National Liberation Army (NLA) found refuge first in France (1981) and then in Iraq (1986). He owes everything to Saddam Hussein: the funding of the NLA, arms and their training camps in Iraq, including their Headquarters in Camp Ashraf. The three to five thousand Iranian militants in the NLA operating from Iraqi territory, helped maintain a high level of tension with Iran. While no one is certain as to the whereabouts of Mojahedin leader Massoud Rajavi, his wife Maryam is the acting leader and practically the successor to her husband. This charismatic figure of the organization has been named “Future President of Iran” by the MKO.

Classified as a terrorist group by the State Department of the United States of America and by the British Government as well as by the Council of the European

Union (since May 2002), the MKO is largely discredited today. It was based in Iraq since 1986 and suffered the full impact of Saddam Hussein’s fall from power. Reality shows that the western governments were right all along. The accusation of terrorism is now accepted at the most authoritative international levels. “The People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI or MKO) planned to attack Iranian diplomatic missions in Europe”,stated the Director of French Counter-Terrorism during a press conference. According to information gathered by this service (the DST), the Mojahedin organisation "was preparing for murder attacks outside Iran, including in Europe", stated the Director, Pierre de Bousquet de Florian. During the police search at Auvers-sur-Oise, "eight to nine million dollars in cash" was found, added the DST Director, before going on to state that the full accounting was still underway.

M. Bousquet de Florian confirmed that many MKO leaders had returned to France since the American intervention in Iraq, including Maryam Rajavi. "They had turned Auvers-sur-Oise into an operational headquarters for terrorism", he stated. The US intervention had "taken away the MKO’s Baghdad Headquarters" as well as the financial support of Saddam’s regime. The DST chief underscored how dangerous the MKO was. It was more like a sect, a cult of personality for Massoud Rajavi and his wife Maryam. In 2001, the MKO had claimed responsibility for more than 195 terrorist attacks on Iran from its base in Auvers-sur-Oise.

As Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the NLA, Maryam Rajavi had no hesitation in ordering armed attacks on Iran

* * * * *

Three years after her arrest, Maryam Rajavi and her companions, out of jail and on bail at present, are still awaiting their trial in Paris.The French judicial system alleges that they planned and funded terrorist operations. To understand the French case, we should review the organisation’s misdeeds over the years in the process of its socalled

struggle against the ruling system in Iran. Clearly, this case is not the sort that could easily be neglected. It must be dealt with thoroughly and carefully. The reasons are as follows:

1. The internal relationships of the organization and its cult status:

– The self-appointed, irremovable, lifetime leadership has unlimited power on decision making on every aspect of the organisational affairs including the most intimate personal matters concerning the members.

– The internal structure of the organization is based on absolute totalitarianism. The spiritual leadership stays well above all, and is not to be criticised by anyone under any circumstances.

– An ongoing process of brainwashing, psychological coercion, and thought reform has been widely practiced inside the organisation under the direct supervision of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. A range of very sophisticated physiological and psychological persuasive techniques have been used to engage the followers in conspiracy and fraud as well as the most bizarre acts such as self-immolation.

– Many people have been harmed and their rights have been abused by the organisation. Small children have been separated from their parents, families have been torn apart, and the possessions of the followers have been taken away. There are many psychological casualties still under treatment from the organisation’s malfunctioning.

– The intimidation and harassment of critics inside (as well as outside) the organization have become a common habit to silence dissenters. Defectors in particular have continuously been the subject of threats and character assassination.

2. The military, financial, and political relationship between the MKO and the deposed dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein:

– Video tapes acquired after the fall of Saddam Hussein clearly reveal that the MKO leaders and principally Massoud Rajavi received huge boxes of money from the Iraqi officials, specifically the Security Services Chief Jaleel Tahir Habush, along with assassination orders to be carried out inside Iran.

– The National Liberation Army (the military wing of the organisation based in Iraq) has been financed, trained,facilitated, armed, and supplied with intelligence and ammunition by the Iraqi Army to counter the Iranian Armed Forces throughout the war between the two countries.

– Many ex-members of the NLA have given full statements bearing witness to how the organisation’s military forces entered into the internal conflicts in Iraq; in particular suppressing the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south in 1991.

– According to many members of the organisation arrested inside Iran, they have been trained, facilitated and helped to cross the border by the Iraqi Armed Forces and Security Services to carry out assassinations and terrorist activities inside major cities in Iran.

– Many defected members have also witnessed that their discontented associates have been jailed, abused of their basic rights, tortured, and finally handed over to the Iraqi officials to be locked up in Abu-Ghraib prison under Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship.

– It is worth considering that apart from being listed in various international terrorist lists, and being hated by the vast majority of the Iranian people for their cooperation with the enemy during the war, no government has ever supported the organisation in any form except for the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein. Of course the organisation has managed to gain the signatures of many members of parliaments (that is, the most uninformed politicians, especially in foreign affairs issues) in western countries on its petitions due to their lack of knowledge of the terrorist nature of MKO.

– According to many undeniable documents, the money collected in the USA and in Europe in the name of so-called charity and humanitarian institutes has been sent to Iraq (after its traces have been disguised by money laundering) to be used for the NLA on arms and military facilities.

3. The systematic contact between the organisation’s HQ in Paris (the establishment formed in Auvers-sur-Oise under cover of the NCRI) and the NLA bases in Iraq:

– According to the DST press releases and statements as well as the French authorities’ press conferences referring to the materials found inside the Organisation’s Paris HQ, the two bases in France and Iraq have been closely and continuously linked using very sophisticates devices.

– Documents clearly show that there is no distinction between the different establishments of the organisation and they are all run under the close leadership of the Rajavis.

– It is also clear that all activities in Western Europe and Northern America, including the political, publicity, and financial performance of the organization have been directly guided from Iraq.

4. Establishing fake societies and associations to cover the organisation’s illegal financial and other acts and money laundering in western countries:

– The members of the organisation are clearly and directly told that the money collected in western countries for the cause of homeless and orphaned children is destined to be used for arms and other expenditures of the organisation.

– The organisation has many institutions that do not reveal their nature and their dependence on the MKO, but they are all directed and instructed in their activities directly by Maryam Rajavi.

– In particular, it should be taken into consideration that the MKO (PMOI), the NCRI, and the NLA are alias establishments and cannot and should not be dealt with separately. They all have the same terrorist nature which is well theorized and justified for the participants.

Bearing in mind the above mentioned facts which are only briefly highlighted, it is now worth asking where the people of western countries stand

on this case. Should it be their concern at all? Today even the most rigorous opposition to the ruling Islamic system in Iran does not approve the methods and manners imposed by the MKO.The Iranian opposition as a whole truly believes that the organisation’s so-called struggle has severely damaged their own efforts to restore democracy and freedom in Iran.

The truth is that many offences have been committed behind the legal presence of the MKO in western countries. These could have been prevented if the case had been dealt with sooner when many members – who had been under enormous physical and psychological pressure from the organisation – ruptured from it and warned western authorities about the subject. Many have been harmed by and suffered from the organisation’s actions throughout the world. Victims of the Rajavis can be found everywhere, both inside and outside Iran. And the international community certainly bears some responsibility for that.

The organisation claims that all assassinations and sabotage activities had taken place inside Iran during their armed struggle against the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this way they aim to discard the terrorist charges. They argue that they have never used arms inside western countries where they have been proscribed as a terrorist group. But in reality the MKO is surely a terrorist organisation by nature, and, without doubt, believes in using violence for achieving political purposes. According to the Mojahedin’s beliefs, the end justifies the means.

So they have no limitation, as they have shown through the years, against committing any sort of crime to reach their goals. It should also be considered that the mastermind of the organisation has always been situated either in Iraq or in Paris and all activities inside Iran have been directed from these two places over the past two decades.

Much has been said about the crimes and misdeeds of the Mojahedin and all its related institutes. Now it is time for a small amount of action to be taken in order to show that the authorities, particularly in France, have taken the matter seriously. Any person who was assassinated inside Iran, any combatant who was self-eliminated by pulling the trigger of a hand grenade or taking a cyanide pill, or any youngster who was self-immolated, are all similar victims of this notorious cultic organisation which is led directly by unaccountable, irremovable leaders who were based in Iraq and have now moved to France. World public opinion, the many victims of the organisation, and the Iranian opposition want to see everything justly put to rights. They want to see an end to this situation which has been ongoing now for so many years

Ebrahim Khodabandeh/ Survivors’ Report

June 20, 2006 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Survivors’ Report- Editorial (No. 25)

Three years ago this month the world was turned upside down for this month’s lead contributor. It was in June 2003 that Ebrahim Khodabandeh and his Mojahedin colleague Jamil Bassam were extradited from Syria – following their arrest on smuggling charges – and imprisoned in Iran’s Evin. For their families it was a time both of distress and of a strange relief. At least now they knew where the men were.

They were not in the Mojahedin’s Iraqi camps under bombardment, nor were they in Europe being ordered to set fire to themselves to protest the arrest of MKO leader, Maryam Rajavi. Although Rajavi’s own arrest is the focus of Ebrahim’s article, his and Jamil’s situation is interesting in itself. For three years they have been in prison for acting on the orders of the Mojahedin cult and now, with their trial underway, a verdict is expected shortly.

Conversely, Maryam Rajavi and her leading cohorts are still awaiting trial in France on terrorism charges. After three years the two stories could not have more different outcomes. Ebrahim, beyond the reach of the organisation’s system of thought control, has become an outspoken critic of the Rajavi leadership.

Maryam Rajavi on the other hand still refuses to renounce violence as the only means at her disposal to achieve political power. Yet in spite of this, she continues to beg for the Mojahedin to be removed from global terrorism lists. Is she asleep? Is she dreaming? Or is she – as Maryam Khoshnevis describes Massoud Rajavi in her article ‘Sleep- Stricken’ – only pretending to be asleep so as not to be awoken from her dream of power.

Ebrahim worked in the Mojahedin’s ‘diplomacy’ section and is known to many MPs in Britain and in Europe. Similarly, Massoud Banisadr will be known to many legislators in the USA. His interview with Mahan Abedin is one of the most revealing to have come out from a former member who once stalked the corridors of power on behalf of the Mojahedin.

When Rosemary Hollis of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, visited Iran, she spoke about western support for the organisation: "They have managed to get a very few irresponsible people, being MPs or others, to go along with them. These are very dangerous and ruthless people."

But while western supporters of the Mojahedin are certainly irresponsible, I don’t believe this is sufficient to describe their support. Surely we want to know how and why, in defiance of all the documented evidence as well as the thoroughly researched assessments of their own governments, they come to support so obviously unsavoury a group.

While it might be possible to allege that some of the Mojahedin’s supporters are ‘paid’ in some way, or it may be possible to conjure up some private or sponsored agenda behind their support, these arguments, again, are not sufficient. When all the world is agreed, why do a handful of individuals, who are not notable as rebels, turn their face away from all the available evidence, even the evidence of their own senses, and speak glowingly about a known terrorist organisation?

If we listen to former members, no matter what their role was inside the Mojahedin, one thing they agree upon unanimously; the Mojahedin operates as a cult. As it is known that one of the main characteristic of cults is that they employ known methods of psychological manipulation and thought reform, then it is reasonable to add to Dr Rosemary Hollis’ description something from Ian Haworth’s excellent introduction to cults, ‘Cults, a practical guide’; "Too often rational people say, "It could never happen to me. I could never be recruited into a cult.”They do not realise that people do not ‘join’ cults, but are instead actively recruited” anyone can be recruited by a cult if they are not able to recognize the cult in advance and have the strength to walk away from it." Why would members of parliament suspect that for years a dangerous cult has been able to openly and actively recruit in the very buildings where they make laws to protect the citizens of their countries? But Massoud Banisadr was just one of those recruiters “ whether he was aware of it or not. And it would surely be naive to think that members of parliament cannot be recruited just by dint of their job. Indeed, because of their position, they are more likely to be targets for recruitment. As well as the core members which they use as dispensable slaves, a cult also needs recruits who can perform other activities on its behalf, people in positions of power, whether they be fundraising celebrities or legislating politicians.

Unlikely as it may seem, ‘it really could be you’.

SurvivorsReport.org – June 2006

June 19, 2006 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Maryam Rajavi’s false victory

Three years ago, as part of the ongoing investigation into their alleged terrorist activities by the French anti-terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, restrictions were placed on Maryam Rajavi and sixteen of her MKO/NCRI colleagues. The restrictions were essentially that these individuals should not have contact with one another and that travel outside France was forbidden. Naturally, the French prosecution office did not want to jeopardize such a serious investigation by the accused having private conversations and/or travelling to unknown destinations.

Every month after that, the NCRI were in court attempting to overturn the ruling on appeal. Now, after three years, the investigation has progressed, huge files on each of the accused have been prepared and the start of their trials is imminent. Since the restrictions are no longer necessary, they have been lifted. None of the charges against the accused have been dropped or changed. In fact, according to reliable sources, the evidence gathered over the past three years is so damning that the prosecution office are no longer seeking further evidence.

Yet, in spite of this situation, Maryam Rajavi has hailed the lifting of these restrictions as a major victory for the National Council of Resistance (aka Mojahedin-e Khalq). She has done this in the circumstance that Camp Ashraf is on the verge of collapse and dismantlement, and in the realization that no replacement can be found for Saddam Hussein to sponsor and support her mercenary group. Her every effort is geared toward convincing the members of her cult – including some western politicians – that the Mojahedin is still a viable entity and has a future.

For years – since 1997 in fact – Maryam Rajavi has been asking for her organisation to be removed from global terrorist lists on the grounds that she is trying to expose the human rights violations of the mullahs’ regime. In spite of this – which of course every major international organisation is already successfully involved with – she still cannot and will not definitively and unambiguously denounce violence as her only means to achieve power in Iran.

June 19, 2006 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

What is the Third Option?

Mansoor Ghadrkhah, a member of NCRI, has initiated a discussion in Iranliberty website titled "What’s the Third Option?"

The reason for posting such a question is that there are many doubts and questions on this issue, which has been proposed as a part of MKO’s propagandistic activities. These questions come from people who are very close to the MKO but they don’t know what they are supporting!

The root of such questions lies in the fact that MKO supporters are not aware of MKO’s intentions and simply think that Mojahedin are talking in the framework of social thoughts; however, the purpose of repeating words such as "referendum" or "Third Option" by the MKO is that they think they can find a way out of political and organizational conflicts they’re wrestling with.

But it’s really naïve to think that there will be a change in MKO’s critical situation and that Mojahedin will answer the questions of Ghadrkhah and others.

What follows is an example of MKO supporters’ questions on "Third Option" posted on Ghadrkhah’s website. These messages reveal the confusion of MKO supporters and sympathizers.

Ali Ghasemi’s Open Confession:

"Unfortunately, due to Iraq war… Mojahedin had to surrender their weapons. Anyway, with or without weapons, third option is the only solution for Iran. From June 20 to the overthrow of the regime, there’s only one way.

So, I believe it’s the duty of all nationalist forces (with whatever opinions), who seek the overthrow of the regime, to support Mojahedin-e khalq and not to talk about sharing the power in future! This regime should be forced to quit nuclear issue, interfering in Iraq and efforts should be focused on lifting the name of MKO from terror list.

The opinion openly expressed by Ghasemi has nothing to do with the change by people but it’s related to MKO’s call on the west to supported disarmed members in Iraq. Mojahedin evade from telling the truth.

Omitting people from the equation means that MKO is unable to mobilize people and also reveals the group’s unpopularity among Iranians. By ignoring this fact, MKO gets the opportunity to deceive its own members and supporters and exploit social events.

That’s why even Ghadrkhah himself takes a stance against this confession and expresses his lack of understanding of MKO’s contradictions:

"In this issue, the role of regime is clear… but the issue of countering regime’s plans should be solved only by Iranian people. Iranians should do their best to prove to the West that Iranians don’t like war. A possible war, in which nuclear bombs may be used. Who will be the victims of such a war?"

Mehdi Atayee:

"What’s the NLA (National Liberation Army)?" This is the first question of Iranian youths. There are 40 million youths (under 30) in Iraq who were born during revolution. They have no idea about Mojahedin-e khalq, NLA and NCRI…there are many unanswered questions. For instance, they say all members of NLA are religious and Mojaheds. For those who are not religious, questions on MKO members’ religion, wearing scarf, mourning for Imams and … have remained unanswered. Do they have to say their prayers, go on fasting, and wear scarf in the case of joining the NLA? Do they all have to believe in the ideological revolution? Do they all have to be Mojaheds and believe in Massoud and Maryam Rajavi? The problem is that now there’s no one to answer these questions, which is of course understandable due to the current limitations of the organizations. However, does the MKO expect to keep forces and attract more without answering these questions? Is the NLA, according to the films broadcast by MKO TV, the army of Mojahedin-e khalq? If this army is really national, it should comprise of all kinds of people, with different religious attitudes; but it’s not.

So it’s not true to say about the Third Option that regime can be toppled by the Iranian Resistance and the help of people and that there’s no need for foreign aids, weapons and money. There has been no comprehensive discussion about this issue by the MKO and NCRI.

What’s the response of NCRI and the MKO to the idea that the NLA should work in the framework of a unification front and that this unification front should include different people with different opinions? Does the NCRI still insist on its plan of unification ftont?"

Mansoor Rostami:

"The Third Option means promoting the NLA and armed struggle. I don’t think anyone in the MKO, NCRI and … has any doubt in this. Writing about the time when Third Option was first proposed is not helpful.

That’s true that no one knows about this option, even those who confidently take part in debates on the issue …

But one should talk about the direction of this option. When explaining this option for Iranian youths, you should tell them where you are going to take them. Toward demonstrations? Civil disoebediance? Reforms? Electionis? None of them. The only thing left is taking weapons. Could they do that? Do the promoters of Third Option help the ones who go to prison for supporting a radical organization (even without taking weapons)? Was there anyone to prevent the extradition of Hojjat Zamani to Iran when he was arrested in Turkey? Is there anyone to help others who’ll have similar fates? Do you have a humanitarian organization to help youths who escape from Iran? Is there any organization to cover all those want to join the Third Option? Do the people (who want to join this option) have to go to Camp Ashraf? Who’s going to fund the costs inside Iran?

Here in the West, we are so busy that we barely have time enough to read articles and even news headlines; then, are we going to support this option only by occasionally taking part in demonstrations or writing articles for websites?

If the Third Option is achievable through NLA, then what’s this "NLA"? What’s its ideology? its strategy? Its equipments? How is that going to organize forces inside Iran (from workers to students, women and …)? How can someone join it? Who’s politically supporting it? To what extent can it be active in the current situation? What are its policies for Iran and other countries? How is that going to work inside the country and expand its structure? If the "Iranian resistance" means the NCRI, who are they? What are they doing? How is it possible for people to be in touch with them and ask questions? Is the political support of NCRI enough for the NLA? Is the "NLA" the army of Iranian people or the MKO? Does this army have media? What about the roles of other people, groups, and figures opposing the Islamic republic in this Third Option? Does this Option unify different groups (inside and outside the country) under an umbrella or is it only for the MKO and NCRI? Answering these questions can help efforts for overthrowing the Islamic Republic but promoting the Third Option without even knowing it will not be helpful.

Irandidban – 2006/06/11

June 19, 2006 0 comments

USA

America’s Most Dangerous Professors

David Horowitz’s The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America contains two or more pages on each professor describing why each professor should be considered dangerous. However, Horowitz conceded that the 101 profiles represent only a sample of more than ten thousand dangerous professors. As a Marxist student at Columbia University during the Cold War of the 1950’s, David Horowitz was able to do well in courses taught by anti-communist professors. As an undergraduate business school student and capitalist at the University of Michigan during the Vietnam War in the 1960’s, I was able to do well even in a Philosophy of Communism course taught by a communist professor. My communist professor knew well the differences between all forms of communism and attended international conventions of communists. John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr’s In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage documented the extent of the dishonesty of many communist professors today. David Horowitz has noted correctly that many current professors are destroying America’s once great university system by changing classrooms to indoctrination camps where professors attack students who dare to disagree with the idiotic views of the professors. For details of the latest cases involving students, see the Web site of David Horowitz’s Students for Academic Freedom (SAF): http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/ Approximately 30 researchers prepared the profiles of the 101 professors. Other than the names of the researchers who prepared each profile, there is no guidance to the reader about the credentials of the researchers or about the quality control techniques. David’s Blog at Front Page Magazine contains details of disputes raised about some of the profiled professors: http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp However, if the profiles had been prepared by professors who know the works of the profiled professors, then the profiles could have been even more critical. Peter Collier wrote the profile of Noam Chomsky, MIT Professor of Modern Languages and Linguistics. Peter Collier and David Horowitz were the co-editors of The Anti-Chomsky Reader. While some professors are being placed on trial in Europe for Holocaust denial, Noam Chomsky blundered with Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide denial. While linguistics professors applaud Noam Chomsky’s contributions to linguistics and many readers would agree with some of his political views, it is difficult to understand why any professor (or anyone else) could deny Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide. Since 1984, even people who rely only upon movies know about “The Killing Fields”. Among Chomsky’s many books, readers can find these books on the concept of rogue states: Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs and Acts of Aggression: Policing "Rogue" States. Professor Raymond Tanter, not profiled as one of the 101 most dangerous academics in America, published a book on a similar topic, Rogue Regimes: Terrorism and Proliferation. By David Horowitz’s criterion of professors who are dangerous in the classroom, Noam Chomsky probably has a greater following among students than Professor Raymond Tanter does. However, by the criterion of which professor is more dangerous to the world, Professor Raymond Tanter is the clear winner. Professor Raymond Tanter, a Republican, works with the Iran Policy Committee and is a strong supporter of the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists. For descriptions of honest books about the MEK, see: http://www.iran-interlink.org/ In addition to Professor Raymond Tanter, the Iran Policy Committee includes a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee and retired military officers: http://www.iranpolicy.org/ If there are any honest communist professors, they should be exposing the activities of the Iran Policy Committee and of the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) who support the communist overthrow of Iran. A Republican professor who promotes support for Iranian communists with a Republican administration is more dangerous than non-Republican professors in classrooms. On January 13, 2006, David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine published Michael Rubin’s “Monsters of the Left: The Mujahedin al-Khalq”. If the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists are monsters of the Left, then all professors who support them should be profiled, such as Professor Raymond Tanter and Professor Rabbi Daniel Zucker, founder of Americans for Democracy in the Middle East: http://www.adme.ws/ Unfortunately, David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine has been publishing articles by supporters of the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists, including Professor Rabbi Daniel Zucker’s “Iran’s Interference in Iraq” on December 20, 2005. Professor Howard Zinn, one of the 101 professors profiled, is also a signer of the Stop War on Iran Statement: http://www.stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml Zinn’s name and the names of communist organizations did not stop me, a conservative Republican, from signing this statement, too. The most honest disclosures about the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists and about Americans who support them have been at Web sites publishing right-wing authors: (1) Traitors USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/ (2) Antiwar.com, especially Justin Raimondo http://antiwar.com/justin/ (3) LewRockwell.com, http://www.lewrockwell.com/ David Horowitz is the author also of Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. The problem with many authors on the left and right is that their simplifications to gain readers can result in dangerous consequences. A far more dangerous unholy alliance has been between the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and the Republicans who permitted them to pose as conservatives. In 1959, the lies of Democrats and of Republicans about Fidel Castro being the “George Washington of Cuba” resulted in the communist takeover of Cuba and the Cuban Missile Crisis. On April 15, 2005, the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) permitted the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists to hold a convention at its Constitution Hall. On May 6, 2005, Front Page Magazine published David Johnson’s “A Third Option for Iran” supporting the MEK. As a conservative Republican professor who has been a target of some left-wing professors seeking the removal of all Republican professors from universities and who has supported David Horowitz’s years of work against political correctness in universities, I remain opposed to his editors at Front Page Magazine who have attempted to both support and oppose the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists.

Professors Paul Sheldon Foote, California State University, March5,2006

June 18, 2006 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MKO and AIPAC Relations

– According to reports, AIPAC " American Israeli Public Affairs Committee’’, the strongest lobbying group in Congress, has a great weight among neo conservatives who are seeking the option of regime change in Iran. Also, the neocon senators and representatives including Ilenea Ros-Lehtinen, Bob Filner … support the regime change in Iran sponsoring Mujahedin-Khalq as a viable alternative for clerical regime of Iran. In an interview with Masud BaniSadr, a former member of MEK, on May 19th 2006, ‘’Dissident and defection: An Iranian confession" Mahan Abedin the Middle East analyst at Asia Times asked about the likely relation between AIPAC and MEK: Dissent and defection: An Iranian confession By Mahan Abedin, 19 May 2006 (source: Asia Times) …Mahan Abedin: Explain the dynamics in the MEK-Israel lobby relationship. Masud Banisadr: If there is an anti-Iran petition on the table in the Congress, the two lobbies would work hand-in-hand to promote it, without necessarily communicating directly. MA: Are the two lobbies organizationally linked? MB: To give you an example, we knew which members of Congress were influenced by AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], so when we needed signatures we’d go to these congressmen first. AIPAC has a lot of weight in Congress, and without having to communicate with them directly, we benefited enormously from their deep influence. We also copied their lobbying techniques. Consequently the Mujahideen’s lobby in the US is organizationally strong but it lacks the two core elements I outlined earlier, namely numbers and money. They have a tiny constituency among Iranian-Americans, and even with the addition of imaginary names and addresses they cannot deliver votes or similar political advantages to congressmen. It also lacks an independent financial base. Much of its funding came from the former Iraqi regime. MA: Your claim that there were no direct contacts between the MEK and the pro-Israel lobby is undermined by the organization’s intensive and very direct cooperation with the "Iran Policy Committee", which seems to be a spin off of AIPAC. There are also regular media reports alluding to direct MEK-Israel ties. MB: I would not be surprised if these links existed. As I said earlier, the MEK is exclusively motivated by the interests of the cult, and as such it will cooperate with any constituency. If there is any hesitation in collaboration, it stems from Israeli reluctance, since the Mujahideen, because of its close relationship with the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization], is not fully trusted by the Israelis. On the other hand, from an Israeli perspective, the MEK is the only viable tool against Iran. Monarchists are deeply divided and lack organization. However, Western and Israeli intelligence are well aware of the MEK’s limitations. They are perfectly aware of the cult nature of the organization and know that it has – at most – around 5,000 members and active sympathizers (most of whom are stranded in the Ashraf camp in Iraq) and are in no position to seriously threaten the Iranian government. This factor – coupled with the organization’s cult-like and totalitarian ideology – dissuades the US State Department from working with them. To put it simply, the Americans do not trust Mujahideen-e-Khalq, for they know they have no principles, save the interests of the cult. This is why, despite all the efforts of the organization in the past quarter-century, they have not been able to pass a single substantial resolution in support of the organization in Congress. Note also that the US government regards the Mujahideen as a terrorist organization and does not want to create another al-Qaeda… – As Professor Juan Cole at Antiwar Website explains in his article titled " AIPAC’s Overt and Covert Ops", he brings into question the key role of Israel to lead US policy toward Iran fomenting a second war against Iran: AIPAC’s Overt and Covert Ops

August 30, 2004

by Juan Cole Antiwar.com

..The neoconservatives have some sort of shadowy relationship with the Mujahadeen-e Khalq Organization, or MEK. Presumably its leaders have secretly promised to recognize Israel if they ever succeed in overthrowing the ayatollahs in Iran. When the U.S. recently categorized the MEK as a terrorist organization, there were howls of outrage from "scholars" associated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, such as ex-Trotskyite Patrick Clawson and Daniel Pipes. MEK is a terrorist organization by any definition of the term, having blown up innocent people in the course of its struggle against the Khomeini government. (MEK is a cult-like mixture of Marx and Islam). The MEK had allied with Saddam, who gave them bases in Iraq from which to hit Iran. When the U.S. overthrew Saddam, it raised the question of what to do with the MEK. The pro-Likud faction in the Pentagon wanted to go on developing their relationship with the MEK and using it against Tehran. So it transpires that the Iranians were willing to give up 5 key al-Qaeda operatives, whom they had captured, in return for MEK members. Franklin, Rhode and Ledeen conspired with Ghorbanifar and SISMI to stop that trade. It would have led to better U.S.-Iran relations, which they wanted to forestall, and it would have damaged their protégés, the MEK. Since high al-Qaeda operatives like Saif al-Adil and possibly even Saad bin Laden might know about future operations, or the whereabouts of bin Laden, for Franklin and Rhode to stop the trade grossly endangered the United States. The FBI has evidence that Franklin passed a draft presidential directive on Iran to AIPAC, which then passed it to the Israelis. The FBI is construing these actions as espionage or something close to it. But that is like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. Franklin was not giving the directive to AIPAC in order to provide them with information. He was almost certainly seeking feedback from them on elements of it. He was asking, "Do you like this? Should it be changed in any way?" And, he might also have been prepping AIPAC for the lobbying campaign scheduled for early in 2005, when Congress will have to be convinced to authorize military action, or at least covert special operations, against Iran. AIPAC probably passed the directive over to Israel for the same reason – not to inform, but to seek input. That is, AIPAC and Israel were helping write U.S. policy toward Iran, just as they had played a key role in fomenting the Iraq war… – The spying role of Americans for Israel, was sought in an article published at UPI written by Richard Sale. His documented research presents the focus of FBI on a meeting in Paris, attended by Rhode (a member of Near East/ Sauth asia Office)Larry Franklin ( US air force reserve colone ),Gerechet ( a former CIA Operative) with the MEK: DOD spy’s arrest imminent By Richard Sale UPI Intelligence Correspondent …Stephen Green, author of two books on U.S.-Israeli relations and former CIA counter-terrorism chief, alleges that in March 1983 Feith was fired from the National Security Council by Judge William Clark after Feith was discovered to be the object of an FBI probe alleging that he had passed classified information to Israel. Former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vince Cannistraro confirmed to UPI the firing of Feith in the 1980s. Feith did not return repeated phone calls. According to a federal law enforcement official, other Pentagon officials of initial interest included Bill Luti, a former Navy captain who ran the day-to-day office operations of OSP, and Harold Rhode, a prominent member of the Near East/South Asia office, a sister office of OSP. According to sources who have been briefed on the case, the focus of the FBI probe finally settled on a meeting in Rome in December 2001, attended by Rhode and Franklin who met with an Iranian, Mansur Ghorbanifar, the notorious Iranian middleman in Oliver North’s 1980s scheme to craft an arms-for-hostages deal, later named Iran Contra. The head of Italy’s military intelligence also attended, according to these sources. At that meeting, Ghorbanifar offered to put the Bush administration in touch with "elements in Tehran who could mount a coup with U.S. help," one source close to the case said. The meeting was brokered by Michael Ledeen, a major figure in the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s, according to a source with close knowledge of the case. The meeting allegedly took place with the knowledge of the White House, but White House officials denied that they had known Ghorbanifar was to be there, according to a recent Los Angeles Times account. Other sources briefed on the case, however, said another meeting occurred in Paris in June 2002 when Rhode "accidentally" bumped into Ghorbanifar, a meeting attended by Franklin, Rhode and Ruel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operative, now a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, and an assistant to Richard Perle, a former senior Defense Department official during the Reagan administration. Sources close to the case also said that the meeting "was prearranged" and involved representatives of the Mujahedin al-Kahlq, an Iranian group of exiles, to discuss assistance to the MEK for the purpose of destabilizing the current government of Iran. "According to a congressional investigative memo, these meetings were arranged by Gerecht and Ledeen. Ledeen denies this. "The only meeting I knew about was the December meeting," he said. "I don’t know about the others, if they in fact existed."

Ledeen denounced the Franklin case as "total bullshit and lies."

Gerecht did not return phone calls. One source with close knowledge of the case said that the Franklin-Rhode- Gerecht meetings with the MEK, which is on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations was "served to undermine (Secretary of State) Colin Powell’s effort to sustain dialogue with moderate elements within the Iranian government." The MEK is still listed on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups because they have killed American officials, according to a State Department official. When questioned by congressional investigators, Luti "and other senior Defense officials denied that there was any serious consideration of using the MEK terrorists to destabilize the Iran regime," according to a source briefed on the case… – While Raymond Tanter, one of the cheer leaders of supporting MEK who has founded IPC (Iran Policy Committee ) works closely with AIPAC, seeking the removal of MEK’s terrorist label, Kenneth Timmerman,the executive director of the foundation for Democracy in Iran, asks How MEK a terrorist designated organization can operate in the US so freely: Iran Freedom and Regime Change Politics

ALARAB ONLINE

By Tom Barry*

…The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most prominent lobbying group pressing for congressional approval of the Iran Freedom Support Act. After the House’s approval of the bill, AIPAC told its members and supporters: “Please thank your Representative for voting for the bill and urge your Senators to co-sponsor S.333.” On its website, AIPAC lists the 58 senators who have already agreed to support the companion bill when it comes to the Senate. The Senate bill counts on such Democrats as Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Mikulski as well as such conservative Democrats as Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu. While AIPAC is the most powerful group advocating a tougher U.S. policy toward Iran, numerous other pressure groups calling for regime change in Iran have emerged over the past several years. One of the earliest, the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI), formed in late 2002, ceased functioning in mid-2005. Operating out of the office of Morris Amitay, the former director of AIPAC, CDI worked closely with AIPAC to encourage Congress to pass resolutions condemning Iran. The CDI principals continue their efforts to promote regime change in Iran through other organizations, including the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Committee on the Present Danger, and the American Enterprise Institute. Raymond Tanter, one of the original members of the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, founded the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) in January 2005. Tanter, who was a senior staff member of the National Security Council during the Reagan administration, is also associated with several other right-wing policy organizations, including the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Institute, and the Committee on the Present Danger. Since its founding the Iran Policy Committee has sponsored conferences and policy briefings on the Hill, and has also published four policy papers—a common theme being that the U.S. government should declassify the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) as an international terrorist organization and recognize it as being the “indisputably largest and most organized Iranian opposition group.” According to Kenneth Timmerman, executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) is shifting its militant rhetoric and is now claiming to be a nonviolent, pro-democracy group. The MEK, which is characterized as a terrorist group, operates a political front organization called the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is sponsoring conferences in Paris and Washington during the last week of May on regime change in Iran. The Paris conference, according to Timmerman, is being organized by the London-based Gulf Intelligence Monitor. Timmerman reports that the “five American participants—Ray Tanter, Maj. Gen. (ret.) Paul Vallely, Lt. Gen. (ret.) Thomas McInerney, Navy Capt. (ret) Chuck Nash, and Lt. Col. (ret). Bill Cowan—are all members of the Iran Policy Committe e, an organization set up by Tanter and by former CIA officer Clare Lopez in early 2005.” According to Timmerman, “The group has published a number of ‘white papers’—all of which have one thing in common: they urge the Bush administration to take the MEK and its various front organizations off the State Department list of international terrorist organizations.” Timmerman asks where the MEK is getting the money to finance the conferences and why the FBI is allowing an international terrorist organization to operate openly in the United States. Clare Lopez, the executive director of the Iran Policy Committee, is, like Tanter, a resident scholar at the Middle East Institute. Another leading member of IPC is Bruce McColm, who is the president of the Institute for Democratic Strategies and the former president of the International Republican Institute. Most of the other principals of IPC are retired military officers. The U.S. government has committed at least $75 million for projects that directly or indirectly support a regime change strategy in Iran. Over the last couple of years, several million dollars in U.S. democracy assistance aid for Iran has been distributed to an array of organizations, including Freedom House, a neocon led organization in Washington. New funding would also be channeled to Iranian dissidents, mostly expatriates, although groups like IPC would like to see the MEK, which has bases in Iraq, benefit from U.S. “democracy building” funding…

Download MKO and AIPAC Relations
Download MKO and AIPAC Relations

June 15, 2006 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Easy to obtain, easy to lose

"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1″>About 20 years ago, the terrorist sect of Mujahedeen under the leadership of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi which was in seeks for weapon and field was deceived by Saddam’s unreal promises and faced with the nation of Iran. At that time, Rajavi had nothing, but after a short time he possessed so many garrisons, tanks and helicopters. The members, also, were training by Saddam’s army.

"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1″>Although, the people of all over the world knew that Mujahedeen is the loser, the members declared that they provided the weapons by themselves. Rajavi never accepted that he had obtained the weapons from Saddam.

"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1″>About two decades, he was busy with storing the weapons and killing the people of Iran. This strategy was under the commands of Saddam, and Mujahedeen just applied that.

"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1″>Rajavi knew that Saddam would withdraw the weapons as easy as he had given them, like that during overrunning Kuwait which Saddam got 50 percent of his complimentary weapons.

"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1″>In fact, at the time of cease-fire between Iran and Iraq the Mujahedeen was disarmed by Saddam. It means, they had weapon, but they did not allow to fire.

"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1″>This process was continued till Saddam’s fall. Rajavi had nothing to do. He knew that put the weapon aside meant to destroy the organization, and keep it was useless.

"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1″>Rajavi was so dependent to Saddam that during the time of Saddam’s fall, he asked Saddam to allow him whether he should bend to Americans. The wireless conversations at that time could prove this matter.

"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1″>By Saddam’s fall, Mujahedeen had to redeem their blunders in war crimes and terrorist actions. The first was to lose the weapons, and the second was to destroy the leadership organization and being captured by Americans.

"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-themecolor: text1″>But it was not all. Mujahedeen should lose something else. Now its members should spy for Americans. So, they should forget the military strategies and all the principles that they never had, that is the humanity and the identification.

June 15, 2006 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

NCRI/MEK Response to the West’s Package of Incentives

Following the package of incentives offered to Iran by five permanent members of the UN Security Council as a democratic solution to Iran’s nuclear issue, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the political arm of the terrorist MKO, characterized it an appeasement policy. The group implicitly voiced it to incite crisis in the region. Although the UN Security Council’s stance to solve the issue follows a policy of circumspection so as not to escalate the tension between Iran and the world community, the MKO’s baneful role that guarantees its survival through crises can never be ignored.

The Mojahedin shows great interest in Iran’s nuclear issue so that it constitutes a big bulk of its propagandistic activities. Its news headlines exclusively reflect the opinions of the extremist American parties while it censures Condoleezza Rice’s offer indicating the U.S. willingness to sit at the negotiation table with Iran in an effort to give rise to tension and widen the gap. As a terrorist group, the Mojahedin is more concerned about its own interests rather than what it regards to be a threat against global peace and the interests of the international community. Iran’s nuclear issue works as a precious opportunity to provoke a united hostile front against Iran to intensify the already existing disorder in the region, that is to say, once Saddam gone, the U N Security Council may work as a beneficial alternative. Not the least concerned about global peace and security, the Mojahedin are anxious to succeed to Iran’s political power. Bijan Nyabati, a left member of NCRI, in a recent interview stated:

If it is impossible to fulfill this option (change within Iran), which is absolutely impossible for the reasons I have already theorized, then, the sole left option is from the outside which, as I have told, is on the table of the US foreign policy. [1]

In a statement issued by the NCRI taking position against what it calls a retreat by five permanent members of the U N Security Council we read:

The Iranian Resistance considers the incentives offered to the clerical regime by five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany as a clear retreat from February 4, 2006 resolution by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. [2]

Although Nyabati implicitly refers the US and the Security Council as leverage to overthrow Iran’s ruling power, however, his fellow Mojahedin very explicitly relate the nuclear issue and the Security Council’s resolution to the proposed third option:

The only effective policy vis-à-vis the mullahs’ nuclear threat is a firm policy including comprehensive sanctions and the recognition of the Iranian people’s demands for a democratic change. [3]

For the time being, Mojahedin does its best to get advantage of the existing gap between Iran and the US, with all the international levers of pressure atop, to incite a military option. Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the NCRI’s Foreign Affairs Committee, following Ms. Condoleezza Rice’s offer stated:

Only a firm and decisive policy can prevent the regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. Such a policy must include comprehensive sanctions being imposed by the UN Security Council continuing negotiations and offering further incentives give the mullahs the only thing they need to develop nuclear weapons to bring the region and the world closer to the prospect of a catastrophic war. [4]

Of course, the world community is prudent enough to disregard Mojahedin in dealing with Iran’s nuclear issue through peaceful ways, but those who chorus what Mojahedin voice should know the outcome would intensify the global tension. Compelled to conceal its discrepancies with the Western capitalism, Mojahedin is stealthy creeping into the existing gaps to advance its ambitions. The Machiavellian tenets mingled in all layers of the group’s body, decides for Mojahedin what line to follow:

In this line which has to be discussed within the strategic issues, that is to say, what line we have to follow, and how we have to get advantage of the existing discrepancies among the imperialists, I have already discussed in detail. [5]

The slogans of the global peace, democracy, democratic change and more are all utilized to achieve ideological objectives in the same way Mojahedin once utilized Islam in Iran. They know better than anyone that, in contrast to their claim, they can never represent Iranian people; in fact, they try to foist themselves:

From an internationally point of view, we want to convince the world that we are representing Iranian people. [6]

Never can they face the world with their bare ideology, they need a camouflager:

Of course, in international conduct it is not the issue of ideology and political stances that has to be brought on. It is essential to impose ourselves as representatives of Iranian people. [7]

In fact, Mojahedin have long been urging upon the international bodies, world community, and human rights organizations through unconventional measures. They abstain no lies, groundless claims, distortion, and bullying manners in their international conducts. Mojahedin denounces the five permanent members of the U N Security Council as if it was the authoritative lead to decide what is right or wrong. It is after a new blood-bath but this time through a legalized terrorism. Its harsh reaction against any shown international flexibility to solve Iran’s nuclear issue in a calm, peaceful context well indicates its delirious accentuation of violence and terror. Now it is up to international bodies and organizations to decide how to tackle with this repugnant, cancerous phenomenon of terrorism if they mean business.

Notes

[1]. Bijan Nyabati interview, Taliah-Sepidedaman.com

[2]. ncr-iran.org, 7 June 2006.

[3].ibid.

[4]. ncr-iran.org, 4 June 2006.

[5]. Mehdi Abrishamchi’s speech addressed to Muslim Students Association, Italy, 15.

[6]. Ibid, 12.

[7]. ibid.

http://www.mojahedin.ws/index_en.php

http://www.mojahedin.ws/article/show_en.php?id=1242

Bahar Irani – 11 June 2006

June 15, 2006 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts