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
Iraq

Iraqi Lawyer Advocates Rights of Terrorists

In an interview published in Washington Post on 10 June 2006, Kamal Hamdoun, the head of Iraq’s lawyers’ union, deplored the dominant anarchy in Iraq saying: "We are living in terror. For example, I’m unable to move around freely. And there’s a gun in my drawer". He had further explained that "The control of the jungle is for those who have claws and fangs".

Now, nearly 50 days after his complaint against the Iraq’s chaotic situation, Mr. Hamdoun leaps forward enthusiastically to advocate Mojahedin Khalq’s presence in Iraq saying “No one can strip them of this right without a legitimate legal argument”.

Reported by NCRI website, Mr. Kamal Hamdoon, in an interview with Mojahedin’s television station, announced:

The rights of PMOI members have been recognized based on international conventions and the UN Charter, and we at the Iraqi lawyers’ League are with them to the end… The Mojahedin were granted political asylum status in the past. No one can strip them of this right without a legitimate legal argument. Recent remarks by some Iraqi officials against the Mojahedin have no legal or religious basis.

Mr. Hamdoun has to be reminded that the “recent remarks by some Iraqi officials against the Mojahedin” do have legal basis because they are the words of the Iraqi legal Prime Minister and the cabinet. For sure, not all honorable, Iraqi lawyers share your opinion because they are well aware that the only way to end conflict and disorder in a war-torn country is to disband the terrorist groups. Mr. Hamdoun is recommended to refer to the list of the proscribed groups and entities for more information if he is in doubt.

If Mr. Hamdoun still insists on his previously stated comment that "The control of the jungle is for those who have claws and fangs", let’s imagine he is living in a depicted jungle of himself, and advocates the law of the jungle over the canon and sanctioned laws for the practice of justice, then, we should congratulate Mr. Hamdoun for having found the best ones with “claws and fangs" to have along. Mojahedin’s atrocities against Iraqi people in Saddam’s time prove them to be the most prefect choice to cause chaos and to fan the flames of turbulence. Be tolerant of the Iraqi authorities’ wisely made decision.

mojahedin.ws –  A. Afshar  –  August 6, 2006

August 9, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

Iranian exile group aims to build bridges

As tensions between the U.S. and Iran continue to mount, an Iranian exile group viewed here as a terrorist organization is lobbying to play a greater role in the struggle against Tehran. And it is winning some support in Congress.

The Mujahedeen-e Khalq, or People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, was formally listed as a terrorist group by the State Department because of its attacks on American military personnel and Iranian officials. It fiercely opposed the Shah and his supporters during the 1970s and allied with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his 1980-88 war against Iran.

But today, the MEK and its supporters say the organization should be supported by the Bush administration as part of a broader effort to promote regime change in Tehran. They say the group has developed among the most-sophisticated intelligence operations covering Iran’s leadership and nuclear operations, and it has networks inside Iran that can spread propaganda on democracy and on the need to remove the mullahs. The MEK also has 4,000 fighters that can target Iran from Iraq, though they have been demobilized by U.S. military commanders and held in a kind of house arrest.

As the White House deploys $85 million this year to promote pro-democracy groups in Iran, the MEK says it can support this campaign without receiving a penny. "We seek neither money nor weapons from the U.S. We just want our legitimate right to resist tyranny in our country," says Mohammad Mohaddessin, a Paris-based member of the MEK who serves as foreign-affairs chairman of its affiliated organization, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. "Let the Iranian people deal with the mullahs."

Mr. Mohaddessin and other MEK leaders say they want the U.S. to remove their organization from the terrorism list so that they can more easily raise money and support globally. They also want their fighters released in Iraq.

For more than a decade, the MEK has been employed as a political football in the diplomatic games played between Washington and Tehran, say current and former U.S. officials. The Clinton administration placed the MEK on the State Department’s terrorism list in 1997, as Washington sought to appeal to moderate leaders inside the theocratic government in Tehran. A blacklisting of the MEK was among the actions the Iranians sought in exchange for better relations, these officials say.

The State Department’s 2006 terrorism report says the MEK has been launching attacks on Western and Iranian targets since the 1970s. In the last years of the Shah’s rule, elements of the MEK assassinated U.S. security advisers and military contractors, and assisted in the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran. It subsequently turned on Iran’s new theocratic government due to ideological differences and launched bombing campaigns against senior Iranian officials.

Under pressure inside Iran, MEK fighters shifted their base to Iraq, conducting operations from there against Iran’s Islamic government throughout the 1980s and ’90s. Most of their activities were concentrated on Iranian military installations and commanders. But the U.S. also accuses the MEK of conducting terrorist strikes outside of the Middle East, including simultaneous attacks in 1992 on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries.

Some U.S. diplomats say that to delist the MEK now would make Washington appear inconsistent on terrorism and could further incite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They also believe Iran’s leadership could use U.S. support of the MEK to further strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad’s position, due to what is perceived as widespread antipathy toward the MEK inside Iran. "It could be incredibly provocative in Iran’s eyes," a U.S. official said.

In 2003, the Bush administration also placed the National Council of Resistance of Iran on the terrorist list, as U.S. military planners sought assistance from Iran in stabilizing post-Saddam Iraq. Among the issues the Iranians and Americans discussed that year, said officials involved in the talks, was a plan to swap MEK members it was detaining in Iraq for al Qaeda leaders hiding inside Iran. But the talks ultimately bogged down, as American commanders grew increasingly convinced Tehran was working to destabilize Iraq.

"Iran wanted the MEK first" before they would hand over al Qaeda leaders, says Michael Rubin, an Iran specialist who served in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans in the first Bush term. "We made it clear to Iran, that if al Qaeda planned an attack, they’d be held responsible."

The MEK, however, has used the Iraq invasion to try to build bridges to the Bush administration. U.S. officials say the MEK has largely cooperated with U.S. military commanders in agreeing to disarm their troops based in Camp Ashraf, which sits about 100 kilometers north of Baghdad. The fighters are being held as protected combatants under a United Nations charter, though some groups in Iraq have sought to try the MEK for atrocities it allegedly committed in league with Mr. Hussein.

Leaders of the MEK and National Council of Resistance, meanwhile, have aggressively moved to highlight the threats posed by Iran’s nuclear programs. In a string of news conferences tracing back more than a decade, first the MEK and then the resistance council have accused Tehran of flouting its international treaty obligations by clandestinely seeking to produce nuclear-weapons fuel.

In an August 2002 news conference, council leaders in Washington specifically charged Iran with running a stable of centrifuges to enrich uranium in the central Iranian city of Natanz. International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors would confirm the accusations a few months later. U.S. officials, including President Bush, have cited the role played by Iranian exile groups in exposing Iran’s nuclear programs.

Still, the MEK remains a deeply divisive issue inside Washington. In 2002, 150 members of Congress signed a letter seeking the MEK’s removal from the terrorism list. Lawmakers also have quizzed the State Department on the MEK’s status in recent weeks, after it was again named to the U.S. list of global terrorist groups.

"It’s the only group on the terrorist list that’s been more helpful to the U.S. and more harmful to our enemies," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.), who is among those representatives questioning the MEK’s designation. "It played a very important role in telling us what happened in Natanz. We should be clear on what we expect of them to get off the list."

Despite this support in Congress, however, many current and former U.S. officials say the Bush administration should stay clear of any dealings with the MEK. They describe the group as operating like a cult under the control of its founder, Massoud Rajavi, and his France-based wife, Maryam. They say the two have very little support in Iran and face deep hostility from the populations of Iran and Iraq, due to the MEK’s alleged complicity in Mr. Hussein’s atrocities.

"An enemy of my enemy is not my friend" in this case, said Mr. Rubin, the former Pentagon official. "From a policy standpoint, the problem with the war on terrorism is the propensity for moral relativism. But we shouldn’t accept certain terrorists and not others."

The Wall Street Journal  – Jay Solomon –  22 May 2006

August 9, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Duplicity of the MEK nature

The Betrayers Who Posture as Heroes

Celebrating the century-long anniversary of the Iranian Constitutional Movement of 1905-9, Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) avows to be the heir of the patriotic heroes and the Mojahed commanders of the revolutionary army like Sattar Khan. The term Mojahed was a label to some armed volunteers in the constitutional revolution that Mojahedin Khalq mischievously subsumed in their organizational label. Mojahedin conclude that the constitutional movement sustained a failure more because some pro-British elements betrayed and deserted Sattar Khan.

They call themselves “the main Iranian Resistance” representing a nation that has, since inception of republic system after monarch’s downfall, labeled them hypocrites. the crimes and atrocities which they have perpetrated hits such a big record in history and they are so execrated among their people that no pro-Monarchists nor other Iranian dissident groups, and diaspora would wish to be thrown in with Mojahedin in anyway at all.

One may ask what are they doing all these for? The explanation for their actions is quite obvious: they’re willing to give away Iran in bits and pieces to those who are waiting to devour it granted half a chance as long as they might be provided with an opportunity to come to power. The only thing Mojahedin care not the least for is people.

Mojahedin culminate against pro-British traitors who had deserted Sattar Khan while they have overstepped the limits of betraying a commander; they betrayed the whole nation. They have developed a lexicon of their own with the altered connotations. When Rajavi fled from Tehran to Paris, hidden in women’s clothes aboard a hijacked aircraft, he referred to his escape as "the most courageous act of heroism", and when he signed a "treaty" with Tareq Aziz, then one of Saddam’s top aides, to help Iraq in the war against Iran, the Mujahedin hailed the move as "a great patriotic act".

Mojahedin are perpetrators of high treason besmirching the reputation of the true Iranian patriots and Mojaheds. What Mojahedin did against Iranian people in the past and are doing at the present under whatever pretext is totally unforgivable. If Mojahedin are opposed to the current ruling system and government of Iran some other different people and groups might share the same opinion. But none of the other groups and individuals betrayed and deserted the nation. That was hardly a justification for Mojahedin to go and side with an enemy at war with the nation besides masterminding terrorist operations.

Now enjoying the full hospitality of the Western patrons, Mojahedin, under the full command of the hosts feeding them, have accomplished violation of allegiance toward their country’s sovereign and betrayal of the nation by consciously and purposely acting to aid the enemies through inciting and waging war against Iran. The very same countries supporting and hosting Mojahedin have passed sever laws for charges of treason. Even in the US, providing "material aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime" is treason and also punishable by death. The question is why, then, these countries support and nurse the terrorists and betrayers who deserve to be punished for their treasonous deeds?

A big number of disappointed Mojahedin members are living in Camp Ashraf under hard condition at the present. They have been unnerved by never-ending intimidations of being tried for treason if they returned to Iran. The common sense approves the process but the Iranian authorities have issued a general amnesty for those Mojahedin members whose hands are clean of peoples’ blood. Naturally, the offer doses not apply to MKO ringleaders who have directly been involved in terrorist operations and crimes against the Iranian people. If Mojahedin ever care to be relieved of the ignominy of betraying the nation, they have to return to take side with people against whoever might pose a threat.

mojahedin.ws –  By Sattar Orangi  –  August 7, 2006

August 9, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Maryam Rajavi

US and The West Treat US as Hostages

In an interview with Hesham Al-Qarawi, published on Arab Online website, Maryam Rajavi, the head of terrorist MKO said: "The U.S. and Europ treat us like war hostages and this kind of behavior has led to the current situation for MKO."

Al-Qarawim, quoting Maryam Rajavi as saying "they used us as hostages", emphasizes that: "In this interview, Rajavi criticized European countries for their approach toward the MKO and expressed regret that they don’t pay attention to MKO’s requests."

irandidban –  2006/08/05

August 9, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Missions of Nejat Society

Nejat Society Letter to The Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq

Nejat Society Tehran, Iran July 2006 His Excellency, Nuri Al-Máliki  The Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq Baghdad, Iraq Your Excellency, Respectfully, we would like to acknowledge that the members and authorities of Nejat Society in Iran are most contented with your latest decisive stance regarding that the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation (MKO), which is internationally categorised as a terrorist group, should be expelled from Iraq.

Nejat Society is consisted of those ex-members of the MKO who managed to free themselves from the mental and even physical barriers of the Organisation. The main object of the Society is of course to try to help the previous comrades in such way that they be able to free themselves too and start a decent normal life again along with their families and beloved ones.

There is one undeniable fact that MKO and its National Liberation Army (NLA) have been an inseparable part of Saddam Hussein’s Regime and have even participated along the forces of the Deposed Despot to suppress the People of Iraq’s freedom movement in 1991. The Organisation is also responsible for many sabotage and terrorist activities inside Iran through the years.

You are probably aware that around 3000 members of MKO are residing in Ashraf Camp (Al-Khalis Garrison) under the control of the US Army. These people have no connection with their families what so ever and they have all been somehow brainwashed by the leaders and kept unaware about the outside world. They are systematically manipulated to serve in the benefits of the leaders.

Nejat Society finds its duty to try to bring these people out of their misery and once again introduce them to the normal life and the real world. In other words these people must be helped to survive from the state of captivity that they are experiencing at the moment. Driving them out of Iraq would mean liberating them from the hand of their capturers.

Expelling the members of MKO in a way that they no longer could be controlled by the leaders of the Organisation would be to their own best interests and that of their families. Once they become freed from the barriers of the Organisation and be let to think and decide independently and find themselves in a new world, they would certainly be most pleased about their new situation out of the Organisation’s control.

MKO would of course like to keep hold of the Ashraf Camp since it provides them a good opportunity to withhold the members isolated from the outside world. Therefore they would most definitely launch a public relation (PR) campaign to give a fake image that the majority of the Iranians are against the decision of the Government of Iraq. They would as a normal procedure try to falsely impress you by bombarding the office of the Prime Minister with fabricated letters.

As far as the Americans are concerned they are just passing time to see what would be the outcome in the future. It seems that they are not certain what to do with them. Some 600 people have defected from the MKO in Iraq since the collapse of Saddam Hussein while about 400 of them have managed to come back to Iran to their families and start a new life. Around 200 are therefore still with the TIPF alongside Ashraf Camp.

Let’s wish that all these unfortunate people who have been utilised by Massoud Rajavi in Iraq against the two great nations of Iraq and Iran as well as their families and have also suffered through the years for missing their beloved ones would soon gain reunion and start a new prosperous life.

With many thanks for your attention and with best regards

Nejat Society

August 7, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MKO Rebuke Nyabati for Reviling Israel

Bijan Nyabati, a left member of NCRI, MKO’s political branch, in a recent jeremiad in Persian lamented the Qana village tragedy of thirty seven innocent Lebanese women and children killed under the Israeli heavy shelling. In fact, deliberately or unknowingly, he swam against MKO’s policy taken towards Israel. Long trying to win the support of the Israeli lobbyist in the US Congress, MKO have shown enough prudence not to disappoint the US and Israeli advocates.

Compelled to react against the Israeli bloodshed in Lebanon, more because peoples like Nyabati had poked their nose into something they shouldn’t have, Mojahedin took a moderate position in condemning the Israeli bloodshed never mentioning the Israel itself. Have a look at its statement for instance:

The Iranian Resistance condemns the killing of innocent people in Lebanon and expresses its condolences to the people of Lebanon and in particular to the families of those who have lost their loved ones.

Enraged by Nyabati’s act of overstepping the organization’s red line, Hooshang Behdad, penning in Mojahedin-run andesheh.com, denounced Nyabati’s condemning Israel for what it has not been responsible. Indirectly, Mojahedin warn Nyabati not to get too emotional when he has to remain unconcerned. Putting the blame of the human tragedy in Lebanon on all but the Israel itself, in a part of his criticism addressed to Nyabati, Behdad stated:

Demonstrating a leftist stance, taking an anti-imperialism position, condemning Israel, and thoroughly forgetting the warmongering, terrorist sponsor regime [Iran] is absolutely inexcusable… What other outcomes could one have expected when such an army [Israel] is provoked and Israel is threatened to be wiped out, its military and non-military zones are rocketed, and its soldiers are abducted?

Mojahedin have learned their dictated lessons well. The Bush Administration had earlier announced that Israel had the right to defend itself. The Israeli Ambassador to the UN had also castigated the Hizbollah forces and the sponsoring countries for the killings and rejected to accept any responsibility.

 

mojahedin.ws –  03/08/2006

August 5, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Former members of the MEK

Elham Motehamel and Sattar Salazehi joined their families

According to Nejat Society’s reporter, on Monday, July31 Mrs. Elham Motehamel and Mr.Salazehi who had defected terror cult of Rajavi and returned to Iran a few days ago, were delivered to their expectant families.

The ceremony that was held at Nejat Society building in Tehran was accompanied with tears and smiles of the families who are the members of Nejat Society.

Their hatred toward Rajavi’s terror cult that could be seen in their eyes, promises the return of their other beloveds.

The complimentary report with photos of the ceremony will be subsequently published on the website.

Nejat Society

August 5, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran

Iran’s permanent UN Ambassador writes to Annan on MKO

Iran’s Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad-Javad Zarif, wrote a letter here on Wednesday to the UN Secretary General and the head of the UN Security Council on outlawed Iranian terrorist organization, the MKO.

The letter reads, " Upon instruction from my Government, I have the honor to bring the following to your attention: On 16 June 2006 ,the French Government lifted a series of restrictions against a number of the leading members of a well-known terrorist group , namely the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO)."

The restrictions were previously imposed with a view to control the activities of the said terrorist Organization.

That decision runs counter to the decision of the European Union to place the MKO on its list of terrorist organizations.

It also contravenes the international commitments of the French Government in the area of combating terrorism. It is obvious that such an approach towards terrorist groups undermines the world-wide consensus against terrorism and could only result in emboldening terrorists to continue their inhumane activities.

Undoubtedly, terrorism violates the fundamental human rights and freedoms, and threatens international peace and security. Therefore, combating terrorism must be all-encompassing and devoid of any double standard and selectivity.

Governments, based on their international commitments, are obligated to refrain from providing any kind of support to terrorists, including harboring and financing them and precluding control over their activities and movements.

In view of the above, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran strongly protests against the said decision and cautions the French Government about the negative consequences that it may entail.

It expects that all governments, in whose territories the elements of the MKO are present, especially the French Government, to promptly adopt necessary measures aimed at controlling and suppressing the activities of this group and its affiliated front institutions, which are ,inter alia, engaged in planning acts of terrorism and money-raising activities under cover of charity organizations to illegal actions and promoting violence and terrorism.

I should be grateful if you would have this letter circulated as a document of the General Assembly under agenda item 108, and of the Security Council.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration."

United Nations, Aug 2, IRNA

 

August 5, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

The Operation Eternal Light, a Product of Hegemony

Now, eighteen years after Mojahedin Khalq’s military Eternal Light operation, the feat is referred to as a turning point by Mojahedin while its dissidents regard it as a challenge. The dissidents, non-mojahedin diaspora as well as defectors, unanimously believe the operation was nothing more than a suicide en masse on proven evidences. Unlike them, Mojahedin, by reason of their self-analyzed achievements, in any occasion bring it up as the first initiated solution to overthrow the Islamic Republic.

The major discrepancies between the two reasoning are too wide to help arrive at a sound judgment. One has to penetrate into the inner layers of the organization to unravel paradoxes. Before going any further, it should be noted that Mojahedin’s organizational structure and its echelon are under the impact of the party philosophy of Marxism, exclusively Leninism. A look at its early works and pamphlets explaining on the necessity of establishing a revolutionary organization founded on democratic centralism as well as its methodology and epistemological foundations well identifies it to be a paradigm of Stalinism that spread the shadow of terror over half of the world during the Stalin’s domination over the Communism Party. These early works are the cornerstone of Mojahedin’s first theoretic achievements to justify pertaining principles of the party dictatorship on individuals and, consequently, on all political relations.

The philosophy of party in Marxism explains for the domination of a class as a vanguard that leads perforce to ascertain a proletariat dictatorship that, being intrinsically anti-democratic, leads to an authoritative autocracy over the party. Stalinism was the product of such a party structure that heavily influenced Mojahedin. The influence, according to many Mojahedin’s critics, led to Hanifnejad’s invisible dictatorship. As the charismatic leader of Mojahedin, he was known to be the main cause of inflicting the crushing blow on the organization in August 1971 (when SAVAK arrested the majority of Mojahedin’s members). He was succeeded by another leader who in a four-year process fundamentally changed the ideology of the organization under his hegemony. Taqi Shahram changed Mojahedin’s Marxist-Islamic eclecticism and discarded Islam completely in favor of Marxism.

Massoud Rajavi continued the same organizational structure of his two descendants tightening his hegemonic leadership atop the pyramid power of the organization. His hegemony had to be strengthened through justifiable ideological principles and it happened in 1974 following the internal ideological revolution, first secretly revealed to upper layers of the leading cadre and then to lower layers through the organizational general assemblies. The cornerstone of the ideological revolution was to discard collective leadership in favor autocracy. He was turned to an absolute leader to whom all had to submit with unquestioning obedience. In a definition to this essence of the ideological revolution we read:

For the first time in the history of the contemporary revolutions, a revolutionary organization dismissed its principal matrix of “democratic centralism”, an achievement of hundreds- years of organized revolutionary struggle experiences, to submit to a leader who is responsible only before God. [1]

The ideological revolution, in fact, legitimized Rajavi’s perpetual hegemony that was deep rooted in the organization’ structure and which was invisibly practiced by its first charismatic leader Hanifnejad. Tinctured with sacredness, the pillars of hegemony would be stabilized and ended any further wrangling.

The main core of Mojahedin’s ideological revolution was to solve the issue of leadership. It could put an end to a problem known to be the Achilles’ heel in most contemporary revolutions and movements; only a stabilized theory of imamate inside the organization could lead the new revolution. [2]

The ideological metamorphosis opened a new gate onto a path where, in the first place, the rationality and even the social-political understanding of individuals were targeted. In other words, individuals would be transmuted into obedient and subjugated creatures serving the wills of the leader. The whole idea can be concluded as:

That is clear that such process could pursue in no rational route. The dominant element in the process is “love” and “emotion” that bypass “logic and reason”. The means are not those of polemics and persuasions but self-devotion. That is the point where Massoud claims Mojahedin’s heart. [3]

It is a preliminary course to transform from a Marxist political party into a highly clandestine, sect-like establishment. All the adopted political and ideological principles as well as the insiders’ long recorded struggle backgrounds lose their legitimacy and the main criterion to assess the members’ potentialities is the extent of their devotion to the leader. To be regarded as the followers under the guidance of the guru, the members had to surrender physically and psychologically:

In processing a good, modern understanding of the same ideology, Mojahedin are required not only to offer their life but also their soul. To bestow the physical body does not suffice; the individual’s highest emotions and dearest attachments are targeted. Not the physical body but the emotions have to be sacrificed. It is the least accepted thing in the organization. [4]

The move to Iraq was a political test to assess the members’ degree of devotion and the Operation Eternal Light was the culmination. An operation doomed from the start needed devoted volunteers to be sacrificed on the leader’s demand in blind obedience. Rajavi, before the operation, insisted on the necessity of launching the operation itself rather than expecting any achievement. That is why he congratulated the forces in the explanatory convention on the eve before the operation:

The result of the operation, above common calculations, is a work of divine providence. But as far as it concerns Iranian Mojahedin Khalq and the National Liberation Army, I congratulate you one by one beforehand regardless of what the result might be. [5]

The operation before anything was a resolution of Rajavi’s own volition, a proven suicide operation excluding the leader himself. The failure proved to be a victory for Rajavi; the made amendments to the ideological revolution after the operation guaranteed his position as a hallowed figure with the sole authority to question anybody while the members were not in the least permitted to violate the leader’s sacramental sphere. Thus, the operation’s aftermath had the priority over its military achievements, a self-administered purge to remove all who had avoided accepting Rajavi’s leadership as their article of faith:

To create a compelling control atop, all the individual attachments and values had to be detached. The detachment did not include physical spectrum, but above that, psychological scopes. The physically divorce of spouses and children did not suffice; they, as well as the world outside, had to be cleaned of the mind and devalued. One has to replace them with an alternative that is no one but Massoud Rajavi. [6]

The discussion serves as a good response to all those who search an iota of rationality behind the operation. It was not the product of a rational mind; it was the practical part of an intrinsically mal-founded ideology.

 

Notes

[1]. Nyabati Bijan; “A distinct look at Mojahedin’s internal revolution, slightly from inside, slightly from outside”, 35.

[2]. Ibid, 90.

[3]. Ibid, 113.

[4]. Ibid, 57.

[5]. “The tenth anniversary of Eternal Light”; the first book, Mojahedin’s Publications.

[6]. Nyabati Bijan; “A distinct look at Mojahedin’s internal revolution, slightly from inside, slightly from outside”, 113.

mojahedin.ws –  Omid Pouya  –  July 31, 2006

August 5, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi, the man who wanted to be a king

The operation Eternal Light (Forugh Javidan), is deemed by its leader a turning point in MKO’s history. The operation, no doubt, remains a black spot in history because of the significant strategic and military factors being considerably disregarded. In spite of the fact that Rajavi has recurrently admitted to have been aware of being no equal to Iran’s military strength, yet he would insist to recognize the operation as an integral part of MKO’s existence. To vindicate the necessity of launching the operation regardless of the outcomes, Rajavi has said:

Namely, at the crucial, serious situation that changes were speeding, the National Liberation Army had to be either checkmated or to sit waiting with the made excuses of not being prepared or the time was not ripe for the action… . [1]

Can it be the mere prove that the operation, with no rational raison d’être, was just a reaction to unpredictable conditions? Of course, the operation’s aftermath and the panorama Rajavi depicted for the forces on the eve of the operation well justify the claim. Talking on the outcomes of the operation before its initiation, Rajavi, commanding rather than asking, stated:

Now to be recorded in the history as you are making a great, prime decision unprovoked by emotions, although no revolution can de dissociated of its emotions, but absolutely based on military-political calculations, I tell you, raise your hands if you agree to go, if you think leaving for the operation, with whatever result, is quantitatively better that sitting idle. Whoever is convinced it behooves us to leave for operation and it makes it much worse if we don’t, raise the hand. I want to see this moment recorded in the history. [2]

Being well aware of the consequent failure of the coming operation, Rajavi cleverly sought to pick up surrogates to accept the responsibility of the inevitable defeat by stirring up the members that operation was the sole way to overthrow the Iranian ruling power. His rhetorical speeches provoked the members to both launch the operation and accept the responsibility for the consequent defeat. In fact, no body was to question Rajavi for the defeat but he was the one to reprimand all.

Really, how did Mojahedin justify the causes for the Operation Eternal Light? Was Rajavi so credulous to talk of “conquering Tehran and overthrowing the Islamic rule”? Did he think that Mojahedin in 1988 were in a better fitted situation than their previous 20 June uprising or the forces had a potentiality above the after-revolution days when they had infiltrated deep into the regime’s political and security institutions? What changes had occurred in Mojahedin’s structure to believe the organization had gained a military potentiality far above the previous guerrilla warfare tactics to form a liberation army able to topple the regime? What ever they were, one thing was evident for Rajavi and other rank cadres; the operation could not possibly succeed. To justify the force inequality, Rajvi gave promises that on the road to Tehran Mojahedin would be warmly received and welcomed by the townsmen and villagers who then would join them.

Before the acceptance of the Resolution 598 by Iran, Mojahedin had been convinced that an imposed peace on Iran would inevitably edge the regime to the brink of collapse. They were, however, overtaken by the acceptance the Resolution 598 that frustrated the prepared third solution of liberating Iran with reliance on the liberation army as they no more could receive the overall protection of the Iraqi army. Talking on the importance of this latter factor, Bijan Nyabati has stated:

The new liberation war was Mojahedin’s proper response to the huge deployment of forces with the aim of invoking a shelling priority powered by Iraqi army potentialities; it had nothing to do with Mojahedin’s previous strategy of the classic guerilla warfare. [3]

In spite of his chanting superficial counter-war slogans, Rajavi preferred the state of war as a good coverage to test war potentialities of the liberation army. In fact, the end of war meant a complete blockade of Rajavi’s tactic:

Overtaken by such unexpected decision (the acceptance of the Resolution 598), Rajavi decided to counteract. Noteworthy, in the strategic order of the liberation army, actually there existed no place for peace and cease-fire. [4]

Mojahedin took advantage of the unstable truce to test their military potentialities once more to topple the regime. Rajavi hoped unexpected outcomes when he let the forces be perished to guarantee his own power hegemony. He was under the illusion that the operation, although a complete failure, from a politically point of view had struck the most crushing blow over the body of the regime. His explanatory comments before and after the operation are in total contradiction.

The ideological revolution was the product of a solution to conduct the organization out of its political stalemate. He impudently declared the individual weakness in forces was the cause of failure and that the leader’s potentiality was far above the understanding and tolerance of the forces. In a later justification in general gathering on the anniversary of the operation in 2001, he talked of the operation’s achievements and that it was a proof of Mojahedin’s being independent of Iraqi’s military, financial, and political aids. Quoting words of a few Iranian authorities, Rajavi concluded that Mojahedin proved to be the sole recognized threatening force against the Islamic Republic.

All these words said, what really peopled Rajavi to commit such an organizational suicide was to shoot his last arrow. Seeing his long-existing dream of succeeding to power coming to nothing, he got ready to sacrifice all his devotees to take his chances. His command calling for the urgency of the operation was a shock to all and Mojahedin were watching restlessly that his decision was parching the remaining chances. He horridly prepared to face with the greatest challenge since the failed 20 June event with the consequent of his expulsion from Iran. His previously stated purpose of “conquering Tehran and overthrowing the Islamic rule” infers he had a hallucination of walking on a red carpet spread from the Iranian border to Tehran. The illusion of grandeur as a result of his authoritarian rule over Mojahedin had left him under the impression that the Iranian people, in no way an equal to Mojahedin combatants, would submit on his pass to Tehran. Alas, the idolized king never reached Tehran.

 

Notes

[1]. “The tenth anniversary of the Eternal Light”; the first book, Mojahedin’s Publications, 12.

[2]. ibid, refer to back-cover text.

[3]. Nyabaty, Bijan: A look within MKO’s ideological revolution, 70.

[4]. ibid.

mojahedin.ws – Bahar Irani  –  July 30, 2006

August 5, 2006 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Recent Posts

  • Why Neither Pahlavi nor the MEK Can Claim to Represent Iran?

    October 31, 2026
  • Tactical Links Between the MEK and Separatist Groups in Iran

    October 26, 2026
  • Echoes in an Empty Room: MEK Propaganda, Western Media Silence, and the Cuneo Case

    October 24, 2026
  • Various Aspects of Massoud Rajavi’s Disappearance

    October 20, 2026
  • MEK agents near schools in Tirana, Albania

    October 17, 2026
  • 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