Nejat Society meeting in Tabriz
British Ambassador to Tehran Richard Dalton met with head of Iran-Britain parliamentary friendship group Hossein Nejabat here Wednesday.
According to Majlis Media Department, Nejabat referring to the ups and downs in mutual relations in recent years, said, parliamentary diplomacy and the existence of parliamentary friendship groups are among important and effective tools in removing misunderstanding and expanding cultural and parliamentary ties between the two countries.
Condemning the West’s double standards in facing with some international issues, including terrorism, Nejabat called Iran a victim of terrorism and asked for a true and deep campaign against this world ominous phenomenon.
Head of Iran-Britain parliamentary friendship group stressed on Iran’s inalienable rights of access to the peaceful nuclear energy and use of this energy in the fields of electrical power, agriculture and industry adding these things are among the rights of developing countries all around the world.
British ambassador to Tehran, for his part, welcomed the activity of parliamentary groups and described the role of such groups in promoting parliamentary ties very effective and useful.
Referring to the Britain Anti-terrorism Law, passed in year 2000, Dalton named Mojahedin organization as a terroristic group and said the members of the group have no right to be active in Britain.
The British ambassador to Tehran called on more negotiations between political and parliamentary officials of both countries and requested Iran’s more cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Tehran, Feb 2, IRNA
Iraqis want the new government to issue a statement on expelling the members of terrorist MKO from Iraq.
History shows that terrorist MKO had an active role in former Iraqi government. Since its arrival in Iraq, MKO started to conduct former regime’s evil plans against Iraqi people.
After the fall of former regime, Iraqis heard happy news on the expulsion of this group from the country; a decision that was made by interim government but the US forces didn’t allow it.
Today, we live under the shade of a popular government with elected parliament. Despite being threatened by terrorists, Iraqis showed up at polling stations to elect their representatives.
Now, the nation asks members of parliament to expel this organization due to its terrorist records.
We talked to a number of our compatriots to know their ideas about MKO’s expulsion from Iraq:
Sa’doon Jalil said: "Through your magazine, I ask Iraqi officials not to forget the martyrs. They should make a tough decision to expel the terrorist organization of Mojahedin-e Khalq from Iraq. In the past, people suffered much from this organization and it’s still a big threat for Iraq.
A man, introducing himself as Doctor Sabih, said: "Interim government’s decision on the issue is clear. It insists on expelling this group from Iraq and it allows Iraqi people to press charges against the leaders of the organization for the crimes they have done. This can be a base for a tougher decision on this organization and I believe that Iraqi parliament (comprised of elected representatives) can make the decision.
Ms. Asra Aziz, from Iraqi National Assembly wants to advocate those who have suffered from former regime and its security organizations: "Mojahedin-e Khalq was a leverage working for former regime’s security and intelligence services. It committed numerous crimes against our nation and making a decision on the expulsion of this organization boosts the decision of interim government and meets the requests of Iraqi people. "
Sheikh Saheb Abbas, cleric from the city of Al-Sho’leh, remembers the crimes of terrorist MKO and says: "I am a witness of MKO crimes. This organization surrounded prayers in Al-Mohsen mosque and the former regime used the members of this organization to beat the prayers and martyr a number of them. Those prayers had gathered to protest the killing of Seyed Mohammed Sadr. I saw foul behavior of Mojahedin with Iraqi people. I don’t know why there’s silence on the presence of this group in our country. This organization is a dirty stain on pure soil of Iraq. Does their presence in Iraq is beneficial for our country? I ask Iraqi officials and our representatives in Iraq National Assembly to issue a decision on the expulsion of this terrorist organization from Iraq. The Assembly should ban all interactions with this group, as ordered in Fatwas of supreme religious leaders."
Mr. Ghassem Hassan, owner of a bookstore in Motnabi Street, expressed his views as follows:
"The presence of this group in Iraq is a threat for Iraq and Iraqis. Despite the decision of interim government, they are still active in Iraq. It seems that it’s beneficial for the US. They want to keep the group in Iraq to do what they desire.
This organization has the capability to work for any devil in order to get to its own goals. They proved this when working for Saddam. It served former regime and denied it after the fall of Saddam, although they used millions of dollars of Iraqis. We Iraqis don’t know why interim government’s decision on the group is not executed. This is what people want."
Majid Ali, referring to the necessity of developing a law for the trial of leaders of MKO in special courts, says: "this organization plundered the properties of Iraqi people. They martyred our compatriot sand conducted anti-human crimes. I ask for the expulsion of this group and trial of its members for their crimes against Iraqis.
At the end of the interview, we found that all Iraqis insist on making a tough decision on MKO expulsion by National Assembly. Iraqi people also asked for the trial of MKO leaders and commanders for their crimes in Iraq. We want Iraqi to be purified from terrorist groups.
Al-Shahid/No. 259
In a ceremony held in Samen Al-A’emeh complex in Abadan on Wednesday, a former member of the cult of Rajavi returned to his family.
Jaber Majdmian, expressing his happiness, said the situation in the MKO is inhumane.
"In 1987, I joined the MKO in Iraq but from the beginning, I realized the terrorist and inhuman nature of the group."
"I repeatedly tried to return to my family, but the MKO didn’t allow me to do so. After the fall of Saddam Hussein and due to the hatred of Iraqis for the MKO, there appeared a chance for us to return and I could come back home with the assistance of Red Cross and Nejat Association in Khuzestan Province. I believe I was born again. I try to be useful for my society."
Majdmian said that he had been treated well by Iranian security officials; he hopes he can compensate his past.
In the ceremony, Hamid Hassani, the head of Nejat Association in Khuzestan province, said: "300 former members of terrorist MKO have already returned to their families. The ouster of former Iraqi regime and the detention of Saddam Hussein weakened the MKO so that it lost the support of foreign countries and its members realized their own group’s terrorist nature."
He said the purposes of Nejat Associatin include "helping the deceived members of MKO, revealing the truth and nature of hypocrisy in the MKO and exposing the ugly face of the group in domestic and international scenes to the members".
"Former members can encourage their friends in Iraq, still with MKO, to leave the terrorist group; they can do this by radio messages, internet and phone."
We guarantee that MKO members won’t be harmed in the case of returning to the country. They will be protected by Iranian officials.
He asked MKO members’ families to make contact with their loved ones and encourage them to return.
"ID cards and Military Service Cards (that indicate they have finished military service) would be issued for former members who return to the country. The association is ready to help them if they face any problems," he added.
IRNA – 2006/01/29
* Head of a group labeled terrorist by the U.S. urges the West to back an internal political push against Tehran.
AUVERS-SUR-OISE, France – Opening the gates of the secretive world of her headquarters North of Paris, the leader of an Iranian exile group urged Western governments Tuesday to support a campaign of internal political resistance to the regime in Tehran.
Maryam Rajavi of the Mujahedin Khalq, which has been officially designated a terrorist group by the United States and European Union, capitalized on the escalating diplomatic confrontation with Iran to hold a rare news conference at the heavily guarded compound on the wooded banks of the Oise River.
Rajavi, 52, called for the West to avoid responding to Iran’s nuclear ambitions with appeasement or a military invasion. Instead, she said political and economic sanctions would fortify democratic resistance among Iranians, with her group, whose name translates as People’s Holy Warriors, serving as a vanguard.
"The Iranian resistance has a capacity to bring about change," Rajavi said. "Knowing this, the mullahs have always in their dealings with their foreign counterparts demanded the imposition of harsh restrictions on the resistance, branding it as terrorist and a sect."
Despite Rajavi’s contention that she is a moderate Muslim espousing a peaceful, democratic Iran, her initiative seems a longshot at best.
Her group remains under investigation in France for allegedly carrying out terrorist attacks in Iran and plotting against Iranian government targets in Europe.
After French police arrested Rajavi during a raid on the compound by more than 1,000 officers in 2003, a number of her followers around Europe set themselves on fire. The grisly protests exposed an internal culture that mixes Marxism and Islam, isolates members from their families and gives Rajavi the status of a guru, according to French investigators and former members.
Moreover, Mujahedin Khalq’s former alliance with since-deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s war against Iran alienated many Iranians. Because of the group’s lack of support in Iran and dubious image, Washington, Paris and other capitals do not see the group as a viable force, according to analysts and Western officials.
"Given the sect-like, totalitarian and terrorist nature of this organization," enlisting it as an ally seems "indefensible," said analyst Dimitri Delalieu in a recent report for the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, a Brussels think tank.
Rajavi and fellow leaders were released pending the outcome of the French investigation. They say the charges are groundless and part of a politically motivated attempt by France to facilitate deal-making with the Iranian government.
In any case, the group retains a measure of relevance because it periodically has made significant disclosures about Tehran’s nuclear program. It relies on an espionage network in Iran and sometimes, analysts say, tips from Western and Israeli spy services.
"They are more marginal than ever," said Olivier Roy, a Middle East expert at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris. "They will maintain their contacts with Western governments only because intelligence services have so little on Iran. The CIA and others have great difficulty getting information in Iran. So because of the lack of anything better, the Mujahedin will still be able to play that role."
Rajavi appeared determined Tuesday to rehabilitate her image. A legislator each from Britain, France, Belgium and Portugal were on hand to endorse her and demand that her group be removed from lists of terrorist organizations.
Rajavi said the West should use sanctions to pressure the Iranian government to submit to a referendum on the future of the country’s political leadership that would be watched by international monitors.
"It would be fantastic if the international community could intervene and impose a referendum," she said.
But she declined to rule out armed intervention, saying, "The tactics and methods have been imposed not by us, but by the mullahs."
By Sebastian Rotella
January 30, 2006
Letter to:
Court of Justice
Court of First Instance
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
To the Judges of the Court of First Instance
At 09:30, on February 7, 2006 in the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, hearing T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy) will take place. http://curia.eu.int/en/actu/calendriers/index.htm
This action against the Council of the European Union was first brought before the Court on 26 July 2002 by the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) – also known as Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK).
In simple terms we understand that through this action, the MEK wishes to be removed from the European list of terrorist entities.
Some of the main arguments brought by the MEK are that it is:
Conducting legitimate resistance against the Iranian regime
Complying with the fundamental principles of democracy
Complying with the fundamental principles of respect for human rights
Supported by the international community
Never undertaken actions against civilians
The only resistance movement which is now acting within Iran’s borders
Defending peace in the region
In response, and in opposition to this action, the people signatory to this letter all declare themselves willing and able to bear witness to the facts set out in this letter thus:
1 From its inception, the MEK has been the main anti-western force before and during the 1979 revolution in Iran. The MEK killed six Americans in Iran during the 1960s. During the ‘hostage crisis’ in 1980, the MEK advocated killing the American hostages. The MEK openly took up arms against the regime of Iran again only after a failed coup d’état against the new revolutionary government in 1980.
Since then, the MEK has carried out mortar attacks against civilian targets, resulting in the deaths of shopkeepers, passers by. The MEK has bombed factories, schools and residential areas. The MEK received orders from Saddam Hussein to attack targets chosen by his regime and were paid accordingly.
2 The MEK is organized internally as an autocracy, with Massoud Rajavi the sole, self-appointed leader for life. He occupies the role of supreme leader and is above the law. No one has the right to remove or even criticize his leadership. Below him in rank is his wife Maryam Rajavi, also appointed by Massoud Rajavi. He presented her to the National Council of Resistance (NCR) for ‘election’ to the position of ‘president elect’ of the NCR. The ‘election’ took place in an open meeting in which there was no secret ballot, the vote was 100% in her favour. The NCR comprises at least 95% MEK members who only claim to be independent members but who without exception believe in the MEK ideology.
3 There are countless examples of suppression and repressive measures inside the MEK. The MEK has practiced forced marriage and now practices forced divorce, separation of children from parents, gender apartheid, imprisonment for criticizing leaders or even the leaders’ strategy. Victims inside the MEK have been sent to Abu Ghraib prison. Extrajudicial punishments include torture, death under torture, long term imprisonment in solitary confinement and sentencing to execution – not carried out by express order of Massoud Rajavi. The Human Rights Watch report of May 2005 ‘No Exit’, details only a small sample of such human rights abuses carried out systematically inside the Mojahedin. Former members will bear witness that none of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are practiced inside the MEK organization.
4 The MEK claims to have collected hundreds of signatures from western parliamentarians. However, the names have never been published and no-one has had sight of the signatures. The MEK has a known history of forging signatures. The MEK collects signatures through lies, deception and misinformation. Signatories do not have immediate access to necessary information by which to make balanced judgment about the MEK.
5 There are numerous instances of civilian deaths and injuries caused by the deliberately imprecise methods of armed attack used by the MEK in Iran. The use of mortars, fired in civilian areas, have led to schools, public parks and residential buildings being hit. The largest number of civilians killed by the MEK was in the Eternal Light operation of 1988. In this operation, the organization sent thousands of untrained civilians into battle with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in Rajavi’s bid to pursue regime change by armed means. Thousands were killed and injured in this abortive operation. Rajavi is culpable for war crimes based on his orders and decisions during this operation.
6 The MEK is not supported inside Iran – most of Iran’s younger generation have never heard of the MEK except as a historical group which betrayed their country by fighting alongside Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. The MEK does not mention its twenty year existence in Iraq and its dependence on Saddam Hussein during that time. No opposition group (inside or outside Iran) has ever accepted the group which is universally regarded as traitors. The lack of support for them outside country by exiled Iranians is a clear indication of how much support they have inside the country. The only beneficiary of the MEK’s existence has been the hardliners of the Iranian government who refuse to accept any other opposition except them because they are known as assassins and traitors to their country. This allows the hardliners to continue a policy of repression against any legitimate opposition.
7 The MEK’s most recent public stance is to support regime change involving war waged against Iran by the USA or Israel. The MEK’s ‘third way’ states clearly that the MEK can bring about regime change only if its forces in Iraq are re-armed.
Since 2002 many things have changed.
"The Mojahedin Khalq Organisation claims that it rejects armed struggle and commits itself only to non-violent means of struggle and therefore asks the relevant authorities to remove it from the lists of terrorist organizations." The MEK claims that in future it will only engage in political, social and cultural activities against the Iranian regime.
Firstly, this claim has never been made publicly and has only been made in private to the officials involved in this court. Secondly, this is a lie. The MEK has no intention of abandoning armed struggle.
As recently as two months ago the MEK clearly issued death sentences against their critics in European countries. This was broadcast on their clandestine TV program copies of which area available.
The MEK continues to advertise its National Liberation Army (currently disarmed by US forces in Iraq) as the only possible way of achieving regime change in Iran. The MEK openly promotes the use of violence in Iraq, Iran and in western countries.
Information from a source close to the MEK states that the organization is now actively collecting signatures from its members who swear that:
armed struggle is the only possible means to achieve regime change and take power in Iran. (The real meaning of this is the belief that Camp Ashraf in Iraq should be preserved and the combatants re-armed.)
they adhere to every step of the Ideological revolution and pass through it consciously and believe in every part of it. (The real meaning of this is that they accept the conditions of slavery imposed by the MEK’s cult culture.)
they declare total and unswerving loyalty to the ideological leader, who is Massoud Rajavi. (The real meaning of this is that Rajavi will never be removed from leadership of the MEK, thus denying any semblance of a democratic process.)
These three articles, which every member is being asked to affirm and sign to, are exactly the opposite to the conditions necessary to prove their case in this court.
Indeed, the MEK is more committed to these principles than ever in its history as this is the only means by which the organization can be kept intact.
Since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, reams of evidence has come to light concerning the MEK’s behaviour in Iraq and elsewhere. Examples include: video evidence of payments made by Saddam to the MEK in payment for the assassination of specific people; selling oil illegally for Saddam in the west (under the UN oil for food program); involvement in the suppression of the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings in March 1991 which involved the massacre of civilians.
The MEK have never condemned their fallen benefactor Saddam Hussein and refuse to refer to him as anything less than "the ex president of Iraq". The MEK has not cut its ties with the remnants of Saddam in Iraq and elsewhere, including the Baath Party and tribal leaders loyal to Saddam Hussein. The MEK celebrated the 11 September tragedy in their camps in Iraq. The MEK leaders directly ordered members to commit self-immolation in European cities in June 2003, resulting several disabilities and two deaths.
If the MEK wishes to refute the evidence which led to its inclusion in the terrorist lists of every major western country, it must:
1- publicly and unequivocally renounce violence as a means to achieve political aims – including publicly agreeing to the dismantlement of Camp Ashraf in Iraq
2- abandon the practice of collective living, compulsory divorce, separation of people from their children and families, cutting people off from their finances and stop the use of psychological manipulation to indoctrinate members; the MEK must free its members from conditions of slavery.
3- respect democratic principles by holding real elections for the first time – which allow for the removal and replacement of all its leadership cadre through secret ballot; run the organization as a normal political group.
4- provide answers in public to the issues arising from MEK behavior over the past twenty five years, including; the massacre of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds in 1991; the massacre of thousands of civilians in the Eternal Light operation of 1988; the incarceration of dissidents in its own prisons and in Iraq’s infamous Abu Ghraib prison.
Signatories:
Abbass Sadeghi
Akbar Akbari
Ali Akbar Rastgoo
Ali Bashiri
Ali Ghashghavi
Alireza Mir Esmaili
Alireza Mirasgari
Amir Atefe
Amir Kord-Rostamie
Anne Khodabandeh
Aylar Seraji
Batool Ahmadi
Batool Maleki
Behzad Alishahi
Behzad Kazemi
Daryoush Mir Esmaili
Edward Tormado
Elham Kakavand
Faride Barati
Farhad JavaheriYar
Faride Sadri
Farzad Fazinfar
Fatolah Firooz
Ghasem Ghezi
Gholam Mehdioghli
Habib Khorami
Hadi Shams Haeri
Hanif Baghalnejad
Hassan Azizi
Hassan Haghi
Hassan Khalaj
Hassan Mohamadi
Hassan Sadeghian
Homayoon Elahi
Hossein Baghalnejad
Iraj Haghverdi
Jafar Baghalnejad
Jafar Gonjeshki
Jamshid Tahmasbi
Javad Firoozmand
Karim Haghi
Katayoon Mir Esmaili
Kazem Molahosseini
Khaodabakhsh Rudgar
Majid Farahani
Mahboobe Barati
Masoome Behnam
Massoud Jabani
Massoud Khodabandeh
Marjan Malek
Mehdi Baghalnejad
Mehdi Khoshhal
Milad Ariyayi
Mina Vatandoost
Mitra Yoosefi
Mohamed Hossein Sobhani
Mostafa Mohammadi
Mostafa Mostafai
Naser Haghi
Naser Razvani
Nasrin Behboudi
Omid Ahmadi
Parvin Haji
Maryam Jokar
Rassoul Ahmadi Nejad
Reza Haghi
Robabe Shahrokhi
Ronak Mostafai
Roya Roodsaz
Saeed Khodashenas
Samad Alesiad
Sara Baghalnejad
Shafighe Haghi
Shokat Haghverdili
Soheila Behboodi
Yaser Ezati
Zahra Lotfi
Did you know… that members of Mojahedin are obliged to kill themselves when they face arrest?
Why is it that no member of the Mojahedin is ever briefed as to what they should do if they fall into enemy hands?
From the time of the Shah, carrying a cyanide tablet and, where possible, a hand grenade has been a part of the everyday life of any member of MEK. To allow yourself to be arrested alive is regarded as a sin, as betrayal and as a crime committed against the organization and its leaders. Conversely, ‘martyrdom’ through suicide by any available means has been encouraged whenever and wherever a member has faced the enemy. During the era of the Shah, this enemy was the police or any other law enforcement agent. The idea had been originally taken from the revolutionary groups existing during the 1960s and 1970s in South America and other parts of the world which were engaged in guerrilla war against Imperialism backed by the communist Soviet Union. The explanation for this requirement was that it was”to protect information”and”to sacrifice yourself in a way that the enemy could not obtain any information from you under torture”.
A long time has past since then, but in the Mojahedin the idea of killing yourself in the event of facing arrest has not changed. It is an established fact that a Mojahed-e Khalq (People’s Warrior) will kill him/her self before being arrested. It is for this reason that no member of the MEK is ever advised what they must do if they are unable to kill themselves when they are arrested.
After the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the consequent sidelining of the Mojahedin in the establishment of the new Islamic Republic, Massoud Rajavi introduced a new phase referred to as”Lebanonisation”. This meant instigating antagonistic action which would lead to bloodshed. Any kind of conflict, any kind of riot, unrest, attack from any side… and especially having a supporter injured or, even better, killed, was a good point from which to fire up morale, to advertise the victimization of the organisation and in particular to ask for revenge.
Later, living on the blood of both friend and foe became an integral part of Rajavi’s strategy. The defeat of the tragic paramilitary assault on Iran in 1988, in which about 5,000 untrained civilians including old women, teenagers, PhD students from western universities and even disabled people, were asked to go to Iraq to fight against the Iranian Army with eight years’ war experience, was announced by Rajavi as”the insurance of the organization for years to come”. The ensuing massacre of about 3,000 untrained Mojahedin civilians and the deaths and injuries suffered by the Iranian Army created enough enmity between them to pave the way for acts of violence and vengeance for several years to come and to negate the emergence of any non-violent ideas which could have arisen. Rajavi’s concept of”insuring the future of the organisation”was that this fresh blood would halt the advance of any possible solution except that of the bloody take over of power – which, obviously, was reserved for the only force which enjoyed the use of Saddam Hussein’s tanks and guns.
Later this need for blood brought Rajavi to employ even more sinister and even nastier ways and tactics. In recent years there have been numerous cases in which individuals who had been sent to perform terrorist acts inside Iran had been sent deliberately to their death in order to provide fresh blood and increase the number of martyrs.
The majority of these individuals had been given just enough training and planning to carry out their terrorist operation and had been told nothing about what should happen afterwards. They were given no information about how to return or how to deal with arrest. The only possible interpretation of this was that they were not only expected to not come back, but were in fact not expected to survive.
The expectation was that if they faced arrest, they would fight to the last bullet, to kill or injure as many as possible and then kill themselves. The numbers of people who have used their cyanide tablet and/or exploded their grenade tight to their bodies are countless.
A few who have survived, like Mrs. Marjan Malek or Mr. Arash Sameti, or people like Ebrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam who did not have the opportunity to kill themselves, revealed later that they had been indoctrinated by the cult such that the torture they had been told would be inflicted upon them after their arrest was so terrifying that suicide seemed to be the only option.
But Rajavi’s quest for fresh martyrs did not stop here. Numerous cases have been recorded in which disaffected members have been taken to the Iraq- Iran border in the middle of the night and made to walk towards Iranian border posts. From behind them the MEK would shoot to prevent them turning back and to alert the Iranian border guards, who would in turn shoot at the advancing victim. There are also numerous cases in which someone has vanished, or has died in suspicions circumstances, but who has later been announced as a martyr killed by the Iranian regime.
The use of cyanide and grenades and the obligation to die before capture has continued from the time of Shah to the present, but the purpose of it has changed completely. It is no longer about protecting information (otherwise Maryam Rajavi and her cohorts would have killed themselves upon their arrest in Paris in June 2003). It is now about providing numbers to add to the list of Mojahedin Martyrs.
The purpose is to”insure”the organisation’s future since, in the atmosphere of bloodshed and revenge, no nonviolent alternative or opposition to the ruling regime could emerge.
One of the most deplorable ways of achieving this”insurance policy”has been where the terrorist teams sent for operations have been instructed that anyone who might suspect their identities while travelling should be killed. Behzad Alishahi explained one such incident in which his team mates killed an innocent worker who was in their way only because he had seen them and told them not to go through a factory.
Alishahi later was sent back to the camp and underwent all kinds of pressure for arguing against this cold blooded killing.
Fortunately since the fall of Saddam Hussein, although Rajavi has desperately tried every avenue to generate some killings and/or torture to produce fresh blood, the cult’s success has been minimal. Even the arrest of Khodabandeh and Bassam in Syria and their transfer to Evin prison, which Rajavi hoped would buy”new insurance”for the organisation, failed totally. During the past three and a half years, the only new blood they have achieved has been the deaths of two members and the permanent disability of several more who committed acts of self-immolation. Interestingly, the culture of carrying cyanide tablets, even in western countries, is encouraged more than ever. The cult leaders’ only hope for survival is linked to bloodshed, and they are impatiently waiting for any opportunity to kill any number of people no matter if they are friends, foes or even passers by.
Survivors’ Report/No. 20/January 2006
A report by al-Jazeera satellite TV on January 22, citing Iraqi military officials who claim that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is in the Diyala province (northeast of Baghdad), runs contrary to the assessments of Iraqi intelligence services and U.S. military intelligence in Iraq.
The new Iraqi intelligence service (headed by Mohammad Shahwani), U.S. military intelligence and the Badr Organization (which operates an independent parallel intelligence service) have long believed that the core of the al-Zarqawi network is concentrated around the Euphrates River valley in northern Anbar, along which the key towns of Qaim, Haditha, Hit, Ramadi, Habbaniyah and Fallujah are situated. These towns are considered to be the most insecure and dangerous in Iraq, where insurgents have—at one time or another—exerted complete control.
The assessment of U.S. and Iraqi intelligence derives from intense counter-insurgency operations and the interrogation of thousands of captured insurgents. Moreover, Anbar and Nineveh provinces are the only areas in Iraq where the al-Zarqawi network has developed roots, not least because of the proximity to the Syrian border, from where the vast majority of jihadis infiltrate the strife-torn country. Given the realities on the ground, the al-Zarqawi network is highly unlikely to move key figures outside its main base of operation for prolonged periods.
More broadly, Diyala is a stronghold of the so-called "Nationalist" insurgency, where even indigenous Islamist rebels (mostly connected to the "Islamic Army in Iraq") have been discouraged from operating in the province. The local characteristics of Diyala’s insurgents, coupled with the proliferation of Iraqi nationalist organizations (which operate in the open under the guise of civil society forums), make it extremely difficult for jihadis to operate in the province. If al-Zarqawi was operating from Diyala, it is likely that he would be quickly identified and killed by Iraqi rebels who are now beginning to distance themselves from extremist insurgents and jihadis.
After Anbar province, Diyala ranks as the most strife-torn region in Iraq. There are four factors that explain the volatility of this most strategic region of Iraq’s 18 provinces. First of all, Diyala has historically been a bastion of Arab and Iraqi nationalism (Baathist or otherwise). The province’s strategic location and its proximity to Iran make it a highly prized and sensitive region in the eyes of Iraqi nationalists. While the downfall of Saddam Hussein had a catastrophic impact on the morale of Arab and Iraqi nationalists in Diyala, these forces quickly mobilized to fight the U.S. and its Iraqi allies.
Second, Diyala is the only province in Iraq where Shi’ites and Sunnis are represented in roughly equal numbers. While there are no official statistics, the former are believed to have a slight majority. The finely balanced sectarian demographics became a violently contentious issue after the intervention, which has promoted identity politics in Iraq. Broadly speaking, the Shi’ites in Diyala regard SCIRI and the Badr Organization as protectors and employers, while the Sunnis see these organizations as Iranian-backed quislings that are exploiting the occupation to consolidate power.
Third, SCIRI and the Badr Organization have had a strong presence in Diyala since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In fact, the Badr Organization (in its previous capacity as the Badr Corps) entered Iraq from the Diyala province from April 9, 2003 to early May 2003 and established bases in Baqouba (the province’s capital), Miqdadiyah and Khalis. In that crucial month, Badr forces fought pitched battles with remnants of the ousted regime, including Baath party diehards, Diyala tribesmen loyal to Saddam Hussein and the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (Terrorism Monitor, Volume 1: Issue 5, November 7, 2003). As the insurgency deteriorated in Diyala, the Badr Organization steadily increased its presence and operations.
Finally, the presence of an Iranian dissident group, the formerly-armed Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), in Diyala has created tensions between prominent tribesmen and other influential actors in and around Khalis, where the MKO’s Ashraf base is located. While the MKO (which is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government and the European Union) was disarmed in May 2003 and the movement of its members are supposedly monitored by U.S. forces, the organization regularly hosts meetings in Ashraf in which tribesmen and other influential individuals from Diyala (many with links to the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein) voice support for the organization, demand a withdrawal of foreign troops and strongly attack the new Iraqi government. The emergence of Ashraf as a platform for Iraqi nationalists has prompted the Badr Organization to increase surveillance operations in and around Khalis, and to engage in intimidation campaigns against key individuals who visit the camp.
The visit to Mashad (northeast Iran) by a Diyala tribal, legal and religious delegation reveals an intriguing (and under-reported) feature of the Iraq conflict. The delegation was hosted by the Habilian Association (http://habilian.com), a research and propaganda outlet that is close to the Iranian security establishment. While the visit was ostensibly touted as an opportunity to discuss ways of expelling the MKO from Iraq, the transcript of the main meeting (http://habilian.com/view.asp?ID=00439) leaves little doubt that the event was tied to the growing insurgency in Diyala and its local, national and international ramifications.
Global Terrorism analysis
Michael Rubin’s “Monsters of the Left: The Mujahedin al-Khalq” (FrontPage Magazine.com, January 13, 2006, http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=20780&p=1)
classified correctly the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists. Even the New York Times has reported that some Iranians refer to Massoud Rajavi as the “Pol Pot of Iran”. (Elizabeth Rubin, “The Cult of Rajavi”, New York Times Magazine, July 13, 2003,
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/magazine/13MUJAHADEEN.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6b6a11b0fdb450b1&ex=1373428800&partner=USERLAND
pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6b6a11b0fdb450b1&ex=1373428800&partner=USERLAND)
Ali Safavi’s “Missing the Mark on Iran” (FrontPageMagazine.com, January 27, 2006, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21064) should become a textbook case example on how easily America’s terrorist enemies can have their lies published in the American media.
Michael Rubin’s “Hitting the Mark on Iran” (FrontPageMagazine.com, January 27, 2006, http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=21065&p=1) has exposed some of the dishonest tactics the MEK has used with success in duping the American media and the American public. One could fill books about the dishonesty of the MEK, if any American publisher dares to expose the names of Democrats and Republicans in Congress who have been duped.
The MEK has been on the terrorist lists of the State Department since the administration of former President Bill Clinton. In September 2002, President George W. Bush’s background paper for his remarks at the United Nations listed the MEK as one of three Saddam Hussein-supported terrorists operating in Iraq. The MEK was a pretext for the invasion of Iraq. In April 2003, American and coalition forces did attack and kill some of the MEK terrorists at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. However, some analysts have claimed that this was a staged attack because the American military could have destroyed easily the entire camp and its four thousand or more terrorists. The American government ordered the American military to protect the MEK and to permit the MEK to keep individual weapons. In 2004, the American government recognized the MEK terrorists at Camp Ashraf, Iraq as having protected person status under the Fourth Geneva Convention (civilian individuals!). The American government has closed the Washington, DC office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in the National Press Building. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a supporter of the MEK while a Republican Senator, raided the home of NCRI spokesperson Alireza Jafarzadeh and took boxes of documents from his home.
The following are some of the deceptive tactics contained in Ali Safavi’s article:
1. He introduced himself as a sociologist and as someone who has studied the history of the MEK. While it is true that he studied sociology at the University of Michigan, he has been actively involved in the MEK as a military commander and as a spokesperson for the NCRI. A photograph of Ali Safavi in military uniform is posted at: http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/info/Safavi.htm
Anne Singleton and her husband Massoud Khodabandeh know the MEK well. Anne Singleton was involved with the MEK for nearly 20 years. She is the author of the book, Saddam’s Private Army. Massoud Khodabandeh was an MEK commander, too. Anne Singleton’s Web site in the United Kingdom, Iran Interlink, is an excellent source of the truth about the MEK.
2. Ali Safavi claims that the most anti-MEK Web sites in America are left-wing Web sites. Of course, he did not cite even one example of a left-wing Web site critical of the MEK. The truth is that the major American Web sites critical of the MEK are right-wing, not left-wing. Examples of right-wing Web sites publishing authors critical of the MEK: (a) Traitors USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/
(b) Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/
(c) LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/
Traitors USA is my Yahoo! Group specializing in the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists and the Democrats and Republicans who support the MEK. My Republican Party credentials are easy to check in the public records. In 1990, while I lived in Los Angeles County, California, Republican voters elected me to the Republican County Central Committee. In 1992, I was a Republican candidate for California State Assembly, endorsed by the California Republican Assembly. Now that I live in Orange County, California, it is a matter of public record that I am a registered Republican. The Web site of California’s Secretary of State discloses my contributions to conservative Republican candidates. Next to the door of my office at California State University, Fullerton is information on how students can join David Horowitz’s Students for Academic Freedom: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/
In a few minutes, anyone who cares to do Internet searches can find postings about me as a Republican professor at California State University, Fullerton. Even as an undergraduate student at the University of Michigan, I was an active member of the College Republicans. I have never been in the left wing.
Many Americans who rely upon comedians or the evening television news might think that Antiwar.com must be left-wing. The American media continues to publish lies that only left-wing activists are anti-war. For years, right-wing writers at Antiwar.com have been exposing the lies of the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists. The most prolific critic of the MEK at Antiwar.com has been Justin Raimondo. Justin Raimondo is a former Libertarian Party and Republican Party candidate for public offices. Justin Raimondo is the author of the book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement
LewRockwell.com is anti-state, anti-war, pro-market. It is an important resource for writings supporting capitalism. A search for MEK will return articles exposing the MEK.
As a right-wing author, I do submit articles or comments critical of the MEK across the entire political spectrum. I have had some success with postings at progressive Web sites.
The background paper for my September 15, 2005 speech to a Libertarian Party group is available at:
http://www.liberty66.org/
The title of the speech was “Libertarians and the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) Terrorists”.
So, while it is possible to find some postings critical of the MEK at left-wing Web sites, I rely upon right-wing Web sites to find large numbers of postings critical of the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists.
3. Ali Safavi did not include the red, communist flag of the MEK. Kenneth Timmerman has posted some photographs of MEK demonstrators near the United Nations Building on September 14, 2005 at: http://www.iran.org/news/24-Irandemos.htm
The American military has permitted the MEK to continue to fly its communist flag at Camp Ashraf, Iraq:
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2003/April/base6.html
4. Ali Safavi has not written a true account of the embarrassment of some members of Congress for signing Iran statements. While the January 15, 2003 New York Times contained a full-page advertisement by MEK supporters, the advertisement listed only six of the members of Congress. Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen refused to release all of the 150 names she claimed supported the MEK. For a more accurate account of the members of Congress, see Sam Dealey’s “Rep. Ros-Lehtinen defends Iranian group labeled terrorist front for Saddam Hussein” (The Hill, April 8, 2003, http://www.thehill.com/news/040803/roslehtinen.aspx)
5. Ali Safavi’s history of the MEK failed to include that both MEK and Islamic leaders were prisoners in the same jails during the reign of the Shah of Iran. Islamic leaders of Iran know that the MEK is 100% communist and 0% Islamic. A popular Persian term for the MEK can be translated as two-faced.
6. Massoud Rajavi, the supreme leader of the MEK, learned from Iranian history that the pro-Stalin Tudeh Party failed to sell godless communism in Islamic Iran. Massoud Rajavi thought that the techniques of Che Guevara and of the liberation theology in Latin America would be a more successful model for a communist takeover of Iran. Roman Catholic popes have been strong opponents of liberation theology. Ali Safavi is wrong about Roman Catholic positions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
7. The MEK have committed terrible atrocities against Kurds in Iraq. To save bullets for Iran, the MEK ran over Kurdish civilians with armored personnel carriers or tanks. The American military has interviewed hundreds of MEK terrorists at Camp Ashraf, Iraq and has identified many who should be tried for war crimes. See: Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball’s “Shades of Gray” (Newsweek, October 13, 2004, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6242223/site/newsweek)
8. Ali Safavi’s tales of the treatment of MEK members at Camp Ashraf, Iraq are pure fiction. The MEK’s leaders hate any MEK members who try to leave the MEK. Near Camp Ashraf, Iraq is Camp Freedom, Iraq. At Camp Freedom, Iraq, there are approximately 200 former members of the MEK who were able to escape from Camp Ashraf, Iraq. Ali Safavi failed to mention that the MEK has tortured for many years many MEK members who attempted to leave Camp Ashraf, Iraq. Some MEK members died during the MEK torture at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. For details, read books by former MEK members: (a) Anne Singleton’s Saddam’s Private Army
http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/child%20pages/book_I-I.htm (b) Masoud Banisadr’s Masoud.
9. Ali Safavi’s description of the roles of women in the MEK is fantasy. He failed to mention some details covered in books by Anne Singleton and Masoud Banisadr, such as: (a) mandatory divorces (b) segregation of men and women at Camp Ashraf, Iraq (c) mandatory assignment of spouses for MEK leaders (d) mandatory confession of masturbation. Ali Safavi can start by writing the truth about how Maryam Rajavi became the third wife of Massoud Rajavi. Members of the right wing who claim to support family values will reject the Pol Pot of Iran.
10. Ali Safavi failed to disclose that even foreign reporters at Camp Ashraf, Iraq have written about the celebrations of the murders of Americans. Iranians who lived in Tehran during the American hostage crisis know that the MEK were demanding the executions of all of the American hostages. Ayatollah Khomeini refused the demands of the MEK. Ali Safavi failed to disclose that the Persian language Web sites and satellite television programs of the MEK have anti-Western, anti-imperialist content. The MEK rose to power in Iran in the 1960’s and 1970’s by being the most anti-Shah and most anti-Western terrorist group in Iran. There are posted videotapes of Massoud Rajavi meeting with leaders of Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. The anti-Western, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist ideology of the MEK is common knowledge to any Iranian who lived in Iran before the Iranian Revolution.
11. Ali Safavi failed to disclose the location of the MEK’s supreme leader, Massoud Rajavi. Recent posted reports include claims that the American military is keeping Massoud Rajavi at Camp Mercury, Iraq. The reports do not include whether Massoud Rajavi is being kept for future war crimes trials in Iraq or is being protected by the American military.
In a few minutes, anyone can perform an Internet search for “Ali Safavi”. They will discover that he has been speaking for the NCRI or the MEK for many years. They will discover that many famous American newspapers have quoted him without bothering to check the accuracy of anything he says. Michael Rubin was correct in concluding that the writings of Ali Safavi are dishonest but useful. The real villains in this case are the idiots and dupes in the American media who cannot be troubled to publish truthful, investigative reporting about the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists.
At Traitors USA, you can find my exchanges of emails with Ali Safavi. When he discovered that I graduated, too, from the University of Michigan and am a professor, he found it difficult to attack my academic credentials. While he describes himself as a sociologist, he fails to disclose on which faculty he serves or in any other way he works as a sociologist. His fictional tales about the MEK do not work with me. I have known MEK members for 37 years. While I was a doctoral student at Michigan State University, I attended MEK meetings. I studied Persian at Harvard University and met a Harvard professor who writes truthfully about Iran. Professor Richard N. Frye’s Greater Iran is a truthful story of an American professor who spent 60 years researching Iran and the surrounding areas: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568591772/qid=1138430187/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4092926-4396717?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Relatives of my Iranian wife of 37 years have died fighting for the MEK.
The Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists publish daily large amounts of print, television, and of Internet media lies. Unfortunately, most American journalists are either too stupid or too dishonest to expose America’s communist terrorist enemies.
I am a Professor of Accounting who has graduated from the University of Michigan, Harvard Business School, and from Michigan State University. As a life-long registered Republican and as an elected member of the Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee, I have always been in the right wing of the political spectrum. Ali Safavi’s statements about left-wing attacks on the MEK are misleading. While you can find some progressive Web sites critical of the MEK, you can find communist Web sites supporting the MEK.
During the Vietnam War, I volunteered and served in the Army in Vietnam to fight the communists. If I were young enough to serve in the Army today, I would not join the Army to further the goals of corrupt Democrats and Republicans in Congress who support the communist overthrow of Iran by the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists.
From Lenin to Fidel Castro to Pol Pot, there have been some evil American political and business interests who have supported the communist takeovers of countries. Americans need to cancel subscriptions to any newspapers supporting or publishing lies about the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists. Americans need to vote out of office all Democrats and Republicans who accept campaign contributions from the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists’ supporters.
Professor Paul Sheldon Foote
California State University, Fullerton, pfoote@fullerton.edu
January 27, 2006
TELL CONGRESS THAT THE MUJAHEDIN DOES NOT REPRESENT IRANIAN AMERICANS! The Mujahedin-e Khalq organization (MKO/MEK) is beefing up its campaign to get off the State Department’s terrorist list and receive US funding by presenting itself as representative of the Iranian-American community.
The MKO has since the early 1990s been on the State Department’s terrorist list. In 1997, their political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran was also added to the terrorist list, making it difficult for the organization to lobby in Washington in theory.
In practice, however, the Mujahedin has maintained a very strong lobbying arm in Washington DC, and continued to pursue their political objectives while arguing that they represent the Iranian-American community. On January 20th, the Los Angeles Times wrote that “Iranian Americans generally… oppose a nine-year State Department crackdown on an organization [the MKO] that it classifies as terrorist but that the Iranian community considers a resistance group.”
The Mujahedin has increased its political activities in Washington in the hope that a showdown between the US and Iran would lead Washington to de-list them from the terrorist list and support them as a legitimate and popular opposition group.
For instance, HR 282, introduced by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), a long time supporter of the Mujahedin on Capitol Hill, states that the White House must “designate at least one democratic opposition organization as eligible to receive assistance” from the US government within 90 days of the bills passing.
Analyst point out the similarities between the Iran Democracy Act (HR 282) and the Iraq Democracy Act (from 1998), which resulted in Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress receiving millions of dollars from the US government.
The Mujahedin is seeking to present themselves as representatives of the Iranian-American community in order to get off the terrorist list and receive financial support from the US government.
NIAC has prepared a letters to your House Representatives as well as to the Los Angeles Times, pointing out that the MKO does not represent the Iranian-American community. It is extremely important that Iranian Americans participate in this debate, and that they lend their expertise and unique perspectives on this matter.
Please edit the letter and make it more personal. A personal perspective has a far greater impact than a letter with only abstract arguments. Do also strengthen or soften the arguments to make it better reflect your personal perspective.
Please note that due to the existing terrorist classification of the MKO, NIAC will not prepare a letter endorsing or favoring their position
The National Iranian American Council
January 2006