Massoud Khodabandeh

MEPs support for MEK terrorists undermines human rights pressure on Iran

Open Letter to Federica Mogherini, the new EU foreign policy chief

As you are aware the Iranian Mojahedin Khalq terrorist group works through the “Friends of a Free Iran” in the European Parliament. This parliament is to give a platform today (December 10) to the second-in-command of this group Maryam Rajavi (a private room has been hired in the buildings by one of the MEK’s lobbyists purely for lobbying purposes). Not only that, a group of MEPs has boldly written to you demanding you change your policy to suit this woman. What possibly can be their motive? As a European citizen and an expert in the field of cults and terrorism, I cannot agree that you ignore such a presence in the parliament. It cannot be in the best interests of the European Parliament as a home to democracy to give a platform to for what is an undemocratic stance toward the people of Iran.

By publishing an article directed by the MEK, a group of MEPs has played directly into the hands of Iran’s hardliners. The MEPs Gérard DEPREZ (ALDE – Belgium), Tunne KELAM (EPP – Estonia), Ryszard CZARNECKI EP Vice-President (ECR – Poland), Eduard KUKAN (EPP – Slovakia), José BOVÉ (Greens – France) Julie WARD (S&D – UK) and Rina Ronja KARI (GUE/NGL – Denmark) are members of the MEK’s ‘Friends of a Free Iran’ in the European Parliament.

The article starts with the claim that Ban Ki Moon said people should hold their governments to account. He did not say that the EP should interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Certainly these MEPs have no mandate to hold another country’s government to account in this way. It is not their elected government, but that of a sovereign nation with its own electorate. It is certain Ban Ki Moon was referring to this electorate when he made this statement.

However, let us allow that Iran’s human rights record, like that of every other country of the world, should come under proper scrutiny. The proper bodies to conduct such research are those quoted by these MEPs – the UN – in particular the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran – Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International. The reports of these bodies are public knowledge and widely available.

(Interestingly, in addition to all these human rights bodies, there is hardly a group or organisation or government, and not a single Iranian opposition group inside or outside Iran which has not condemned the Mojahedin Khalq for its human rights abuses time and time again.)

Now, if the MEPs do indeed see fit to challenge Iran over this issue on International Human Rights Day, is it not proper to do so directly, through dialogue, communication and diplomacy, rather than a futile rant. A rant which, in addition, quotes the second-in-command of the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist group, Maryam Rajavi. This group of MEPs has been persuaded – somehow – to have her words put into their mouths as though they cannot make their own statements or figure out their own political arguments. (The MEK shoehorned one of their favourite words, ‘embolden’, into the piece but didn’t manage to get another favourite, ‘appeasement’ in.)

As a result they stupidly allow themselves to say such things as “Tehran has also been the center [sic] for the expansion of terrorism and fundamentalism throughout the region, endangering world peace and security.” The article cannot and does not present any evidence for this opinion. Indeed, most sensible people anywhere would point first to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States as the source of increased terrorism and fundamentalism in the region. But then, the MEK are known advocates of ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Relying on this argument, these MEPs are demanding less dialogue with Iran, not more. Again, back to the ‘let’s bomb Iran or at least disrupt dialogue’ narrative.

Such nonsense has delighted Iran. The semi-official Fars News Agency has immediately translated the article for distribution among Farsi speakers in Iran and worldwide. What better argument could the hardliners have that the issue of human rights is being politicised than to have the leader of a notorious terrorist group put their words into your mouth.

These MEPs really need to get to grips with the fact they are being manipulated into pursuing an agenda not of their own making, which ultimately serves to worsen human rights in Iran and to help crush any indigenous opposition movements and activities. Any Iranian not associated with the MEK terrorist group – on any side of the argument – will tell them this.

Massoud Khodabandeh, Middle East Strategy Consultantsm, http://mesconsult.com

December 10, 2014 0 comment

Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

MEK leader Massoud Rajavi refuses to allow Camp Liberty residents to seek refuge in Albania

On January 5, 2014, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Jane Holl Lute of the United States as his Special Adviser for Relocation of Camp Hurriya Residents Outside of Iraq. Since then, she has worked dynamically to resolve the stalemate at Camp Liberty where 2700 residents remain trapped, unable to leave the camp. As a result of her diligence, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Albania was able to announce it has provided the necessary measures for the transfer of a further 210 Camp Liberty residents to Albania. Local reports indicate that several apartments are ready to accommodate the newly arrived individuals.

Previously, in March 2013, Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha had announced that Tirana was ready to host 210 members of the MEK “for humanitarian reasons.” Since then, over 200 residents have already been transferred to Albania.

As a UNAMI representative, Jane Holl Lute works in close co-operation with several Iraqi governmental bodies including the security forces and Iraq’s Ministry of Human Rights, as well as the UNHCR and independent bodies such as the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC).

UNAMI has had to deal with constant complaints from the Mojahedin commanders about siege conditions at the camp. On 31 August, UNAMI reported that “the provision of life support systems such as water, electricity and food continue to be well in excess of basic humanitarian standards”. In addition, MEK advocates in Europe, such as MEPs Julie Ward and Judith Kirton-Darling, also insist that the MEK be protected from further attacks like the events at Camp Ashraf on September 1, 2013 and for them to be moved as soon as possible to third countries to prevent further violence.

Yet, now it has been made possible to transfer another 210 to a place of safety, the MEK has refused to allow anyone to leave Camp Liberty. Of course this may be linked to news that over half of the MEK members who now reside in Tirana have renounced the group and have begun to speak out about human rights abuses inside Camp Liberty. The MEK leader Massoud Rajavi cannot afford to allow more of the camp’s residents the freedom to decide their own futures, and would prefer to keep them locked up in Iraq under his direct control.

The problems at the camp can quickly be resolved if the MEK commanders would agree to open the gates of the camp and allow the individual residents to access external help from the UN, ICRC and Iraqi NGOs, as well as allowing them to access much needed medical care. Above all, it has been found that the most help to residents has been given by their own families once they have left the camp. Since it has proven itself inadequate in the care of the Camp Liberty residents, the MEK should therefore allow them to have family visits and to access all the help they need from agencies outside the camp.

October 4, 2014 0 comment

USA

America Must Make Its Underlying Intentions Toward Iran Clear

The 5+1 nuclear negotiations will resume in November. Although this is still some time away, analysts, policy writers and diplomats have been busy working to formulate an achievable diplomatic position which will bridge the gaps left at the end of the last session. Here in the UK, we think we know what our position must be. Iran must make concessions on the number of its centrifuges and in exchange sanctions will be lifted within a reasonable time scale. In this respect, the UK falls broadly in line with the American position. But with the opening of the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly next week, and the second visit to New York of Iran’s President Rohani, perhaps this is a good time for the UK to step back and consider exactly what that American position actually is. A side-meeting on September 18 in New York will test the waters on progress. Iran is not optimistic.

This time last year, western powers pinned great hopes on newly elected President Rohani after the painful and acrimonious Ahmadinejad years. President Obama’s unprecedented personal phone call to him was widely welcomed as a parting gesture of goodwill.

So, can we expect a similarly positive welcome this time around? In many ways, Iran has enjoyed a positive year on the world scene, most recently supporting Iraqi Shiite militia in ousting IS from parts of northern Iraq. Iran has also demonstrably complied with the demands on its nuclear program which were set at the end of the last round of negotiations.

But when Rohani arrives in New York this time there will certainly be no roses strewn across his path. America’s tone this time will be significantly different; if not overtly hostile, it is still, conspicuously chilly. Evidence for this comes not in words — the official America line is that diplomacy must be given a chance to succeed — but specific anti-Iran activity clearly demonstrate a truer U.S. position which still engenders ostracism and enmity rather than engagement and diplomacy.

Ratcheting up pressure on a country by raising concerns over human rights abuses is, of course, a standard diplomatic tool. Amnesty International has criticized Iran for weaknesses in the judicial process leading to the executions of a large number of criminals in recent months. But beyond this, Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, became highly critical of an American led campaign which exploited various conferences and forums to pick at the human rights issue like a scab, hoping that it would bleed enough to provoke Iran to respond in anger. Shaheed complained that such actions which deliberately involved him may have actually compromised his impartiality in the eyes of Iran and destroyed his efforts at confidence building to overcome non-cooperation.

But the main indication of bad faith on the American side came when, in spite of widespread warnings and criticism, Congress voted to impose even more sanctions on Iran in the gap between negotiating sessions without waiting for a proper assessment of Iranian compliance with its agreed obligations. Congress argued that since sanctions forced Iran to the negotiating table, this would add leverage to the U.S. position. But there was no evidence of this. Critics pointed out that Saddam Hussein’s regime survived for years under sanctions and only a disastrous war and occupation deposed him. Iran has been under American sanctions for 30 years. What did Congress hope to achieve by adding more? The only interpretation for many was that Congress acted deliberately to provoke Iran to walk away from the nuclear negotiating table.

Iran’s interpretation, which is just as valid as an American view, was that America can only engage in diplomatic relations if its intention is to make concessions as well as extract them from Iran. Iran sees no evidence of this. President Obama is unable to lift sanctions imposed by Congress and clearly a bellicose Congress will not vote to lift sanctions. Indeed one Iranian lawmaker characterized the fresh sanctions as “punishing Iran because Israel lost in Gaza” when Operation Protective Edge achieved none of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s self-imposed objectives.

Now that Iran and Russia have agreed to strengthen energy ties and are looking to create a payment system outside the hegemony of the U.S. dollar, America is slowly waking up to a shifting power balance, arguably of its own making, which signals increasing evasion of the U.S. sanctions regime by countries seeking the economic advantages attached to trading with Iran. Even apart from the problems of Ukraine, Russian and Chinese trade imperatives are unpicking the unity of the P5+1. Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice just traveled to China at his behest to strengthen relations. Germany and France are also weighing the potential economic losses and gains that are imposed on them by the sanctions regime, and may also drift further from the U.S., UK and the silent partner of both, Israel.

Iran has been under sanctions for 30 years but the economy is growing stronger. From a western perspective the Middle East is chaotic and is reaching crisis point with the advent of ISIL. But Iran now enjoys growing influence in the region through the exercise of soft power. Hamas leaders in Gaza are accepting a more political role and have agreed to work with Fatah to create a new Palestinian Authority. Hezbollah has successfully carved out a leading role in the government of Lebanon. This is where we see the hand of Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurdistan and Syria draw ever closer to Iran not only as a natural, but more importantly in the light of perceived American double-standards, as a reliable ally. Iran’s latest use of this influence was used to successfully help Iraqi Shiite militia oust ISIS from various locations in north Iraq. If America’s Iran policy was designed to weaken and isolate the country, it has failed.

Iran certainly feels itself in a much stronger position moving forward.

Ultimately, the real leverage behind a sanctions regime is that it stops short of, but still depends on the ability to follow through with the ultimate threat, war.

It is, however, now possible to state that if Israel, with or without the backing of the United States, could have launched a pre-emptive air strike to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, then it would have done so by now. The truth is, not only does Iran’s military capability render it a daunting foe, but its retaliatory capability would strike deep into American interests in the Middle East. In 2013, Iran successfully guided down an American drone which was then reverse engineered to create a home made version. Only in August, Iran claimed, controversially, that it had shot down an Israeli drone before it left Iranian airspace after it had been tracked flying near the Natanz nuclear power plant.

Also in August, Iran’s Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, announced that the supersonic Khalij-e Fars (Persian Gulf) ballistic missile has gone into production. Although Iran describes this as a defensive weapon, the Pentagon is reportedly concerned about Iran’s reach into the Persian Gulf where U.S. warships would be vulnerable.

The crisis in northern Iraq must prove a salutary lesson. That Iran can wield soft power in Iraq does not need stating, but that Iran is willing to work in military cooperation with America where they have mutual interests and benefits has been swept under the carpet by ideologues refusing to “give in” to the Iranians. Instead Senator Kerry is off to visit Jordan, whose own citizens threaten turmoil over recent events in Gaza, and Saudi Arabia, whose Wahhabi reach into Iraq amounts to at best an irritant to the majority of Shiites and Kurds, and at worst, amounts to support for IS. Excluding Iran and focusing on Syria only reinforces the perception that this will essentially be an anti-Iran coalition. But the price will be paid not by Iran but the weak Gulf states and western countries where the terrorists may turn next.

Acknowledging this doesn’t mean we have to like it and it certainly doesn’t mean that the west shouldn’t drive a hard bargain over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But it does mean that America needs to rethink its obdurate resistance to this new reality and accept that if it can’t wage war against Iran it will need to engage with the Islamic Republic as is, in the here and now. The days of war and regime change bluster have reached the end of the road.

What all this ultimately means is that when the P5+1 countries sit down together with Iran for the next round of nuclear negotiations, they will do so in a much weaker position, not only because of disunity, but because of what Iranians see as American duplicity. America can only engage honestly in diplomatic relations if its intentions are to make concessions as well as extract them from Iran. Iran sees that American diplomats still do not have a clear mandate to resolve the outstanding issues. Instead it appears more the case that the U.S. wants to try to force Iran to walk away first and claim a Pyrrhic victory.

Certainly the UK cannot formulate a negotiating policy in conjunction with the United States until America makes clear its underlying intentions toward Iran.

Huffington Post

September 23, 2014 0 comment

Maryam Rajavi

Maryam Rajavi’s annual Rally in Villepinte

Maryam Rajavi’s annual Rally in Villepinte. This year promoting ISIS, MEK, Saddamists – Everyone Loses

This past Friday in Paris, the Mojahedin Khalq is held its annual rally to celebrate its violent past. This year, as every year, the MEK will pay both speakers and audience to attend. The annual rally is increasingly exposed and mocked by the media.

Who are they?

Mojahedin Khalq is one of the rare forces which advertises and is proud of being a mercenary force. They never had an agenda of their own but have taken money from their paymasters, such as Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Although no government except Saddam Hussein’s regime has ever publicly condoned or supported the MEK, various Western agencies – the Pentagon, CIA, MOSSAD, the Israeli lobby and various neoconservatives – have at various times, and for various purposes, used the MEK. The MEK undertakes activities and poses in particular ways which suit their agendas – information laundry, assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, and more, culminating in Maryam Rajavi’s disastrous, ludicrous attempt to pose as a human rights advocate in the Canadian Parliament in May this year.

What is different this year?

This time the annual rally is being held at the same time that Western leaders meet in Paris to discuss how to find a political solution to the crisis in Iraq.

Each government is, of course, pursuing its own interests in Iraq and each wants to wrest the greatest political influence and benefit from the current crisis. But what they all share in common is the need to confront and stop the terrorist threat of ISIS in Iraq.

Iraqi media and analysts identify this current manifestation of ISIS as a sophisticated military force – although said to be an offshoot of Al Qaida formed in Syria – as an element of the Baath Party (that is, the remains of Saddam’s regime), who had warned before that they would take revenge and create chaos and mayhem. Some ISIS equipment has been found to have previously belonged to the MEK. This is not a group which has newly emerged or lately come together, but is part of an existing cohort of groups and individuals prepared to use extreme violence to pursue political aims. The MEK are part of this cohort.

While the violence of the triangle of Saddamists, ISIS and MEK in Iraq is ongoing, we witness that the MEK’s strongest advocates in the west, Struan Stevenson, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Paulo Casaca and a couple of others have abandoned their mainstream political careers in the European Parliament and similar places to become full time advocates for this cohort. Under the organisational label ‘European Iraqi Freedom Association’ (EIFA), they claimed that the recent violent acts in Iraq were not carried out by ISIS, but were “part of a popular uprising” against Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In doing so, they are openly backing the MEK, ISIS and Saddamist cohort against the government of Iraq even after successful elections returned popularly elected political representatives.

For those with any lingering doubt about where the MEK stands on the issue of terrorism, an examination of their own website in Farsi is instructive. Only days before the current crisis erupted in Iraq, MEK leader Massoud Rajavi expressed his solidarity with the Saudi backed Jaish-ul-Adl terrorist group based in Pakistan. Referring to the execution of 16 men affiliated to Jaish-ul-Adl terrorist group Masoud Rajavi described them as “martyrs” and “brothers”.

A screenshot of the MEK site’s first page quickly circulated on the internet as shocked Iranians of every stripe denounced the MEK. As the world looked on in horror at the actions of ISIS (beheadings, mass murders, etc), the MEK hailed the group as “revolutionary forces”, (an echo of the false identity it ascribes to itself as “Iran’s resistance movement”), and continued to advertise ISIS achievements and stances.

Humanitarian issues

The MEK’s collaboration with Saddamists and its public support for ISIS is unsurprising for experts on the group, but it is problematic. This support has made MEK in Camp Liberty a legitimate target for revenge killing by its old enemies – the Kurdish and Shiite populations among which the MEK massacred several thousand for Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War in 1991. This matches with one of Massoud Rajavi’s recent internal proclamations; that should Camp Liberty be threatened by (unspecified) outside forces the residents should all kill themselves. In this way, Rajavi would be rid of many witnesses to his multiple crimes against humanity and war crimes. A meeting of ex members in Paris on 21 June highlighted this very threat.

But this stance contradicts another of Rajavi’s positions, which is to use the forces in Camp Liberty as advertising products in the Paris rally. The speakers may admit to being paid, but they also claim to sincerely believe in the MEK’s ability to bring about freedom for Iran, and will no doubt be keen to use the platform in Paris to echo the demand to ‘rescue’ the Camp Liberty residents. Whether they are willfully ignorant of the facts or simply naïve is open to question. Indeed, both speakers and attendees should ask how this rally will help rescue the residents in Camp Liberty, Iraq, who the MEK leaders absolutely refuse to help. The UN has not hesitated to denounce the hindrances and obstruction created by the MEK leaders when it has tried to help these victims. In addition, the UN has accused the MEK of human rights abuses against its own members.

Lobbying for what? survival of a terrorist cult?

The idea that this rally is for lobbying is not only false but it is dangerous. Lobbying cannot involve the promotion of bloodshed and terror; that is murder. In any case, the MEK are not lobbying anyone for anything. The MEK is a cult and has its own agenda quite independent of its publicly stated policies. Its own internal interests are paramount and the current rally is being used to promote Maryam Rajavi as a replacement for Massoud Rajavi as the cult guru or ideological leader.

Everything the MEK has ever done has been to ensure its own survival; from working for Saddam Hussein to getting de-listed as a terrorist group. Governments, countries, agencies and lobbyists would do well to sit down and work out what have been their gains and losses because of using this organisation. For example, the MEK has not advanced the neoconservative agenda at all, instead because of its resort to violence it has benefited the conservatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran who use it to point out western double standards on terrorism. The MEK’s achievements in relation to its proclaimed stance are nil.

Can MEK be trusted? beneficial?

The MEK pretend to work as mercenaries to suit western backers but have in reality simply exploited loopholes and weaknesses in western political systems purely to promote themselves and, like parasites, find a niche to exist in for a while. The MEK have infiltrated parliaments and ministries and misused them. The rally in Paris on June 27th exploits the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ to promote a pretended political point of view.

Given the MEK’s very clear and public support for ISIS, the fallout from this rally will affect everyone. While Western leaders are in the same city promoting the formation of a united front (according to configurations best suited to themselves) to confront the terrorist group, by turning a blind eye to a rally held by ISIS supporters in Paris, all western governments, not just that of France, are implicated in tacit support for that terrorism.

June 30, 2014 0 comment

Maryam Rajavi

Using cult leader Maryam Rajavi to derail nuclear talks backfires

With the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran due to resume on Monday (5th May), American anti-Iranian hardliners have been working hard to destroy or disrupt any rapprochement between Iran and the US. As an example, The Hill newspaper, written for the political community in Washington D.C. to reflect business and lobbying views, has been persuaded to give webspace to blogs directly promoting the notorious MEK cult. The blogs, written by Soona Samsami, a member of ‘Saddam’s Private Army’ (aka MEK) and a Briton, Lord Alton (a long time MEK advocate presumably pulled in to give the illusion that this is not an exclusively American plan), are part of a pattern of activity deliberately designed to disrupt or destroy any rapprochement between the US and Iran.

An article (below) by Anne Singleton reveals that these anti-Iranian hardliners in the USA, headed by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, already failed in a provocative bid to bring the Mojahedin Khalq’s second-in-command Maryam Rajavi to the US to speak in Washington to coincide with the nuclear talks. Such a visit could have only one purpose; the hope that Iran would take offence and walk out of the talks.

But anyone even remotely familiar with the way in which the view of Iran’s mainstream political establishment toward the MEK has evolved over the past twenty years will understand that this is a futile hope; sure the MEK is a terrorist organisation, but one that has long passed its sell-by date as an actual threat to Iran. (Although Iranian hardliners are just as keen as their American counterparts to exploit the MEK to foment enmity and prevent progress.) The Rajavis, and indeed the MEK itself, are essentially political lightweights who are only able to attract notice through well-paid publicity stunts like that in The Hill.

Rather than causing the talks to fail, the other P5+1 countries would see clearly that America has been reduced to a publicity stunt to gain leverage. Who wins then except Iran?

This is the article by Anne Singleton of Iran Interlink:

Rajavi’s visa application challenges America’s stance on terrorism

May 6, 2014 0 comment

Massoud Rajavi

UN must investigate Rajavi’s role in the deaths of 53 MEK victims

Open Letter to Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General

The impunity given to Rajavi by Western governments from the start of his stay in Iraq in 1986 until now

Door leading to Massoud Rajavi’s hideout in Camp Ashraf

has given him such latitude that he is able to kill his own people and blame the Iraqi authorities for it without any fear of investigation or recrimination.

The events which took place at Camp Ashraf on September 1st became controversial immediately following the attack by unknown assailants when the Mojahedin Khalq inundated Western media with their own films and pictures of the event. Why were the MEK filming these events if they had been taken by surprise?

Now a week after the Iraqi investigating team published the name of a 53rd victim, the MEK have hastily cobbled together a documentary made up of short, unconnected clips of film with the clear intention of creating a specific scenario. In this documentary the body of the 53rd victim, Massoud Dalili, is shown without a shirt and with Iranian money scattered around his body, which, it is claimed, was taken from his pocket. His face has been burned beyond recognition. The MEK explanation of this scenario is that because Massoud Dalili knew about the nuclear bunkers underneath Massoud Rajavi’s compound in Camp Ashraf he has led agents of the Iraqi government there to attack that specific place.

The nuclear bunker was built over three years; starting a year before the First Gulf War, continued during the war and finished a year after. It is a prototype of a Swedish anti-nuclear bunker. All the equipment, from additives to strengthen the concrete, the air conditioning, generators, doors and gaskets, shock absorber springs, anti-shatter toilets, mirrors etc were all imported through Orly and Frankfurt airports and then through Jordan, with the knowledge and consent of the Jordanian government (during the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq), and with the endorsement of the Pentagon. This was done by a joint team of purchasers headed by Ala’adin Touran who was the MEK’s representative in Jordan in those days and who worked from the MEK office in Amman. During the First Gulf War the Pentagon instructed the MEK through Mohammad Mohaddessin to place identifying flags and signs on top of this half completed building so they would not bomb it.

This bunker was visited by agents of the Pentagon and other US agencies when the US army first gained access to Camp Ashraf in 2003. It was then handed back to the leadership of the MEK with the promise that other MEK members would not be told about it. During the transfer of responsibility of Camp Ashraf to the Government of Iraq in 2009 information about this compound and the nuclear bunkers was given to the Iraqis. Of the two dozen or so MEK members who knew about the bunker because, like myself, they were involved in its construction, several have left the MEK and made this information public. Descriptions and satellite images of the exact location and configuration of the nuclear bunker can be found in two books: Saddam’s Private Army published in 2003 and The Life of Camp Ashraf published in 2011.

It is ludicrous to assert that an attacking force would need to rely on Dalili as a guide two years after he left the organisation when this information was already in the public domain, and ludicrous they would take him along as he was over 50 years old. It is ludicrous that an attacking force would take acid with them to deliberately burn the face of one of their party. It is ludicrous that the Iranian money scattered over his body is not enough to even pay for a taxi ride In Iran, never mind in Iraq. Why would anyone take this kind of foreign currency on a mission like this?

For me, and for anyone who has had any dealings with the MEK, it is absolutely clear that this person, who was registered with the UN in Baghdad as an escapee and who suddenly went missing one day has been forcefully or deceitfully taken back by the MEK to Camp Ashraf, (numerous ex members have complained about near kidnappings in Iraq and in Europe, including Massoud Banisadr in London and Batoul Soltani in Baquba, Iraq), and has been kept there clandestinely and when they realised they would have to get rid of him they tried to destroy the evidence of his presence there. As soon as the Iraqis identified him as someone the MEK had not admitted to being at the camp, they tried to create a Hollywood style film to whitewash their crime. Ironically the documentary’s narrator is Hassan Nezamalmolki who is a well known torturer of the time of Saddam and who is wanted by the Iraqi Judiciary to face criminal charges.

One mistake Dalili made was that after escaping the MEK he refused to remain in Hotel Mohajer with the other ex members under the protection of the Iraqi security forces. He ignored efforts to persuade him to make use of the protection offered by this circumstance, and insisted on being moved to a different hotel where he was in fact more vulnerable.

There is extremely strong evidence, not least the MEK’s own panicky and slipshod reaction, to indicate that Dalili has been killed by the MEK themselves. And the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the other 52 victims are so bizarre and inexplicable that it is highly likely that the MEK had a hand in those deaths also. It is imperative that this incident be thoroughly investigated as a matter of urgency.

UN officials tasked the Government of Iraq to carry out an investigation on its behalf and then denied them any opportunity to do this. The Iraqis know, and UNAMI knows that the Pentagon will not allow this to be investigated. There are 42 surviving members who were moved from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty who are eye witnesses to what happened that day. They would all have known Massoud Dalili. Nobody has seen or heard from them since the time they were handed back to the MEK commanders in Camp Liberty. The MEK’s past behaviour and the impunity Massoud Rajavi clearly enjoys to imprison and kill his own followers strongly suggests that many of them and others in the camp are being mistreated behind closed doors. How many more deaths will there be?

We – ex members and families of residents in Camp Liberty – earnestly request that you use your office as Secretary General of the United Nations to stand up to the Pentagon and force this investigation to move forward to conclusion by demanding access to these 42 survivors and others who can help get to the bottom of what actually happened in Camp Ashraf on 1st September 2013.

camp ashraf

Satellite image of Rajavi’s compound and explanations from the book “The Life of Camp Ashraf” published 2011

Iranian.com

January 4, 2014 0 comment

The cult of Rajavi

Where are the 42 missing Mojahedin Khalq eye witnesses from Camp Ashraf?

Forty two eye witnesses to the attack on Camp Ashraf on September 1st 2013 have mysteriously disappeared after they were transferred to Camp Liberty on September 11th. Officials from the Where are the 42 missing Mojahedin Khalq eye witnesses from Camp Ashraf? Government of Iraq (GOI), which has been tasked by the United Nations to investigate the attack in which fifty three people died, have been unable to contact the survivors since they were relocated under UNAMI supervision, and Camp Ashraf was finally closed.

At the time the attack took place, the Mojahedin Khalq had maintained a symbolic force of around one hundred loyalists at Camp Ashraf, ostensibly to sell off MEK assets although this never happened. Fifty three residents were killed in brutal execution style during the attack by unknown assailants, but afterwards MEK leaders refused to fully cooperate with teams of concerned visitors and investigators from the UN, the US embassy and the GOI.

Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General (DSRSG), Mr Gyorgy Busztin visited the camp on September 3rd and tasked the Iraqi government to “ensure that a thorough, impartial and transparent investigation into this atrocious crime is conducted without delay and that the results of the investigation are made public”. After extensive searches inside Camp Ashraf and widespread enquiries in the immediate vicinity and beyond, Iraqi investigators are still unable to say who perpetrated the attack, nor what actually took place inside the camp. It did not help that the MEK have refused to hand over many films and photographs which they took themselves just before, during and in the aftermath of the attack. It soon became clear however that the MEK had interfered with the scene by moving several bodies to create visual scenarios for propaganda purposes and had also destroyed key evidence before investigators were able to get inside the camp.

Speaking on the day Camp Ashraf was finally evacuated and closed, one Iraqi official claimed that videos of the clashes at the camp released by the MEK reveal that “most of the dead were actually killed by their own fellows at the camp.” However, the forty two individuals who were in the camp during the attack have not subsequently been produced to help with enquiries. The official again complained about the refusal of MEK commanders to cooperate with the investigators.

The MEK claimed that seven of its named members went missing from Camp Ashraf after the attack and, in what experts on MEK behaviour regard as a diversionary tactic, alleged, “they were taken hostage by Iraqi forces and flown to Amara province to be extradited to Iran”. Both the GOI and the Iranian government have denied any involvement in the attack and say they have no knowledge as to the whereabouts of the seven named persons who were Massoud Rajavi’s closest cohort inside Iraq. Rajavi himself has been in hiding for ten years and is therefore unavailable for comment.

Rajavi and his wife, Maryam, ordered their followers to go on a hunger strike – which has now incredibly passed one hundred days – to demand the return of the seven, who, like Rajavi himself, have apparently disappeared without trace. Because it is not known where the seven are being held nor by whom, or indeed whether they are still alive, the hunger strike is awkwardly open ended as it addresses no party known to be able to ‘hand them over’. Commentators have pointed out anyway that the logic behind the hunger strikers’ demand does not tally with the accusation that those who brutally murdered fifty three people are now holding the missing seven. Wouldn’t such people actually be glad if more MEK members starve to death?

Western media sympathetic to the MEK’s role in Iraq have recently reported that unknown ‘independent UN experts’ want the GOI to speed up its investigation into this specific issue. According to Reuters, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances said in a statement, “We call upon the Government of Iraq to speed up the investigations in order to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the [seven] individuals.”

The working group added that “the impunity with which these crimes have been committed is particularly flagrant given the severity of the offences and the alleged evidence of engagement by Iraqi forces in the commission of these crimes.”

A UN Special Rapporteur – this time on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions – Christof Heyns, said “international law clearly requires governments to ensure that all allegations of killings are investigated in a prompt, effective and impartial manner, irrespective of who the perpetrator is.”

But while Rajavi used these media reports to justify continuing the hunger strike, Iraqi investigators have stressed that even though this statement empowers Iraq to interview the forty two individual eye witnesses to the events at Camp Ashraf, until now the UN has failed to produce them and has instead allowed them to be swallowed up by the Rajavi cult’s camp commanders at Camp Liberty, to which neither the UN nor the GOI has access. This is in spite of the fact that these are key witnesses and without their testimony the investigation cannot be completed.

MEK experts working with the GOI on this issue, have warned United Nations human rights officials responsible for the camp of their grave concerns for the wellbeing of the forty two as well as the hunger strikers in Camp Liberty. News leaked from inside the camp by dissident members still held there, indicates that the forty two are being held incommunicado and that nobody has seen or heard of them since their arrival there. It is evident that the forty two hold vital information which the MEK leaders do not want to be made public. There can be no doubt they are under severe pressure to conceal the truth about what happened at Camp Ashraf. The concern is that, if they do not succumb to this pressure they may be killed. The United Nations Special Rapporteur should demand immediate and unmediated access to these missing persons to ascertain their wellbeing. As it is also alleged that the MEK commanders are deliberately withholding food from the hunger strikers in Camp Liberty, and this abuse should also be investigated as a matter of urgency.

The GOI has said on several occasions it would like to be more assertive in finding ways to get inside the camp and have free and unfettered access to all the individuals residing there, and to be able to separate those who would like to leave voluntarily. They are, however, severely hampered by obedience to UNAMI and what Iraqi MP, Rafe’ Abdul Jabbar, described as “the glacial pace in the relocation process of the MEK members to third countries. He said, “Baghdad is obeying the UN in this regard and this organization is obeying the US. We should admit that Iraq’s independence is still far away”.

Iranian.com

December 17, 2013 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

MEK leader set to use violence to disrupt Geneva talks

Open Letter to Catherine Ashton

Dear Lady Ashton,

Iran Interlink closely monitors the ideological and behavioural activities of the Mojahedin Khalq organisation and recent information concerning this group forces us to be blunt in our warnings to you. Open Letter to Catherine Ashton

More than anyone else you are aware that alongside the optimism for a negotiated settlement of the long running nuclear issue between the United States and its allies and Iran, various parties – Israel, Saudi Arabia, members of the US Congress – are trying hard to prevent any moves toward rapprochement. In particular, since Israel’s political efforts have failed to do this, we believe we will now see the ugly face of Israel through its deployment of the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq cult.

In the past few days information from inside the MEK base in Paris has revealed that intense talks have taken place between the MEK and an Israeli handler about this issue. Although this is an Israeli initiative the MEK are negotiating with every option on their table; killing their own members in Iraq and western cities through self-immolations or deaths attributed to hunger strikes, and/or targeted killings and assassinations in Iraq and/or western cities for which others are blamed (the government of Iraq or Iranian opposition groups, or the Iranian government). The MEK’s role, based on its track record and current capabilities, will be to destroy trust by creating ‘evidence’ of violent and devious activity by Iran, backed up by a well-financed propaganda blitz to ‘prove’ its case.

Lest there be any doubt about the reality and seriousness of this potential threat let us recap events over the past few weeks to demonstrate how easily this scenario can get out of hand.

Following the September 1st killings at Camp Ashraf in Iraq the MEK made these two false claims which, through uncritical and paid media and lobbyist repetition, have unfortunately taken on the semblance of accepted facts.

1. Iraqi security forces stormed Camp Ashraf and killed 52 people.

2. Iranian Revolutionary Guards kidnapped seven MEK members from the camp and turned them over to the Iraqi Prime Minister’s office which has hidden and tortured them and still holds them.

Neither of these allegations have been found to be true and the Government of Iraq has repeatedly dismissed them as MEK propaganda. Instead, questions remain whether the killings were an internal MEK action. No independent agency dealing with the MEK on the ground – whether UNAMI or representatives of the American embassy in Baghdad – has offered any reason or evidence on which to base further investigation into the MEK allegations other than to establish what really happened.

However, you will remember that the MEK acting through one of their intermediaries in the European Parliament, Alejo Vidal Quadras of the Iraq Delegation, set you up to fall victim to affirming this false information through your letter to him, clearly issued in good faith, on 19 September. The intervention by Vidal Quadras was timed to coincide with your meeting with Iraqi FM Hoshyar Zebari and would no doubt have gone some way to increase mistrust.

On 10 October the European Parliament used your ‘corroboration’ as the basis for a resolution which repeats this misinformation: The European Parliament adopted a resolution which strongly condemned “the attack on Camp Ashraf on 1st September 2013 by Iraqi forces which left 52 Iranian refugees dead and the abduction of 7 residents including 6 women who, as stated by High Representative Baroness Ashton, are believed to be held in Baghdad, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.”

Struan Stevenson, Chair of the Iraq Delegation and a long term MEK advocate, has shown himself happy to welcome and exploit any resulting breakdown in EU-Iraq relations. What interpretation are we to give this except corruption of the European Parliamentary system.

But so much for the use of propaganda. The real threat posed by the mercenary MEK terrorist cult is as a tool in the hands of the Israelis. Its role is to disrupt any diplomatic process involving Iran at any cost using any means at its disposal. In this respect the MEK’s capabilities are somewhat limited. They are capable of violence in the streets of Geneva through targeted assassination or self-immolation or a death attributed to hunger strike. But in Iraq, as the events of September 1st demonstrate, the MEK enjoys a free hand when it comes to controlling, and disposing of, the lives of its own members. Sadly, the MEK’s Iranian supporters in western countries are so befuddled by the group’s indoctrination process that they do not realise that the lobbying advocates are paid and do not have any stake in the group or its future. They sincerely believe that the MEK is a real opposition supported by important political and military figures in the American establishment.

Paid lobbyists without scruple demand UN blue hat protection for the members at Camp Liberty to prevent further attacks. However, this is far from the MEK’s intention. MEK tactics now demand more bloodshed to prove its victimhood. Whether this is achieved in Europe or in Iraq, MEK activity will directly impact your negotiation process. The residents of Camp Liberty are in danger because the MEK leaders want to shed their blood.

The security of meetings held in Geneva is not in your hands, nor is it in the hands of Iran, but violent activity will have dire consequences for all sides. It is important to put the MEK where it belongs – it has no place in the political process. The group is purely a brand and a tool. Once a group is named as a tool in the hands of paying masters then it loses its potency. The MEK has no independent existence. You must look to the people who issue the orders to find out how to counter its influence.

Close observation of MEK activity and recent key information points incontrovertibly to the use of violence to disrupt the Geneva meetings and destroy every effort to create trust between the negotiators. Our advice: talk to the MEK’s masters and warn them off this initiative.

posted on iranian.com

October 12, 2013 0 comment

The cult of Rajavi

Prepare for more mystery deaths of MEK members

Since yesterday the MEK propaganda machine and its related resources have been on overdrive to claim that Prepare for more mystery deaths of MEK members the seven people who the MEK claim are missing from Camp Ashraf are in the custody of the Iraqis. Before this they had been on overdrive to claim that the 1st September attack on Camp Ashraf had been carried out by the government of Iraq. Both allegations have been repeatedly dismissed as completely unfounded by Iraq, but this has not silenced the MEK’s propaganda machine.

There is strong evidence that the aim of the attack on Camp Ashraf was to capture or kill Massoud Rajavi on the understanding he has been in hiding there. If that is the case, then the seven missing people, who have been identified as Rajavi’s close inner circle, have been part of a pre-planned manoeuvre to rescue him in the event of such an attack. The other members have been there to resist any incursion to allow Rajavi and his protectors time to run away.

Apparently inside the MEK there is currently an internal indoctrination message which compares the dead in this situation to the circumstances when Prophet Mohammad moved from Mecca to Medina and used Imam Ali who slept in his place as a decoy so that when they came to kill him they found Ali there instead. If this scenario is right then after Rajavi has saved his own skin from Ashraf, the last thing he wants is to be in the presence these seven known people. But he can’t let them go either because of the information they carry. The untenable MEK claim that these seven missing people were in Baghdad and have now been transferred by helicopter by the Prime Minister’s office to the south of Iraq indicates that there is some kind of plan behind it – governments do not work like this. The strongest possibility is that these seven people will be eliminated and the government of Iraq will be blamed. This is a typical MEK ploy to disguise the mysterious deaths of unwanted people, something they have done frequently.

In this case it is entirely possible that following this build up, these seven are discovered dead in the next few days, perhaps handcuffed and executed as the others were.

Certainly, for a man who basically can’t stop talking, the silence from Rajavi since the attack on Camp Ashraf makes it all the more likely that he is on the run and heading for a safe residence out of the country.

September 12, 2013 0 comment

MEK Camp Ashraf

Were the Camp Ashraf victims bait for a more sinister goal?

It appears there are two ways to respond to the September 1st attack at Camp Ashraf. One is the normal approach taken by the United Nations and Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, the governments of America and Europe, the European Union, and Amnesty International ; condemnation of the killings, condolences for the

victims’ families and demands that the government of Iraq conduct an investigation and bring the perpetrators to justice. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki set up an inquiry into the deaths, and on Monday 2nd a UN team visited the camp to try to establish what happened.

Then there is the approach of the Mojahedin Khalq (aka MKO, MEK, NCRI), sympathetic media and lobbyists; immediately blame your enemies (in this case the host country) and build a strong verbal and pictorial narrative to support that assertion. Less than a few hours after the event strident press releases and graphic photographs of handcuffed, executed bodies were being sent to media and political circles claiming that the government of Iraq had massacred the camp residents. Iraq’s security forces denied having entered the camp.

But, after a day or two of drip-feeding such images it began to resemble a Hollywood film; initial shocking pictures of the dead, then a back-flash to the moment the ill-equipped but masked attackers covertly crept up on the camp. (Carefully filmed by the victims themselves; if you saw this would you not run away or at least grab a gun rather than a camera!) This also begs the obvious question, ‘why would the Iraqi forces brutally murder half the residents then leave the remainder free to film the victims, send the films to the MEK HQ and allow these pictures to be distributed to the world?’ What possible motivation would they have?

No, the mystery surrounding these killings can begin to be unlocked by looking at some facts behind the MEK’s propaganda campaign, and by examining Massoud Rajavi’s disgusting, inhuman and sickening behaviour. Firstly Rajavi reneged on his agreement with the UN and insisted on retaining 100 people in Camp Ashraf while the remainder were transferred to temporary transit camp Liberty. This meant hundreds of Iraqi security forces were unnecessarily tied up in ‘protecting’ people illegally squatting the land and who are regarded in Iraq as terrorists, while Iraq’s civilian population are under constant threat of bombing and shooting in the rest of the country. While there they refused to allow anyone to enter the camp, declaring it an extra-judicial enclave to which not even the UN was granted access. And they endlessly whinged about the poor conditions while demanding that they stay put. They also refused to deal with the so-called possessions which they had supposedly remained there to sell. Certainly if the MEK were in any way immersed in normal society, even if the families of residents had been allowed to remain outside the camp to make contact with their loved ones, this kind of covert attack would not have been possible.

So, why were they really there and who was behind this attack? Although Iranian rightwingers and Revolutionary Guards hailed it as a victory for the Iraqi people, whoever was behind this tragedy was certainly an enemy of the government of Iraq.

There has been speculation that the MEK left behind in Camp Ashraf were there to protect Rajavi who was hiding in the camp, although it is also highly doubtful that he would risk remaining in the camp after he saw what happened to his benefactor Saddam Hussein. Since the MEK released the names of the recent victims it has emerged that nearly all of the 100 people who remained at Camp Ashraf had been indicted for various terrorist crimes. Most of those killed were old and disaffected members but were unable to leave the MEK as they were marked for arrest by law enforcement agencies. They were, in effect, Rajavi’s hostages to do with what he wanted. Interestingly, the people who are missing are all members of Rajavi’s personal security team, including the head of his security team Mahboubeh Jamshidi. How did it happen that they were not among those killed and where are they now? More to the point, where is Massoud Rajavi?

In August this year Rajavi surprised everyone when he announced that he had washed his hands of the MEK members who for thirty years have devoted their lives to him. He told them, “I am only in charge of your Day of Judgment and no one knows the date of the collapse of the regime”.

But if Rajavi wants to reduce or discontinue the MEK’s activities, give up his political ambition for regime change, then retire and attend to his personal life, he will have two essential needs. One is that he must somehow convince the United States to provide a safe retirement residence somewhere in Europe or the Middle East, and the second need is to get rid of the 3000+ people in Iraq. In this respect Rajavi could cut a deal to offer these 3000 people as mercenary forces to push the western agenda in Iraq and Syria; for example chemicals, bombing, poison or similar activities. His best case scenario would be that they die in situ through mortar attack or similar so that he could blame the Iraqi government for killing them. The Iraqi government would probably then be forced to offer some kind of compensation to the Americans and in return the Americans could be persuaded to give him, Rajavi, a place in Europe where he can be kept pickled for a day when he may be useful again.

Although it may seem far fetched to imagine the MEK itself or some collaborative group arranged to kill these individuals and leave some alive to film the events, Rajavi’s own track record for exploiting the blood of his followers, whether in war, assassinations, self-immolations, suicide missions, etc, sadly speaks for itself. Did Rajavi offer up the unwanted residents of Camp Ashraf as irresistible bait?

September 7, 2013 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts