Articles

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

The MKO honored with the glories of terrorist Operation Great Bahman

As a general rule, most people support attacks against an occupying force as a defense tactic but this same publics find violence tactic unacceptable if directed against civilians and especially children. Among the victims of the Mujahedin khalq organization (the MKO/ MEK/ PMOI/ the cult of Rajavi) civilians are numerous.

From 1998 to 2001 the MKO was involved in more than 200 mortar attacks, bombings and hit-and-run raids on Iranian military units and government buildings and residential areas killing and injuring civilians and officials.

The MKO’s capacity to commit violent acts in Iran was so weighty that the US think tank Brookings Institution finds the group an appropriate proxy force for the US government to destabilize the Iranian Government. The Brookings Institution’s”Which Path to Persia?”report presents the MKO as one of the”Potential Ethnic Proxies,”page 117-118 (page 130-131 of the PDF). “More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001,” the report asserts.

February 2^nd, 1998 signals a bombing in the waiting room at the entrance of Tehran’s Prosecutors Office in which several civilians including a nine-year-old boy named Milad Charvadari were injured. View the pics.

On February 5^th, 2000 Mortars struck a publishing house Saturday evening in central Tehran, near key government offices including the Iranian president’s office and Parliament. One man, Mohammad Alijani, a 29-year-old employee at the publishing house, died in the explosions and four others were injured. Windows of the Golban publishing house, located across the street from the Judiciary building and top policy-making offices, were shattered and its walls pocked and broken in areas.

On January 9^th and Feb 19^th, 2000 three people were killed and four people were injured in the attacks on Chalsara village in Ilam province near the Iran-Iraq border.

The MKO glorified all these attacks in its official journals –as victorious operations of the group against Islamic Republic. Actually, the normal pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during the Operation Great Bahman in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran. The above- mention ones are just a few examples of thousands of innocent civilians who were targeted by the MKO agents.

February 10, 2018 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

What led to the bloody day, Bahman 19th 1360?

Backgrounds for violence

In the early months of the Iranian newly established government, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization found out that it could not manage to find a position in the leadership of the Islamic Republic via usual political methods. None of the MKO candidates for the Parliament elections were elected. Soon, they chose violent method so as to achieve power in Iran.

At the time, the organization was headed by both Massoud Rajavi and Mousa Khiabani. Once they were disappointed by Ayatollah Khomeini, they made efforts to negotiate with certain elements in the political scene of Iran including liberals and nationalists in order to create a coalition against the Islamic Republic. However, almost no person or group accepted to accompany them in their plan to overthrow the Islamic Republic. The MKO was losing its base in the public opinion because the Iranian community hardly ever wanted another revolution.

Therefore, the MKO’s master minds, Rajavi and Khiabani declared armed struggle against the Islamic Republic in June 1980. Young recruits –mostly high school and college students—were ordered to flow in the streets and launch chaotic clashes against Revolutionary guards where ever they saw them. The young mujaheds where told that once they launch the attack ordinary people would join them but practically the MKO forces were left alone in the streets committing too many crimes against civilians and revolutionary guards.

The group propaganda claimed that 500 thousand participated in the armed uprising of June 20^th 1980 but the Reuters reported that “about 3000 partisans of the Mujahedin Khalq blocked the streets of the Iranian cities.”

Violence go on

Later on, the group launched various terrorist acts and bombing against Iranian authorities killing the Secretary general of the Islamic Republic party, Ayatollah Beheshti and 70 of members of the party and the Prime minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar and the President mohammad Ali Rajaiee. However, these major violent acts of the MKO were followed by assassination of civilians such as a teacher, two students, a grocer, a salesperson etc.

Eventually the MKO lost its popular base in Iran. That was why Massoud Rajavi fled Iran to France and left his wife Ashraf Rabiei and their one year-old son Mostafa and his co-leader Mousa Khiabani behind. He then joined Saddam Hossein who was at war with Iran. In Iraq, Rajavi established “Saddam’s private army”.

Ultimately, on February 8th 1981 (Bahman 19^th 1360), the Revolutionary Guards and the officials of the General Prosecutor’s Office raided the MKO’s safe house in North of Tehran (Zafaranieh) based on an long-term investigated plan. Mousa Khiabani and Ashraf Rabeie together with 18 other MKO operatives were killed in the raid. Massoud and Ashraf’s son survived the deadly clash.

By Mazda Parsi

February 10, 2018 0 comments

Missions of Nejat Society

The Mojahedin who are based in Albania

The main base of the Iranian opposition group Mojahedin e-Khalq (MEK), an organization branded as terrorist by Iran and Iraq, is reported to be in Albania where it is building a training camp near Durres.

Previously the MEK had also been blacklisted by the European Union, Great Britain, USA and Canada, and then delisted between 2008 and 2012. The organization was born in 1963 in Iran with the aim of opposing foreign influences in the country and to fight the Shah’s regime. In 1979 the MEK participated in the Revolution led by Khomeini but its populist ideology – a crossroads of Marxism, feminism and Islamism – clashed with that of the Ayatollahs and was banned.

Here’s what’s really going on with Iran

In 1981, the MEK moved to Paris where it established its headquarters and five years later moved to Camp Ashraf, north of Baghdad, from where it supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran. The camp continued to play a leading role in the political and diplomatic activity against the regime in Tehran and also received support from various international political figures including former mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani, the American ambassador to the UN, John Bolton and Emma Bonino as vice-president of the Senate, in June 2012.

The leaders of the organization are spouses Massoud and Maryam Rajavi; Massoud has not appeared in public since 2003, since the protection given to him by Saddam Hussein was lost and he lives today in a secret location for fear of attacks by Tehran.

The dispute

According to Tehran the MEK is a “terrorist organization” based on the “cult of personality of its leaders” as well as being “directors and perpetrators of attacks and acts of political violence”. For the United States it is “the main opposition force promoting democracy and secularism in Iran”. This is clearly expressed in a New York Times article of 21 September 2012 which explains how the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, decided to “clear” the MEK by removing it from the black list of terrorist organizations in the State Department.

The New York Times noted that several members of Congress had become staunch supporters of the movement that, although once Marxist-Islamist, had changed its mind by transforming its struggle and becoming the main organized movement against the Iranian theocracy.

According to the New York newspaper, among the MEK’s supporters are R. James Woolsey and Porter J. Goss, former directors of the CIA; Louis J. Freeh, former director of the FBI; Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush; Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and national security advisor, General James L. Jones, operating under the Obama administration.

The transfer of the MEK from Iraq to Albania

In 2003, the US Army took control of Camp Ashraf, disarming the MEK militia and transferring them to Camp Liberty, near Baghdad airport. The then Iraqi government, in mainly Shiite hands, maintained close ties with Tehran and the members of the MEK felt threatened following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was therefore essential to find a new location for the approximately 3,500 anti-Ayatollah militiamen.

The New York Times analysed Clinton’s decision as partially linked to the closure of Camp Ashraf: to transfer the Mojahedin, it was necessary to remove them from the terrorism blacklist. So, it was planned to relocate them far from the long reach of Iranian agents; it was only necessary to find a country willing to welcome them, obviously with all the related risks.

On 8 January, the online newspaper ‘BalkansPost’ published an article by Anne Khodabandeh, an expert in de-radicalization who has repeatedly criticized the MEK, having been part of it in the past. On the same day Khodabandeh also released an interview with Sputnik where she described the details of her negative experience in the MEK.

The article reported the transfer of the entire MEK to Albania: it is here therefore that the US administration decided to transfer its anti-Tehran allies, with the full support of the Rama government.

The transfer would take place at the end of 2016 – referred to as a “humanitarian intervention” – under the supervision of the UNHCR and with funding of at least twenty million dollars. In addition, it was announced that Albania would soon be home to widows and orphans of ISIS jihadists killed in battle. The agreement was formalised in 2013 between the Albanian executive and the Obama administration.

The MEK presence in Albania

Despite the relatively low profile maintained by the MEK in Albania, its presence has not passed unnoticed both inside the buildings of a former private university in Tirana and in an actual fort in Manez, a small municipality a few kilometers away from Durazzo, which is still under construction. This was discovered by the investigative journalist Gjergj Thanasi, who revealed his findings in the Eyes of War.

How did you notice the growing presence of the MEK in Durres, but especially the Manez fort?

Thanasi: “The Council for Territorial Regulations (Keshilli i Rregullimit te Territorit) is responsible for issuing permits for the construction of public works and private buildings (factories, hotels, schools, roads, etc.). The Council had published a list of permits issued for a series of works and among them there was one for an NGO called F.A.R.A. The permit was dated 16 October 2017 and indicated authorization for “a residential complex and services for the Iranian community in Albania”. At that point I investigated this F.A.R.A which, strangely and contrary to Albanian law, was not registered with the Tax Office and did not even have a VAT number, which is prohibited in Albania.

“I then continued the investigation at the town planning office of the town of Durres (which I know very well having lived here for 52 years). There they showed me a written request from F.A.R.A. in which permission was requested for the development of a construction site (fence, water connections, electricity, containers, etc.) and it emerged that the Council had not issued any permit. The letter of request did not have a header, there was no address or telephone number.

“At this point I went to Manez (in the first week of November 2017) to see what was happening and found myself in front of a finished fence, an already installed electricity grid, and some trenches already under construction for the water network. There was also a container with offices inside the fence. Around the site there were also three guards and officers in the uniform of the State Police.”

How long has the MEK been present in Albania and how has this presence developed?

“The first 14 Mojahedin arrived from Iraq to Tirana on May 14, 2013 and were part of a group of 210 people transferred here shortly thereafter. In March 2016, after a visit to Albania by former Secretary of State John Kerry, the Rama government informed the country that we were going to host 2000 Mojahedin. In theory, a part were supposed to have been hosted in Romania but they all came here to Albania – as many as 3500. Almost all of them were housed in a former university building in a district of Tirana, while the leaders were in neighboring houses”.

Why were they transferred to Albania?

“Albania was chosen because no other country would take them, not even the Nauru island or the Kiribati islands. The US made them transfer to Albania because the Shiite militias in Iraq were ready to massacre them on the orders of Tehran.”

Conclusion

The presence of the MEK in Albania does nothing but further aggravate the delicate situation in the Balkans where other jihadist and Islamist groups are already present in force. It seems that the western Balkans area is becoming a logistics and transit zone in support of war policies in the Middle East. Above all, it is essential to bear in mind that for at least a decade in countries like Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia, there has been a Sunni/Salafist Islamist infiltration that is influencing young and old, many of them in difficult socio-economic conditions. It is no coincidence that more than a thousand foreign fighters have left the Balkans to enlist in the ranks of the jihadists in Syria since 2011. This is the greatest mobilization of Balkan Muslims to go and fight an external war in the history of the region. Many of these jihadists are now returning to their countries of origin, with all the associated risks.

Then there is a significant flow of funding, from countries and NGOs of the Gulf, to cultural centers and mosques that spread the Wahhabi and Salafist ideology. Bosnia, in particular, is suffering heavily from this infiltration.

The spread of radical Islamist ideology is also influencing the Balkan diaspora in Europe, as has been demonstrated by the latest arrests and the latest expulsions from Italian territory.

The settlement of the MEK in Albania is interesting because the organization shares with the Wahhabi and Salafi groups the fight against Shiite enemies (primarily Iran) and against the Shia axis that crosses Iraq and Syria from Tehran to reach Hezbollah in Lebanon; the axis, supported by Moscow, that emerged victorious from the Syrian-Iraqi conflict. The MEK’s presence beyond the Adriatic risks, however, increasing destabilization in an area already characterized by strong ethnic-religious tensions, and difficult political and socio-economic conditions.

Giovanni Glacalone, Giornalem, Italy, Translated by Iran Interlink

February 7, 2018 0 comments

Mujahedin-e-khalq Organization Members

Who was Ashraf Rabiei?

Ashraf Rabiei is an iconic figure in the history of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/ MEK/ PMOI/ Cult of Rajavi). She was Massoud Rajavi’s first wife whose name later became the symbolic name of the MKO’s main headquarters in Iraq, “Camp Ashraf”. The group’s propaganda still uses the term “Ashrafneshan” to glorify its members as “unique fighters”.

Born in 1952 in a politically active family, Ashraf Rabiei was grown up in Tehran. Her brother was a member of the leading council of the early Mujahedin Khalq establishment.

Ashraf was a university student when she joined the MKO in 1972. She was arrested several times by the Shah’s Intelligence Agency (SAVAK) during her organizational activities before the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

She married Akbar Nabavi a religious high-ranking member of the group in the early years of her membership in the MKO. Nabavi killed himself with cyanide capsule in a clash with shah’s security forces in 1976. Meanwhile Ashraf was injured in the explosion of a hand-made bomb that she was making in their safe house; she was then arrested for the third time.

Meeting Massoud Rajavi in Evin

A mysterious visit with Massoud Rajavi in Evin prison turned Ashraf into an ardent promoter of Massoud. Since the alleged visit, Ashraf began promoting Rajavi’s rhetoric as the only leader of the MKO. They got married in 1980.

After the Iranian revolution, Ashraf Rabiei together with some other female members of the group including Maryam Qajar Azdanlou (Maryam Rajavi –the current leader of the group) actively worked for recruiting female students.

In 1980, Ashraf Rabeie was in the list of candidates of the MKO for the Iranian Parliament elections but she was not elected by people as well as other candidates of the group.

By the beginning of the MKO’s armed struggle against the Islamic Republic in June 1980, the clashes between the Iranian newly established government and the MKO fighters broke out. Two months later, Massoud Rajavi fled Iran for France and left Ashraf and their one-year-old son Mostafa in Iran.

After the departure of Rajavi, Mousa Khiabani became the commander of the MKO in Iran in violent operations. He and Ashraf were in the same team house when the Iranian security forces attacked the house on February 8th, 1982. Ashraf and Mousa and eighteen other MKO members were killed in the clash.

Her son, Mostafa survived the battle and was then yielded to to his grandparents by the security guards. Mostafa is reportedly living in Albania now.

Ashraf Rabiei ; Massoud Rajavi's first wife

February 5, 2018 0 comments

Members of the MEK

Who was Mousa Khiabani?

Mousa Nasir Oghli Khiabani aliases Musa Khiabani was a veteran member of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization and among the central committee of the organization in 1970s. After the revolution Musa was the second most important leader of the MKO after Massoud Rajavi.

Mousa Khiabani

Ervand Abrahamian in his book “Radical Islam; the Iranian Mojahedin” pens:”

The revived Mojahedin was under the firm control of Masud Rajavi and his hand-picked entourage, most of whom had been in his commune in Qasr Prison. Musa Khiabani, Rajavi’s right-hand man, had been among the sixty-nine tried in 1972. Even then, despite his young age, he had been considered important enough to warrant a life sentence. The son of a humble and devout shopkeeper on the Tabriz bazaar, Khiabani frequently participated in the Moharram flagellation ceremonies. Graduating from the local high school, he won a state scholarship to study physics in Tehran University where he joined the Mojahedin and volunteered to go to Lebanon for guerilla training. En route, he and his colleagues were intercepted in Dubai; it was this that prompted the famous 1971 plane hijacking. One of the very last of the shah’s prisoners to be released, Khiabani wasted no time in returning to Tabriz to rebuild the Mojahedin. Until his death in February 1982, Khiabani and Rajavi acted as the organization’s main spokesmen, and consequently outsiders tended to view the two as equals; but insiders knew Rajavi to be pre-eminent.”

Mousa Khiabani

Musa Khiabani killed along with Ashraf Rabiei and 20 other members of the organization in an attack to their team house on February 8, 1982.

February 4, 2018 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

UK MPs attended rally for Iranian group whose leader is still banned by London

The group was delisted as terrorist organisation in 2008 – but some analysts say it still operates as a cult

Several UK MPs attended a rally in Paris organised by a controversial group which was listed a terrorist organisation by the UK government until 2008, according to parliamentary data just released.

The National Council for Resistance of Iran (NCRI) is widely considered to be an alias for the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) – otherwise known as the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI).

MEK/PMOI is described as a cult by some experts and former members while its leader, Maryam Rajavi, is still banned from entering the UK. The NCRI says that MEK falls under its umbrella.

Since it was founded in the 1960s, the group has gone from Islamic-Marxism to ally of Saddam Hussein to its current incarnation, attempting to position itself as the Iranian government-in-waiting.

Conservative MPs David Amess, Bob Blackman, Theresa Villiers, Matthew Offordand Labour MP Toby Perkins were among the UK delegation at the NCRI’s Free Iran rally in Paris on 1 July, where the NCRI is based in exile from Iran.

Speaking to MEE, Iranian analyst Mahan Abedin said: “If UK parliamentarians are supporting them with a view to pushing for change inside Iran or supporting the protesters then this may not be the right way to go about it because this group has no traction. It’s universally reviled.

“One reason it’s so reviled is because memories are very long. They were blatantly fighting on the Iraqi side in the Iran-Iraq war.”

The NCRI paid Perkins’ $1,112 in expenses to cover his travel, accommodation and meals, while attending the rally, according to the Parliamentary register of MPs’ financial interests. MPs Blackman and Amess were paid to attend by the Welle Association for Human Rights and Democracy, a Zurich-based organisation which campaigns for human rights in Iran, and the others appear to have paid for themselves.

The Paris rally featured speeches from politicians from around the world, including Villiers and Amess, who spoke of the need for human rights and democracy in Iran and their support for Rajavi.

According to video from the rally, Amess said: “The Iranian resistance is expanding its activities inside the country. Internationally, it has emerged as the only democratic alternative to the theocratic regime. So ladies and gentlemen, today we do not want to talk about condemnation of the mullahs’ crimes.

“We want to talk about regime change which is at long last within our grasp. We want to talk about a future Iran with Maryam Rajavi’s 10-point plan.” This 10-point plan is Rajavi’s a blueprint for a secular, liberal democracy in Iran.

Video from the event shows Rajavi entering the venue, followed by a dozen children dressed all in white, as the crowd and assembled politicians rise to their feet and applaud her.

“The ruling regime is in disarray and paralysed as never before,” Rajavi told the crowd, “Iranian society is simmering with discontent and the international community is finally getting closer to the reality that appeasing the theocracy is misguided.” Members of MEK also watched via satellite from the group’s camp in Albania.

How MEK evolved

The MEK began in the 1960s as an Islamic-Marxist group of militants who took up armed struggle, first against the Shah and his US supporters, and then against the post-revolution Iranian state. The US State Department holds the MEK responsible for killing six Americans – three military officers and three security contractors – in the 1970s.

During the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein and its militants launched an attack on Iran and helped provide intelligence on military targets within Iran.

The group is also alleged to have helped violently suppress Kurdish and Shia uprisings in Iraq, which it denies. In return for its support, the Iraqi ruler allowed the MEK to run a military camp near the Iranian border called Camp Ashraf.

According to a 2005 Human Rights Watch report, after the Iran-Iraq war failed to overthrow the Iranian regime, many MEK fighters grew disillusioned.

The MEK’s leaders, Massoud Rajavi and his wife Maryam Rajavi, then began to enforce punishments for dissent which have led to accusations from former members that the MEK has become a cult.

In its report, Human Rights Watch said that all MEK members were forced to divorce, although Massoud and Maryam Rajavi remained married, and that any dissenters were imprisoned and tortured inside Camp Ashraf.

Masoud Banisadr was the MEK/NCRI’s public relations chief until 1996, when he left the group. Speaking in 2009, he said that the organisation he joined during the 1970s “soon changed into a terrorist organisation and then a destructive cult”.

According to former members, two dissenters were killed while being interrogated, HRW reported.

In 1992, the MEK raided several Iranian government embassies in the West. In 1997, the US listed the MEK as a terrorist organisation and in 2001, the UK followed suit under pressure from the Iranian government, according to then-home secretary Jack Straw.

When Iraq was invaded in 2003, the MEK was disarmed as part of a ceasefire deal with the US forces. Its camps in Iraq were gradually and violently shut by the new Iraqi government, with the remaining residents from Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty moving to a new camp in Albania in 2016.

Group tries to rebrand

Since the US invasion, MEK has distanced itself from its alliance with Saddam Hussein and rebranded itself as an Iranian government-in-waiting which supports freedom, democracy and secularism.

This has led the UK, US and EU to take it off their lists of terrorist organisations, although the UK’s last Labour government only did so after a court decision.

On the other side of the Iranian political scene, and just one month after the rally, Conservative MP Richard Bacon attended Hassan Rouhani’s inauguration and met with Iranian parliamentarians. The $1,208 cost of his trip was paid for by the Iranian government.

When asked to comment on his attendance at the rally in Paris, Perkins said that the information about “the arrangements for the trip are incorrect” but would not elaborate on this further. The parliamentary record states that he received funds from the NCRI and that the purpose of visit was “attending a conference on human rights”.

Jo Lo, Middle East Eye,

February 3, 2018 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MEK: From Revolutionary Group to Imperialist Asset

The MEK’s violent past makes it clear why its only remaining friends are those who seek regime change in Iran at any cost.

TEHRAN, IRAN (Analysis) — With the recent protests across Iran, some people are, for the first time, being exposed to a fringe group of Iranian exiles known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, or MEK, and their political front group, The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

While audiences of Western media may be seeing the group, they aren’t actually being provided the proper context of who the MEK and NCRI are. Instead, MEK protests are being shown across Western media as “anti-regime” protests representative of the general mood of Iranians. The problem with these protests — which have been highlighted by outlets like Fox, Salon, and Vox — is that they aren’t actually taking place in Iran.

Instead of highlighting the concerns of the legitimate protests in Iran, multiple news outlets instead showed protests in cities like Paris, where the NCRI is based. MEK protests were highlighted due to their demand for the fall of the revolutionary government in Tehran, an agenda very different from that of the protesters in Iran.

But who exactly are the MEK and NCRI? How did this group — which claims to be based on a strange, malleable blend of Shia Islam and Marxism, and was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. until 2012 — become a close ally of the U.S. foreign policy establishment as a tool for applying pressure to Iran? To better understand how the MEK, which is almost universally rejected by the Iranian people, found itself in bed with nations like Israel and the U.S., it is worth examining MEK’s full history.

MEK’s origins in pre-revolution Iran

The MEK was founded in 1965 by six members who splintered from the Freedom Movement of Iran, a moderate party based in the politics of former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. The MEK founders were followers of a Shia leftist thinker, Ali Shariati. The group split from the Freedom Movement due to that party’s moderate approach in challenging the government of the Shah.

Col. Jack Turner and Col. Paul Shaffer, victims of Mujaheddin-e-Khalq terror campaign/

When the MEK was founded it was accepted as a part of the larger anti-Shah revolutionary coalition (which easily integrated Marxist and liberal movements as long as they opposed the government) and, much like other factions of the revolution, the MEK also opposed Western interests in Iran. In the years leading up to the revolution, the MEK was so committed to waging war on U.S. interests that it attempted a kidnapping of U.S. Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II and an assassination of U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Harold Price. The MEK also carried out a host of bombings in Iran, many of which targeted U.S. citizens and assets (although the MEK now blames all these attacks on a splinter group, Peykar).

The MEK continued to work alongside Iran’s Islamic revolutionaries through the fall of the Shah, even claiming to have played a role in exposing the anti-Ayatollah Nojeh coup in 1980. The group attempted to field presidential candidates in 1980, although they were declared ineligible for office by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini due to the organization’s beliefs that ran counter to the Islamic revolution. These events soon led to tension between the MEK and the government of the Islamic Republic, resulting in mutual hostility between the MEK and Hezbollah of Iran, a non-government militia that wasn’t directed by the revolutionary government, nevertheless, these conflicts and the mutual hostility which followed, eventually led to MEK terror attacks on government targets in Iran.

At that time, the revolutionary government in Iran had high levels of popular support, which made the MEK’s activities unacceptable to wide swaths of the population. Predictably, this led to the outlawing of MEK and the exile of its leadership, who ended up in France.

MEK in exile: from revolutionary to reactionary

After its terror campaign against the revolutionary government failed, the MEK was forced to flee to France, where it remained for several years. The MEK was then forced to leave France in 1986, as part of an agreement between Tehran and Paris to return French hostages in exchange for banning the MEK.

At this point, there were few safe havens for the MEK available except for the one country that was engaged in a direct war against the government of Iran: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Despite accurately calling Saddam an aggressor while the group was still in Iran, the MEK now joined the Iraqi government in opposing Iran and formed the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) in Baghdad.

The NLA was even more aggressive than the Iraqi army in its incursions into Iranian territory, going so far to assault and destroy Iranian villages during a ceasefire period brokered by the United Nations (UN). It was at this point that the MEK and its partner organizations officially became extensions of Iraqi policy and by extension, the CIA, which backed Saddam against Iran. These changes also led to the MEK improving relations with Israel in exchange for funding as well as intelligence on Tehran which was gathered by the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence arm.

At this juncture, the MEK’s ideology began to stray even further from that of the majority of Iranians (or anyone), and the group essentially evolved into a cult. The group began following the word of its leader Massoud Rajavi, enforcing rules such as making older women divorce their husbands and requiring celibacy for young women. The MEK also separated from its commitment to Marxism, instead adopting beliefs includingopening relations with the West, capitalism, and religious freedom.

The MEK continued to coordinate terror attacks on Iran from Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war up until 2003, when it allied with Iraqi forces in the short campaign to resist the U.S. invasion. The MEK surrendered alongside Iraqi troops, however, unlike Iraqi army units, MEK fighters were given a ‘special status’ designation as civilians by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld due to their opposition to Tehran — a controversial move even among right-wing think tanks like the Rand Corporation. This status allowed MEK fighters special protections in American custody, such as their captors’ abiding by the Geneva Conventions at a time when the U.S. torture program was gaining notoriety.

The MEK’s time in Iraq cemented the organization’s unpopularity in Iran. While the Iranian people protest against the government over legitimate grievances, such as economic reform, much like other anti-imperialist powers such as North Korea, Iran remembers the past — and Iranian citizens (no matter how they feel about the current government) overwhelmingly reject involvement by the U.S. in Iran’s internal affairs.

No friends but imperialists

The MEK’s sordid past makes it clear why its only remaining friends are Western nations and their allies who seek regime change in Tehran. The group was happy to play the role and abet the cause in exchange for protection and resources.

The MEK soon became a tool of every anti-Iranian entity seeking to topple the government in Tehran, including Israel, which regularly coordinates with the MEK and uses the organization as a sort of intelligence launderer to release information to the public without crediting them for it. The most notable instance of this relationship was the dissemination of information by the MEK claiming to prove Iran was developing nuclear weapons technology. While these allegations proved untrue, what made them even more nefarious was that the information was allegedly given to the MEK by the Mossad.

The MEK is also suspected to be behind the assassinations of Iranian civilian nuclear scientists, which they were trained to carry out by the Mossad, during a period in which the group was sheltered in the U.S. military’s Camp Ashraf in Iraq and allegedly allowed to continue carrying out covert terrorist activities in Iran.

The MEK has continued to aid other Israeli projects as well. In Syria, the MEK released ‘intelligence’ on the fight for Aleppo and other conflict zones within the country. The group, which was formerly condemned by U.S. politicians on both sides of the aisle, suddenly became a darling of the neoconservative establishment, meeting with everyone from Newt Gingrich to Rudy Giuliani, and welcoming a Senate delegation that traveled to meet the group’s members living in Albania.

MEK in latest protests

While the MEK remains unpopular in Iran, the group still holds value to the U.S. It provides both an image of “Iranians against the regime” as well as a conduit to publish false intelligence demonizing Iran. The initial protests in Iran were started by citizens with legitimate grievances about the rising cost of essential consumer goods and the slow pace of economic reform, yet even those who oppose the government are likely to come from the large portion of Iranian citizens who harbor anti-American sentiment.

While the much of the media may be focusing on peaceful gatherings of the MEK in countries like France, the Iranian government claims several cells of the organization have been found preparing to incite violence in the country. It is important not to be misled by false profiles of MEK demonstrations as regular Iranians vying for change, but to keep in mind that the group is a terror organization and is almost universally despised in the country it claims to wish to “liberate.”

James Carey is journalist and editor at Geopolitics Alert. He specializes in the Middle East and Asian affairs.

Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

Jim Carey, Mint Press News,

February 1, 2018 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Cult expert: destructive cult of Rajavi in dynamics and structure

By the definition proposed in Wikipedia,”Destructive cult”generally refers to groups whose members have, through deliberate action, physically injured or killed other members of their own group or other people. Leading cult expert, Rick Alan Ross considers certain characteristics for destructive cults. He is an American deprogrammer, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Cult Education Institute.

In a last year interview with Rick Ross, he asserts that the “MEK fits well into definition of cult”. He believes the lack of transparency and accountability makes the leaders of the Mujahedin Khalq (the MKO/ MEK/ PMOI/ the Cult of Rajavi) almost undefeatable in their shameful acts of sexual exploitation of members; in such cults, he contend, “the personality of the member is dissolved to a greater entity, i.e., the collective spirit which is imbued by the Big Brother mentality who control their thought and action.” [1]

Based on Rick Ross’s website and his book”Cults Inside Out”in the chapter”Defining a Destructive Cult”, though there is a great deal of variation among cults, certain common themes are present in destructive cult groups.

Common characteristics of destructive cult:

Mind Control (undue Influence): Manipulation by use of coercive persuasion or behavior modification techniques without informed consent.

Charismatic Leadership: Claiming divinity or special knowledge and demanding un-questioning obedience with power and privilege. Leadership may consist of one individual or a small core of leaders.

Deception: Recruiting and fundraising with hidden objectives and without full disclosure of the use of mind controlling techniques; and the use of “front groups.”

Exclusivity: Secretiveness or vagueness by followers regarding activities and beliefs.

Alienation: Separation from family, friends and society, including a change in values and substitution of the cult as the new “family;” evidence of the subtle or abrupt personality changes.

Exploitation: Can be financial, physical, or psychological; pressure to give money, to spend a great deal on courses or give excessively to special projects and to engage in inappropriate sexual activities, even child abuse.

Totalitarian Worldview (we/they syndrome): Effecting dependence, promoting goals of the group over the individual and approving unethical behavior while claiming goodness. [2]

“In my opinion, the MEK fits well within the three core criteria often used to define a destructive cult based upon the structure, dynamics and behavior of the group,” Rick Ross states. “MEK also uses thought reform and coercive persuasion to gain undue influence over its members.” [3]

What are “mind control” techniques?

Rick Ross website presents certain mind control techniques:

Group Pressure and “Love Bombing” discourages doubts and reinforces the need to belong through use of child-like games, singing, hugging, touching, or flattery.

Isolation/Separation creates inability or lack of desire to verify information provided by the group with reality.

Thought-Stopping Techniques introduce recruit to meditating, chanting, and repetitious activities which, when used excessively induce a state of high suggestibility.

Fear and Guilt induced by eliciting confession to produce intimacy and to reveal fears and secrets, to create emotional vulnerability by over and covert threats, as well as alternation of punishment and reward.

Sleep Deprivation encouraged under the guise of spiritual exercises, necessary training, or urgent projects.

Inadequate Nutrition sometimes disguised as special diet to improve heath or advance spirituality, or as rituals requiring fasting.

Sensory Overload forces acceptance of complex new doctrine, goals, and definitions to replace old values by expecting recruit to assimilate masses of information quickly with little opportunity for critical examination.

“Whatever the rules are within MEK is not the point,” Rick Ross says. “What is relevant is that the Rajavis can make new rules, change rules and do whatever they want. Their rules are typically used to manipulate and control their followers. They like what they control and don’t like what they don’t control. The Rajavis then use that undue influence to exploit and manipulate MEK members for their own benefit and financial gain.” [4]

According to Rick Ross, “Rajavi and his wife are the defining role of authoritarian charismatic leadership that has become the focus, defining element and driving force of MEK. There are no checks and balances to their power, meaningful accountability or transparency.” [5]

Sources:

[1]Habilian, MEK fits well within the criteria used to define a cult, February 07, 2017

[2] https://www.culteducation.com/

[3] Habilian, MEK fits well within the criteria used to define a cult, February 07, 2017

[4] ibid

[5] ibid

January 31, 2018 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Algiers Accords: Decades of Violations – And Silence

January 18, 2018″Information Clearing House”- This week marks the 37th anniversary of a pledge made by the United States in 1981:

“The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”

This week also marks 37 continuous years of the United States failing to uphold its pledge: the 1981 Algiers Accords.

Just how many people have heard of the 1981 Algiers Accords, a bilateral treaty signed on January 19, 1981 between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran? Chances are, not many. Just as chances are that not many are fully aware of what actually led to the signing of this treaty.

Following the success of the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah, America’s strongman in Iran, plans were made to topple the new government in Tehran. In 1980, under the Carter administration, the United States began clandestine radio broadcasts into Iran from Egypt. The broadcasts called for Khomeini’s overthrow and urged support for Shahpur Bakhtiar[i], the last prime minister under the Shah. Other plans included the failed Nojeh coup plot as well as plans for a possible American invasion of Iran using Turkish bases[ii].

The new Revolutionary government in Iran, with a look to the past and the 1953 British-CIA coup d’état that overthrew the Mossadegh government and reinstalled the Shah, had good reason to believe that the United States was planning to abort the revolution in its nascent stages. Fearful, enthusiastic students took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took the diplomats as hostages in order to prevent such plans from fruition.

These events led to the negotiation and conclusion the Algiers Accords, point 1 of which was the pledge by the United States not to intervene in Iran’s internal affairs in anyway. The Algiers Accords brought about the release of the American hostages and established the Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal (“Tribunal”) at The Hague, the Netherlands. The Tribunal ruled consistently “the Declarations were to be interpreted in accordance with the process of interpretation set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”[iii] ([*])

A pledge is only as valid and worthy as the person making it. From the onset, the United States failed to uphold its own pledge. For instance, starting in 1982, the CIA provided $100,000 a month to a group in Paris called the Front for the Liberation of Iran. The group headed by Ali Amini who had presided over the reversion of Iranian oil to foreign control after the CIA-backed coup in 1953[iv]. Additionally, America provided support to two Iranian paramilitary groups based in Turkey, one of them headed by General Bahram Aryana, the former Shah’s army chief with close ties to Bakhtiar[v].

In 1986, the CIA went so far as to pirate Iran’s national television network frequency to transmit an address by the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, over Iranian TV in which he vowed: “I will return,”[vi]. The support did not end there. Pahlavi had C.LA. funding for a number of years in the eighties which stopped with the Iran-Contra affair. He was successful at soliciting funds from the emir of Kuwait, the emir of Bahrain, the king of Morocco, and the royal family of Saudi Arabia, all staunch U.S. allies[vii].

In late 2002, Michael Ledeen joined Morris Amitay, vice-president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs; ex-CIA head James Woolsey; former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney; former senator Paul Simon; and oil consultant Rob Sobhani to set up a group called the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI)[viii]. In spite of his lack of charisma as a leader, in May, 2003, Michael Ledeen wrote a policy brief for the American Enterprise Institute Web site arguing that Pahlavi would make a suitable leader for a transitional government, describing him as “widely admired inside Iran, despite his refreshing lack of avidity for power or wealth.”[ix] In August 2003, the Pentagon issued new guidelines – All meetings with Iranian dissidents had to be cleared with Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. Reza Pahlavis’ name was included in the list of contacts that had been meeting with Pentagon analysts[x].

Concurrent with this direct interference, and in the following decade, Washington concentrated its efforts into putting a chokehold on the Iranian economy. A provision of the Algiers Accords was that

“the United States will revoke all trade sanctions which were directed against Iran in the period November 4, 1979, to date.”

Embargoes and sanctions became the norm. Failing to interfere in Iran’s domestic affairs in order to topple the Islamic Republic through economic hardship, the United States once again turned up pressure through broadcasts and direct support for dissidents and terrorists – in conjunction with economic sanctions.

This stranglehold was taking place while concurrently, and in violation of the Algiers Accords, the CIA front National Endowment for Democracy was providing funds to various groups, namely “Iran Teachers Association” (1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,2001, 2002, 2003); The Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI founded in 1995 by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Peter Rodman, Joshua Muravchik, and American intelligence officials advocating regime change in Iran), National Iranian American Council (NIAC) 2002, 2005, 2006), and others[xi].

Funds from NED to interfere in Iran continued after the signing of the JCPOA. The 2016 funding stood at well over $1m.

In September 2000, Senators openly voiced support for the MEK Terror group Mojaheddin-e-khalgh. Writing for The New Yorker, Connie Bruck revealed that:

“Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.RI. broadcasts from Paris into Iran.”[xii].

Perhaps their relationship with Israel and their usefulness explains why President Bush accorded the group ‘special persons status’[xiii].

During the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, the terrorist group got protection from the U.S. troops in Iraq despite getting pressure from the Iraqi government to leave the country (CNN[xiv]). In 2005, “a Farsi-speaking former CIA officer says he was approached by neoconservatives in the Pentagon who asked him to go to Iran and oversee “MEK [Mujahedeen-e Khalq] cross-border operations” into Iran.”

Moreover, according to Pakistani Intelligence, the United States secretly used yet another terrorist group – the Jundallah, stage a series of deadly attacks against Iran. The United States seems to have a soft spot for terrorists.

In addition to CIA funding and covert operations with help from terrorists, the United States actively used radio broadcasts into Iran to stir up unrest including Radio Farda and VOA Persian. It comes as no surprise then that the recipient of NED funds, NIAC, should encourage such broadcasts. Also, the BBC “received significant” sum of money from the US government to help combat the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China.”

It is crucial to note that while the United States was conducting secret negotiations with Iran which led to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA), the MEK were delisted as a foreign terror organization. This provides them with the legitimacy to write opinion pieces in leading American papers.

Also important to note that during the JCPOA negotiations in which the United States participated as a party to an agreement, it was busy flouting the Treaty with its broadcasts in to Iran – apparently, without objection. But the violation was not limited to broadcasts. Item B of the Treaty’s preamble states:

“Through the procedures provided in the declaration relating to the claims settlement agreement, the United States agrees to terminate all legal proceedings in United States courts involving claims of United States persons and institutions against Iran and its state enterprises, to nullify all attachments and judgments obtained therein, to prohibit all further litigation based on such claims, and to bring about the termination of such claims through binding arbitration. “

Unsurprisingly, the US again failed to keep its pledge and a partisan legislation allocated millions for the former hostages.

Clearly, the United States clearly felt bound by the Treaty for it recognized Point 2. Of the Algiers Accords when in January 2016 Iran received its funds frozen by America in a settlement at the Hague. Perhaps for no other reason that to pacify Iran post JCPOA while finding the means to re-route Iran’s money back into American hands.

It would require a great deal of time and verse to cite every instance and detail of United States of America’s violation of a Treaty, of its pledge, for the past 37 years. But never has its attitude been more brazen in refusing to uphold its pledge and its open violation of international law than when President Trump openly voiced his support for protests in Iran and called for regime change. The US then called an emergency UNSC meeting on January 5, 2018 to demand that the UN interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.

America’s history clearly demonstrates that it has no regard for international law and treaties. Its pledge is meaningless. International law is a tool for America that does not apply to itself. This is a well-documented fact – and perhaps none has realized this better than the North Korean leader – Kim Jong-un. But what is inexplicable is the failure of Iranians to address these violations.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy.

Notes

[*] U.S. TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty “as an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.”

Under United States law, however, there is a distinction made between the terms treaty and executive agreement. ” Generally, a treaty is a binding international agreement and an executive agreement applies in domestic law only. Under international law, however, both types of agreements are considered binding. Regardless of whether an international agreement is called a convention, agreement, protocol, accord, etc. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/dynamic/guide.php?id=65)

[i] David Binder, “U.S. Concedes It Is Behind Anti-Khomeini Broadcasts,” New York Times, 29 June 1980,

[ii] Mehmet Akif Okur, “The American Geopolitical Interests and Turkey on the Eve of the September 12, 1980 Coup”, CTAD, Vol.11, No.21, p. 210-211

[iii] Malintoppi, Loretta. World Arbitration Reporter (WAR) – 2nd edition, December 2010

https://arbitrationlaw.com/library/algiers-accord-and-iran-united-states-claims-tribunal-1981-algiers-world-arbitration. Downloaded January 14, 2018

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf

[iv] Bob Woodward, “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987”, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987, p. 480. (Cited by Stephen R. Shalom, “The United States and the Gulf War”, Feb. 1990).

[v] Leslie H. Gelb, “U.S. Said to Aid Iranian Exiles in Combat and Political Units,” New York Times, 7 Mar. 1982, pp. A1, A12.

[vi] Tower Commission, p. 398; Farhang, “Iran-Israel Connection,” p. 95. (Cited by Stephen R. Shalom, “The United States and the Gulf War”, Feb. 1990).

[vii] Connie Bruck, ibid

[viii] Andrew I Killgore. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Washington:Dec 2003. Vol. 22, Iss. 10, p. 17

[ix] Connie Bruck, ibid

[x] Eli Lake, New York Sun , Dec. 2, 2003

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/12/02&ID=Ar00100

[xi] International Democracy Development, Google Books, p. 59 https://books.google.com/books?id=ReTtEj6_myAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

[xii] Connie Bruck, “A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran’s expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat”. The New Yorker, March 6, 2006

[xiii] US State Department Daily Briefing http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/34680.htm

[xiv] Michael Ware, “U.S. protects Iranian Opposition Group in Iraq” 6, April 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, Information Clearing House

January 27, 2018 0 comments

Albania

Once you are in the MKO, you are no more self-sufficient

The resettlement of members of the mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/ MEK/ PMOI/ the Cult of Rajavi) in Albania was accomplished in 2016 following an agreement between the US administration and the Albanian government in 2013. The relocation operation was managed by the UNHCR. [1] Therefore, members of the MKO should have been considered as the refugees under the international laws.

The U.S. assistance to the deal also included a donation of $20 million to the U.N. refugee agency to help resettle the MEK. The U.S. has also provided Albania with security and economic development assistance, to help the country build up its physical capacity to house the refugees. [2]

Cults are destructive

Based on the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees published on the UNHCR website, “Protecting refugees is the core mandate of UNHCR”. To protect refugees the UNHCR should work closely with the state that receives the refugees in its territory. [3]

“UNHCR’s main role in pursuing international protection is to ensure that states are aware of, and act on, their obligations to protect refugees and persons seeking asylum, ”according to the UNHCR website. “However, it is not a supranational organization and cannot be considered as a substitute for government responsibility.” [4]

Thus, in case of the MKO members, the Albanian government is supposed to have certain duties and the UNHCR is expected to ensure that the government is aware of its responsibility and acts properly to fulfill the rights of the MKO’s rank and file while they are required to respect the laws and regulations of the Albanian government in return. [5]

Under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Countries should ensure that refugees benefit from economic and social rights, at least to the same degree as other foreign residents of the country of asylum. The bottom line is that members of the Cult of Rajavi (the MKO) do not benefit from economic and social rights in Albanian territory because they do not enjoy a normal life on their own free will. MKO members are taken as hostages in the headquarters of the group.

“A refugee has the right to safe asylum,” reads the Convention. ”However, international protection comprises more than physical safety. Refugees should receive at least the same rights and basic help as any other foreigner who is a legal resident, including freedom of thought, of movement, and freedom from torture and degrading treatment.” [6]

“Freedom” is a precious gift which allows men to believe and live any way he chooses but it is unheard of in destructive cults such as the MKO. Meanwhile the UNHCR’s assistance “may include financial grants, food, tools and shelter and basic infrastructure such as schools and clinics. With projects such as income-generating activities and skill training programs, UNHCR makes every effort to ensure that refugees become self-sufficient as quickly as possible.”

Based on testimonies of defectors of the MKO in Tirana, the above mentioned facilities are limited to very basic needs such as food and shelter. The MKO’s rank and file have no access to the income-generating activities and skill training programs because they have to be dependent to the cult.

Once a person is stuck in a cult, he or she has to be totally dependent on the leader of the cult. Self-sufficiency is pointless to a cult member. In order to impose more isolation on their rank and file the MKO leaders took their recent action to relocate them to a remote headquarters in north of Tirana. The new base is surrounded by high walls and barbed wire to prevent the members from escaping.

The UNHCR and the Albanian government are highly responsible about the threat of 2500 radicalized cult members who are trained as robots in the Cult of Rajavi. They are potential ISIS-like forces that may turn back to trouble their housing society unless the MKO members are not considered as refugees under international laws. A Huffington Post article by Massoud Khodabandeh clarifies the vague status of the MKO hostages in Albania:

“A report by an Albanian lawyer (acting for MEK members who managed to separate from the group) after meeting with the UNHCR in Tirana reveals that under a secret agreement struck between the Americans, the government of Albania and the MEK leader, the UNHCR supervised the transfer of approximately 3,000 MEK from Iraq to Albania not as refugees but on a ‘humanitarian basis’. In other words, they have no official status in the country.

“According to this agreement, all the expenses for the MEK members are to be doled out by the MEK itself. This means that members are totally dependent on the MEK leadership for their subsistence. Those who have expressed their desire to separate from the group, for whatever reason, must continue to obey MEK rules and restrictions, they must accept MEK imposed conditions so that they are given accommodation and food.” [7]

This unfounded status of some thousand members of a fringe cult may give Albania a slap in the face. This is what Ebi Spahiu of Balkanalysis is concerned about. “Given Albania’s continued struggles with endemic corruption and organized crime, and the slow emergence of religious radicalization as a regional security threat, sectarian rifts may add to the list of challenges facing Albania’s political standing,” he writes. “One point of controversy that has already occurred domestically is that the agreement itself is very vague; there has thus been plenty of criticism domestically over a perceived lack of transparency on the terms agreed between Albania and the US.” [8]

Mazda Parsi

Sources:

[1] Dockins, Pamela, US Praises Albania for MEK Resettlement, VOA, February 14th, 2016

[2 ] ibid

[3] UNHCR website, Protecting Refugees: questions and answers, February 1st, 2002

[3] ibid

[5] ibid

[6] ibid

[7] Khodabendeh, Massoud, Albania’s Modern Slavery Problem Alienates Europe, Huffington Post, November 20th, 2017

[8] Spahiu, Ebi, The Iranian MEK in Albania: Implications and Possible Future Sectarian Divisions, Balkanalysis, January 29, 2017

January 24, 2018 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts