Articles

Mujahedin Khalq Organization members' families

RC: MEK members in Albania have no access to the outside world

Mujahedin-e Khalq members have had no contact with the outside world for the last 35 years. They have had no contact with their families. Members are held hostages within the MKO Cult camps. The whereabouts of some are even unknown to their families.

Mr. Mir Bagher Sedaghi has been seeking to find a way to visit his brother who is living at Mujahedin-e khalq Camp in Tirana, Albania.

He perused the issue through the Red Cross office of Bern.

The Red Cross officials reported him their several months of perusing the case, last week.

Mr. Sedaghi reiterated the Red Cross report:

“More than twenty Iranian families living in Swiss have contacted us during the last year. They asked us to help them with sending their letters to their family members at MKO Camp in Tirana. We perused the subject through the Red Cross office of Tirana. The Red Cross office of Tirana sent us an email. The email reads:

“ the MEK is a closed cult. They don’t allow us to contact the members of the group. We couldn’t contact any member of the group. We just could hand the letters to the MEK officials. However we know that the letters have not reached the members. The MEK members in Albania are not allowed to have phone, Internet or TV. They have no access to the outside world and we can do nothing for them. …”

Nejat Society reporting from Iran-Setaregan Website

November 6, 2016 0 comments

Terrorist groups and the MEK

Human Shield, Useful tool for the MKO and ISIS

While the world-wide news media are focusing on the operation against ISIS in Mosul the propaganda websites of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) keeps on its deadly silence about any news on the battle of coalition forces against terrorists of Islamic State. As ISIS extremist terrorists have been already called as “Iraqi revolutionary tribes” by the MKO propaganda, meaningful ignorance of the group regarding the atrocities of ISIS confirms their sympathy for them.

The latest news on Mosul indicated huge aspects of atrocities of the ISIS radical Islamists. Islamic State fighters have taken “tens of thousands” of people hostage and are herding them towards the city of Mosul for use as human shields as the battle for the militant group’s last major Iraqi stronghold intensifies, the United Nations has told the Guardian.

Considering the massacre of Yemeni civilians, the same position is taken by the MKO. Yemeni children are forgotten in the MKO propaganda while children of Aleppo have become an icon in the group website. The former are victims of the enemy of Iran, Saudi Arabian forces and the later are said to be victims of the friends of Iran, Syrian and Russian forces.

A glance on the group’s propaganda media demonstrates its eagerness to be the voice of Saudi Arabia against Iran. Definitely, ISIS and Syrian rebels are considered friends of MKO as well. Actually, the long-life policy of the leaders of the MKO has always gotten in line with policies of enemies of the Iranian Government, regardless of ethics and moralities and justice. Double standard is the tool for hypocrites.

Moreover, atrocities of the ISIS terrorists might seem so natural to the MKO that they cannot take position against it. Victimizing people by using them as human shields is a very common tactic which has been used by the MKO leaders several times. The MKO-provoked clashes with Iraqi forces are significant examples of such deceitful tactic.

After the Iraqi Government took control of Camp Ashraf in 2008, the group leaders made efforts to create problems for Iraqi government to prevent them from performing its obligations. On July 29, 2009 there was a report of deadly clashes between hundreds of Iraqi police forces who wanted to settle a police station in Camp Ashraf and the residents of the camp. The clashes left 11 members dead and scores injured from both side. While the reasons for the clash was said to be unclear at first, it was then became clear that it was a pre-organized plan indoctrinated by group leaders. Devotees of Massoud Rajavi were converged to provoke Iraqi forces to trigger the clash by forming a human shield. That was well videotaped and broadcasted by the organization itself. While the Iraqi Police had the obligation to protect residents of the camp, the MKO leaders used the opportunity to fuel their propaganda machine.

There are a lot of individuals out there including ex-members of the MKO, Journalists and experts who have tried to tell the world of the concerns about the members not living but enslaved by MKO against their own will. They have always warned the international community to beware how the Cult-like ruling system of the MKO exploits insiders as human shields to safeguard its own entity.

Having been relocated in Albania hostages of the MKO are still being exploited by the Cult leaders. As Iran-Interlink reports, the organization is buying several fast food restaurants in the city in order to use them for its members to work there.

It is absolutely wrong to conclude that leaders of the group are thinking of entrepreneurship. The leaders of the group are the ones who benefit from this. The members are being abused. The absolute truth is that the Cult of Rajavi does not value the lives of its members but it wants to make the most profit out of them. “The businesses belong to the MEK and are not part of a rehabilitation scheme”, according to Iran-Interlink. “MEK members exist in a state of modern slavery and have never benefitted from pay or worker rights during their decades of membership of the cult.”

Living their luxurious life in Paris, leaders of the Cult of Rajavi do not have any regard for humanity. They have proved to care only for their own survival. They keep violating human rights continuously in the camp while they pretend they care for humanity. They only care for themselves and the members are served as playthings in the hands of their corrupt leaders.

Mazda Parsi

November 5, 2016 0 comments

Europe

Europe Capitalizes on the Iran Deal

As Washington think-tanks, with some notable exceptions, keep churning out papers advising the next American president to double down on containing Iran, the European Parliament adopted a report on October 25 that is strikingly different in tone and substance. Drafted by the UK Labour Party politician Richard Howitt , the motion received overwhelming support in the house: 459 votes in favor, with 174 against and 67 abstentions. It outlines a set of recommendations for the EU and its member states to fully capitalize on the opening provided by the historical nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1.

The report praises the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as a success of a multilateral diplomacy, which has already boosted economic and trade connections between Europe and Iran. The report calls on both the EU and Iran to build on this opening by expanding cooperation in counter-terrorism, environmental protection, academic and cultural exchanges, and aviation and maritime safety.

The report is notable also for the respectful and constructive tone it uses. Although by no means short on legitimate criticisms of Iran, it avoids the kind of bashing that can only provoke angry reactions and further alienation. For example, it recognizes the complexities of Iran’s internal politics and does not seek to take sides in Iran’s domestic political debates. It acknowledges the long history of relations between Iran and various European countries as a foundation to further expand ties. Instead of blasting the “repressive theocracy,” it states that “Iran’s revolutionary legacy and constitution as an Islamic Republic” should not be an obstacle to finding common ground on issues of democracy and human rights, where possible. These are novel formulations for an official position of an elected Western body on the Islamic Republic, and convey an intention to have a dialogue of equals.

Lingering Opposition

Despite the overwhelming support the house has given the report, a minority of MPs expressed vocal opposition. Some of the criticisms reflect what rapporteur Richard Howitt called “the lobbying interests” of forces opposed to the nuclear agreement with Iran in the first place: right-wing pro-Israeli organizations, Saudi Arabia, and the exiled Iranian dissident group Mojaheddin-e Khalk (MEK), which was on the EU terror list until 2009 and removed on technicality. The hawkish American Jewish Committee blasted the report for allegedly “giving Iran a free pass on human rights and support for Assad regime,” although it somewhat mitigated its criticisms when the EP adopted the last-minute amendment condemning Iran for its “calls for destruction of Israel and denial of Holocaust.” MEK, meanwhile, managed to convince enough MPs to consider an amendment calling to investigate the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran—a crime indeed, but one that Iranians themselves, and not foreign legislative bodies, are best placed to address. However, the house ultimately rejected this amendment.

A different kind of opposition emerged from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE), traditionally the third pillar of European politics, after Christian democrats and social democrats. Although ALDE does not oppose the nuclear agreement as such, it rejected the report on the basis that it was “weak” on human rights and “has not preconditioned” any improvement of relations with Iran on tangible progress in this area.

These criticisms do not hold water. The report has no fewer than 34 references to human rights in its 51 paragraphs. It contains very detailed, carefully crafted wording on the death penalty and on the rights of women and religious minorities. It also makes a clear appeal to Iran to release all political prisoners. In the process of drafting the report, the rapporteur and his team consulted extensively with credible human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

But pre-conditioning any cooperation on specific, unilaterally imposed benchmarks could have easily undermined any prospects for progress, for example, by leading the Iranians to cancel talks with the EU on human rights scheduled for November 9 in Brussels. Crucially, these talks involve the Iranian judiciary, the bastion of the conservatives and the main source of the human rights violations. As Howitt said during the debates on his report, “those who say they support human rights, but would jeopardize our leverage to influence them, should examine their own consciences.”

As to the regional situation, the report is careful not to take sides between Iran and its antagonists, such as Saudi Arabia. The critics would have liked to see a strong condemnation of Iran’s support for the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria and the removal of clauses that acknowledge the EU and Iran’s common interest in fighting the so-called Islamic State. Instead, the report acknowledges that by following the JCPOA the EU now has increased its leverage over Iran while maintaining ties with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other traditional Western allies in the region. The EU is thus in a unique position to play the role of an honest broker in the conflicts ravaging the region, from Syria to Yemen.

Indeed, it is disingenuous for the critics to claim that they support the nuclear agreement while at the same time putting so many conditions to any cooperation with Iran. The irony is that such an approach would not only squander an opportunity to build a new relationship with Iran but also undermine the nuclear deal itself. The JCPOA is not something once achieved and put in the freezer until the regime in Iran changes—which, one suspects, is the real agenda of many of the critics of the report. For the agreement to survive, all sides need incentives to comply, and that requires trust. This process would be so much more difficult to accomplish in the absence of a broader rapprochement.

Glimmers of Hope

There are signs that the pragmatic approach espoused by the report works. Contrary to the war of words that usually followed EP resolutions in the past, the Iranian foreign ministry welcomed the report as a positive indication that the EU seeks closer relations with Iran. Of course, the reactions of other factions within the regime are yet to be seen. As the string of totally unacceptable arrests and harassment of dual Western-Iranian nationals shows, influential forces that thrive on confrontation exist in Iran as well as in the West. But ultimately, this is how diplomacy works – by taking patient, reciprocal steps, that strengthen moderates on all sides and eventually lead to the demise of old enmities.

This most recent statement reflects a broader European approach to relations with Iran. Just as the EP was debating the Howitt report, the EU lifted sanctions on Bank Saderat, which, however, remains on the OFAC (US Treasure’s Office of Foreign Assets Control) black list. The EU Commissioner for humanitarian aid and crisis management Christos Stylianides, meanwhile, was in Tehran on the same day committing additional 6 million euros to help Afghan refugees in Iran, bringing the total EU humanitarian support to 12.5 million euros in 2016.

These steps by the EU executive and the parliament reinforce the upward trend in the EU-Iran relations. This rapprochement will enable both sides not only to pursue common interests but also to address problematic issues such as human rights and some aspects of Iran’s regional policies without derailing the relations. Given the investment the EU has already made in these relations, it won’t likely follow the new US president if he or she chooses to heed the advice of hawkish Washington-based think tanks and return to the policy of sanctions and isolation of Iran. And that’s another reason why the next American president would be wise to disregard such advice.

This article reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily the opinions of the European Parliament. Photo: Richard Howitt

By Eldar Mamedov,

November 3, 2016 0 comments

Albania

Albania: Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) using slave labour to profit from business

Local observers in Tirana are reporting that the Mojahedin Khalq cultic terror group (MEK) is buying and creating several sandwich and kebab shops in the city and is using the MEK members to work in these fast-food businesses.

On the surface this may look like a positive move. In an article titled ‘Albania: What would a de-radicalization program for the Mojahedin Khalq involve’, it was suggested by cult expert Anne Khodabandeh that to “offer paid work opportunities which are age and ability appropriate” to these people could be part of a de-radicalisation package to reintegrate them back into normal life.

But this is not what is happening here. The businesses belong to the MEK and are not part of a rehabilitation scheme. There are no plans by Albanian authorities to de-radicalise them. This is important because it is known that the MEK members exist in a state of modern slavery and have never benefitted from pay or worker rights during their decades of membership of the cult.

Over 2500 radicalised MEK members are now living in Tirana as part of the group. The problem for the leaders is how to occupy them so they do not decide to leave. After all, in their former military bases in Iraq, their aim was violent regime change in Iran. That is what they trained for. In Albania if they cannot pursue this agenda they must be used in some other way.

The use of unpaid labour in business is of course very attractive. Such modern slaves need only to be fed and accommodated. The profit from their labour goes straight to the MEK coffers. The MEK members pay no tax, have no health or pension insurance and absolutely no employment rights. Certainly the Albanian authorities will want to investigate the crimes and corruption inherent in such behaviour. How are they getting away with it? Who is turning a blind eye? Who is abetting such behaviour?

In such a state, the MEK members are extremely vulnerable. They are victims of ruthless exploitation but are unable to even recognise let alone protest their predicament. With the right knowledge (about cultic abuse), Albania’s human rights groups would find a rich source of research material if they have the unwavering courage to delve into the MEK’s devious and, frankly, dangerous world.

October 31, 2016 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

America’s ironic two faced war on terror ignores US support for Mojahedin Khalq

America’s Ironic “Two-Faced” War on Terror

Rarely ever does hypocrisy align so succinctly as it does within the pages of American policy and media coverage. US policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, recently provided an extreme example of this in a paper titled, “A convenient terrorism threat,” penned by Daniel Byman.

The paper starts by claiming:

Not all countries that suffer from terrorism are innocent victims doing their best to fight back. Many governments, including several important U.S. allies, simultaneously fight and encourage the terrorist groups on their soil. President George W. Bush famously asked governments world-wide after 9/11 whether they were with us or with the terrorists; these rulers answer, “Yes.”

Some governments—including at times Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan among others—hope to have it both ways. They use the presence of terrorists to win sympathy abroad and discredit peaceful foes at home, even while fighting back vigorously enough to look plausible but not forcefully enough to solve the problem. This two-faced approach holds considerable appeal for some governments, but it hugely complicates U.S. counterterrorism efforts—and the U.S. shouldn’t just live with it.

Byman then begins labelling various nations; Somalia as a “basket-case,” Iran as a “straightforward state sponsors of terrorism” and attempts to frame Russia’s struggle against terrorism in Chechnya as somehow disingenuous or politically motivated.

Byman also attempts to claim Syrian President Bashar Al Assad intentionally released terrorists from prison to help escalate violence around the country and justify a violent crackdown, this despite reports from Western journalists as early as 2007 revealing US intentions to use these very terrorists to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran specifically, the New Yorker would reveal.

The US is as Much a Sponsor of Terrorism in Reality as Byman Claims Others are in Fiction

But worse than Byman’s intentional mischaracterisations and lies of omission regarding US allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel’s overt, global-spanning sponsorship of terrorism, is the fact that not only is the US itself engaged in sponsoring terrorism as it poses as fighting against it globally, the Brookings Institution and Byman have specifically and publicly called for the funding, training and arming of designated foreign terrorist groups in pursuit of self-serving geopolitical objectives.

Indeed, Daniel Byman is one of several signatories of the 2009 Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran.”

The report not only reveals the blueprints of using supposedly “peaceful” and “democratic” protests as cover for violent, US sponsored subversion (as was precisely done in Syria beginning in 2011), it specifically lists a US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organisation as a potential US proxy in violently rising up against, and eventually overthrowing the government in Tehran.

The report would explicitly state (our emphasis):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

The report then admits MEK’s status as a designated foreign terrorist organisation and that it has targeted and killed both American officers and civilians in the past (our emphasis):

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

The Brookings Institution also admits in its report that undoubtedly MEK continues to carry out undeniable terrorist activity against political and civilian targets within Iran, and notes that if MEK is to be successfully used as a US proxy against Iran, it would need to be delisted as a foreign terrorist organisation (our emphasis):

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. 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. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.

And eventually, that is precisely what was done. MEK would be delisted by the US State Department in 2012, announced in a US State Department statement titled, “Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq,” which noted:

With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992.

The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members. The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.

MEK’s inability to conduct violence in the decade preceding the US State Department’s decision was not because of an ideological commitment to nonviolence, but a matter of strategic limitations placed on the terrorist organisation by Iraqi and Iranian security forces who were determined to liquidate it and who forcibly disarmed the group.

And even if the 2012 US State Department decision was based on an alleged decade of nonviolence, the policymakers at the Brookings Institution who signed their names to “Which Path to Persia?” including Daniel Byman, certainly did not apply the same criteria in suggesting its use as an armed proxy.

In all likelihood, had Iraq and Iran not successfully cornered and disarmed the group, it would be fighting America’s proxy war against Tehran on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border. MEK fighters would be carrying out US-backed armed violence against Iran and Iraq side-by-side other US-backed terrorist groups operating across the region as part of America’s current proxy war against Syria, Russia and Iran.

Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution’s latest paper even at face value is disingenuous, full of intentional mischaracterisations meant to direct attention away from the US and its closest allies’ own sponsorship of terrorism amid a very much feigned “War on Terror.” Understanding that Byman quite literally signed his name to a policy paper promoting the arming and backing of a US State Department designated foreign terrorist organisation makes his recent paper all that more outrageous.

What is also as troubling as it is ironic, is that Byman not only signed his name to calls for arming a listed terrorist organisation, he was also a staff member of the 9/11 Commission, according to his Georgetown University biography. A man involved in sorting out a terrorist attack who is also advocating closer cooperation with listed terrorist organisations is truly disturbing.

The political and ethical bankruptcy of American foreign policy can be traced back to its policy establishment, populated by unprincipled hypocrites like Byman and co-signatories of Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” The US certainly cannot convince other nations to abandon an alleged “two-faced” policy of promoting and fighting terrorism simultaneously when it stands as a global leader in this very practise.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Joseph Thomas, New Eastern Outlook,

October 29, 2016 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Desperate widow of Massoud Rajavi

This year’s October 21st marks the 23th anniversary of a fake election. Twenty three years ago, Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO), declared the selection –not election– of his trusted sweet-heart as the “president-elect” of the so-called National Council of Resistance which has been the propaganda front of his organization. Although, Maryam was introduced as the president elect of the Council, none of the members of the Council voted for her. She was just assigned by Massoud!

The title “President Elect” has been embraced by the MKO propaganda for nearly three decades while the original selection of Maryam Rajavi is on the first place contradictory to all values of democracy. Former member of the MKO, Mrs. Ann Singleton has ironically described the fake election inside the group in her Facebook status:

“On the subject of elections the American candidates could take lessons from the MEK. In order to elect Iran’s next President (no, come on, stop laughing already), the Rajavis staged their own election among the MEK members. Voter turnout was compulsory of course, no member would dare not attend when commanded. Neither was it a secret ballot, it was decided by a public show of hands. As a result, Maryam Rajavi was voted with a 100% majority <ahem> as the President elect of Iran. (Where do they dream up such titles?) Oh, and by the way, there only was one candidate. Yes, you guessed it, Maryam Rajavi. And she received only one nomination. Yes, you guessed it – from her husband. That was two and a half decades ago and she’s been President elect ever since, unopposed. See, democracy in all its glory.”

By the way, Maryam Rajavi has been the “Queen of Propaganda” of the MKO during all the years of her illusory presidency. She has been the leading actress in the MKO’s masquerade shows wearing luxurious suits and Hijab. This year’s Paris gathering was going fine until Saudi Prince Turkie Feisal declared the death of Massoud Rajavi calling him Maryam Rajavi’s “late husband”! This huge gaffe turned Maryam’s smiling face to a shocked panicky one. Although the interpreter was careful enough to conceal the surprising news in the Persian translation, the group propaganda and its Queen were faced with a sever challenge wondering what position to take. However, the authorities of the group sounded to be so prudent on the issue that they cannot confirm or deny it obviously.

Definitely, in any community, when the leader dies, the system seeks to replace the deceased leader with a new person. The appointment of the new leader can be based on elections otherwise the successor has been previously determined. As a matter of fact, Maryam Rajavi has never been appointed as the successor of Massoud because Massoud was not supposed to die at all.

As a cult-leader, Massoud Rajavi was considered in the MKO as an everlasting leader. In the opening speech of the so-called grand gathering on July 9th, Maryam Rajavi repeated the claim by praising her disappeared husband as “the everlasting vigilant lion” – it was just a few minutes later that Turkey Feisal revealed Massoud’s death.

Actually, Maryam Rajavi is the main victim of Massoud Rajvi’s cult-like system. Being firstly brainwashed by Massoud’s indoctrinations, Maryam turned into the relevant puppet of the leader. She was so horribly manipulated by Massoud that she not only didn’t disagree with his greed for women and power, but also she aided him to achieve all his capricious ambitions in the cult. Maryam Rajavi was the leading person to persuade female members of the group’s Elite Council to get naked in front of Massoud, to marry him and to have sex with him.

Considering the crucial situation of Maryam Rajavi as the widow of Massoud, she seems not to have the necessary capacities of an independent cult-leader. This might explain her recent eagerness to organize meetings with controversial figures. She is resorting to anyone who might aid her in the absence of Massoud’s teachings. Thus, her companions can be find among the most anti-feminism states such as Saudi Arabia despite her long-life slogans for women’s rights and women’s equality.

Today Maryam Rajavi is ambiguously leading the cult of Rajavi. The cult propaganda has launched a huge propaganda to glorify her part as the “President Elect”. The recent enthusiasm to highlight Maryam‘s role seems to be a futile effort to maintain the hegemony of Massoud but the new decline in the group regarding the acceleration of defection of members after the complete relocation in Albania indicates the extent of failure of the cult’s propaganda.

Finally, it is worth to know Ann Singleton’s account about Maryam rajavi’s personality and the current situation of her cult:

“I posted this two years ago. Since then we have been told that Massoud Rajavi has died – although the MEK/NCRI deny this. We know that the MEK have been expelled from Iraq and are now settled in a housing block on the outskirts of Tirana. We know that Saudi Arabia are not keen to promote the MEK because it is no longer useful for the Saudi agenda. The MEK is slowly disintegrating. It would behove Maryam Rajavi to allow people to leave more quickly on humanitarian grounds. A first step would be to allow family contact. But since Rajavi is a callous and jealous woman, we shouldn’t expect much from her. “

Mazda Parsi,

October 26, 2016 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

MKO, the ending stage of the radicalization process

The commitment to violence is what distinguishes a terrorist group from other extremist groups. For years, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (the MKO) was committed to acts of terror and violence as its main strategy to fight the shah of Iran and then the Islamic Republic government. However, the group hasn’t committed violent act since 2002. It claims that it has officially denounced terrorism even though it has never made any official statement openly.

Given that the MKO has denounced terrorism, why is there too much concern over the relocation of the MKO in Europe, Albania? According to the reports, not many member states of the European Union were willing to receive the MKO in their territory and ultimately Albania accepted to receive them in exchange for financial aid from the United States.

There is too much concern about the presence of the MKO in Europe because the MKO’s background indicates true facts about its nature as a terrorist destructive cult.

Researchers have developed a number of different theories and conceptual models that seek to explain the process by which an individual becomes radicalized. Most of them consider certain stages from beginning to end of the process. Based on researches the ending stage of the process is always violent action.

This demonstrates that the MKO has already passed through all the stages although it is not apparently committed to terrorism now. Thus, the potential capacity of a radicalized extremist terrorist group threatens the European citizens, particularly the Albanians who hardly ever have enough information on true nature of the MKO.

Social scientists, law enforcement organizations, and intelligence agencies all agree that terrorists are the products of the dynamic process of radicalization. Radicalization makes the individuals get engaged in a system of beliefs – radical or ideological – and impose their beliefs on the rest of society. This is exactly what the MKO has passed through during its half a century–long history.

There are common elements in the experiences of most people who have become indoctrinated in the destructive terrorist cults, regardless of their beliefs or motivations. These elements make significant changes in the life style of a person including his social relations. The person’s behavior will become more intense and extreme over time compared with the normal life.

Members of the MKO are kept under a very suppressive system that controls all aspects of their life. Celibacy is mandatory in the MKO; love and emotions are forbidden except for their leaders. Members have to reveal all their thoughts during the day in certain sessions –held daily and weekly in order to maintain mind control over members. Sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, mental and physical torture are usual practices in the Cult of Rajavi. Members have no access to the outside world or the news of the outside world. Now that they are in Tirana, the rank and file are allowed to go outside their apartment complex only under the supervision of a superior member.

Under the severe manipulation system of the Cult of Rajavi, most members are likely to have gone all the way to become a violent extremist. For this reason, you may not be surprised to see a dozen of the group members commit self-immolation following the arrest of their leader Maryam Rajavi by the French Police in 2003.

The world community particularly the United Nations and the Government of Albania have the crucial duty to interrupt the process of victimization of the MKO members. Besides, the international bodies should prevent members of the MKO to get to the point of threatening or using violence – although some of them have already reached the point.

The active involvement of families, friends and human rights bodies in the process of de-radicalization is very important. Unfortunately, paid advocacy for the MKO is clear evidence of an absence of will to secure the European citizens and to release the victims taken as hostages in the MKO.

By Mazda Parsi

October 19, 2016 0 comments

Albania

Albania: What would a de-radicalization program for the Mojahedin Khalq involve

In spite of American promises, no de-radicalisation programme is in place to deal with over 2500 members of the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist group who have relocated to Tirana from Iraq. The MEK has a long history of violent and criminal activity. This has not stopped now they are in Tirana. Unless the Albanian government introduces its own programme, it must accept responsibility for the consequences of allowing this terrorist group to continue unchecked.

What would de-radicalisation involve? Firstly, we need to understand how the person became radicalised in the first place. This knowledge will allow us to help them. A fundamental principle is that they were not radicalised by logic but by a manipulative process which is in part mental and part emotional. For this reason, they cannot simply be sat down and argued out of their beliefs with counter-narratives.

A brief overview of the process of radicalisation for any group – far-right extremists, Islamists and cults – starts with deceptive recruitment. The group uses a ‘recruiting script’ (which we recognise as the ideology) to first entice or ‘hook’ the recruit’s interest. Whether this is done in person or online, the recruiter will be an expert manipulative persuader – think hard sales.

Once drawn into the group’s sphere of influence by their engagement with the ‘ideology’, the person is covertly subjected to a range of psychologically manipulative mechanisms. These are intended initially to throw them off balance and trigger an infatuated, even altruistic response to the group and its beliefs. It is important to remember that as long as the recruit remains unaware of this psychological manipulation they will have complete faith in the ideology and the leader who proselytises it. They sincerely believe they are part of a righteous movement and their companions are worthwhile and trustworthy people.

As the recruit becomes more committed to the group, they are deliberately separated from external references and influences, such as work and studies, until they become dependent on the group for all their needs and opinions. A fundamental aim of radicalisation is to separate the recruit from their family and friends (even when they are also involved) since these are the people whose emotional ties can pull them away.

As dependency is being achieved, the recruit’s emotional responses begin to be trained, not by logic or argument but through fear. The outside world is depicted as dangerous, alien and worthless. This fear is described by experts as a ‘cultic phobia’. The recruit is afraid of what might happen if they leave the group and go back to normal life. Also to prevent this happening, the recruit and his group are made to feel they are superior to outsiders because they are the ‘true believers’.

Even though every group’s externally declared belief system or ideology is different, once the recruit has succumbed to the process of mind control, the ideology changes and becomes ‘whatever the leader wants’. All further indoctrination and manipulation is designed to make the recruit obedient to this one requirement.

When we talk about radicalisation, we tend to focus on how the process creates a violent extremist. Of course, violent extremist and terrorist groups de-sensitise their followers to horror. They will ensure they have no social, moral or religious barriers to committing any act, whether violent or criminal or self-harming.

But such groups also exert control over every other aspect of their members’ lives, including sex and relationships. Daesh, for example, uses both marriage and sex slaves to reward and motivate its fighters. It also kills with impunity anybody trying to exit the group.

Indoctrination therefore is often based on the idiosyncrasies of the leader.

Surprisingly, even though his group is committed to violent regime change, Massoud Rajavi’s primary concern was to have all his MEK followers love and worship him. Perhaps less surprisingly he also wanted all the women to be sexually available for him.

He achieved this by introducing obligatory celibacy starting with forced divorces and removal of all the children. He reinforced this regime through strict gender apartheid. He coerced elective hysterectomies among the leading women members as a demonstration of their ‘devotion to the cause’. The outward reasoning being that women who reject marriage and children will be more committed. The real reason was so that Rajavi could sleep with these women without fear of pregnancies.

To prevent people enjoying sexual responses and emotions, he introduced a compulsory confessional process. This requires every member to give a daily report about their sexual thoughts, reactions and even dreams. Anything confessed is denounced as a betrayal of the leader and is punished. But not confessing anything is also punished. Members often invent reports which they hope will lead to less harsh punishment.

The significance of this unnatural focus on sex and enforced celibacy is the effect on its victims. One MEK member has already been convicted in Tirana for the attempted rape of an 11-year-old boy. We should know if this is a one-off aberration or an indication of deeper problems among the members. An effective de-radicalisation programme would need to take these issues into account.

In essence, the key to successful de-radicalisation is to help individuals reconnect with their authentic self and emotions.

For the MEK, immediate short-term steps would include:

· Separate ordinary members from leaders and controllers – remove all forms of organisational supervision.

· Create small independent living groups responsible for their own domestic affairs – cooking, cleaning and shopping.

· Encourage families to get in contact.

· Introduce external sources of information in an informal way.

· Offer paid work opportunities which are age and ability appropriate.

· Introduce medical and psychological support workers.

One problem is the age of the MEK members. Many are too old to imagine starting independent life away from the group. In this respect, contact with their families would provide reassurance that an alternative lifestyle is possible.

In the longer term, the involvement of former members – who understand what it’s like inside the group and can talk to current members about their situation and how change is possible – has already proven to be helpful.

By Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh,

October 17, 2016 0 comments

Albania

Albanian citizens fearful of radicalised Mojahedin Khalq neighbours deserve more information

When the MEK were finally expelled from Iraq in August 2016, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry voiced its “deep satisfaction” with the relocation of the MEK in Albania. International efforts to solve the crisis were met with “outstanding success,” a statement read.

Deep satisfaction’ is an understatement. Since 2003, the MEK – known asSaddam’s Private Army – has been linked to the insurrectionists which included former Saddamists and Al Qaida in Iraq and later Daesh whom the MEK called ‘revolutionary brothers’. In 2009 serious efforts began to expel the group. The MEK refused to cooperate, issuing credible mass suicide threats against any interference. In 2011, the government of Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UN to facilitate this effort. The MEK still refused to cooperate.

Neither was it straightforward to relocate an entire terrorist group. In 2013 Romania refused to take them. Instead, a $9m deal was struck by the US with the government of Albania to take an initial 210. In March 2013, the Obama Administration urged the MEK leadership to “accept the government of Albania’s humanitarian offer immediately, and urges the residents of Camp [Liberty] to resume participation in resettlement interviews to ensure that individuals avail themselves of safe and secure relocation opportunities outside Iraq”. The MEK rejected the offer. The transfer process slowed and often stalled over the next three years.

It was only over the summer of 2016 when it became clear that Daesh and the Saddamists would be flushed out of Mosul and Daesh’s dream of establishing its abhorrent Caliphate in Iraq had been crushed, that the MEK finally accepted to leave. By this time the MEK had sustained 200 deaths and even more injuries as their camp was repeatedly attacked by enemies. For sure the Iraqis had good reason to be glad to see the back of them.

Now in Albania many questions surround the arrival of the MEK. Since 2013, when the government announced publicly that 210 MEK would be accepted in the country, there has been no official communication with the citizenry about the numbers or the purpose of this influx, even though the government’s resettlement package has reached $20m. With upward of 2500 terrorists now located in Tirana, what does this mean for Albania and Albanians? What is the missing backstory and where lies a credible explanation for the MEK’s deviant behaviour?

The first thing we can state is that there is no programme in Albania to de-radicalisethese people. They were transferred as an intact group and there are no plans to disband them. Although international law forbids the UN from granting asylum to terrorists or even to a political group, this is what apparently has happened here.

Evidence that this group is not going to be de-radicalised is not difficult to obtain. Some members when interviewed have already said they only intend to stay in Albania “until the Iranian regime is toppled”. Journalists would only then need to ask why the members are denied any form of family life – marriage and children are banned in the MEK – to elicit the answer ‘so we can focus fully on our struggle’. It is an overt admission that they are not about to abandon their activities as a terrorist group. They are not willing to submit to de-radicalisation.

But how do we know they are radicalised at all? What threat, if any, do these people pose to Albanian society?

For the local citizens, mystery surrounds their arrival and their lifestyle. Should these secretive and covert neighbours be treated with suspicion or kindness? At a local level, the first thing neighbouring families need to be aware of is that among all MEK members, sexual relations have been banned for over 25 years. This means there are no marriages or children or young people in the organisation. More troubling are the obligatory confessional meetings in which members are required to admit any sexual thoughts or feelings and be punished for them. With this emphasis on sexual matters, it is not known how such people may react when they come in contact with ordinary people and their children.

Local people will notice that the behaviour, body language and appearance of the MEK are not normal. They will intuitively understand that there is something deviant in these people but will not, without further knowledge, have the means to explain it.

In short it is the result of radicalisation. This is a process of ongoing brainwashing which suppresses the authentic self and emotions and replaces them with the zealous ideological mindset of terrorists.

These people dress, walk and hold themselves differently. Their utilitarian, beggar-like clothes are easily identifiable as thinly disguised uniforms. They do not readily engage with outsiders. Most of them remain isolated behind closed doors and curtains. Those who do come outside are the trusted members who have been successfully re-charged with fresh ideological zeal. They come outside for specific missions such as buying mobile phones, not for enjoyment or leisure. More senior members, travelling covertly in vehicles, will be involved in other more secretive and troubling activities.

In public, the MEK may appear friendly and confident, condescending even, since they feel themselves superior to outsiders. However, because they are very much focused on their own self-preservation and that of their group, this means they cannot engage on a more personal level or talk about everyday issues and will become agitated if pressed beyond their capacity and knowledge.

As a result of radicalisation they have a black and white world view, operate with a very narrow range of emotions and are reluctant to question or be questioned. They display a phobic response to the outside world. Indeed, the MEK do not have an ‘outside’ to which they want to return. Their whole lives revolve around obedience to their group and its leaders.

Radicalisation makes them obedient to orders. The MEK know themselves as ‘living martyrs’ which means they accept death at any time if ordered by their leaders to kill or perform a suicide mission.

What the Albanian authorities are dealing with is not only radicalised combatants but combatants who have been fully trained in terrorism and security tactics by Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard and Mokhabarat (secret services). They may be old and some may be sick, but they remain programmed to obey orders and are prepared to die or kill for their beliefs. They are trained to dissemble. They can operate easily using two or three false identities. (Complicated by the fact many arrived in Albania using false identities.) They can set people up, obscure their tracks and hide in plain sight. Transferring these people from Iraq to Albania is the equivalent of moving terrorists from Syria to Europe. The challenges posed by these facts cannot be ignored or minimised.

So, if the MEK are not going to be disbanded and de-radicalised, what will they be doing in Albania?

The MEK has a long history of terrorist activity, and its belief system is rooted in violence, but the MEK’s modern role is not military. While in Iraq, the group fulfilled vital facilitating functions for Saddam Hussein, mostly in Europe, doing what he couldn’t do under international sanctions: selling oil under the UN oil-for-food programme; procuring weapons and military equipment; purchasing chemical components for WMDs; money laundry; people trafficking; intimidation and murder of opponents; and undertaking public relations work in the West, including corrupting politicians.

It is anticipated that the MEK will perform a similar facilitating function in Albania, but this time serving modern terrorist groups like Daesh and smaller groups. (The MEK is in part funded by Saudi Arabia.) Albania’s location and historic problems with organised crime and corruption still render the country vulnerable to exploitation by groups like the MEK. It is known that over the past three years, the MEK have already developed relations with criminal gangs and corrupt government officials.

The danger lies in the MEK’s sophisticated capacity to propagandise and deceive political and public opinion, while at the same time performing outrageously damaging activities for the host country. Not only are the MEK fully trained by Saddam’s Intelligence service, but radicalisation means they have no moral, social or religious boundaries whatsoever. For them, all criminal activity is justified by their ideological belief that they can and must do anything for their cause.

Just as the MEK hosted Al Qaida and other insurgents in Iraq, the group is now fully placed to act as a hideout and training provider for the jihadis and terrorists who currently threaten the security of the whole Middle East.

If Albania fails to de-radicalise these people, the consequences could be severe. It is up to the Albanian people to demand a satisfactory explanation from their government. Is this really the humanitarian mission that Albania signed up for?

By Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh

October 10, 2016 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Flow of speaking and writing fees to the MKO’s paid sponsors

Speaking is not cheap and neither is writing, particularly if you have to speak or write on behalf of a formerly designated terrorist group that fails to enjoy any popular base. That’s why, the speakers at the rallies of the Mujahedin Khalq receive up to 25000 $ for a ten-minute speech. They are paid to say what the group has dictated to them regardless of the genuineness of what they are told to write or say. Every now and then, certain politicians are paid to write pieces in certain media to express their support for the group. The Hill is usually one of the main bases for the MKO-paid propaganda in the US media.

Certain paid sponsors of the MKO have made big pockets with the MKO money. Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) is an ardent advocate of the MKO who has been on the group’s payroll for the speeches and the articles on behalf of the group.

He so passionately showed off his empathy in one of the group’s rallies, “One of the greatest moments was when my uncle, President [John F.] Kennedy, stood in Berlin and uttered the immortal words ‘Ich bin ein Berliner,’. Today, I’m honored to repeat my uncle’s words, by saying [translated from Farsi] ‘I am an Iranian,’ ‘I am an Ashrafi.”

Following the above mentioned rally in August 2011, Ali Gharib and Zaid Jilani of Think Progress reported that Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) told them he was paid $25,000 to speak at a rally to remove a controversial Iranian exiled opposition group from the U.S. terrorist rolls after previously not saying if he was paid.

However, Think Progress correspondents who published a comprehensive report on the event noted the fact that Kennedy wouldn’t tell Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin whether or not he was paid to speak at the rally to remove the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) from the State Department list of foreign terror organizations. But asked by Think Progress, Kennedy replied that he had been paid $25,000 and that he wouldn’t accept the money if he didn’t believe in the cause. Kennedy was part of the huge campaign to delist the MKO in 2012.

Supposing that Kennedy does believe in the cause of the MKO, it is worth to ask him what the group’s cause is. As Kennedy and his comrades claim, the MKO spouses a democratic and secular Iran. But, they do not define that how they want to bring about democracy in Iran using the MKO.

Definitely, democracy takes evolution of grassroots. The seeds for any changes in any society must be sowed by its people and the Iranian people themselves are practicing democracy in their everyday life. Iranians are sure that the democratic society they look for does not exist in the MKO. Whenever you seek opinion of the people about the MKO you hear nothing but resentment and treachery.

Josh Rogin’s account on the MKO’s rally in Foreign Policy well indicates the unpopularity of the MKO among Iranian diaspora. “In a crowd made up of people who were mostly of Middle Eastern origin, a group of African-American attendees wearing MEK gear stood out”, He describes the MKO’s rented crowd.

Think Progress also describes Kennedy’s audience, “Speaking before a large crowd outside the State Department that included attendees bused-in from afar on all-expenses-paid trips, Kennedy cited one such attack — in April, which reportedly killed 34 Ashraf residents — as having spurred his support for the group.”

Following the resettlement of the MKO in Albania, the group’s propaganda made efforts to use an idiotic fallacy calling the relocation as a victory! Eventually, paid writers of the group repeated the same misjudgment in their writings.

“Always well-financed with laundered funds from hazy sources (including Saddam Hussein, and more recently the Saudis and the U.S. among others), for years the MEK spread money around like honey in Washington, Paris and other power centers,” writes Farid Khavari of the InvestmentWatchBlog.

Kennedy tries to convince the audience that the MKO relocation in Europe as a step forward to have “closer contact with European governments and the world community, where they can tell their stories and continue their activism in favor of regime change in Tehran.” He seems to be so manipulated by the group’s propaganda and money that he cannot understand that the notorious MKO cult will never be that viable force to bring regime change except with military intervention of the West. “Iranians would never vote for this government, and it could only be installed by U.S. military action,” Farid Khavari writes.

The paid advocacy campaign for the MKO should notice Farid’s clear advice: “This regime [established by the MKO] would be a worse threat to the region including Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It would also spark a civil war making Iran the next Syria.”

“The MEK owes its perceived legitimacy to the ignorance, innocent or not, of politicians and respected leaders in the free world. Let us hope their purchase of influence over U.S. policy does not lead to perpetual war”, he warns paid politicians.

Moreover, MKO is absolutely a cult-like group with an undeniable history of violence and human rights violation. It is considered a destructive cult of personality around the Rajavis. The “closer” it is to the European citizens, the more they are exposed to the threat of the destructive Cult of Rajavi.

By Mazda Parsi

October 8, 2016 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts