Articles

Mujahedin Khalq Organization members' families

Let’s stand up together and free our children from Rajavi and the MEK

The struggle to free their loved ones from the clutches of the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq cult has been brought to Europe as two fathers visit Auvers-sur-Oise near Paris, home to the MEK leader Maryam Rajavi.

Over three decades the cult leader Rajavi has banned MEK members from contacting their families for fear of divided loyalties and absconding. But the families have refused to give up on their children. Since 2003, hundreds of families undertook the difficult and dangerous journey to Iraq to find their loved ones. Mostafa Mohammadi travelled from Canada on several occasions to find his daughter Somayeh and bring her home. With no success there, he has now brought the demands of the families to the gates of the MEK’s Headquarters in France.

Somayeh Mohammadi has been held hostage by the MEK for over two decades in Iraq. After years of futile protest outside the camp, her father came to France to petition the MEK leader for her release. On the advice of his lawyer Mostafa visited the base in Auvers-sur-Oise with his other daughter Hooriyeh along with the lawyer to deliver a last formal request to Maryam Rajavi before launching legal proceedings against her. The MEK response was to send out around twenty thugs to beat up all three of the petitioners, including the French lawyer. Police intervened and Mostafa was hospitalised overnight.

After recovering from his injuries Mostafa again visited Auvers-sur-Oise on Friday 10th July to publicise his plight. This time he was accompanied by another father whose daughter is also being held captive in Iraq. Ghorban Ali Hossein Nejad joined Mostafa outside the Town Hall at Auvers-sur-Oise to hand out leaflets to local people and tourists. Ghorban Ali as well as other critics had previously been subjected to attacks by the MEK for speaking out against the group in France.

After sending out the message ‘Let’s stand up together and free our children’, other families are now lined up to join them for further activities over the busy summer season.

One of the mayor’s electoral pledges was to rid the small tourist town – where Vincent Van Gogh painted some of his most famous works – of the incongruous presence of the terrorist group. Her election was a clear indication that the townsfolk wanted some action to be taken to remove the MEK from their town. Unfortunately this has not happened and the MEK still continue their activities from inside their de facto enclave beyond the reach of the French authorities even though the cult is currently under investigation for terrorist offences.

July 14, 2015 0 comments

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 104

++ Hatem Estanboli writing for Palestinian newspaper Al Manar comments about Villepinte. He says “this is an example of low level propaganda typical of the Israeli. Less than 10% attending the rally were Iranian. This is smoke and mirrors to disguise reality.”

++ In Tehran, analyst Dr Mohammad Sadegh Kushki was interviewed. In it he is asked about the MEK. He described the history of the cult and how they changed, explaining that their belief system and belief in violence forced them to become like this. The interview is titled ‘In the beginning they chose armed struggle to defeat Imperialism’.

++ In an apparent panic, the MEK bringing many members onto its TV to talk against their families. This involves the loved ones of families who are actively seeking to make contact with these members and rescue them. In response the MEK get them to hysterically swear at and denounce their families. These families ask “is this supposed to make us go away? We can see they are forced.” Commentators ask ‘where are the human rights organisations to protect these people who are obviously hostages and who are being forced to denounce their own families?’ Some comment, ‘are we not human unless we are attached to the nuclear issue? Otherwise our human rights don’t matter?’

In English:

++ As attention has focused on the progress of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran, two articles in English have identified the role of the MEK in the all-out attempt to prevent an agreement.

Anti War.com published an article by Mohammad Sahimi titled ‘Demonizing Iran To Prevent the Nuclear Agreement’. He says “A forth way of demonizing Iran is by claiming that Iran is similar to the Islamic State and “1000 times worse” and “bigger.” …In advancing this narrative, Netanyahu has been helped by the Mujahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MEK, also known as MKO) and its lobby in the United States. The MEK is an Iranian armed opposition cult that sided with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and acted as his internal security forces against his regime’s opponents. Up until September 2011 it was on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organization. The MEK leader Maryam Rajavi has made the same claims as Netanyahu’s, calling the Islamic Republic the IS’ “Godfather.” She even testified via satellite before a congressional subcommittee, repeating the same nonsense.

“Parallel to Israel, and perhaps even coordinated with it, the MEK lobbyists in the United States have been making the same type of claims, advocating that the US should help the MEK to topple the regime in Tehran, even though the cult is universally despised in Iran. Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state and a fellow at the conservative Family Research Council, Clare Lopez, a former CA operative and senior Vice President at CSP, and Raymond Tanter, a cofounder of the defunct Iran Policy Committee that advocated military confrontation with Iran, have been advocating this narrative.”

In Tehran, Fars News reported that member of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Javad Jahangirzadeh cautioned against the MEK’s efforts to prevent a deal. He said the MEK had “paid cash to Cal Thomas, the columnist of the Washington Times newspaper to write an article to allege that Iran cannot be trusted for striking a final agreement with the world powers. Thomas wrote in his recent article in Washington Times that Iran has always maintained that it is seeking nuclear power for peaceful purposes; “if that were true, there would be no need for negotiations, how do you negotiate with someone who has lied from the start and is told in the Quran that lying to infidels is permissible in pursuit of the Islamic goals?””

July 10, 2015

July 12, 2015 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Israel, Saudi, Neo-cons and the MKO mad with the N talks

For the past weeks, the propaganda arm of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) has resorted to every means to derail the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the world powers. The MKO is not alone in its crisis mongering policy. It is widely supported by American Neo-cons, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The MKO’s consensus with enemies of the Iranian nation and government is mainly seen in its regime change policy which is the dream of Israel, American warmongers and even Saudi Arabia. Their ultimate ambition is Bombing Iran.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK), an MEK supporter, has claimed that bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities can be done easily in only “a few days.” Cotton has also called on the President not to cooperate with Iran because “it has blood of hundreds of Americans on its hands,” whereas it was in fact the MEK that assassinated American advisers in Iran in the 1970s, according to Muhammad Sahimi of the Antiwar.com. [1]
Earlier in May 2015, the GlobeMoslims reported that Mojahedin-e Khalq voiced readiness to help Saudi Arabia in Yemen. “MKO Leader Maryam Rajavi in a meeting with Saudi Ambassador to Paris Mohammad Al Sheikh said that the grouplet is willing to cooperate with Riyadh to carry out its attacks against the Yemeni nation,” the report revealed. [2]
Including the tools Israel uses to demonize Iran to prevent the likely nuclear agreement, Muhammad Sahimi suggests, ”A forth way of demonizing Iran is by claiming that Iran is similar to the Islamic State and “1000 times worse” and “bigger.” He clarifies that making this absurd claim has been Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s way of preventing the nuclear agreement. “This is while Iran has been fighting the IS in Iraq, and in fact many experts believe that only Iran can defeat the IS, “he adds. “At the same time, Israel has been working with Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda branch in Syria, in an attempt to defeat the Iran-backed regime of President Bashar al-Assad.” [3]
Sahimi introduces the MO as “an Iranian armed opposition cult that sided with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and acted as his internal security forces against his regime’s opponents”. Thus, it seems quiet natural that the MKO helps anyone who is in line with its ambitions, just like the way it aided Saddam Hussein against its own countrymen during the eight years of Iran-Iraq war.
“In advancing this narrative, Netanyahu has been helped by the Mujahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MEK, also known as MKO) and its lobby in the United States,” writes Sahimi. He refers to the harmony between the both edges of the Iranians’ enemy: “The MEK leader Maryam Rajavi has made the same claims as Netanyahu’s, calling the Islamic Republic the IS’ “Godfather”. She even testified via satellite before a congressional subcommittee, repeating the same nonsense.” [4]
About the MKO propaganda machine, Muhammad Sahimi explains, “Parallel to Israel, and perhaps even coordinated with it, the MEK lobbyists in the United States have been making the same type of claims, advocating that the US should help the MEK to topple the regime in Tehran, even though the cult is universally despised in Iran”. 5]
While the nuclear talks are reaching the final compromise sooner or later, the MKO harder beats on the war drums to flatter its sponsors.
Mazda Parsi
Sources:
[1] Sahimi, Muhammad, Demonizing Iran To Prevent the Nuclear Agreement, Antiwar.com , July 05 2015
[2] GlobeMoslims, Mojahedin-e Khalq Voices Readiness to Help Saudi Arabia in Yemen , 28 May 2015
[3] Sahimi, Muhammad, Demonizing Iran To Prevent the Nuclear Agreement, Antiwar.com , July 05 2015
[4] ibid
[5] ibid

July 11, 2015 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Demonizing Iran To Prevent the Nuclear Agreement

Since April 2 when the Lausanne Accord was signed by Iran and P5+1 – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany – the opposition, namely, the neoconservatives, the Republican Party, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their lobbies in the United States has been in high gear to prevent the signing of the comprehensive agreement whose deadline is now July 7, after the two sides could not complete their negotiations by the original deadline of June 30.

Right after the announcement of the Accord, the opposition went to work. Two days after the announcement Bill Kristol, the Godfather and “little Lenin” of the necons, declared that the best way of defeating the efforts of the Obama administration is creating the conditions that would kill the nuclear accord, forcing the President not to sign any agreement. Speaker of the House John Boehner was reported telling a Jewish group that the Republicans do not have the votes to override the President’s vote of Congress’ rejection of the nuclear agreement. Thus, the best way to defeat the administration is to prevent any final agreement in the first place.

The breadth and depth of the campaign against an agreement with Iran are completely unprecedented. When Richard Nixon re-established diplomatic relations with China in 1972 and Bill Clinton did the same with Vietnam in 1995, we did not see the type of backlash against them that we are seeing today against a nuclear agreement with Iran. At the height of the Cold War the enmity toward the Soviet Union was less intense than against Iran now, even though the Soviets were far more powerful than Iran is or will ever be. Compared with Iran, even the reaction to re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba has been relatively mute. And why this is so? It is all because of Israel and its lobby and allies in the United States.

So, what is the best way of killing the final agreement? The usual way: demonizing Iran by lies, exaggerations, half-truths, innuendoes and insinuations.

One way of demonizing Iran is by rebuking the President for wanting to reach an agreement with such a “despicable” state as Iran. Over at the Washington Post, neoconservative and Israel’s agent Jennifer Rubin has been working hard to advance this narrative. After claiming that the President is delusional, and starting with her column of April 6 – Iran framework: not good, not a deal – Rubin has been propagating all types of sheer nonsense about Iran, the administration, and the nuclear negotiations. A few days later Rubin claimed that the Obama administration is prepared to give Iran anything and everything for a deal. This is baseless as one important obstacle to the negotiations has been the U.S. excessive demands, well beyond the international agreements and Iran’s obligations toward them.

In another column on June 21 Rubin claimed that “Democrats, Republicans and neutral experts reject Iran sellout.” Who are these neutral experts? One is Olli Heinonen, former IAEA Deputy Director for Safeguards, who has a strong and deserving reputation for being anti-Iran, and a member of pro-Israel lobby United against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). He is also the man who claimed that Iran is only 2-3 weeks away from a nuclear bomb. Two other such “neutral experts” are Eric Edelman and Dennis Ross. Edelman, a member of the conservative Foreign Policy Initiative, claimed that any nuclear agreement with Iran can be torched by Obama’s successor. As an ardent supporter of Israel, Ross does not need any introduction. The UANI published a page-long warning in the New York Times, talking about the “dangers” of an agreement with Iran that is not tough enough. The funds for these activities are provided by Sheldon Adelson, the pro-Israel billionaire and the man who called for dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran.

Another way of demonizing Iran is to insist that Iran continues to have a nuclear weapons research program, and has something very horrendous to hide. Over at New York Times, David Sanger, Michael Gordon – remember his collaboration with the Times’ chief propagandist Judith Miller and her sensational stories about Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction? – and company continue to publish their agenda and opinion as “facts.” Sanger continues to insist that Iran’s nuclear weapon research program, if it ever existed, has continued sporadically since 2003, despite the fact that the National Intelligence Estimates of 2007, reaffirmed in 2009, 2011 and 2012, concluded that the program was halted in 2003. Sanger also insinuates the same by continuing to claim that “some of Iran’s most sensitive nuclear work has been done in its military sites,” despite the fact that even the totally politicized International Atomic Energy Agency under Yukiya Amano, a minion of the West, does not make such a claim. And why Sanger insists on this? By relying on the discredited “laptop of death,” supposedly stolen in Iran and delivered to Western intelligence agencies and the fact that Iran is not willing to go beyond its legal obligations and allow the IAEA to inspect its military sites.

Sanger and the Times still insist on the relevance of the totally discredited “possible military dimensions (PMD)” of Iran’s nuclear program, allegations based on the same laptop. They never interview true experts and at least allow them to voice their opinion. [Julian Pecquet of al-Monitor makes the same type of claims.] Robert Kelly, a former IAEA expert; nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt, and a failed CIA sting operation against Iran’s nuclear program that prompted the IAEA to reassess some of its so-called evidence for the PMD, have completely discredited the allegations about the PMD.

Yet a third way of demonizing Iran is by claiming that if the illegal crippling economic sanctions imposed on Iran are lifted, Iran will have access to billions of dollars of its foreign currency reserves frozen in Western financial institutions, and will spend it all on its allies in the Middle East, hence making that turbulent region more unstable. An article by David Rothkopf, the CEO and Editor of Foreign Policy group is typical of this line of demonizing Iran. In his article Rothkopf claims that after the sanctions are lifted, Iran will have access to $120 billion of its foreign currency reserves. Over a period of 15 years, the apparent duration of the nuclear agreement, Iran will make at least another $300 billion by exporting its oil. Thus, Rothkopf argues that Iran will have made $420 billion by the end of the nuclear agreement, and claims that while Iran will shore up its economy, it will also continue its meddling in the Middle East.

The claim is made while Saudi Arabia, the US staunch ally in the Middle east, has used its approximately $770 billion foreign currency to support terrorist groups in Syria, the military coup in Egypt that toppled the democratically elected government of Mohamed Morsi, has been attacking the defenseless people of Yemen, intervened in Bahrain to suppress the democratic movement there, and provided political cover for the NATO alliance to attack Libya that turned that prosperous nation into a no man’s land populated by some of the worst Sunni terrorist groups, from al-Qaeda to the Islamic State.

Iran is besieged by economic problems, caused partly by the crippling economic sanctions. President Hassan Rouhani has promised his nation that after the nuclear agreement is signed and the sanctions are lifted, his administration will be focused on improving the economy. Indeed, if Rouhani cannot deliver on his promises, his government will be toppled by Iran’s hardliners who oppose the many concessions that Iran has made to P5+1 in order to reach the nuclear agreement.

A forth way of demonizing Iran is by claiming that Iran is similar to the Islamic State and “1000 times worse” and “bigger.” Making this absurd claim has been Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s way of preventing the nuclear agreement. This is while Iran has been fighting the IS in Iraq, and in fact many experts believe that only Iran can defeat the IS. At the same time, Israel has been working with Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda branch in Syria, in an attempt to defeat the Iran-backed regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

In advancing this narrative, Netanyahu has been helped by the Mujahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MEK, also known as MKO) and its lobby in the United States. The MEK is an Iranian armed opposition cult that sided with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and acted as his internal security forces against his regime’s opponents. Up until September 2011 it was on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organization. The MEK leader Maryam Rajavi has made the same claims as Netanyahu’s, calling the Islamic Republic the IS’ “Godfather.” She even testified via satellite before a congressional subcommittee, repeating the same nonsense.

Parallel to Israel, and perhaps even coordinated with it, the MEK lobbyists in the United States have been making the same type of claims, advocating that the US should help the MEK to topple the regime in Tehran, even though the cult is universally despised in Iran. Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state and a fellow at the conservative Family Research Council, Clare Lopez, a former CA operative and senior Vice President at CSP, and Raymond Tanter, a cofounder of the defunct Iran Policy Committee that advocated military confrontation with Iran, have been advocating this narrative.

At the same time the same discredited people who sold the American people the idea that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction, and that it was a terrible regime against its own people, are also trying to do the same with Iran. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, one of the leading liars about Iraq and proponents of its illegal invasion, is now telling us that “a nuclear Iran is a nightmare.” Frank Gaffney, director of hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy and a leading Islamophobe, has claimed that the nuclear agreement with Iran is a “fraud” perpetuated by the President on the American people, because “It will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb, period.” He is the man who was “delighted” that the US invaded Iraq.

And, of course, those who have advocated the military option against Iran have not been idle, and have been aided by the media. CNN had a report on how bunker-busting bombs that can supposedly destroy even Iran’s Fordo site deep under a mountain are on standby to attack Iran, if the negotiations fail. At Business Insider Jeremy Bender has been publishing one scary story after another about how the bunker-busting bombs can be used against Iran. Bloomberg has also reported on the possible use of such bombs against Iran. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK), an MEK supporter, has claimed that bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities can be done easily in only “a few days.” Cotton has also called on the President not to cooperate with Iran because “it has blood of hundreds of Americans on its hands,” whereas it was in fact the MEK that assassinated American advisers in Iran in the 1970s.

When Mohammad Khatami, a reformist, was Iran’s president, and Rouhani and Iran’s current Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, were his chief diplomat and nuclear negotiator, the George W. Bush administration prevented the three European countries, Britain, France and Germany, from reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran that would have severely limited Iran’s nuclear program. Now that Rouhani and Zarif, two moderate politicians, are leading Iran and its efforts for a nuclear compromise, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their allies in the United States are doing their utmost to prevent the agreement from materializing. Iran has made all the necessary concessions to reach the agreement. If nuclear negotiations fail, it will be either because the Obama administration has excessive demands, or it may buckle and break under the pressure by the War Party in the United States. This time, the world will blame the US and its allies.

Muhammad Sahimi, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science and the NIOC Chair in Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California, is co-founder and editor of the website, Iran News & Middle East Reports.

Muhammad Sahimi

July 5, 2015 0 comments

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 103

++ Tehran hosted an International Conference on Terrorism this week with the theme ’Terrorism – from the Mojahedin Khalq to Daesh’. One of the panel was Abu Aref, representative of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Party whose head is Al Hakim. Aref gave a documented talk on the activities of Daesh and the MEK in Iraq. He said the basis of both phenomenon lies in the use of ideological belief to justify their actions. Another member of panel, Ebrahim Khodabandeh, argued that both entities come from the same root. Both believe they are superior and that they are the reference point for everyone and everything else. They accept no guide but themselves. This is why they are able to do whatever they like and according to this belief, there is no law to stop them. Khodabandeh gave the example of the MEK which, over forty years, changed from anti-Imperialist to pro-America, from anti-Israel to pro-Israel.

++ In the same conference an interview with Ebrahim Khodabandeh was published by IRNA. In it he explains how the MEK have become the tool to wreck the nuclear issue. He says that when MOSSAD approached Iranian monarchists to reveal its intelligence on Iran’s nuclear programme in 2003, they refused to play a part saying they could not do that against their own country. But when they then went to Rajavi, he accepted to be the Iranian voice of MOSSAD. The problem was that MOSSAD only wanted to use the MEK once and had no intention of the group coming out every year with false information which both America and Israel were then forced to reject. The MEK have ruined the game.

++ This week Mohammad Sahimi a known historian and analyst published a Farsi article in Western media titled ‘A Comparison of Two Points of View – Non-Violent Opposition and Violent Opposition’. In it he challenges Iranians who call for regime change but disingenuously do not explain how this is to come about. He says that ironically their main activity is to attack and criticise the non-violent opposition in the West which at least have some roots and some audience in Iran. Sahimi refers to the MEK as typical of this type of regime change pundit, but his criticism spreads to other groups, Farsi media and personalities. All of them, he points out, live in the West. He challenges them to come clean and say that they want America to bomb Iran. But he explains “When I talk with them about armed struggle only some say they want America to bomb Iran. Others say Iranians themselves have to take up arms and destroy the Islamic Republic. But when I ask any of these people ‘why are you in London then? They say, ‘oh you want us to get killed in Iran by the ayatollahs!’ as though it’s my fault that they are pro-armed struggle. When they say no to America bombing Iran they are either lying or the other conclusion we have to draw is that they believe the non-violent opposition should take up arms to fight on their behalf.”

++ A documentary made by Morteza Ghaderi, called ‘The Seven Unforgivable Sins’ has been broadcast in Iran. Based on the concept that all religions have a number of unforgivable sins, the programme shows how the MEK have committed all seven sins to the maximum. Documents reveal the MEK’s relation with Saddam Hussein, the murder of its own members and allying itself with Israel as examples.

++ Irandidban and other Farsi sources have published a document from Wikkileaks. A 2011 letter from the Intelligence service of Saudi Arabia to the then foreign minister, Saud Al Faisal refers to a pro-Baath politician in Iraq trying to mediate on behalf of the MEK in an effort to make a meeting between the Saudi foreign minister and Maryam Rajavi. The Intelligence service letter is the reply to that mediation. It rejects the proposal for two reasons. One is that “the MEK are hated in Iran and have no popular support”. Second, “the MEK has been infiltrated to the highest levels by Iran’s Intelligence services, hence such a meeting cannot be beneficial to us”.

In English:

++ Nejat Bloggers published Ebrahim Khodabandeh’s brief on the MEK, Inside Out. In it he briefly reviews the MEK’s history and concludes that “The organization has absolutely no popular support in Iran since it committed the most public act of betrayal; cooperating with the enemy at war against the homeland. The MEK leaders are aware of this fact more than anyone else. At the present time the organization is striving to find an alternative for the deposed Saddam Hussein, this time in the west, since it has lost its hope to gain any backing inside Iran. They are making contact with all and any enemies of Iran, including terrorist entities such as ISIL. The MEK is currently re-creating its Iraqi terrorist bases in Albania with property and facilities it has purchased close to Tirana. The Iraqis have always considered them as the worst heritage left by Saddam Hussein for their country and have tried to expel them from their country since the fall of the dictator. The MEK participated in suppressing Iraqis in the past and have caused many national security difficulties for the nation at the present time.”

++ Press TV reported on a speech by Ayatollah Khamenei used the anniversary of the MEK’s terrorist attack on the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party (IRP), in which tens of Iranian officials, including then Head of Supreme Judicial Council Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, were killed, to warn Iranians of the dangers of American support for regime change. ““Those who want to cover up the evil enmity of the US and some of its followers through media and propaganda ploys are in fact betraying the nation and state,” the Leader said. “The Iranian nation should, through awareness of the extent of the enemy’s hostility, be prepared to confront and counter [its plots] in the soft war arena, such as in cultural, political and social spheres,” the Leader said.

++ Nejat Bloggers reports that defections from the MEK are increasing. In Iraq, in three months four residents of Camp Liberty managed to escape the camp and were taken to Hotel Mohajer in Baghdad. The MEK prevents members from meeting their families in a bid to prevent defection. Despite this around 17 have escaped the camp in the last year. In Albania over 120 members have left the group. This has caused the MEK leaders to hold the latest arrivals in Tirana “in quarantine”, according to ex-member website reports.

++ Former MEK member Masoud Bani Sadr spoke at a meeting in London on the subject ‘Cults, Racism, Doublespeak and the Search for Justice’ in support of the Jeremiah Duggan campaign.

++ Daniel Larison, writing for The American Conservative, slams Senator John McCain for his “long record of backing unsavory and vicious people that happen to support regime change or that share his hostility to certain other governments… McCain doesn’t discriminate when it comes to choosing allies of convenience in pursuing unwise and reckless goals, so it was probably just a matter of time before he started associating with the MEK.”

++ Mazda Parsi in Nejat Bloggers reviews the revealing article by Dutch journalist Judit Neurink. Iraqi newspaper Assabah Aljadeed cites sources in Paris who claim that the MEK’s plans to create a terrorist camp in Albania are leading to a political storm in Tirana. “The Albanian government fears that the camp will turn into something like Camp Ashraf in Iraq, which was previously the base for military training, planning and preparation for military operations in Iran and abroad,” the Assabah Al Jadeed reported. Croatian writer, N. Babic of Alter Mainstream Info.com has looked at the numbers of MEK leaving Iraq and asks where they are. He “cites from the British Daily Telegraph that on December 30, 2013 published the news of an agreement between the US administration and Romanian authorities to relocate the 3000 Liberty residents to the Romanian city Craiova on the border with Bulgaria. The news was leaked from the conversation of two employees of the Romanian Foreign Ministry, who said that “the United States and the Romanian government are negotiating on the deployment of 3,000 members of the” former “terrorist organization Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) on the territory of Romania… Is it possible that between 1 000- 2000 militants MEK finally arrived in Romania, as the government in Bucharest totally dependent on Washington and seldom dared to oppose the then request?’’ Babic asks.”

July 3, 2015

July 4, 2015 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The WINEP Letter and the Bipartisan Fallacy

For the past week, a letter from a varied group of policy experts has been making the rounds, mostly as a case against doing a deal with Iran. More particularly, many of these experts have been opposed to doing this deal currently being hashed out in Vienna. The exact contours of the deal are unknown, but the broad strokes have been apparent since an April “framework” laid out the parameters for many of the larger issues. The letter, which was organized and released by the pro-Israel think tank Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), got a big write-up in The New York Times:

Five former members of President Obama’s inner circle of Iran advisers have written an open letter expressing concern that a pending accord to stem Iran’s nuclear program “may fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a ‘good’ agreement”…

For the White House, the letter may raise the level of political risk in seeking approval of any final agreement. A judgment from Mr. Obama’s own former advisers that the final accord falls short would provide ammunition for Republican critics who have already said they will try to kill it when it is submitted to Congress for review.

The Times coverage and the letter, in turn, attracted some gleeful pick up among neoconservative hawks, not least Commentary, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page, which remarked: “Doubts about President Obama’s Iran diplomacy are deepening, and some of the gravest misgivings are coming from his former top officials.”

Enter Robert Einhorn, formerly a non-proliferation adviser in Obama’s State Department and a signatory to the WINEP letter. When the coverage started pouring in with the obvious framing, he complained that the letter’s intent was being distorted. Einhorn, along with another signatory who curiously spoke only anonymously, told Foreign Policy‘s John Hudson that the missive wasn’t intended to state a loss of faith in the Obama administration’s ability to negotiate a deal: “That’s not at all what the statement was about.” Then, in a post on the website of the Brookings Institution where he is a Senior Fellow, Einhorn lamented the interpretation of the letter as “an indication that those former officials had broken ranks with the administration and lost confidence in its ability and determination to achieve a sound agreement.” He went on: “As a signer of the group’s statement and a former member of the Obama administration’s Iran negotiating team, I believe such an interpretation of the statement is unfounded and distorts the statement’s significance.”

I admire Einhorn’s work. His level-headed analyses of Iran negotiations have been valuable resources for anyone dealing with the issue. But I can’t help but note that his apparent discomfort with the interpretation of the WINEP letter stems from his own naiveté. Surely he knows the players involved in the letter and he should have anticipated how hawkish commentators would interpret it. The records of many of the letter’s signatories all but ensured that critics would seize upon it as an admonishment of Barack Obama’s Iran diplomacy.

Opponents of Diplomacy

Einhorn wrote at Brookings that the WINEP group “included [those] who have serious reservations about some of the decisions taken by the administration in the negotiations and who fear that U.S. negotiators may make unwarranted concessions in their eagerness to finalize a deal.” He added, “Participants in the Washington Institute’s study group want the negotiations to succeed.” The first assertion is a gross understatement; the second is patently untrue.

One need only point to Joseph Lieberman, the former senator from Connecticut, on this second score. I recently wrote about how hard it was to take seriously any advice on Iran policy from a group that included Lieberman. Lieberman has nominally supported negotiations with Iran but in tandem with policies that would make the talks virtually meaningless. In fact, if Lieberman had had his way, talks would’ve been over long ago, and we probably would have already attacked Iran. As far back as 2008, Lieberman was joking—yes, joking, as if this were a laughing matter—about the “appeal” of bombing Iran. In a 2010 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations that re-purposed many of the talking points Lieberman had used to push for the invasion of Iraq, he spoke of a six-month deadline—six months! in 2010!—for Iran to roll back its nuclear program before the U.S. had to seriously consider a military strike.

Lieberman’s been at it since then, too. In 2012, he said that a military strike could cause Iran’s nuclear program to “be delayed for enough years that we may hope and pray that there will be a regime change.” And that is the central point of Lieberman’s advocacy: he wants a U.S. policy of regime change. Just this month, he participated by video in a confab of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the ex-terrorist Iranian opposition group that relentlessly pushes for regime change.

“Inevitably,” Lieberman addressed the MEK members directly, “as individuals you may ask yourself: Is it possible that we can bring about a change of regime in Iran? And I want to say to you that it is. I’m confident that it is and it will happen.” The US, he said, “should be working closely with your resistance group.” The event was even the subject of a “sponsored report“—whatever that means—from The Washington Times that helpfully categorized Lieberman’s statements as “American support for regime change and the Iranian opposition.” Any group that includes Joe Lieberman, in other words, should be seen for what it is: decidedly unserious about negotiations with the Iranian regime.

Other members of the WINEP group should raise eyebrows—many of them scholars at WINEP itself. Take for example Dennis Ross and David Makovsky, who have respectively worked for and advised the Obama administration on Middle East policy. In 2012, they too wanted to put an ultimatum to Iran: to deal or face a military attack. Again, if President Obama had taken their advice, we would have already gone to war. Another WINEP signatory to the letter was Patrick Clawson, also a hawkish scholar who has long favored a policy of regime change.

Then there’s the head of WINEP, its executive director Robert Satloff, who in 2013 leveled a criticism at the then-recent Geneva interim deal with Iran that patently distorted its terms (upon learning of the errors, The New Republic, which published the piece, went on to update it without acknowledging the corrections). Satloff’s attack hinged on media coverage of the deal that characterized it as a “freeze” of Iran’s nuclear progress; he and I went back and forth about the characterization on Twitter. I was quite surprised, then, to see that he signed on to the new WINEP letter, which urged the administration to “extend the existing Joint Plan of Action”—the official name of the Geneva interim accord—”while negotiations continue. This will freeze Iran’s nuclear activity and international sanctions at current levels” [emphasis added].

One might be forgiven for doubting that such characters are serious about diplomacy with Iran. They have pushed for awful policies and sometimes by means of disingenuous criticisms, and their letter is organized under the aegis of a think-tank like WINEP, which was founded as a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Even if they nominally support the notion of getting a deal rather than going to war, their past utterances, if adopted, would’ve dragged us into war long ago. That doesn’t mean all the experts on the letter come from this school, but surely enough of them do that participating in it should have raised alarms for those who support a genuine compromise and nuclear deal.

Bipartisan Support for a Deal?

Einhorn, in his blog post, lauded the bipartisan nature of the WINEP group. “The significance of the statement is that this diverse, bipartisan group was able to come together on a number of reasonable and achievable recommendations for concluding an agreement that would serve U.S. interests,” he wrote. That’s all fine and well, but one can hardly be surprised that signing on to a letter with a bunch of harsh critics of the Obama administration’s Iran policy that includes several neoconservative hawks would not be seen as, well, a hawkish criticism of the Obama administration’s Iran policy.

The WINEP letter even includes a fine-print disclaimer: “This statement reflects the broad consensus of the group; not every member of the group endorses every judgment or recommendation.” That should give the signatories significant wiggle room; I expect the perpetual critics of Obama’s Iran policy, like Satloff and Lieberman, will object to whatever deal comes down even if it meets the WINEP letter’s conditions, whereas its supporters, like Einhorn, will find themselves supporting a deal even if the circumstances described in the letter are not all perfectly adhered to. Maybe I’m wrong, but one can’t deny the malleability of the positions held over time by the Obama administration critics on the letter.

I don’t doubt Einhorn’s noble goals and his own takeaway from the letter, but bipartisanship in this case seems overrated. I stand by my earlier assessment that partisanship could be helpful to the Obama administration in getting a deal. That’s because the main threat to a nuclear accord, from the American side, isn’t from the pundit class (whom, again, Obama has thankfully ignored). Rather, it comes from Congress. And the hawks in Congress—which is to say, mostly Republicans, and nearly all of them—aren’t going to come around, no matter what the WINEP letter says and who signs it.

On the Hill itself, the bipartisanship is likely not to come from supporters of a deal, but rather its detractors. Pro-Israel hawks among the Democrats will either break with the administration or with its implacable Republican critics. Take, for example, the embattled Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ: he’s introduced legislation, which could’ve derailed talks if passed, alongside Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who opposes any talks and has compared negotiations repeatedly to Nazi appeasement. Menendez’s posturing is indicative of the prevailing bipartisanship in Washington, which hews closely to the line set forth by the hawkish AIPAC. And AIPAC’s demands for the deal, as Einhorn himself seemed to suggest to Foreign Policy, are designed in such a way so as to render any reasonable deal unacceptable.

That was the one small stroke of genius in the compromise struck that allowed the Obama administration to reluctantly endorse a bill giving Congress a review of the Iran deal. Importantly, the “poison pills” were stripped out of the bill, but more importantly it ultimately set the threshold for Congress to reject a deal at a veto-proof majority. That means if the administration can keep one-third-plus-one of either chamber in line, the deal will stand. Republicans won’t have to come around—and they almost definitely won’t—and there’s even enough wiggle room that they can peel off a few of the Democrats who stick to the AIPAC line. Pundit bipartisanship is lovely, but let’s be realistic about its limits in the actual corridors of power.

Photo: Robert Satloff of WINEP

About the Author: Ali Gharib is a New York-based journalist on U.S. foreign policy with a focus on the Middle East and Central Asia. His work has appeared at Inter Press Service, where he was the Deputy Washington Bureau Chief; the Buffalo Beast; Huffington Post; Mondoweiss; Right Web; and Alternet. He holds a Master’s degree in Philosophy and Public Policy from the London School of Economics and Political Science. A proud Iranian-American and fluent Farsi speaker, Ali was born in California and raised in D.C.

July 4, 2015 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

European Countries and fear of the threat of the MKO

The relocation of members of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) from Iraq to Albania has raised concerns among European countries, particularly the Balkans that are already faced with various crisis in their region.

As the residents of the temporary Transit Location, Camp Liberty are transferred to Tirana, the risk of using the new base as a camp of preparation for fighting against the Islamic republic is increasing day after day.

Joudith Nourink Dutch journalist and the correspondent of Kurdish Website RUDAW reports that the MKO has bought land and properties in Albanian capital. She refers to Iraqi newspaper Assabah Aljadeed citing sources in Paris who claim that the alleged plans are leading to a political storm in Tirana.

"The Albanian government fears that the camp will turn into something like Camp Ashraf in Iraq, which was previously the base for military training, planning and preparation for military operations in Iran and abroad," the Assabah Al Jadeed reported.

The threat of the MKO resettlement in Albania is then investigated by a Croatian writer, N.Babic of Alter Mainstream Info.com. He has a different point of view on the issue. His concerns about the controversial American backed terrorists of the MKO may not seem likely but it is realistic. The Croatian writer’s focus is mostly on the number of the Liberty residents mentioned in Portal of Iraqi Kurds RUDAW.

Nourink states in the report that Camp Liberty is home of about 1000 members of Mujahedin Khalq. Considering the aforementioned number, Babic points to another report published in December 2013 according to which 3000 MKO militants were supposed to be transferred to Romania. The writer wonders where the 2000 missing members of the group are.

The Croatian website cites from the British Daily Telegraph that on December 30, 2013 published the news of an agreement between the US administration and Romanian authorities to relocate the 3000 Liberty residents to the Romanian city Craiova on the border with Bulgaria.

The news was leaked from the conversation of two employees of the Romanian Foreign Ministry, who said that "the United States and the Romanian government are negotiating on the deployment of 3,000 members of the" former "terrorist organization Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) on the territory of Romania."

”Is it possible that between 1 000- 2000 militants MEK finally arrived in Romania, as the government in Bucharest totally dependent on Washington and seldom dared to oppose the then request?’’ Babic asks.

Since December 2013, when the contents of the conversation of the two Romanian diplomats were revealed, various scenarios that would make this group a "guest" for the Romanian government began to appear. Thus, regarding the consequences of the US support for Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan terrorist groups, the Croatian author warns about the presence of another US backed terrorist group in Balkan territory. He suggests, “This group is the ideal force to get closer to Moldova and Ukraine, two countries where Washington has implemented and carried out a policy of "controlled chaos".”

His warning gets sharper when he asserts,” It is clear that the MEK is not a pacifist organization, or opposition groups, and the evidence of this are numerous… Mujahidin-e-Khalq are all militant armed groups, like Al Nusra Front, or some other branch of Al Qaeda.”

He is concerned about their “future neighbors” because the arrival of these former fighters in Albania as a key factor of stability in the Balkans poses a serious threat to security. “The crisis in Greece, the situation in Macedonia, tensions in Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, the polarization of the population that mimics the entry into NATO, while the other half is against it, are the reasons why this group would have to be away from the Western Balkans,” he explains.

He thinks that the MKO’s presence in their neighborhood should be closely monitored because of “many reasons” referring to the MKO’s history of terror and violence and its share in the crisis in Iraq and even Yemen. He investigates, “If until now the militants group Mujahedin-e Khalq were undesirable in Iran, Iraq, and many other Western countries, the question is why it now needs to be placed in Albania and where the "missing" two-thirds of the militants who were found at Camp Liberty near Baghdad in late 2013?”

By Mazda Parsi

Reference:

Babic, N., The remains of the "former" terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq-coming into Albania – where the 2013 2,000 of their militants "disappeared"? , Alter Mainstream Info.com, June 24, 2015

July 2, 2015 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

McCain Is the MEK’s Newest Fan

John McCain continues his long tradition of embracing horrible foreign groups:

The gathering, led by the a controversial, albeit influential Iranian exile organization — the National Council of Resistance of Iran — featured speeches and appearances by dozens of current and former officials from the U.S., Europe and the Middle East, all of whom joined in the call for Iran’s Shiite Islamist government to be overthrown.

Among the more high-profile was Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who told the massive crowd in a pre-recorded video message that “the Iranian regime [is] the true epicenter of Islamic extremism in the world.”

The organization mentioned here is the political umbrella group dominated by the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the “former” terrorist group that is still a totalitarian cult. It’s not surprising that McCain has joined the embarrassingly large number of American politicians, former officials, and retired officers that associate with and advocate for this group. He frequently endorses dubious and disreputable groups when they happen to share his dangerous foreign policy goals. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that there are now many more current members of Congress openly embracing the MEK. That’s a dangerous development, and it could have a pernicious effect on U.S. policy-making in the future.

McCain has a long record of backing unsavory and vicious people that happen to support regime change or that share his hostility to certain other governments. He was a cheerleader for the KLA during the Kosovo intervention, he was a fan of the rebellion in Libya from the start despite the presence of jihadists in their ranks, and he has been one of the most outspoken advocates of sending weapons to rebels in Syria on the pretense that they were “moderates.” In addition to misjudging the “moderate” rebels, McCain has been a leading advocate for a policy that has sent weapons into Syria when they have been seized by Jabhat al-Nusra or ISIS. Those are just the most obvious examples of McCain’s terrible judgment. McCain doesn’t discriminate when it comes to choosing allies of convenience in pursuing unwise and reckless goals, so it was probably just a matter of time before he started associating with the MEK.

By Daniel Larison

July 1, 2015 0 comments

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 102

++ Two weeks after the Villepinte event the Farsi Commentariat is still writing about it. The common theme is that Israel has paid for this in order to put an Iranian face on their anti-Iran agenda. But, as each year passes it becomes clearer and clearer it’s a waste of money, and Israel could spend the money better elsewhere.

++ After being hospitalised by MEK thugs in Auvers-sur-Oise, many people have written in support of Mostafa Mohammadi and have criticised the French government for allowing this to happen. Mostafa has written a letter directed at Rajavi saying “My lawyer, who accompanied me, suggested I come to make a last request before taking legal action. He explained this is a legal procedure to give the person one last chance to respond. That was your response. You beat up me, my daughter Hooriyeh and the lawyer for no apparent reason. This shows your true face. Somayeh Mohammadi’s mother, Mahboubeh Hamzeh Mohammadi has written an open letter to her daughter saying “I know this will never reach her because they won’t allow it, but I had to write it”. The letter is titled, ‘Dear Somayeh, they beat Hooriyeh nearly to death and your father is paying the price of love with his life’.

++ This week, the family of former MEK member Karim Gholami found him again after 25 years. The family recognised Karim from his writing on the internet along with his picture. He had published this to find his family. It worked and they are all now reunited.

++ Massoud Rajavi’s response to the discovery of 170 corpses of Iranian divers from the 1980-88 war who had been handcuffed and buried alive, was revealing. Commenting on special ceremony in Iran to bury them as martyrs because they were buried alive, Rajavi ridiculed it and called it the Carnival of Bones. Many people commented that “he wants to make hatred, as though the people of Iran don’t hate him enough already”. Nader Naderi published his recollections of the time this happened – it was an operation called Karbala 4. Naderi was there and says that at that time Rajavi was at the forefront of the situation and had been working against Iran’s forces for Saddam Hussein giving intelligence which led to the defeat of Iran in this operation. He was complicit in this mass murder and that these 170 divers were buried alive. It is not, therefore, surprising that this is his reaction.

++ Ghorban Ali Hossein Nejad published an open letter titled, ‘A word with the critics of Rajavi’. Ghorban Ali names every one of the internal critics of Rajavi and the MEK who has recently spoken out – Iraj Mesdaghi, Karim Ghassim, Mohammad Reza Rowhani, Esmail Vafa Yaghmai and Mohammad Jafaari aka Hamneshin Bahar. He says, “I know you, and you know me, and it is mind boggling for me why you don’t react to what happened to Mostafa Mohamamdi and his daughter. This happened right before your eyes but you don’t react. Why criticise Rajavi at all in that case.”

In English:

++ Press TV – Citing Western support for the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq organisation, Iran “rejected the anti-Iran accusations in the annual global terrorism report by the US Department of State, censuring Washington for adopting a double-standard approach in dealing with the issue of terrorism. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said a politically-motivated stance on terrorism further complicates the issue. “The growing and complicated scourge of terrorism is rooted in applying double standards and a political approach toward this evil and inhumane phenomenon,” Afkham said.”

++ Nejat Bloggers reported that a large number of former MEK members staged a picket in Paris at the same time as Villepinte to bring to the attention of French public opinion the actions of the cult in their country. “They declared their support for about 2000 people who are kept as hostages by the group in Camp Liberty, Iraq. They offered sympathy to families of Liberty residents who are picketing in front of the camp but have no access to their loved ones imprisoned in the camp. As former members of the cult of Rajavi stated in their slogans, the Villepinte masquerade of the NCR/MKO elements has just one goal: maintaining the group victims in Iraqi critical situation in order to prevent the cult from collapse.”

++ Nejat Society, Albania – Siavosh Rastar, nickname Nader Afshar, spent 14 years with the MKO from 2001 to 2015. He was in Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, Iraq before his relocation to Tirana, Albania. He announced his defection from the MEK in a statement protesting Massoud Rajavi’s undemocratic approach towards the group members and their families. “In my idea, the only thing that never exists in Massoud Rajavi’s organization is freedom of speech and thought. In brief, absolute suppression and dictatorship rule it, “Rastar writes. If anyone criticizes Massoud Rajavi, he would be treated violently in various sessions held for this aim…” Rastar was denied life-saving medicine in Iraq by the MEK and was transferred to Albania to die. Once there he asked the UNHCR for help to escape the MEK. Even then the MEK continued to harass him. “They put pressure on my family. They called my wife and claimed that I got married and have children in Albania, they also told her that I am drug-addicted,’’ he writes.

++ Nejat Society Paris – Nader Keshtkar spoke about his disassociation from the MKO during an interview at the defectors’ rally in Paris to protest the MKO’s propaganda show in Villepinte, on June 13th. “I attended this action, together with my friends in order to officially state my separation from the MKO. Now that I am in the free world, liberated from the prejudiced ideas, dogmatism and Machiavellian thoughts of the MKO, I feel relieved,” he said. He continued, “The ambitions, treasonous activities and lack of courage of Massoud Rajavi prevented him from reviewing his strategic mistakes and that led him and the MKO to turn into the operative agent of Israel and Saudi Arabia.”

++ An article by Dutch journalist Judit Neurink based in Erbil and published in Rudaw warns of the MEK plans to build a new terrorist training camp in Tirana, Albania to which it will eventually transfer up to 2000 residents currently based in Camp Liberty near Baghdad. Quoting Massoud Khodabandeh the article said, “The MKO will make a new enclave there that is outside the law, where they will be rearmed and invite people in for training”. Part of the deal arranged by Clinton was the removal of MKO from the US list of terrorist organisations. Now, with politics changing after the nuclear deal between Iran and the US, the MKO is scrambling to find new friends, according to Khodabandeh. He said there have been reports that the MKO even offered the Saudis to help fight against the Shiites in Yemen. Khodabandeh said that while various routes to Turkey, Syria and Iraq are under scrutiny, “terrorist commanders from any mercenary group can slip beneath the radar and seek training and logistical support in Tirana… What better location to establish a clandestine terrorist training camp than in Albania? It is in Europe, but not in the EU and therefore not so open to scrutiny by the international community. It is a Muslim country but is also notorious for corruption and mafia-like gangs,” he said. “The message is [that] the MKO have branched out and are open to do business with any terrorist group.”

++ Daniel Larison’s article in The American Conservative criticised ‘The Washington Times’ Pro-MEK Propaganda’. Pointing out that the MEK has no support in any Iranian community, Larison said not only had “many current and former American politicians, officials, and retired military officers disgraced themselves with their cheerleading for the totalitarian cult but The Washington Times has now reproduced the speeches the MEK’s American supporters gave in a special “regime change” report, which also includes the remarks made by the cult’s leader, Maryam Rajavi. The remarks, he said, “went from the merely ridiculous … to the truly delusional… It should go without saying that anyone that participated in the MEK’s latest rally should never be taken seriously on any issue relating to Iran… If this were any other organization with a similar history of terrorism and collusion with Saddam Hussein, it is unlikely any of these people would be caught dead at such a gathering, but because it seeks regime change in Iran these hawks are only too glad to lend their support.”

++ Iran Interlink summarised two Arabic articles published by Iraqi newspaper Alsabah Aljadid which reveal the Mojahedin Khalq’s support for Daesh with which it finds common cause in attacking Iran. And the MEK’s plans to replace its former terrorist training camps in Iraq with a new camp in Albania. This base would be open to any terrorist group for military training and planning and preparation for terrorist operations in Iran and abroad according to what is required.

June 26 2015

June 29, 2015 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

MEK, Inside Out

A short brief on the Mojahedin-e Khalq

The Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK, MKO, PMOI, NCR, NCRI, NLA, and many other disguised entities) was established in 1965 as an urban guerilla movement to fight against the Shah and seize power in Iran through armed struggle.

It pitched its appeal to attract leftist, Islamist and anti-imperialist forces at the time and killed US citizens in Iran as well as many of the Shah’s officials. Assassination was, and remains, central to the strategic modus operandi of the organization.

After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the MEK opposed the newly established Islamic Republic of Iran and assassinated many officials as well as thousands of ordinary people through bombings.

The leader Massoud Rajavi fled to France in 1981, then in 1986 moved to Iraq by invitation of Saddam Hussein where he founded the National Liberation Army as an adjunct to the Iraqi army and entered the Iran-Iraq war on the side of the enemy.

Massoud Rajavi became a cult leader and used mind manipulation methods to brainwash his followers in order to control their thoughts and beliefs and to command their total, unquestioning obedience. Compulsory divorces and celibacy, and the separation of children from their parents were imposed by the cult leader on every member. Members were isolated from the outside world and had no contact whatsoever even with their families.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq by the allied forces, the situation of the MEK dramatically changed. Massoud Rajavi, who lost his only state support, went into hiding and Maryam Rajavi moved to Paris. The organization then adopted pro-western gestures and falsely pretended to have distanced from its past terrorist activities.

On 17 June 2003, Maryam Rajavi was arrested along some 120 individuals in her base in Paris by the French police charged with fraud, money laundry, and plotting violent activities against opponents and former members.

As a result the cult ordered several members to commit self-immolation to protest against this action by the French authorities. Ten individuals in ten different European cities simultaneously set fire to themselves. Two died and the others were severely injured. This was considered as the most obvious sign of thought control imposed by the MEK on the members. A person who obeys an order for self-immolation is certainly capable of performing suicide attacks on others too.

The organization has absolutely no popular support in Iran since it committed the most public act of betrayal; cooperating with the enemy at war against the homeland. The MEK leaders are aware of this fact more than anyone else.

At the present time the organization is striving to find an alternative for the deposed Saddam Hussein, this time in the west, since it has lost its hope to gain any backing inside Iran. They are making contact with all and any enemies of Iran, including terrorist entities such as ISIL.

The MEK is currently re-creating its Iraqi terrorist bases in Albania with property and facilities it has purchased close to Tirana. The Iraqis have always considered them as the worst heritage left by Saddam Hussein for their country and have tried to expel them from their country since the fall of the dictator. The MEK participated in suppressing Iraqis in the past and have caused many national security difficulties for the nation at the present time.

The MEK organized a rally in Villepinte near Paris to promote this new base. Maryam Rajavi’s keynote speech focused on her demand that the group be re-armed. This can only be interpreted as the MEK’s intention to construct a militarized base in Europe from which to train terrorists to attack Iran or elsewhere. The occasion which is being celebrated by the MEK is the anniversary of the start of armed struggle on June 20, 1981.

Western government experts are fully aware of the activities and beliefs of the MEK. One can, of course, refer to the US Department of State or the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office for further clarification.

The MEK uses deceptive methods to influence general political opinion and individuals in the west, and do not say who they really are when they approach people to gain their support.

One may like to refer to the 2009 RAND Report and the 2005 HRW report ‘No Exit’ for more detailed information. If researchers would like further information the http://iran-interlink.org/wordpress/ is a good source.

June 27, 2015 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts