Home » Articles » Page 163

Articles

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Mrs. Rajavi! Your Propaganda Just doesn’t work well!

The Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) has apparently had only one goal since the Islamic revolution in Iran, in 1979: the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Regardless of its real capacity to achieve such an aim orMrs. Rajavi! Your Propaganda Just doesn’t work well! not, for decades, the group has strained to take opportunities of regional and political ups and downs into its aim, even though in most cases there is no true relation between what is going on in the region and what the group is trying benefit from. It seems the group is confused.

An instance of the group’s opportunistic nature was recently seen in the so-called testimony given by Maryam Rajavi in the US Congress where she presents the overthrow of the Iranian government as the main solution to fight ISIS!

Daniel Larison of the American conservative Magazine writes about Rajavi’s weird recommendation to the West: “The plan to bring down ISIS by toppling Iran’s government, then, is little more than the latest chapter of group’s 50-year history of monomaniacally trying to install itself atop the Iranian government.” [1]

He adds, ”This obviously has nothing to do with combating or understanding ISIS, and allowing her to speak at such a meeting just lends a totalitarian cult a platform from which it can promote its own warped agenda. Inviting Rajavi demonstrates exceptionally poor judgment, and her testimony will make a farce of the proceedings tomorrow.’’ [2]

 “It sounds counter-intuitive—Iran’s aid to the Iraqi government and various Iraqi militias, after all, is widely credited with stopping ISIS’s advances there—but not when you know about the MEK’s tortuous past,’ suggests Ali Gharib of the Nation. “Over the years, the MEK has been nothing if not opportunistic; animated by the twisted logic that the enemy of its enemy is its friend, the group seizes whatever political angle is fashionable at the moment to bring them relevance (Congress is happy to oblige).” [3]

engage in diplomacy with Islamic Republic.

Eldar Mamedov who has served as a political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the delegation for inter-parliamentary relations between the EP and Iran, analyzes the MKO’s part to obstruct diplomacy with Iran. He refers to the Cult’s large-scale efforts to demonize the Iranian Government and to derail any relation between the EP and Iran. Nonetheless, he asserts the group’s lobbying efforts to accomplish its aim has so far failed. On the contrary to the group wishes, Islamic Republic has become an important ally for the Europe in fighting ISIS.

  “A growing realization of the converging interests between the EU and Iran accounts for this dramatic change,’’ Eldar Mamedov submits.” This time, the discussions in Brussels were not so much focused on traditional European concerns, such as Iran´s nuclear program and human rights, as on the situation in the Middle East.” [4]

Mamedov concludes, “In a scenario of rapidly disintegrating states and spreading terrorist threats, European officials are discovering that Iran is among the most stable and predictable state actors in the region.” [5]

In his opinion, the EU´s foreign policy supremo Federica Mogherini mentions the advantages of engaging with Iran because she “definitely doesn´t share the Saudi narrative of Iran being the root of all tumult in the Middle East. In fact, she sees the nuclear deal with Iran as a gate opener for engaging Iran on the regional issues, including in Syria and Yemen, which is an anathema to Saudis."

The MKO leaders, namely Maryam Rajavi would be disappointed to know that “officials from the Mogherini-led European External Action Service (EEAS) now discuss the possibility of a regional dialogue with Iran, which is a sharp departure from her predecessor Catherine Ashton, who approached Iran as an exclusively nuclear problem.” [6]

Despite the MKO’s harsh opposition against the visits of the Iranian Parliamentary delegation to EP, the visits took place anyway. The visit of the Iranian MPs to Brussels is considered by Mamedov as “another sign of changing times in the Middle East.”

Mamedov notifies, “Although a wholesale rapprochement between the EU and Iran may still be some way off, inter-parliamentary diplomacy has the potential to build trust, bridge differences, and eventually make a re-alignment possible,” inviting US Congressmen to join such peaceful policy.[7]

It seems that Maryam Rajavi and her supporters should work harder to survive the new geopolitical and regional undercurrents.

Mazda Parsi

Sources:

[1] Larison, Daniel, The Backlash Against the MEK’s Fans in Congress, The American conservative Magazine, May 05 2015

[2] ibid

[3] Gharib, Ali, Cult Leader Will Tell Congress: Fight ISIS by Regime Change in Iran, The Nation, April 28, 2015

[4] Mamedov, Eldar, Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) Lobby in European Parliament fails to deliver, Lobelog,

May 19 2015

[5] ibid

[6] ibid

[7] ibid

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 97

++The MEK have maintained absolute silence about Mehdi Abrishamchi’s appearance in the Court of First Instance at the Palais de Justice in Paris. Instead the sites are full of news about Syria, Iraq and everywhere else under the sun. The Commentariat points out that usually if somebody sneezes the MEK will take advantage of it for publicity purposes, but they haven’t even acknowledged that the court case exists. So, they are doubly angry about the picket by former MEK members outside the court in support of the prosecution. MEK defamation and intimidation attacks against ex members have specifically targeted those offering testimony to the investigative judge. One of these is Mansour Nazari who was physically attacked and injured in his neck. His attackers were commanded by notorious lumpen Mehran Kakavand whose role is to perform such jobs for the MEK. The Police are now involved and the Investigative judge has added the case of distribution of defamatory leaflets around the homes of ex members to the file against Mehdi Abrishamchi. So the MEK have stupidly made it worse for him. Several articles state that Iranian people are lucky the MEK has no power. But they also question the role of the French government, asking is it a victim of the cult or a perpetrator of the problem.

++ Iraj Mesdaghi, an internal critic of the MEK held interviews with Said Bahbahani of Mihan TV. Asked for his views of Rajavi’s shows and publicity stunts, Mesdaghi provides an in depth history of this phenomenon. He explains that as the MEK has lost in real terms – their leader is a fugitive, Maryam Rajavi’s so-called Presidency has not changed for years, they lost their army and more – the MEK has consequently increased the focus on its presentation. Mesdaghi points to the MEK wearing suits and ties, the men dying their hair and posing as important people. This, he says, is simply a sign of their defeat.

In English

++ Retired Colonel Patrick Lang of the US Army writes about ‘The MeK – Washington’s Favourite Communist Terrorist Cult’ in the blog Sic Semper Tyrannis. Lang describes the cult nature of the MEK, calling on the RAND report which he urges everyone to read in full in order to really understand the MEK, and the Human Rights Watch report ‘No Exit’, which also gives a clear understanding of the cult nature of the group. He concludes humorously saying “Given the choice between joining the MeK or the North Korean Army, to me it’d really be a toss up.”

++ Mazda Parsi writing for Nejat Bloggers says ““Human Rights” a tool for Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) to trap EP members”. “Obsessed with the idea of regime change in Iran, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/ Rajavi’s Cult) have always resorted to any tool. Today, as the final nuclear deal between Iran and the West is highly expected, the MKO cult is trying to sell its regime change agenda in the European Parliament running propaganda about the alleged human rights abuses committed by the Iranian government. The MKO propaganda arm spends huge amounts of money and energy to organize hearing sessions in the US Congress or EU parliament. One of the recent events was the controversial hearing at the US Congress in which the so-called president of the MKO testified about the threat of ISIS in Iraq!”

++ Eldar Mamedov published in Lobelog notes the MEK’s failed attempts to coerce members of the European Parliament into taking a position which would derail the nuclear negotiations. “In 2010, when Iran´s then-minister of foreign affairs Manouchehr Mottaki visited the European Parliament in Brussels, he was greeted by protests from MPs. Some of them, known for their close links with the exiled Iranian dissident group Mojaheddeen-e Khalk (MEK), carried the picture of Neda Soltan, a young Iranian woman killed during the protests following the fraudulent presidential elections of 2009. They also tried to block the minister from entering the meeting room and even briefly scuffled with security guards.

The contrast with a visit of a delegation from the Iranian Majles to Brussels on May 6-7 could not be greater. Sure enough, the MEK tried to derail the visit by lobbying the MPs to adopt a resolution on capital punishment in Iran, which would have almost certainly led to the cancellation of the visit. When that plan failed, they called on Euro MPs to boycott the delegation.

In the end, however, the five member-strong delegation led by the leader of the “principa list” faction of the Majles Kazem Jalali did make it to Brussels, in the first such parliamentary visit in seven years. Apart from holding sessions with their counterparts from the EP delegation for relations with Iran, Majles members were received by the President of the EP Martin Schultz (a German Social Democrat) and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Elmar Brok (a German Christian Democrat).”

++ Nejat Bloggers also reports on the repatriation of one former MEK member from Albania: “Mansour Shaabani returned his hometown after 27 years of imprisonment in the camps of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization. Shaabani was relocated in Albania two years ago. Finally he succeeded to get back to Iran by the help Iranian officials on May 10th, 2015. Mansour’s brother had several times gone to Camp Ashraf, Iraq, to visit him but he was never allowed by the cult leaders. Nejat Society, Gilan office aided Shaabani family to receive their beloved Mansour.”

 May 22, 2015

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Ramadi and America’s Fracturing of Iraq

The Western media has been consumed in recent days with the news that Islamic State militants have captured the strategically critical city of Ramadi in Iraq. The narrative is one of incompetence on the part of Iraqi military forces who, the corporate media tells us, are simply either ineffectual or hopelessly corrupt. Some analysts and pundits, especially those on the right who oppose Obama for various reasons, have used the fall of Ramadi to legitimize their claims that Obama’s “weakness” on the ISIS issue brought events to this point.

While there is truth to the assertion that Iraqi military forces are riddled with severe problems, from sectarianism in the command hierarchy, to poor training and, at times, organizational disarray, none of these issues is singularly responsible for the loss of Ramadi. Nor is it entirely accurate to say that Obama’s alleged weakness is really the cause.

Rather the primary reason, the one which the media carefully avoids including in their reportage, is the political and military sabotage of Iraq perpetrated by the United States in pursuit of its long-term agenda.

Indeed, while Washington waxes poetic about the need to more forcefully confront ISIS and destroy its military and terrorist infrastructure, the actual policies it has pursued are designed to achieve just the opposite. Instead of promoting unity of command and execution within the Iraqi armed forces, the Pentagon, Congress, and the White House have done everything to fracture Iraq’s political and military structures, fomenting rather than mollifying sectarian conflicts. Then the Washington Post can publish editorials blasting Iraqi fecklessness, and calling for a more robust US military presence. In this way, the US policy of promoting division and weakness within Iraq has directly led to the dire situation in Ramadi and throughout the country.

How Washington is Destroying Iraq…Again!

The fall of Ramadi has provided ammunition to opponents of Obama whose central argument – if such insanity can be believed – remains that the US should wage further war in Iraq. Leading warmongers, Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both claim that the failure is due to Obama’s “big mistake” in not leaving behind troops in 2011. Graham described US policy as “a failure of Obama’s military strategy,” while McCain referred to it as “one of the most disgraceful episodes in American history… [The] policy…is not enough of anything,” Aside from the obvious absurdity of their claims, McCain and Graham, and the media narrative surrounding the entire issue, are a perfect illustration of the utterly backwards narrative presented by the corporate media to the American public.

In reality, the US, with Congress very much playing a central role, has studiously worked to undermine any chances for national resistance and military victory inside Iraq by Iraqi security forces. Perhaps Graham and McCain forgot that the US has worked diligently to create divisions between Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish elements within the Iraqi military architecture.

As recently as late April 2015, Congressional Republicans were pushing for a defense authorization bill that would directly arm and fund Sunni and Kurdish militias inside Iraq, treating them as “independent countries.” An obvious means of fomenting further sectarian conflicts and fracturing the fragile and precarious unity of the government in Baghdad and its military forces, this bill is indicative of a broader policy, one aimed at de facto partition of Iraq along ethno-religious lines. Moreover, those who follow US politics and military adventurism should understand that legislation follows rather than precedes the policy. The US has likely been arming Sunni and Kurdish factions for a long time already, thereby further degrading the continuity of the military.

But aside from the political attempts to fragment the country, US military actions belie the real agenda which, rather than combating ISIS, is geared towards degradation of military capability of all sides, which is, in effect, support for ISIS.

Since the US campaign against the group in Iraq began, there have been countless media reports of US weapons and supplies falling directly into the clutches of ISIS, succoring it at precisely the time that it has suffered heavy losses at the hands of Shiite militias in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Army and Hezbollah across the border in Syria. As Naeem al-Uboudi, the spokesman for one of the main groups fighting ISIS in Tikrit told the NY Times, “We don’t trust the American-led coalition in combating ISIS… In the past, they have targeted our security forces and dropped aid to ISIS by mistake.”

This fact is critical to understanding the true motivation of Washington in this campaign, namely inflicting maximum damage on both ISIS and Shiite militias fighting it. In effect, this ‘controlled chaos’ strategy promotes and extends, rather than concludes the war. Additionally, the allegation of US-ISIS collusion is further supported by dozens of accounts of airdropped US weapons being seized by ISIS. As Iraqi MP Majid al-Ghraoui noted in January, “The information that has reached us in the security and defense committee indicates that an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin… This incident is continuously happening and has also occurred in some other regions.”

Looking at a map, one begins to see then that ISIS has received US support in each of the strategically significant areas where it has made important gains. When reports of US airdrops going to ISIS in the province of Salahuddin first emerged, it coincided with the group’s military success in Tikrit. Now we see Ramadi in the easternmost part of Anbar province has fallen within weeks of more reports emerging of US-supplied arms being destined for ISIS in the al-Baqdadi region of Anbar.

Taken in total then, it seems that US strategy has been to overtly attack ISIS while covertly supporting it. Similarly, the US has claimed to be supporting, or at least collaborating indirectly, with Shiite militias connected to Iran. At the very same time, those militias have repeatedly claimed that US has bombed them deliberately. Such seemingly contradictory military objectives lead to the inescapable conclusion that US policy has been, and continues to be, chaos and fomenting war. So for Washington to now claim that the fall of Ramadi is somehow a major tragedy, that it represents a failure of strategy, is utter disinformation. In effect, the fall of Ramadi is an orchestrated outgrowth of the “managed chaos” strategy.

The History and Politics of America’s Chaos Theory in Iraq

From a purely geopolitical perspective, the aim of the US is to foment sectarian conflict and prolong the war in Iraq as a means of checking Iranian influence in Iraq and throughout the region. The US is mostly incapable of achieving such an objective in Syria due to the continued success and cohesion of the Syrian Arab Army; in Iraq this is very much achievable. But this fragmentation and de facto partition of the country has been a long-standing policy, one that the US has pursued in myriad ways for more than a decade.

Keen political observers will recall that even before, and during the early stages, of the Iraq War in 2003, there was serious talk of dividing Iraq into religiously and ethnically homogenous territories. As influential neocon and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations Leslie Gelb wrote in an op-ed in the NY Times in November 2003, “The only viable strategy…may be to correct the historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” While this policy was not enacted immediately, the United States has always pursued this long-term strategy to varying degrees.

The major stumbling block has been the stubborn desire of various members of Iraq’s political elite to be independent and sovereign actors, not US puppets. The primary offender from Washington’s perspective was former Prime Minister, and current Vice President, Nouri al-Maliki, who refused to bow to the diktats of Washington, and was instead portrayed as a corrupt, autocratic Iranian stooge. But what were Maliki’s real transgressions from Washington’s perspective?

First and foremost were Maliki’s attitudes and policies towards the US occupation and the presence of military and non-military personnel. In fact, it was Maliki’s refusal to grant the US request to maintain military bases in the country after the withdrawal – against Obama’s wishes – which prompted the first round of attacks on him and his government. And it was then that the image of Maliki as Iranian puppet truly became popularized, at least in Western media. Indeed, as The Guardian noted at the time, “The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis.”

Maliki also took the absolutely monumental step of closing down Camp Ashraf and killing or expelling its inhabitants.  he was immediately convicted in the court of US public opinion which described the operation as an assault on Iranian “freedom fighters.” We know all too well what the US means when it describes terrorists as freedom fighters.

And so, by refusing basing rights, refusing to extend immunity and legal protections to US contractors operating in Iraq, and wiping out Camp Ashraf and MEK members, Maliki became a villain. More to the point, it was his refusal to allow Iraq to be used by the US and its allies as a military and political bulwark against Iran that earned him the West’s ire. Far from wanting a “sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq” as Obama eloquently proclaimed, Washington needed the country to remain a client state to be used as a weapon of US foreign policy in the region. By rejecting this, Maliki, almost overnight, became “a dictator.”

By ousting Maliki, the US once again pursued a policy of fragmentation, deliberately installing current Prime Minister Abadi who they knew would be weak, incapable of maintaining the unity of Iraq, and most importantly, amenable to US demands. As the NY Times wrote in the wake of the fall of Ramadi last week:

At the urging of American officials who sought to sideline the [Shiite] militias, Mr. Abadi… gambled that the combination of United States airstrikes and local Sunni tribal fighters would be able to drive Islamic State fighters out of [Ramadi]…But as the setback brought the Shiite militias, and their Iranian backers, back into the picture in Anbar, intensified Shiite infighting appeared to leave the prime minister more vulnerable than ever… He became prime minister last year with strong backing from the United States on the belief that he would be a more inclusive leader than his predecessor, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and would reach out to the country’s minority Sunni Arabs and Kurds. Mr. Abadi has done so, by pushing for the arming of local Sunni tribesmen and reaching a deal with the Kurds to share oil revenue.

As the Times correctly notes, Abadi has, quite predictably, followed orders from Washington and pursued a strategy which, from the western perspective is “inclusive,” but is in reality very much sectarian. This is the inverted reality that the US and the Western media portrays; the arming and support for Sunni and Kurdish factions is “inclusive” rather than divisive, which is what it is in the real world. By forcing the Shiites, the dominant group demographically and politically in Iraq, into a secondary role, the US once again foments, rather than bridges sectarian divides. What is this called if not “divide and conquer”?

It should not be lost on anyone that this policy which, as noted above, dates back more than a decade, is all designed to curb Iranian influence in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. By forcing Shiites into the back seat politically, economically, and militarily, the US has hoped to stifle Iran’s development from isolated nation into a regional power. By doing so, the US once again acts in its own interests, as well as those, of course, of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Perhaps that grouping of countries rings a bell for people following the development of the war on Syria these past four years? Indeed, it is the same actors.

Seen in this way then, the US agenda and strategy in Iraq is precisely the same as that for the entire region: block Iran (and, on a grander scale, Russia and China) with regime change when and where possible. When regime change is impossible or undesirable, inflict chaos and foment conflict.

One might call such a policy cynicism of the highest order. While true, there are still other words that perhaps better reflect the true insidiousness of it all: colonialism and imperialism.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

By Eric Draitser, journal-neo.org

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) Lobby in European Parliament fails to deliver

Iranian Parliamentarians Discover Brussels
 
In 2010, when Iran´s then-minister of foreign affairs Manouchehr Mottaki visited the European Parliament in Brussels, he was greeted by protests from MPs. Some of them, known for their close links with the exiled Iranian dissident group Mojaheddeen-e Khalk (MEK), carried the picture of Neda Soltan, a young Iranian woman killed during the protests following the fraudulent presidential elections of 2009. They also tried to block the minister from entering the meeting room and even briefly scuffled with security guards.
 
The contrast with a visit of a delegation from the Iranian Majles to Brussels on May 6-7 could not be greater. Sure enough, the MEK tried to derail the visit by lobbying the MPs to adopt a resolution on capital punishment in Iran, which would have almost certainly led to the cancellation of the visit. When that plan failed, they called on Euro MPs to boycott the delegation.
 
In the end, however, the five member-strong delegation led by the leader of the “principlist” faction of the Majles Kazem Jalali did make it to Brussels, in the first such parliamentary visit in seven years. Apart from holding sessions with their counterparts from the EP delegation for relations with Iran, Majles members were received by the President of the EP Martin Schultz (a German Social Democrat) and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Elmar Brok (a German Christian Democrat).
 
Regional Concerns
 
A growing realization of the converging interests between the EU and Iran accounts for this dramatic change. This time, the discussions in Brussels were not so much focused on traditional European concerns, such as Iran´s nuclear program and human rights, as on the situation in the Middle East. In a scenario of rapidly disintegrating states and spreading terrorist threats, European officials are discovering that Iran is among the most stable and predictable state actors in the region.
 
In fact, privately many of them are uneasy, to say the least, with Saudi Arabia’s newfound regional efforts to consolidate a Sunni front against the “Iranian threat.” In a curious twist, it is Saudi Arabia, and not Iran, that is increasingly emerging as a revolutionary Middle Eastern power. Its refusal to take up a seat in the UN Security Council in 2013, alleging the structure´s inability to take action against Syria´s president Bashar Assad and confront Iran, was already a harbinger. Now, many in Brussels view with apprehension the departure of the cautious King Abdullah and a newly assertive policy of rolling back ” Iranian influence” in Yemen and Syria.
 
The EU´s foreign policy supremo Federica Mogherini definitely doesn´t share the Saudi narrative of Iran being the root of all tumult in the Middle East. In fact, she sees the nuclear deal with Iran as a gate opener for engaging Iran on the regional issues, including in Syria and Yemen, which is an anathema to Saudis. Officials from the Mogherini-led European External Action Service (EEAS) now discuss the possibility of a regional dialogue with Iran, which is a sharp departure from her predecessor Catherine Ashton, who approached Iran as an exclusively nuclear problem.
 
The Problem with the Gulf States
 
A major obstacle to this re-alignment is, of course, the position of some EU member states. Shortly before the group of Iranian MPs arrived in Brussels, French President Francois Hollande visited Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two major buyers of the French arms. As the French-Saudi joint declaration makes it clear, both countries are looking to consolidate their cooperation, notably in the defence sphere. This explains why France is also the toughest of the P5+1 group of powers in nuclear negotiations with Iran, its positions closest to the Saudis and Israelis. The French government, of course, is looking for ways to boost the country´s struggling economy. But massive arms sales to the Gulf monarchies may carry a considerable strategic cost, namely in the fight against the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS) and al-Qaeda.
 
Iranian MPs are upset that no major steps have been taken to combat IS and al-Qaeda terrorism. There is some truth to these claims.
 
Although Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies are formally part of the anti-ISIS coalition, their real actions seem to go in an opposite direction. Operation “Decisive Storm” in Yemen contrasts sharply with Saudi Arabia´s and its allies´ notorious lack of enthusiasm in the fight against IS. Bombing Yemen (including with cluster munitions, which are prohibited by international law) not only leads to numerous civilian deaths but also takes the heat off al-Qaeda, enabling it to regroup and liberate dangerous terrorists from prisons. And the anti-Shiite, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish hate campaigns emanating from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates show no sign of abating. These countries are providing pulpits for firebrand clerics and hosting “debates” on the convenience of committing genocide against Alawites (a heterodox offshoot of Shia Islam), like the one organised by al-Jazeera Arabic in Doha.
 
Iranian MPs also rejected the interpretation of the current strife in the Middle East as a Sunni-Shiite conflict. They pointed out that Sunnis and Shiites have co-existed peacefully for centuries and blamed Saudi Arabia for stoking the sectarian conflict in the region through its aggressive promotion and financing of Wahhabism. Supporting Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies is, in this reading, a recipe for a strategic disaster in the region.
 
Overall, this narrative lacks self-criticism as regards Iran´s own role in region´s woes—from its staunch support of Bashar Assad´s regime in Syria to the failure to rein in more effectively Shiite militias in Iraq, some of which have been accused of war crimes. But that does not mean that the Iranian narrative should be rejected out of hand. If the West is serious about the security of the Middle East, and its own security as well, it would be wise to use its close ties with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf regimes to confront them over their destabilizing activities, even at the cost of some lucrative arms deals.
 
The visit of the Iranian MPs to Brussels is another sign of changing times in the Middle East. Although a wholesale rapprochement between the EU and Iran may still be some way off, inter-parliamentary diplomacy has the potential to build trust, bridge differences, and eventually make a re-alignment possible. There is a need for more, not less, of such contacts. US Congress members would do well to join their European counterparts in a direct dialogue with Iran. The West, after all, does not have the luxury of choice in picking its interlocutors in the Middle East these days.
 ***
About the Author
 Eldar Mamedov has degrees from the University of Latvia and the Diplomatic School in Madrid, Spain. He has worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and as a diplomat in Latvian embassies in Washington D.C. and Madrid. Since 2007, Mamedov has served as a political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the delegation for inter-parliamentary relations between the EP and Iran.

Eldar Mamedov

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Duplicity of the MEK nature

“Human Rights” a tool for the MKO to trap EP members

Obsessed with the idea of regime change in Iran, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/ Rajavi’s Cult) have always resorted to any tool. Today, as the final nuclear deal between Iran and the West is highly expected, the MKO cult is trying to sell its regime change agenda in the European Parliament running propaganda about the alleged human rights abuses committed by the Iranian government.
The MKO propaganda arm spends huge amounts of money and energy to organize hearing sessions in the US Congress or EU parliament. One of the recent events was the controversial hearing at the US Congress in which the so-called president of the MKO testified about the threat of ISIS in Iraq!  
This is the account of Eldar Mamedov, political advisor of Committee on foreign affairs of Social Democrats in the European Parliament about Maryam Rajavi’s allegations in the hearing:
“In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-proliferation and Trade last month (delivered via videoconference from Paris), Maryam Rajavi, the self-proclaimed “president-elect” of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which serves as the MEK’s front office, suggested the best way for Western nations to combat the threat posed by ISIS is to oust the regime in Iran. Of course, no reference was made of the fact that Iran was one of the first countries to commit blood and treasure to the fight against ISIS. Nor did Rajavi mention that, when ISIS first overtook Mosul in the summer of 2014, the MEK hailed the militant group and its supporters as “part of a popular revolution against the Maliki regime” in Iraq, which the MEK views as an Iranian pawn. Once the U.S. military joined the fight against ISIS, however, it became politically untenable to defend or minimize its crimes. So, the MEK quickly changed its tune, suddenly portraying ISIS as Iran’s creation.”[]
MKO’s “Skilled manipulators of public opinion” –as described by RAND report authors— wear various masks based on the background in which they trap their victims. “Exploiting local political sensitivities in Europe, the MEK has chosen a different tactic to advocate for government overthrow”, Mamedov reveals.  “To European audiences, the MEK has emphasized Iran’s human rights issues, such as the high number of executions in the country, as well as issues to do with women rights and infringements on religious liberty.”
The main goal of the MKO’s propaganda is to derail any interaction between EP and Iran. As Mamedov reports, the group launched a huge propaganda in Brussels to obstruct both the visit of Iranian parliamentary delegation to European Parliament and official visit of European parliamentarians to Tehran. Fortunately, both attempts failed despite several public hearings hold in the EP by the MKO that was trying to push its aggressive campaign on what it called freedom and human rights in Iran.
The propagandistic plans failed due to the undisputable, notoriously known history of the MKO on human rights abuse and violence.
 The famous Human Rights Watch report on Human rights abuses inside the mujahedin khalq camps “No Exit” just interviewed a few cases of the group victims but it offers appropriate measures to get to know about the cult-like violent substance of the group. The RAND corporation also published a rather systematic report on the MKO in 2009.
Definitely, those politicians who naïvely let themselves become tools in the hands of the MKO’s destructive structures should read these two official reports. Still, there are numerous testimonies, documentaries, interviews and articles by the MKO’s former members –No matter how bellicosely they are labeled as agents of the Iranian Intelligence, by the MKO.
Mazda Parsi
 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 96

++ The MEK’s reaction to critics who picketed in support of the prosecution of MEK lieutenant Mehdi Abrishamchi on terrorism charges was to launch (yet another) intimidation campaign. MEK agents found the critics’ addresses and posted defamatory leaflets around their neighbourhoods. One perpetrator was arrested by police. He was identified as an illegal Afghan. He admitted being paid by the MEK along with several other Afghans to undertake this kind of activity. Former MEK member Mohammad Karami who was there during the arrest told the man “if you go back to the MEK, tell them if we were going to cave in at these things we wouldn’t have survived what you put us through in Iraq. The Afghan had photographed some of the critics and Karami encouraged him to take them back to the MEK and publish them as it would act as publicity against themselves. Other commentators reminded us that France is responsible for the safety of people in France not the MEK. They warned that some terrorist activity by the MEK is not far off; they will do it, and the host country government will be responsible. Former MEK members in Albania issued a statement supporting the court case against Abrishamchi and cheering on the critics and ex members in Europe.

++ This week in Baghdad, Massoud Meshkinian managed to run away from Camp Liberty and take refuge with the Iraqi authorities. His family had been in Baghdad the week before looking for him. Meshkinian reported that he was being forced by the MEK to appear on their TV to swear at his own family, but while they were trying to convince him he found an opportunity to run away to the Iraqis.

++ The Hajari family (2 brothers 1 sister and the mother) among others have strongly criticised the UN asking why they don’t open the gate of Camp Liberty to see if their relatives are alive or dead after all these decades. They say, “We will not give in to the backers of the MEK, in particular the Western intelligence services which want to keep the cult, and we will continue trying to get contact for as long as it takes.”

++ Several letters, mostly from inside Iran, were written about Maryam Rajavi’s Congress appearance saying that the Israeli lobby have made a disaster for themselves. This has exposed how corrupt they are.

++ Saber from Tabriz sent an article to Iran Interlink titled ‘Trusting Americans to this extent is not wise’. Directed at Massoud Rajavi, Saber examines the relations which the US secret services have had with Al Qaida, Libyan fighters, Saddam Hussein and others. He identifies different levels from foot soldier terrorists to head of state terrorists, all of whom the US used, then killed. He advises Rajavi not to be fooled. He will be next.

++ The President of Iraq, Fuad Masum, is visiting Iran. In meetings with top level Iranian leaders Masum said that work with Iran against ISIS is progressing well and will continue with military and intelligence cooperation to finish them off soon. He reported that the second-in-command of ISIS was killed in Mosul by an Iraqi aerial attack. Iran and Iraq agreed to remove visas between their countries. Responding to this visit, some of the Commentariat mention that it’s time for the Americans to take the MEK home. “Pack up the MEK along with ISIS and your other terrorists, leave the region and go home.”

In English:

++ Nick Hankoff writes in Voice of Liberty ‘Not The Onion: Tom Cotton Befriends Radical Marxist Muslim Cult’. The article exposes US Senator Tom Cotton’s efforts to prevent a negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran by allying himself with the MEK cult. Hankoff suggests: “It’s possible Tom Cotton is (willfully?) ignorant to the leftist, tyrannical values and aspirations of the MEK. But like Howard Dean, Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, and many other politicians, there are big opportunities to work together for mutual political growth and enrichment.”

++ Justin Raimondo in Antiwar.com ‘Follow the Money, Why Argentina is in the War Party’s sights’, analyses the MEK’s anti-Iran activities: “Over the years, MEK has carried out a persistent campaign to foment a similar US invasion of Iran, their mainstay being various attempts to document Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Virtually all of these attempts have been debunked as either outright forgeries or else half-truths based on outdated and dubiously sourced information… Now they have tried a different tack: accusing Tehran of sponsoring an international terrorist conspiracy, one tentacle of which is the alleged 1994 plot to bomb a Jewish community center in Argentina.” Raimondo acknowledges that the MEK’s advocates, “the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Israel Project, and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group)… have no lack of means to publicize these theories: the campaign to tar Iran with the “terrorist” brush is fueled by the multi-millions of billionaires like Singer, Sheldon Adelson, and Norman Braman, whose insistence on 100 percent loyalty to Israel in the candidates and causes they support is remaking the political discourse in the US when it comes to foreign policy.”

Raimondo calls for “a mass mobilization by the American people against the drive to war – and, no, that’s not a pipedream. We did it when President Obama decided he wanted to bomb Syria and then gave Congress the last word. Congressional switchboards were soon inundated with calls opposing a new war one-hundred-to-one.”

++ Eldar Mamedov, an official in the European Parliament, writes: ‘MEK in the European Parliament

The Well-Funded Exile Group’s Desperate Attempts to Sabotage Diplomacy on Iran’. Among opponents of a negotiated settlement of the nuclear talks Mamedov says “The cult-like organization has spent vast sums of money to lobby political elites on both sides of the Atlantic for recognition as an alternative to the current Iranian government. Since a negotiated, multilateral deal with Iran would effectively bury prospects of Western-led regime change in Iran, the MEK is attempting to leverage its extraordinary influence to sink talks. Regime change in Iran, by any means, is the only item on the MEK agenda. Like experienced salesmen, its members employ different tactics to “sell” this approach to various audiences.” The article identifies the different tactics used by the MEK in America and Europe where the MEK have cleverly exploited MEPs sensitivities by targeting the issue of human rights. The author acknowledges this is an important issue but concludes “there are more effective ways to address these crucial issues than calling for regime change, undermining nuclear negotiations, or following the agendas of those with obvious ulterior motives.”

++ Sahar Family Foundation in Baghdad reveals ‘Rajavi preparing to battle the families: Killing two birds with one stone’. The article reports news from inside Camp Liberty that residents have been tasked to make and store Molotov cocktails. According to Sahar, residents “have been briefed that there is a danger that Iranian forces will attack the base under the cover of the families of the residents. Therefore they must be ready to defend themselves. Thus the members of the MKO have been mentally prepared to violently oppose the families.” Massoud Rajavi became alarmed when several families arrived at the camp looking for their loved ones. The article concludes: “Massoud Rajavi, like all cult leaders, considers the presence of the families outside the camp as a threat to his cult and like all dictators is against any information reaching the followers.

There is also another fact that some considerable numbers of members are old or sick or discontented and are not of any use to the cult. If they are dismissed or they defect in large numbers there would be a political damage to the organization. Therefore the best option for Rajavi is to get them killed as he planned in the past in the Ashraf Garrison in order to use them for propaganda purposes. In this way he would be able to kill two birds with one stone.

Rajavi is preparing his forces and arming them with Molotov Cocktails to wage battle against the Iraqis. He is using the excuse of the families’ presence at the camp gates in order for those who he considers no longer have any use for him to be killed.”

May 15 2015

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MeK – Washington’s Favourite Communist Terrorist Cult

I considered posting on the MeK, but now Richard Sale beat me to it with his excellent article on what they do and what they did.

I’ll try to complement his piece by providing some additional background on what they are. The group has some quite outlandish characteristics that make it rather unique, and US support for it all the more surprising. It is, in a nutshell, Washington’s (and Israel’s) favourite terrorist cult.

A few days back they staged a protest at the White House, in order to plead for dear leader Maryam Rajavi being allowed to testify before congress on ISIS, and naturally, Iran’s evils. I invite readers to have a close look at the image, in particular the mug of their dear leader, Maryam Rajavi (iirc "the true president of Iran", in one of her unofficial titles), on placards.

 After the US invasion or Iraq in 2003, the MeK were based in Camp Ashraf and ‘liberated’ by US troops. In fact, it was pretty soon that the US had to protect them from the Iraqis who held unfond memories of them, for aiding Saddam Hussein’s efforts to suppress Kurds and Shia. After Saddam’s demise, the MeK however quickly found a new sponsor in sympathetic neocons, who felt they could put the group to good use against Iran.

The RAND corporation wrote a rather thorough and damning report on the MeK in 2009 which can be found here:

It is absolutely worth to be read in full. It should be required reading for everyone dealing with the group.

I will quote at length from the chapter (p.37 f) introducing the MeK’s cult characteristics and especially from Appendix B (p.69 ff), which goes into greater detail.

♦ A Cult … – p. 37 f of the PDF

 Coalition Forces Were Not Prepared to Deal with an Unfamiliar Culture or the MeK’s Atypical Characteristics

 … JIATF’s commanders had few or no opportunities to discuss the difficulties inherent in dealing with the MeK, to share knowledge, or to compare strategies. This deficit had particularly profound consequences once it became apparent to JIATF [ed: Joint Inter-Agency Task Force] officers through their early interrogations of MeK members that the organization was not just an FTO [ed: Foreign Terrorist Organisation]; it was also a cult.

 The MeK as a Cult

 From its earliest days, the MeK had had tight social bonds, but these began to be transformed into something more sinister during the mid-1980s after the group’s leaders and many of its members had relocated to Paris. There, Masoud Rajavi began to undertake what he called an “ideological revolution,” requiring a new regimen of activities—at first demanding increased study and devotion to the cause but soon expanding into near-religious devotion to the Rajavis (Masoud and his wife, Maryam), public self-deprecation sessions, mandatory divorce, celibacy, enforced separation from family and friends, and gender segregation. Prior to establishing an alliance with Saddam, the MeK had been a  popular  organization.  However,  once  it  settled  in  Iraq  and  fought against Iranian forces in alliance with Saddam, the group incurred the ire of the Iranian people and, as a result, faced a shortfall in volunteers. Thus began a campaign of disingenuous recruiting. The MeK naturally sought out Iranian dissidents, but it also approached Iranian economic migrants  in  such  countries  as  Turkey  and  the  United  Arab  Emirates with false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq. Relatives of members were given free trips to visit the MeK’s camps. Most of these “recruits” were brought into Iraq illegally and then required to hand over their identity documents for “safekeeping.” Thus, they were effectively trapped.

 Another  recruiting  tactic  was  arranged  with  the  assistance  of Saddam’s government. Iranian prisoners from the Iran-Iraq War were offered  the  choice  of  going  to  MeK  camps  and  being  repatriated  or remaining in Iraqi prison camps. Hundreds of prisoners went to MeK camps, where they languished. No repatriation efforts were made. For  coalition  forces,  the  MeK’s  cult  behavior  and  questionable recruiting practices are significant insofar as they affect both the daily operations at the camp and the strategic disposition options available to the group. The leadership is unlikely to cooperate with policies that would undermine its ability to exert direct control over its members. Indeed,  Human  Rights  Watch  reports  that  the  MeK  long  ago  instituted a complicated process to retain members who expressed a desire to  leave,  which  included  a  “trial,”  forced  confessions  of  disloyalty, and even torture. Although this process has been modified since the group was consolidated at Camp Ashraf, would-be walkaways are still “debriefed”  for  days  or  even  weeks  while  held  in  some  form  of  solitary confinement, during which they are encouraged to change their minds. Conversely,  the  long-term  indoctrination  and  isolation  experi- enced by MeK members are likely to have instilled an exaggerated sense of  loyalty,  causing  them  to  reject  offers  to  separate  themselves  from their  leaders.  This  would  apply  in  particular  to  repatriation  to  Iran, where the expectation of persecution has been dramatically instilled in their minds.

 The MeK as Skilled Manipulators of Public Opinion

 During the more than four decades since its founding, the MeK has become  increasingly  adept  at  crafting  and  promoting  its  image  as  a democratic organization that seeks to bring down Iranian tyrants, both secular and religious. This profile has been especially effective in the United States and Europe, where, until recently, the MeK’s extensive fundraising activities have been very successful. But despite the MeK’s ongoing attempts to build political support from the West through a multifaceted public-relations campaign, it was not enough to prevent the group from being designated an FTO by the United States as well as by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and the European Union. According to U.S. law, providing any type of support—political, financial, or otherwise—for an FTO is a federal crime. Moreover, many of the MeK’s fundraising activities have been proven to be fraudulent (for example, claiming to be soliciting funds on behalf of Iranian refugees, child welfare, or medical services for children). The MeK has also been linked with a range of money-laundering activities. If coalition forces, and particularly those involved in any type of negotiations with the MeK, had been apprised of the group’s long history  of  deception,  they  would  have  been  far  less  likely  to  have  made the  kinds  of  concessions  that  proved  so  troublesome  later  on.  However,  they  found  MeK  representatives  to  be  friendly,  appealing,  and  knowledgeable  about  the  United  States.  Thus,  they  were  susceptible to the MeK’s assertions of neutrality; its apparent willingness to help further coalition goals; its professions of support for democratic ideals,  both within and outside its own organization; and its insistence that it  had  broad  political  support  in  the  international  community.  Had the U.S. military, in particular, been more wary, it is unlikely that the  MeK  would  have  been  able  to  avoid  the  surrender  demanded  by USCENTCOM,  and  even  less  probable  that  it  could  have  elicited  a request for review of its FTO status from General Odierno.

…

♦ Appendix B – p.69 ff of the PDF:

 Appendix B: Cultic Characteristics of the MeK

 The MeK is frequently described as a “cultish” group, but to date, there has  been  no  examination  of  how  its  practices  relate  to  cult  characteristics defined by experts in the field. This appendix places credible reports about MeK practices into the context of cult theory

 The MeK’s Transition from Popular Organization to Exiled Cult

 …

 Application of Cult Theory to the MeK

 MeK  leaders  and  supporters  vigorously  deny  that  the  MeK  is  a  cult. They  allege  that  former  MeK  members  and  critics  of  the  MeK  are either  Iranian  agents  or  their  dupes.  However,  interviews  with  U.S. military  and  civilian  officials,  information  voluntarily  furnished  by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible.The  cult  characteristics  described  in  this  appendix  have  been widely  reported  by  former  MeK  members  and  by  Human  Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC.

 Authoritarian, Charismatic Leadership

 "Masoud  Rajavi  appointed  himself  and  Maryam  leader  and  co-leader of  the  MeK  (and,  by  extension,  of  Iran)  for  life,  though  the  NCRI asserts that it would quickly mount elections upon taking control of Iran. This concept of perpetual leadership is reflected in the MeK chant “Iran-Rajavi, Rajavi-Iran” that has been used since the MeK began its transformation into a cult. Equally reflective of the absolute authority wielded by Rajavi is his informal title Imam-e Hal (the present Imam) used by MeK membership. The egocentric character of Masoud Rajavi’s leadership is also illustrated by his willingness to compare his own marriage to that of the Prophet Muhammad. In addition, the MeK membership  ceremony  involves  swearing  an  oath  of  devotion  to  the Rajavis on the Koran. Pictures of the Rajavis adorn all MeK buildings; banners with their portraits hang in the streets of Camp Ashraf. Criticism of the Rajavi leadership is not allowed. …

 Intense Ideological Exploitation and Isolation

 The MeK leadership requires members to study MeK ideology and to participate in indoctrination sessions that are characterized by a mix of propaganda and fear tactics. Group members are required to watch films of the Rajavis’ speeches and footage of various street demonstrations throughout Europe. The MeK broadcasts from its own radio and television stations. MeK leaders permit group members to listen only to these stations and to read only internal reports and bulletins, such as the MeK-produced Mojahed newspaper and other approved texts. Violators are punished. To reduce the appearance of brainwashing, MeK leaders describe these restricted activities as opposition to the IRI or as exercises in military theory. …

 Sexual Control

 As a part of the “ideological revolution,” the Rajavis mandated divorce and celibacy. Compulsory divorce required couples to place their wedding  rings  in  a  bowl  and  renounce  their  affections  for  one  another. (The  rules  did  not  apply  to  the  Rajavi  marriage,  however,  nor  were MeK leaders required to be celibate.) The MeK denies that these acts were anything but spontaneous and voluntary, claiming, “The reality is that the Mujahideen is based in the territory of a country where . . . family life became impossible” and that every MeK member made the individual, noncompulsory decision to “forgo family life.” This denial is not credible, particularly when taking into account the MeK’s strict limitations on gender interaction, as described next. …

 Emotional Isolation

 In addition to their geographic and ideological isolation, MeK members in Iraq are severely socially and emotionally isolated, even within their communal living arrangements. Relatives and former spouses are placed in different compounds and are not allowed to see each other. Prior  to  the  U.S.  invasion  of  Iraq  in  1991,  children  were  sent  to  live with  foster  families  in  Europe,  ostensibly  to  protect  them  from  the impending invasion, though some returned to Iraq years later. Close friendships are considered “liberal relations” and are strictly forbidden. Members may freely communicate only with their unit commanders, and a commander’s permission is required for any other type of communication.  Informants  monitor  conversations  among  members.  In many cases, MeK members’ families in Iran have been told that their relatives had died or been killed. …

 Extreme, Degrading Peer Pressure

 The  MeK  holds  daily,  weekly,  and  monthly  “sessions”  that  involve forced  public  confessions  aimed  at  expelling  deviant  thoughts  and behaviors that are believed to undermine group coherence. MeK members are required to keep daily records of their thoughts and nighttime dreams, particularly sexual thoughts and desires (which are, of course, forbidden), as well as observations about their fellow members. They must  submit  their  journals  to  their  supervisors.  During  large  meetings, members often are forced to read their reports aloud and to make self-critical statements. MeK members are often required to admit to sexual thoughts. In a true Catch-22 situation, if they do not, they will be considered to have been caught in a lie because such thoughts are considered inevitable.

 Deceptive Recruitment

 Prior  to  its  exile,  the  MeK  was  the  largest  group  to  oppose  the  IRI. The  organization  enjoyed  significant  support  among  the  young  and educated middle class. At the peak of its popularity, it could call hundreds  of  thousands  of  protesters  into  the  streets  of  cities  across  Iran on minimal notice. Prospective members were attracted to the MeK’s mission,  its  Marxist-Islamic  ideology,  and  the  opportunity  to  live  in coeducational housing and enjoy social debates. However, its ability to recruit was greatly reduced by the IRI’s brutal treatment of MeK members; the group’s departure from Iran, first to France and then to Iraq; and the MeK’s alliance with Saddam, the instigator of the devastating Iran-Iraq War. … These findings suggest that many MeK recruits since 1986 were not true volunteers and have been kept at MeK camps in Iraq under duress. As of June 2004, JIATF estimated that, of the MeK population at Camp Ashraf, only 5 percent had joined prior to the Iranian Revolution  and  25  percent  had  joined  at  the  time  of  the  revolution. A  full  quarter  (approximately  1,500  to  1,800)  had  been  POWs,  and  45 percent had arrived at Camp Ashraf after the 1988 move to Iraq. Thus, it is possible that nearly 70 percent of the MeK population may have  been  recruited  through  deception  and  kept  at  Camp  Ashraf against their will.

 Forced Labor and Sleep Deprivation

 Cults often use long work hours and sleep deprivation as ways to wear down their members and prevent them from identifying with anything other than the group. MeK members often work 16- to 17-hour days and are limited to a few hours’ sleep per night, plus an hour-long nap. To maintain this pace, the MeK leadership mandates continual “make-work” construction and beautification projects and, until OIF, ongoing military training. The results are evident at Camp Ashraf. Built out of the desert, the camp has grand avenues lined with trees and is adorned with  an  exceptional  number  of  parks,  fountains,  meeting  halls,  and monuments, many of which glorify MeK martyrs.

 Physical Abuse, Imprisonment, and Lack of Exit Options

 Former  MeK  members  claim  that  punishment  was  frequently  meted out for such offenses as

 •expressing or fomenting disagreement with the political/military strategy of the MeK

 •listening to foreign radio stations

 •sharing individual political views with other members

 •failing to attend mandatory meetings

 •making personal phone calls

 •avoiding participation in military drills

 •refusing to participate in the compulsory “ideological divorce”

 •having sexual thoughts

 •communicating with friends or family

 •smoking

 •asking to leave the MeK

 Recent accounts recall that punishment for disagreeing with MeK policies ranged from forced written confessions of disloyalty to incarceration in special facilities at Camp Ashraf. Former members report torture and long periods of solitary confinement  as  punishment  for disloyalty. To  prevent  MeK  members  from  departing  the  camps,  almost all  MeK  recruits  were  obliged  to  turn  over  their  identity  documents to the MeK for “safekeeping.” The MeK now claims that these documents were securely held until they were destroyed by coalition bombs. Although the group was invited into Iraq and given the use of land by Saddam,  the  MeK  never  sought  legal  residence  there.  When  recruits were  brought  into  the  country,  Iraqi  rules  regarding  alien  visits  or immigration were intentionally not observed. With Saddam’s complicity, the MeK leadership was then able to threaten recalcitrant members with prosecution for their illegal presence in Iraq, which would mean incarceration in an Iraqi prison for several years, followed by deportation to Iran, where, members were told, they would face certain persecution. By bringing its members into Iraq illegally and then confiscating their identity documents, the MeK was able to trap them.

 Patterns of Suicide

 The MeK extols suicide but, unlike jihadist groups, has not used it in attacks since 1981. Prior to their capture in 2003, all MeK members carried cyanide tablets in leather pouches tied around their necks. MeK assassins were instructed to swallow the cyanide if captured during a mission. Masoud Rajavi reputedly has called all MeK members “living martyrs,”  and  self-immolation  is  a  popular  form  of  MeK  suicide. For  example,  in  2003,  there  were  approximately  10  self-immolations (which killed two) in protest of Maryam Rajavi’s arrest in Paris. The MeK has also used the threat of immolation as a negotiating tool with the JIATF, with British investigators, and with France. Former members indicate that a small number of MeK members committed suicide because  they  were  prevented  from  leaving  the  organization  and  that suicide was also claimed as the cause of death for recalcitrant members who were tortured to death.

Denial of Cultic Tendencies

 The MeK and its apologists deny that the MeK is a cult, instead contending  that  it  is  a  “deeply  democratic  organization  whose  guiding principle on all issues is referendum and discussion until a consensus is reached.” The MeK admits to certain practices—such as divorce and celibacy—but justifies them as necessary for effective military operations  and  claims  that  they  are  voluntarily  adopted  by  the  membership. However, the MeK denies many other practices attributed to it by it former members, such as intense indoctrination techniques like “thought reform” (commonly referred to as brainwashing) and limiting exit options. As  with  all  criticism  aimed  at  the  group,  the  MeK blames  IRI propaganda for characterizing it as a cult. Certainly, the IRI seeks to discredit the MeK, and this includes publicizing the MeK’s cultic characteristics. It is reasonable to assume that some of the IRI’s allegations are  inaccurate.  But  the  fact  that  the  IRI  seeks  to  discredit  the  MeK does notimply that all of its criticisms are inherently untrustworthy. The IRI’s campaign has contributed to weakened support for the MeK in Iran. Although it is not currently possible to conduct a scientific survey of Iranians to gauge their opinions about the MeK—and, in  the  absence  of  diplomatic  or  cultural  ties,  information  regarding Iranian perceptions is extremely limited—anecdotal evidence suggests that the MeK’s cultic characteristics have contributed to its decline in popularity since 1981. An American journalist reports that Iranians whom she interviewed likened the MeK to the Khmer Rouge and the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, comparisons that have also been made by current and former U.S. officials. Of course, as noted earlier, the MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its  popular  support  in  Iran.  Although  the  MeK  repeatedly  claims  to be  the  most  influential  opposition  group  in  that  country,  in  reality it  appears  that  this  once-prominent  dissident  group  can  now  validly claim  only  to  be  highly  organized  and  well  (albeit  illegally)  funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.

…

There isn’t much to add. The MeK and the US are obviously a match made in heaven, a union based on shared values.

 Given the choice between joining the MeK or the North Korean Army, to me it’d really be a toss up.

 ~ by confusedponderer

 Links:

 •The RAND study on the MeK:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009

/RAND_MG871.pdf

 •Human Rights Watch Report on the MeK "No Exit":

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/mena/iran0505/

 •HRW’s response to critics to the report:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/02/14/statement-responses-human-rights-watch

-report-abuses-mojahedin-e-khalq-organization-

 •http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Ashraf

 •http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_Rajavi

 •http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran

 •http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mersad

Turcopolier.typepad.com

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Camp Liberty

Rajavi preparing to battle the families: Killing two birds with one stone

News received from within Camp Liberty, base of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO, MeK, Rajavi cult) forces in Iraq, indicates that the MKO is training its members to make Molotov Cocktails and that subsequently some of these hand make bombs have been produced and stored underneath their residential containers.
The individuals are briefed that there is a danger that Iranian forces will attack the base under the cover of the families of the residents. Therefore they must be ready to defend themselves. Thus the members of the MKO have been mentally prepared to violently oppose the families.
The truth is that the Rajavi cult was alarmed when some families of members trapped in Camp Liberty approached the camp to visit their loved ones and that is why they react like this. Rajavi, like any other cult leader, considers the families as the major threat to its mind manipulation techniques and control over the members.
When the families’ showed their presence at the gates of Camp Liberty, the Rajavi cult started its widespread propaganda against them as though they are organized armed forces who have planned to attack the base and abolish it! This is while the families, who are all empty-handed and without any propaganda tools, approached the camp to hear from their loved ones.
Sahar Family Foundation, which was aware of the families visit to Iraq beforehand, kept its promise to the Iraqi and UN officials by not mentioning anything publicly and kept a low profile in order not to give the MKO leaders any excuses. But the MKO announced the news with extreme propaganda and fabricated lies since it had no intention of allowing the families to visit their loved ones quietly, and made up excuses that there are conspiracies against the camp by the Iranian regime.
Everyone remembers that in the past the families were stationed outside the gates of Ashraf Garrison for about 4 years where they peacefully demanded to visit their relatives. In return the MKO members, indoctrinated by the cult leaders, pelted them with stones and metal pieces which cut their arms and heads and called them all kinds of names and accused them of being the spies of the Iranian regime. But the families patiently tolerated the situation and simply repeated their demands of the leaders peacefully that they just want to know about their loved ones.
The Rajavi cult claimed in the past that they would allow the families to visit their relatives provided it takes place inside the camp with the presence of the MKO officials. The families accepted this condition, but the cult leaders, who are frightened of any contact of their followers with the outside world, in particular with their relatives, broke their promises and did not allow any visits.
Massoud Rajavi, like all cult leaders, considers the presence of the families outside the camp as a threat to his cult and like all dictators is against any information reaching the followers.
There is also another fact that some considerable numbers of members are old or sick or discontented and are not of any use to the cult. If they are dismissed or they defect in large numbers there would be a political damage to the organization. Therefore the best option for Rajavi is to get them killed as he planned in the past in the Ashraf Garrison in order to use them for propaganda purposes. In this way he would be able to kill two birds with one stone.
Rajavi is preparing his forces and arming them with Molotov Cocktails to wage battle against the Iraqis. He is using the excuse of the families’ presence at the camp gates in order for those who he considers no longer have any use for him to be killed.
 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Three Decades Of MEK Lies About Iran—–Meet The Neocon’s Favorite Terrorist Group

Follow the Money

Why Argentina is in the War Party’s sights

The brouhaha over an alleged 1994 Iranian plot to bomb a Jewish community center in Argentina, of all places, has been in and out of the news for years. Hysterical headlines, fantastic allegations, simmering intrigue, a mysterious suicide that some are claiming was a murder – it all sounds like a fourth-rate made-for-television thriller. That may be because its source – the weird neo-Marxist cult known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), which seems to have bought half the Congress and any number of well-known political figures and pundits – is prone to melodrama of the crudest sort.

An Iranian exile group headed up by a woman who calls herself the “President” of Iran, the MEK has an extensive international network, with its fanatic members running a bewildering array of frontgroups – the Iranian American Community of North Texas, the National Council of Resistance, Iran Zamin Cultural Association, the Organizing Committee for Convention for Democracy in Iran, the Human Rights Center in Wisconsin, Association of Iranian Women in America, to name a few. These groups ceaselessly lobby for two main causes: 1) Getting the group delisted as a terrorist organization, and 2) Moving the West to attack Iran.

They succeeded in their first goal, at least here in the US, with Hillary Clinton’s decision to take the MEK off the list of terror groups after a very well-financed and persistent campaign. MEK was listed in the first place because they had launched attacks on US assets and personnel in the late 1970s, murdering six Americans. MEK supported the Iranian revolution that brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power, only breaking with the regime when Tehran decided to release the US embassy hostages – and after being decisively defeated in subsequent elections.

MEK launched terrorist attacks on the Islamist regime, killing scores of civilians in bombings, and establishing a base in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, whose regime sheltered and supported them. They played a key role in suppressing revolts against Saddam’s rule, brutally suppressing a Shi’ite rising in the south and a Kurdish rebellion that resulted in the death of thousands.

After Saddam’s fall, they began their rebirth into a “pro-democracy” exile group, reportedly with aid from the Israelis. When a number of neoconservative organizations in the US took up their cause, MEK became the Iranian analogue of the Iraqi National Congress, the group headed up by international intriguer Ahmed Chalabi who provided the Bush administration – and New York Times reporter Judith Miller – with much of the erroneous “intelligence” that led the US to invade Iraq.

Over the years, MEK has carried out a persistent campaign to foment a similar US invasion of Iran, their mainstay being various attempts to document Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Virtually all of these attempts have been debunked as either outright forgeries or else half-truths based on outdated and dubiously sourced information. Their only success has been the revelation of the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz, and even there they didn’t garner the intelligence on their own: it was reportedly given to them by the Israelis.

Now they have tried a different tack: accusing Tehran of sponsoring an international terrorist conspiracy, one tentacle of which is the alleged 1994 plot to bomb a Jewish community center in Argentina. And their neoconservative cheerleaders have taken up the cry, with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Israel Project, and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, all promoting MEK’s indictment.

That indictment was summarized and published by Argentina’s chief prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, who relied exclusively on MEK “experts” to justify his charges against top Iranian officials supposedly involved in the attack on the Jewish center. The head of the National Council of Resistance “intelligence” division, Reza Zakeri Kouchaksaraee, testified that a 1993 two-hour meeting resulted in a decision to bomb the center: he gave the meeting date as August 14. Another National Council of Resistance official, Hadi Roshanravani, gives the date as August 12.

How did MEK know about this alleged meeting, and even the precise agenda, when none of these “experts” were in Iran at the time, nor did they work for or have any contact with the Iranian government when the alleged plot was hatched? Nisman does not say in his report: he only cites MEK-affiliated “defectors” who defected well before the bombing took place. MEK has long traded on its supposed secret connections to mysterious sources inside Iran, but this claim has worn rather thin over the years as their “revelations” turn out to be utter junk. Nisman, however, swallowed them whole in this case, citing no evidence for his charges other than MEK’s bare assertions.

Nisman cites yet another Iranian defector, Aboghasem Mesbahi, who repeats MEK’s claims. Mesbahi’s credibility may be measured by his statements to the 9/11 Commission averring that Iran was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: he knew this because he read secret messages in newspapers.

So what’s really behind the international campaign trying to link Iran to the bombing, which killed 85 people and injured 300?

The evidence points to hedge fund chief Paul Singer, one of the richest men in the world, whose financial interests and devotion to Israel combine to produce what can only be characterized as a singular obsession.

In 2001, Argentina defaulted on its debt payments, the inevitable result of years of big government programs, incompetence, and outright corruption. But that didn’t deter Singer from buying up Argentina’s bonds on the cheap. His plan: to pursue Argentina in court and demand full payment. A court victory – which he achieved in the summer of last year, when the Supreme Court ruled in Singer’s favor – would reward him with over $2 billion in pure profit. The “vulture,” as financial publications like Forbes describe Singer and other investors who buy up bonds of desperately poor countries in hopes of making a killing, is now free to seize Argentine’s assets around the world. Argentina is also forbidden to settle with other bondholders who may be willing to accept partial payment until Singer and his fellow vultures are paid in full.

Singer helped found the American Task Force Argentina (ATFA), which has been running newspaper ads in support of Singer’s legal efforts as well as demonizing Argentina as part of a vast Iranian terrorist network operating throughout South America. Singer gave half a million dollars to The Israel Project, which has been frenetically promoting this conspiracy theory. FDD, which has signed on to the anti-Argentina campaign in a big way, received over $3 million from Singer. A whole panoply of Republican members of Congress in the forefront of the anti-Argentina jihad – including presidential candidate Marco Rubio,who introduced a resolution in the Senate demanding an investigation into Argentina’s alleged ties to Iran — have been beneficiaries of Singer’s largesse. AIPAC, which has been more circumspect in is promotion of the Jewish center bombing “connection” to Iran, has been similarly rewarded: its fundraising arm was given over $1 million by Singer and his associates.

A $2 billion payoff – and the smiting of Israel’s principal enemy: that’s the double-barreled motive behind Singer’s anti-Argentina holy war.

Ideology and moolah have always coincided in the world of the neoconservatives: remember Richard Perle’s Trireme Partners, a “security” firm set up to profit off the Iraq war? And of course, as Rand Paul pointed out, Dick Cheney’s connection to Halliburton – and the windfall profits they made off the invasion of Iraq – are emblematic of the neocons’ ability to make mucho dineros off their penchant for conquest. The links of key neoconservative activists with big military contractors like Lockheed-Martin are a matter of longstanding public record.

Not that these people aren’t sincere in their belief that war is indeed the answer: they just aren’t averse to making a few billion in profit along the way.

When prosecutor Nisman committed suicide a day before he was supposed to formally present his charges of a “cover up” by Argentina of Iran’s alleged culpability in the bombing plot, the hysterics in neoconservative circles reached fever pitch. The same people who denounce any arguments that they are trying to push us into war as a kooky “conspiracy theory” were quick to evoke a conspiracy by the Argentine government to commit murder. Yet Nisman’s death was clearly self-inflicted: a gun he had borrowed from an associate was found next to his body, and there were no signs of a struggle or forced entry. No evidence has emerged to show that he was killed by something other than his own hand: but evidence, or the lack of it, has never stopped the neocons from constructing elaborate arguments touting their own “theories.”

And they have no lack of means to publicize these theories: the campaign to tar Iran with the “terrorist” brush is fueled by the multi-millions of billionaires like Singer, Sheldon Adelson, and Norman Braman, whose insistence on 100 percent loyalty to Israel in the candidates and causes they support is remaking the political discourse in the US when it comes to foreign policy.

The forces driving us to war with Iran have billions of dollars to spend. They represent a minority of the population – but that doesn’t deter them. Their strategy is to present both sides of the same coin to the American people, come election time, and then ask them to make a “choice” – a Republican who will take us to war against Iran, or a Democrat who will take the same road.

So what can stop them? If the deck is stacked, how can we prevent the next war in the Middle East – which promises to make the Iraq war look like a mere skirmish?

The answer is a mass mobilization by the American people against the drive to war – and, no, that’s not a pipedream. We did it when President Obama decided he wanted to bomb Syria and then gave Congress the last word. Congressional switchboards were soon inundated with calls opposing a new war one-hundred-to-one. Members of Congress who said they would vote yes for war backed down, and those on the fence came over to our side – until it was clear the administration wouldn’t have the votes. Obama backed off in the face of massive opposition: and, yes, Antiwar.com was a big part of that memorable mobilization.

We did it before – and we can and will do it again.

But we can’t do it without your help.

You can see, from the above, how outgunned we are when it comes to financial resources. The War Party has billions, and money is no object. But I’ll let you in on a little secret: they need those billions, and more, because they represent nothing and no one but themselves. Their support is almost exclusively in Washington, D.C., and New York City, the political and media centers that profit from perpetual war. We, on the other hand, have the overwhelming majority of the American people on our side – if only we can rally them to the banner of peace in time.

Paul Singer’s billions are feeding America a diet of lies. Our answer to him and his confreres is the unalloyed truth – and we don’t need billions, or even millions, to educate the American people about the forces pushing us into war. We just need a basic minimum to keep this web site going.

We’ve been fighting the War Party’s lies since 1995, with the invaluable help of our readers and supporters – and we’ve been doing it on a shoestring budget! What we spend in an entire year is what groups like the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the American Enterprise Institute spend in less than a week.

We need your help to counter the well-financed lies that are poisoning the national discourse around foreign policy issues. Your tax-deductible donation goes to counter the Paul Singers, the Sheldon Adelsons, and their friends in what Dwight Eisenhower called “the military-industrial-congressional” complex – and every penny counts.

Today is the first day of our Spring fundraising campaign, and I’m on pins-and-needles, as I am every time we have to go through this process. We’re asking for your vote of confidence – your vote for a more peaceful world. And I believe we deserve that vote of affirmation – because this is the one and only self-sustaining and relatively successful institution the peace movement has. Please help us continue our work on behalf of the cause of peace and liberty. Please make your tax-deductible donation today.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

by Justin Raimondo,

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Congressman Tom Cotton Makes Allies of Radical Marxist Muslims

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.; shown) is not only the darling of the neonconservatives and war hawks, but he also seems to be making a play to get in the good graces of “an Iranian dissident terrorist group.” Here’s the story as reported by Nick Hankoff for Voices of Liberty on May 8:

On Wednesday, Cotton participated in a panel called “After Iran Nuclear Framework Agreement, Now What?” organized by the Organization of Iranian American Communities (OIAC) in a Senate meeting room. The OIAC, through spending millions of dollars lobbying, is responsible for getting an Iranian dissident terrorist group removed from the State Department’s official list of terrorist organizations in 2012 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That would be the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a group that assassinated half a dozen Americans in Iran and targeted many others in the run up to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The MEK was founded with Marxist, feminist, and Islamic tenets and incorporated cultish tendencies including personality worship of its husband-wife founders, forced divorces for elderly women, and a forbiddance to marry for young women.

The revolutionary group considers itself a government-in-exile, ready to return to Iran once the current regime is overthrown. The MEK has no measure of support from the Iranian people.

Cotton’s cozying up to the “MEK-fronting OIAC” is particularly troublesome in light of the fondness President Obama seems to have for the same gang. Consider this facet of the story told by The New American’s Alex Newman in 2012:

After a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign that unlawfully enlisted top members of the bipartisan U.S. political class, the Obama administration decided that the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), an Islamo-Marxist terror cult notorious for murdering Americans, should no longer be on the State Department’s list of designated terrorist organizations. Experts say the decision paves the way to begin openly showering U.S. taxpayer money on the anti-American outfit in its bid to overthrow the Iranian regime.

The controversial decision to formally "delist" the organization came in the wake of reports charging that the federal government was already arming and training the cult-like Iranian MeK in violation of U.S. terror laws. The purpose of the alleged support, according to multiple sources, was to help wage a proxy war against Iran. Criticism of the administration’s recent decision, however, erupted quickly and forcefully.

Newman also briefly outlines the MEK’s origins and mission:

Also known as the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, the MeK was founded in an effort to advance a hybrid system incorporating communism and Islam. It officially landed on the U.S. government’s terror list some 15 years ago for perpetrating numerous terror attacks against civilians and more than a few senior American military personnel. The group was also allied with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, helping him to wage a brutal war against Iran while suppressing dissidents within Iraq.

In fairness, Senator Cotton may be ignorant of the MEK’s militant and terroristic intent. In fact, perhaps his alliance with the group may be an example of an enemy of his enemy being his friend.

Both Cotton and the MEK oppose any agreement between Iran and the United States. Cotton was the chief architect of a controversial letter co-signed by 46 other senators and sent to the government of Iran explaining that any treaty between the two countries would require congressional approval.

For its part, as Hankoff reports: “The female co-founder of the MEK, Maryam Rajavi, has said that toppling the government in Iran is the best shot the US has at defeating the Islamic State.” He adds that, “Cotton has said bombing Iran would last no longer than how long proponents of the 2003 Iraq War promised.”

Hankoff and Newman both point out that Cotton’s not the only neocon to feel comfortable in the company of MEK.

“It’s possible Tom Cotton is (willfully?) ignorant to the leftist, tyrannical values and aspirations of the MEK. But like Howard Dean, Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, and many other politicians, there are big opportunities to work together for mutual political growth and enrichment,” Hankoff writes.

Newman confirms this collaboration, reporting:

Despite federal statutes defining as a felony the provision of any “material support” to designated terrorist organizations, the MeK managed to buy die-hard support from numerous senior U.S. politicians and former officials on both sides of the aisle. Advocates for the terror cult range from neo-conservative terror-war cheerleaders like Rudy Giuliani and Michael Mukasey to liberals like Howard Dean and Gen. James Jones. Former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, ex-CIA and FBI bosses, and many others jumped on the pro-MeK bandwagon, too.

In light of Cotton’s admitted alliance with MEK, where is the outrage from conservatives? Where is the call for Cotton to renounce any association with the group, especially considering that to continue their relationship would be a felony and a violation of federal law prohibiting such cooperation?

Hankoff puts it this way, “Neocons and Marxist-Islamist terrorist cultists joining together to undermine US-led international negotiations to prevent war with Iran. Politics makes strange bedfellows.”

Calls for comment by Senator Cotton’s office made by The New American were unreturned at press time.

by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.,   The New American

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts