Articles

Washington Unleashes its MKO Terrorists against Iran

Despite their boastful claims of being opposed to terrorism, the United States and its European cronies have long been the staunch supporters of criminal organizations such as MKO which Washington Unleashes its MKO Terrorists against Iran has brutally slaughtered hundreds of Iranians during the 8-year war with Iraq and introduced itself as a murderous terrorist entity and the number one enemy of the Iranian nation.

Ironically, the United States that launched a self-proclaimed War on Terror following the 9/11 attacks under the pretext of combating terrorism and eradicating fundamentalism and extremism in the world has been a safe haven for the members of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization which has been responsible for the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians during its years of existence.

The overt and ostentatious relationship of MKO with the United States and European countries, especially over the recent years has been always a source of disappointment and regret for the Iranian people and the families of the victims of MKO terror attacks in the 1980s.

The West’s financial and political support for MKO has

>>Covert Warfare: Washington Unleashes its MKO Terrorists against Iran

been frequently protested and condemned by the Iranian officials and even conscious, independent Western thinkers who are aware of the nature of MKO’s brutal and atrocious activities; however, the US and its EU friends have never heeded these calls and prolonged their support for MKO and other anti-Iran terrorist organizations such as PJAK and Jundallah.

To the utmost surprise of Iran and the international community, the European Parliament removed MKO’s name from its blacklist of terrorist organizations in 2009 and subsequently asked the US Congress to do the same and take MKO off its list. An article published by The Financial Times reported on Friday that MKO has been lobbying and paying dozens of former political officials to achieve this goal.

Since 2009, frequent efforts have been made in the US by the pro-Israeli lobbies and anti-Iranian activists and congressmen to remove MKO from the list of terrorist organizations, thus facilitating the enhancement of ties with this criminal gang.

In 2008 and during the final days of the George W. Bush administration, the high-ranking officials of the MKO launched a campaign to persuade the US government to remove their name from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The US government rejected the request after investigating the materials and documents submitted by the MKO; however, in July of the same year, a US federal appeals court ordered the US Department of State to reconsider its decision. The State Department announced that it would consider the chances of taking MKO off the list of terrorist organizations; however, it further added that it continues to consider MKO as a terrorist organization.

However, at a conference in Washington on February 20 that was organized by a group called Executive Action, several American officials urged President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to remove the MKO from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

Lee H. Hamilton, a member of the US Homeland Security Advisory Council who had once chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee and served as vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Ambassador at Large Dell L. Dailey who was the head of the State Department’s counterterrorism office from July 2007 to April 2009, General Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Walter B. Slocombe were among the officials who attended the conference and supported the calls for the removal of MKO’s name from the list of terrorist organizations.

MKO hopes to build up pressure on the Iranian nation with the unconditional support of the United States and Europe and destabilize the government by carrying out terrorist activities, assassinating politicians and scientists and funding anti-Iranian NGOs. Over the recent years, MKO claimed responsibility for the killing of a number of IRGC commanders and soldiers, Iranian nuclear scientists and politicians. This clearly demonstrates that MKO is an all-out terrorist organization, but it’s actively and furtively lobbying to gain recognition as a legitimate opposition group.

According to a report titled "The Foolish Embrace of the MEK (another label for the MKO)" written by Daniel Larison and published by The American Conservative magazine, since early January 2011, the MKO has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists, Public Relations agents and communications firms to build up pressure on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take the group off the terrorist list, alleging that the MKO has rejected violence and terrorism in 2001 and as a result should be de-listed.

The report unveiled that many high-ranking of the Bush and Obama administration are "bizarrely" enthusiastic to embrace MKO and support it, because this terrorist organization is opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran and wants to derail its security and stability.

It’s also said that MKO maintains close ties with the Israeli regime. The members of MKO regularly attend AIPAC meetings. In fact, the MKO has intensive and very direct cooperation with the Iran Policy Committee, a subordinate of AIPAC. In a 2009 article published by Asia Times, it was unveiled that there are regular media reports which allude to direct Israel-MKO ties.

However, the previously secret ties of MKO with the West and Israel have become publicly known and everybody knows that this terrorist organization is being funded, supported and backed by the West and Israel.

The West’s support for MKO and other anti-Iran terrorist organizations is a clear exercise of double standards by those who call themselves the pioneers of human rights and supporters of global peace. With their blatant and flagrant support of MKO, the Western states demonstrate the futility of their claims and the duplicity of their policies and actions.

By Kourosh Ziabari

July 15, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MEK: Working with Terrorists for US Hegemony in Iran

The two-tiered American justice system is in full effect as felonious political actors advocate and promote the Iranian terrorist group Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) in order to pursue US hegemony in the region.

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Holder v. Humanitarian Law that providing material support in coordination with a designated foreign terrorist organization is a felony punishable by 15 years in prison. If you or I took money from the MEK to advocate lifting the terrorist designation, how long do you think it would take to be hooded, shackled and indefinitely detained under the National Defense Authorization Act?

Abby Martin of Media Roots and RT reports on the current efforts to convince the State Department to de-list MEK as a foreign terrorist organization.

A wave of American leaders have illegally lined up to get their slice of the MEK bankroll for speaking on their behalf. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton said, "Why would we not want to put the weight and power of this country behind an organization that we know stands for the same principles we stand for, and that is the best-organized, best-led organization to take on the current Iranian regime?" Louis Freeh, former Director of the FBI stated that “MEK is leading the fight for freedom in Iran. Just as our military forces fight for freedom on the battlefields, you fight in a more difficult and much more dangerous place."

The end-game of all this bought and paid for rhetoric is a writ entered on June 1, 2012 to the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. asking Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State to review the designation of MEK as a foreign terrorist organizations within four months or by default the designation will be removed.

These naïve politicos with imperialist illusions of Iranian regime change want to jump in bed with the MEK who vocally supported the U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran in 1979 and vehemently called for the execution of diplomats in 1981. The very same MEK that attempted to kidnap US Ambassador Douglas MacArthur in 1971, wounded Air force General Harold Price in 1972, assassinated US Army Comptroller Louis Lee Hawkins in 1973, assassinated US Air Force officers Paul Shaffer and Jack Turner and assassinated American employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith and Robert Krongard in 1976. The very same group that hijacked a plane in 1971 and bombed and killed 70 members of the Iranian parliament including Chief Justice Mohammad Beheshti, the second highest ranking official in Iran at the time. MEK also reportedly celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as well as helped carry out the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists last year.

American justice calls on the following Americans to surrender and submit to interrogation so it can be determined what degree of material support they provided officially designated terrorists: Tom Ridge, Wesley Clark, Michael Mukasey, Frances Townshend, James Jones, Peter Pace, Hugh Shelton, Louis Freeh, Michael Hayden, Anthony Zinni, Rudi Giuliani, Howard Dean, Andy Card, Bill Richardson, Lee Hamilton, John Bolton and all other Americans that feel they can operate above the law. All money received for speaking engagements should be returned, resignations should be tendered and pleas should be entered.

The arrogant criminal hypocrisy is absolutely surreal as American politicos subvert the draconian laws they perpetrate upon the rest of America. Swift sanctions are necessary to ensure the general public that all Americans live under one set of laws. So far the defenses offered by these haughty elitists are their right to free speech, which is specifically limited by the Holder Supreme Court case. Their argument is that the MEK will make a fine marionette for American imposed regime change in Iran. But Americans don’t want war or regime change in Iran—America wants representatives with common sense and ethics to be focused on this country. Let the Iranian people determine their own leadership and destiny.

Chris Martin for Media Roots

***

SALON –We now have an extraordinary situation that reveals the impunity with which political elites commit the most egregious crimes, as well as the special privileges to which they explicitly believe they — and they alone — are entitled. That a large bipartisan cast of Washington officials got caught being paid substantial sums of money by an Iranian dissident group that is legally designated by the U.S. Government as a Terrorist organization, and then meeting with and advocating on behalf of that Terrorist group, is very significant for several reasons. New developments over the last week make it all the more telling. Just behold the truly amazing set of facts that have arisen:

In June, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law. In that case, the Court upheld the Obama DOJ’s very broad interpretation of the statute that criminalizes the providing of “material support” to groups formally designated by the State Department as Terrorist organizations. The five-judge conservative bloc (along with Justice Stevens) held that pure political speech could be permissibly criminalized as “material support for Terrorism” consistent with the First Amendment if the “advocacy [is] performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (emphasis added). In other words, pure political advocacy in support of a designated Terrorist group could be prosecuted as a felony — punishable with 15 years in prison — if the advocacy is coordinated with that group.

MEDIA ROOTS

July 15, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MKO developed brainwashing for suicide bombing over thirty years

On the morning of Friday, 11 December, 1981, an elderly Iranian cleric Abdol Hosein Dastgheib was assassinated by Mojahedin Khalq assassins in the city of Shiraz while he was leaving his MKO developed brainwashing for suicide bombing over thirty years house for the Friday prayer. The assassin was a 19 year old female who was later recognized as Gohar Adab Avaz.

The assassination was a unique act of terror practiced by the MEK in which a human being was used as a living weapon. Pretending to be pregnant, she told the victim’s security people that she had a letter for the Grand Ayatollah and was willing to give the letter to him personally, while under her clothing she was wearing a powerful hand-made bomb.

In the early 80s the MEK practiced other acts of terror, among which were other suicide bombings. It was a new method in the recent history of Iran that an armed group used its members as bombs and sent them on suicide missions for terrorist activities. A method that later on was widely used by other notorious terrorist groups such as Al Qaida. Dr Abbas Milani says in an article in The National Interest, "eventually the MEK fell foul of the regime and began to fight the power holders in Tehran. Young men and women were sent in droves to armed street demonstrations. Khomeini’s regime responded with remarkable brutality, slaughtering thousands of the organization’s members. The group returned the favor and killed, by its own claims, more than two thousand regime leaders. MEK was in fact the first group in Iran (and arguably in the region) to use suicide bombers."

Obviously it takes a great deal of effort for a group to convince its members to perform suicide acts of terror. The MEK has precisely proved that it is capable of doing so. The group enjoys a cult like structure that denies family relations and members must attend daily confession meetings on their behavior and thoughts as well as their sexual feelings. Opposing members are arrested, imprisoned and tortured by their own comrades.

Justin Raimondo writes in an article in Antiwar, "MEK has been described as a cult, most notably in a scary report by Human Rights Watch, a fascinating Al Jazeera video report, and in a remarkable piece by Elizabeth Rubin in the New York Times. Rubin relates the testimony of Salahaddin Mukhtadi, an Iranian historian living in exile, who says dissident MEK members “are locked up if they disagree with anything and sometimes killed.” In the MEK cult, having particular friendships is strictly forbidden: sitting and talking together is considered a crime, especially when the subject is one’s past life before joining the cult. Wives are ordered to divorce their husbands, celibacy is mandatory, and families are broken up; nothing must come between the members and their devotion to the cause. Forced confessions and “criticism sessions” occur on a daily basis, in which participants are subjected to group abuse called “ideological cleansings.”

The process of mind manipulation that was used by the MEK is not only still practiced, but has been further developed. The group has specifically defined and delved into newer methods of brainwashing and takes advantage of isolating its own members from the outside world.

According to an internal speech of the group`s leaders which has been leaked out by ex-members and is posted on YouTube, the Rajavis say that a member of the MEK has to offer their blood and breath to the leadership. They continue that, if any member is not willing to offer his/her life for the cause of the group, his or her life is Haram (forbidden).

What makes MEK scarier is that the group has never taken any practical step to distance itself from its history of violation and terror. As mentioned, the process which led members of the organization to become walking bombs is deeply developed and the power-thirsty leadership which proved itself ruthlessly able and willing to sacrifice all the members on their own behalf is still running MEK.

A Kamangir,

July 14, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

America’s own terror group Mojahedin Khalq

Huffington Post publishes, and then deletes, a post by a MeK spokesman. What does this tell us about Terrorism?

Yesterday morning, The Huffington Post published a post by Hossein Abedini, who was identified in the byline as a “Member of Parliament in exile of Iranian Resistance.” His extended HuffPost bio says that he “belongs to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI). The NCRI is the political arm of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, (MeK), the Iranian dissident group (and longtime Saddam ally) that has been formally designated by the U.S. State Department since 1997 as a Terrorist organization, yet has been paying large sums of money to a bipartisan cast of former U.S. officials to advocate on its behalf (the in-hiding President of the NCRI, Massoud Rajavi, is, along with his wife Maryam Rajavi, MeK’s leader). Abedini, the HuffPost poster, has been identified as a MeK spokesman in news reports, and has identified himself the same way when, for instance, writing letters to NBC News objecting to negative reports about the group.

Yesterday’s HuffPost piece by Abedini touted a recent rally, held on June 23 in Paris, which, he claimed, was attended by “over 100,000 Iranian exiles and supporters of the Iranian resistance from five continents.” The news report cited by Abedini actually says that “tens of thousands” of Iranians participated, and — reflecting what seems to be MeK’s bizarrely unlimited budget — they were transported by “more than a thousand buses . . . from all over Europe.” Abedini boasted that the rally’s keynote speaker was MeK leader Rajavi (whom he calls “the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance”) — it was a MeK rally — and quotes her at length demanding the removal of MeK from the list of Terror organizations

As usual for a MeK event, Abedini was able to tout more than a dozen former high-level U.S. political officials from both parties who spoke to the rally, many of whom (if not all) have been repeatedly paid large sums of money for their MeK speeches. According to Abedini, this latest rally included many of the usual MeK shills: former GOP New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, former Democratic New Mexico Governor and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, former GOP U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former GOP Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Democratic State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, and several retired U.S. Generals.

Shortly after the HuffPost piece appeared, several people on Twitter, the first of which (I believe) was the Iranian journalist Hooman Majd, noted that The Huffington Post had published a propaganda piece from a designated Terror group and wondered whether they would do so for all such Terror groups such as Al Qaeda. After several others, including The New York Times‘ Robert Mackey and myself, noted the oddity that HuffPost was publishing pieces from a designated Terrorist group, HuffPost deleted the piece. If one goes now to the URL where the post first appeared, one finds this: “Editor’s Note: This post is no longer available on the Huffington Post” (the post can still be read in its cached version). No explanation is given for the deletion, but a HuffPost spokesperson, Rhoades Alderson, last night responded to my inquiry about it as follows:

It was published by mistake. By policy, we don’t publish blog posts by people affiliated with designated terrorist organizations. The blog editor who published it was unaware that NCRI is MEK’s political arm. When the mistake was discovered the post was removed.

Despite this “policy,” the same post by Abedini remains on the HuffPost’s UK site. Moreover, HuffPost has previously published numerous pieces from Abedini including one linking the Syrian and Iranian “resistance” and demanding Western support for both, another branding Iran the “epicenter of terrorism,” and other posts spouting the MeK line. All of those posts by Abedini remain on the HuffPost site.

To be clear, I don’t find HuffPost’s conduct — either in publishing posts from MeK spokespeople or removing them — to be objectionable. That’s not the point here. I personally believe it’s better to hear from all groups and to have all viewpoints aired rather than trying with inevitable futility to suppress them, but if HuffPost really does have a policy against publication of “people affliated with designated terrorist organizations,” then — just like laws criminalizing the providing of “material support to Terrorist organizations” — it should apply equally to MeK and those who work with it (including MeK’s list of paid D.C. political celebrities).

[In the wake of 9/11, the U.S. Government instructed American media outlets not to broadcast any statements from Osama bin Laden on the ground that he might embed in his statements coded signals to his followers to activate sleeper cells on American soil — perhaps he would use the nose wiggle employed by Bewitched’s Samantha Stevens to unleash her magic powers — and many American media outlets (needless to say) dutifully complied. It seems clear that the real reason for suppression of those Al Qaeda statements was to ensure that Americans, who were understandably asking "Why Do They Hate Us"? in the wake of 9/11, would be prevented from hearing Al Qaeda’s actual grievances about U.S. aggression so that they could instead be told that They Hate Us for Our Freedom; George Bush on September 21, 2001: "Americans are asking ‘Why do they hate us?’ . . . They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other". It’s far preferable, in my view, to allow all views to be aired, but a ban on Terror groups and their supporters should be equally applied.]

What makes this HuffPost event notable is that it is inconceivable that they would publish posts from spokespeople or paid advocates for other designated Terrorist groups which do not command widespread support among Washington’s elites — such as, say, Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Hezbollah. MeK is treated differently because they are Our Terrorists. NBC News reported that “deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group [MeK] that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service,” while The New Yorker‘s Seymour Hersh detailed in April that the U.S. has provided extensive training to MeK operatives, on U.S. soil. This entire MeK controversy has, as vividly as any event in a long time, illustrated the core truth of Terrorism and the laws against it: the entire concept has no purpose in American political discourse and law other than to delegitimize and criminalize support for groups which use violence in opposition to American violence and aggression, while sanctioning and enabling those groups which use such violence to advance America’s interests.

MeK used to work in close cooperation with Saddam (during the time Saddam was America’s decreed Enemy, rather than Ally), so they were therefore Bad: Terrorists. Indeed, in 2003, when the Bush administration was advocating an attack on Iraq, one of the prime reasons it cited was “Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism,” and it circulated a document purporting to prove that assertion, in which one of the first specific accusations listed was this:

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

So just nine years ago, Saddam’s links to MeK were cited by the U.S. Government as proof that he sheltered Terrorist groups. Now, the MeK works for the interests of (and in cooperation with) Israel and the U.S., so suddenly, they are now Good, and the most Serious Beltway officials are free to openly take money from and advocate for this Terror group (as a result, the MeK is, predictably, highly likely to be rewarded by being removed by the Obama administration from the Terrorist list). They are basically the Ahmad Chalabis of Iran: despite being widely despised in Iran for their support for Iraq in its war against Iran, they are being deceitfully held out as the True Pro-American, Pro-Israel, Pro-Western-Intervention Voice of the Iranian People (paid MeK shill Howard Dean actually argued that the U.S. should recognize MeK’s leader as the legitimate President of Iran).

That HuffPost responded to yesterday’s pressure by removing the MeK post and citing its policy against publishing those “affliated with designated terrorist organizations” is valuable in the sense that it highlights the absurd travesty of “Terrorism” in U.S. politics. For legal purposes, at least, MeK is every bit the Terrorist organization that Al Qaeda is, yet they are now Our Terrorists, and are thus heralded and rewarded rather than scorned.

* * * * *

It was recently revealed that Clarence Page, the long-time Chicago Tribune columnist, was paid $20,000 to speak at this same MeK rally in Paris, along with travel expenses; once that was revealed, The Chicago Tribune reprimanded him and he announced that he would return the fee. It’s just extraordinary how much cash is flying around and ending up in the pockets of prominent and influential Americans in order to shill for this Terror group.

On a different note, The Guardian’s Iranian columnist, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, today details how sanctions against Iran are severely harming ordinary Iranians while doing little to undermine the government or its nuclear research program. The foreign policy analyst Reza H. Akbari points out the same thing here.

Finally, a new Pentagon report to Congress stresses, as the Federation of American Scientists put it, that “that while developing offensive capabilities, Iran’s military posture is essentially defensive in character” – specifically, “Iran’s military doctrine remains designed to slow an invasion; target its adversaries’ economic, political, and military interests; and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities while avoiding any concessions that challenge its core interests.” Let’s repeat that: quite understandably, “Iran’s military posture is essentially defensive in character.”

By Glenn Greenwald,

July 12, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

MKO Fails to Win the Global Trust

MKO fails to convince the world that it has actually forsworn its shameful, anti-human past

In recent weeks, it has become an everyday routine for the press to release news and reports of the US officials urging the MKO residents in Camp Ashraf to leave there to end the critical humanitarian life the residents face in the hot, unbearable weather of Iraq. But, it will not be wrong to say that the current impasse in the relocation of more convoys from the paramilitary Camp Ashraf to the Temporary Transit Location TTL near Baghdad airport is mostly due to the encouragement Mojahedin Khalq Organization MKO/MEK receives from a number of former and retired politicians. Of course the support lent does not necessarily mean that these advocates heartily believe in the cause of what the designated terrorist group struggles for, rather, it is a type of resolved political business in which they are fed on substantially spent funds of the group.

Except a few who are tasked with walking with the group for political causes and interests, majority of the advocates are beguiled into the highly profitable job of being a mouthpiece of a seemingly pro-democratic, freedom-seeker group for a few minutes. While not every advocate and speaker accept payment, MKO umbrella groups spend millions of dollars on speaking fees and arrangement of rallies and events since the group’s activities are forbidden under its real names and titles. Everything seems ok and no fraud is committed since all payments and expenses are already covered. It is only after someone has agreed to speak or after he has made a speech at an event sponsored by this group that he is informed or learns that he has been enthusiastically underpinning a designated terrorist cult that is doomed to collapse.

Take one of those who appeared at a rally held in Paris on 23 June for instance. The Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page was paid $20,000 to speak for nearly 5 minutes at the rally in support of MKO to be removed from the State Department’s list of designated foreign terrorist organizations. His talking points to this group besides his belief that they should no longer be considered a terrorist group were:

* “Thanks for inviting me to speak up for values I believe we share: Freedom, democracy and respect for human rights for men and women across racial, ethnic and religious lines.

* “I believe we share a desire for regime change in Iran to a more fair and democratic society.

* “The historical record shows – and a variety of experts have told me – how the MEK has been America’s ally in our war against terrorists, but as former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has said, the State Department appears to have been left behind with outdated information. Now a federal court has said the State Department should check its relevance.

* “You have allies to whom you should reach out in common cause as long as you advocate the values all decent human beings share. As long as you work for freedom, equality, human rights and democracy, you are not working alone.”

Although an experienced journalist, the highlighted remarks indicate that Mr. Page was either badly misinformed or was following footsteps of already misled officials and politicians whose views were also based on misinformation. Page’s words are just the very same principles MKO has been trying to fabricate in its disinformation campaign over the last decade, but the fact is that it has no belief in the principles it has propagated. In a testimony before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on July 7, 2011, Ray Takeyh says that MKO can neither abandon terrorism nor is commitment to democracy in deed nor word:

Terror has always been a hallmark of MEK’s strategy for assuming power. Through much of its past, the party exulted violence as a heroic expression of legitimate dissent. One of the central precepts of the party is that a highly-dedicated group of militants could spark a mass revolution by bravely confronting superior power of the state and assaulting its authority. Once, the masses observe that the state is vulnerable to violence, than they will shed their inhibitions and join the protest, thus sparking the larger revolution. Thus, the most suitable means of affecting political change is necessarily violence. Although in its advocacy in Western capitals, the MEK emphasizes its commitment to democracy and free expression, in neither deed nor word has it forsworn it violent pedigree.

Nowhere in the history it is record that MKO has been America’s ally in any cause. In contrast, it has been a sworn adversary of the United States as the predatory capitalist and imperialist. MKO’s long-lasted animosity towards the US and its change of attitudes and language is best depicted by Ray Takeyh:

The core of MEK’s ideology has always been anti-imperialism which it has historically defined as opposition to U.S. interests. The MEK opposed the Shah partly because of his close associations with the United States. MEK’s anti-American compulsions propelled it toward embracing an entire spectrum of radical forces ranging from the Vietcong to the PLO. Given its mission of liberating the working class and expunging the influence of predatory capitalism, the United States has traditionally been identified as a source of exploitation and injustice in MEK literature. As the organization has lost its Iraqi patron and finds itself without any reliable allies, it has somehow modulated its language and sought to moderate its anti-American tone. Such convenient posturing should not distract attention from its well-honed ideological animus to the United States.

And how MKO could have been America’s ally in its war against terrorism when the main cause for invading Iraq was Saddam Hussein’s committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. In the statement released by the White House entitled Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism, it is well asserted that “Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.”

Some people utter the words without paying the least attention to their meanings and in support of whom they are spoken. Freedom, democracy and respect for human rights are internationally advocated words for mankind in general but abused by a terrorist cult with no respect for their real meaning. To win the trust of the world to show that it has actually forsworn its shameful, antihuman past MKO has to start from its within by complying with an international decisiveness to help it close a military camp that stands as the relic of a close collaboration with a fallen dictatorship. Unfortunately, it has failed so far.

July 12, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MEK Advocate Tried To Get State Dept. Meeting Under ‘False Pretenses’

During a call with reporters on Friday, State Department officials spoke about issues related to the MEK, the exiled Iranian opposition group currently pushing hard to get off the United States’ list of foreign terrorist organizations. MEK Advocate Tried To Get State Dept. Meeting Under ‘False Pretenses’

The MEK is engaged in a multifaceted effort to get off the list, and, as part of its strategy, supporters of the group have recruited prominent former lawmakers and government officials from both parties to appear at pro-MEK events in both the U.S. and Europe. Some of these advocates have received tens of thousands of dollars for their appearances.

On Friday, State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Daniel Benjamin and Special Advisor to the Secretary on Camp Ashraf Ambassador Daniel Fried covered the situation at Camp Ashraf, the MEK’s base in Iraq, and how that situation relates to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s pending decision on whether or not to keep the MEK on the terror list. Among the pieces of information: a foreign national once got into Benjamin’s office under “false pretenses” in an attempt to lobby for the MEK.

“I would like to go back to the issue that was asked before regarding lobbying, and I do just want to underscore that when it comes to the [terrorist organization] designation itself, we have not met with any lobbyists or others,” Benjamin said, after Fried confirmed that department officials had met with former U.S. government officials, European lawmakers, and other “advocates” in regard to the situation at Ashraf. “There was, in fact, one gentleman who came into my office under false pretenses from a foreign country to lobby for the MEK, and he was promptly thrown out. But other than that, I’ve had no conversations on this issue.”

The Iraqi government has set a July 20th deadline by which it wants the MEK to leave Ashraf. The MEK set up camp at Ashraf under Saddam Hussein, and several thousand group members remained there after the U.S. invasion. The Iraqi government essentially considers the MEK to be in the country illegally and, in recent years, MEK members at Ashraf have been killed during clashes with Iraqi troops. Benjamin said the MEK’s relocation to Camp Hurriya, a “temporary transit facility,” has hit an impasse.

“The Iraqi Government and the United Nations continue to encourage the secure, humane relocation of residents to Hurriya for refugee status determinations by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees,” Benjamin said. “Almost 2,000 individuals have already relocated, but the remaining 1,200 to 1,300 are holding at Ashraf until various MEK demands are met by the Iraqi Government. The last convoy of individuals, about 400 people, was on May 5th. And the patience of the Iraqi Government is wearing thin.”

Benjamin said the MEK “seems” to have misinterpreted a recent court ruling in the United States, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Secretary Clinton had to make a decision one way or another on the MEK’s terrorist designation before October 1. Benjamin said that “[t]his is the MEK’s moment to show that it has taken on a fundamentally different character.”

“The MEK’s relocation will assist the Secretary in determining whether the organization remains invested in its violent past or is committed to leaving that past behind,” he said. “And that really is going to be a very important illustration – or demonstration, I should say – of what the MEK’s orientation in the future will be.”

That said, Benjamin said that any decision about delisting would be made “on the merits.”

Asked about the MEK’s demands that have contributed to the impasse, Fried said that he considered some of the requests legitimate, but not all of them.

“Some of the MEK demands are reasonable. For example, given the hot weather in Iraq, they’ve requested more air conditioners. The Iraqi Government has agreed to provide them, that is agreed to allow a special shipment of air conditioners from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty, and this is being arranged as we speak,” Fried said. “But it has been frustrating to deal with constantly shifting demands, many demands. We find that U.S. Embassy and State Department and the UN will work to resolve problems and, a la whack-a-mole, you find that new ones – you’re constantly presented with new ones.”

By Eric Lach

July 10, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Lobbyists for listed Iranian terror group face new scrutiny

Retired US politicians, generals, and officials have been lobbying on behalf of the Iranian group MEK, listed as a terrorist group by the State Department.

Some of the biggest names in American politics and foreign policy have been accepting money from a State Department designated terrorist organization in recent years and lobbying the US government to bring the group in from the cold. Lobbyists for listed Iranian terror group face new scrutiny

A scandal? Hardly. That famous generals, politicians, and other retired officials have supported the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has been public knowledge for some time. But their freedom to act on behalf of a group that has murdered Americans, and sought to create an amalgam of Islam and Marxism to take over Iran after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, has nevertheless been striking. The internet is filled with their speeches, many of which were paid for with hefty fees, praising the group’s Maryam Rajavi, the self-styled "president" of Iran.

A list of notables as long as your arm are on the MEK bandwagon: Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; ex-Homeland Security boss Tom Ridge; Newt Gingrich; former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean; former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell; former head of the 9/11 commission Lee Hamilton; former Obama National Security Adviser James Jones; ex-CIA Director James Woolsey; and retired generals Wesley Clark and Peter Pace.

That’s just a brief sampling (the Monitor’s Scott Peterson did an extensive investigation into the MEK’s American supporters last year). US citizens aren’t supposed to be helping out groups designated as terrorists by the government, but that’s not how it works in this case.

Consider by contrast the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation. The group was prosecuted in 2007 for funneling money to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that is also on the State Department’s terror list. The charity sought to defend itself by saying that it was only providing humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, which is governed by Hamas. The prosecution and the jury didn’t see it that way, however, and five members of Holy Land were convicted, with two of the officials given 65-year jail terms.

While ex-US officials are receiving money from the MEK, rather than providing it, the tolerance of the close work with the group has been a Washington oddity for some time. There’s some "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic around this (the MEK hates the current Iranian regime), and some of its advocates view it is a government in waiting for Iran (much as they viewed Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress a decade ago). But the group has limited support inside Iran, and the Green Movement views the MEK with as much suspicion as the Iranian government does.

Now, a growing number of questions are being asked about the activism for the MEK.

A Washington Post article last week wonders if the officials could be prosecuted based on the Foreign Agent’s Registration Act (FARA), which requires US citizens lobbying for foreign powers in the US to disclose their roles and officially register with the government. The article quotes David Cole, a scholar of constitutional law at Georgetown, as saying FARA should probably apply to the friends of the MEK. And continues:

Federal lobbying law defines a foreign “agent” as someone who acts “at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal, or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in part by a foreign principal.” It covers activities that include acting as a publicity agency or political consultant or representing the interests of the foreign group “before any agency or official of the government of the United States.”

“The only defense would be if you can claim that you’re doing it on your own, unpaid,” said a retired senior U.S. official and expert on lobbying law, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss hypothetical cases covered by the statute. “But if you’re getting money from the same group to make speeches, it’s pretty hard to make the case.”

There have been just the slightest stirrings of legal action recently. In June, NBC News cited unnamed sources alleging that "speaking firms representing ex-FBI Director Louis Freeh and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton have received federal subpoenas as part of an expanding investigation into the source of payments to former top government officials who have publicly advocated removing" the MEK from the State terrorist list. "The investigation, being conducted by the Treasury Department, is focused on whether the former officials may have received funding, directly or indirectly, from the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, thereby violating longstanding federal law barring financial dealings with terrorist groups."
The article cited an "Obama administration official" (unnamed, of course) as confirming the probe.

Will any of this lead anywhere? Probably not. It’s hardly news that US law is applied unevenly when it comes to lobbying and connected retired officials. As for the MEK coming off the terrorist list? They remain there today as much as anything to avoid complicating negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, with many US officials concerned that a positive gesture to the group would do more harm than good to US interests. The status quo seems likely to prevail, at least under this administration.

Former presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich is one of the MEK and Ms. Rajavi’s greatest admirers, and made the case for her group at its annual conference in France this June, which was attended by a passel of former US officials.

Mr. Gingrich referred to the MEK leader as "President" Rajavi, and told her enthusiastic supporters he was wowed by one of her recent speeches.

He said he hoped "that some people in the State Department might see the reality that this is a massive, worldwide movement for liberty in Iran and not anything like the State Department’s descriptions and I think what you did yesterday was historic and extraordinary and needs to be driven home so that everybody that makes foreign policy decisions in the United States understands just how big this movement is getting … and how bipartisan the American support for it is."

It’s been a very long time since the MEK has carried out a terrorist attack, and it hasn’t murdered a US citizen since the mid-1970s, when they killed two US officers attached to the US embassy in Tehran and four American contractors working in Iran. But the group worked closely with Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran in the 1980s, and was involved in the crackdown against his Kurdish and other domestic political opponents.

It retains an unsavory, cult-like reputation in many circles. Camp Ashraf in Iraq, its base of operations when the MEK was in business under Saddam Hussein, was for many years controlled entirely by the group. Former members have complained of being ordered to dissolve their marriages (because they distracted them from supporting Rajavi and her husband), to give up their personal property to the group, and of being physically prevented from leaving the organization by her loyalists.

Newt Gingrich’s bow to Rajavi was more than a little ironic. While the gesture, as it generally is, was gracious, he hasn’t been shy about making politics over other people’s body posture in the pass. When he was still running for president in March, Gingrich released an ad attacking Obama for bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia.

By Dan Murphy

July 10, 2012 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

US Again Warns MEK to Leave Ashraf

The U.S. State Department stepped up its warnings against an Iranian group to leave a camp in Iraq, saying its status as a blacklisted foreign terrorist organization could hinge on whether it complies. US Again Warns MEK to Leave Ashraf

U.S. officials speaking Friday on a conference call said the group, Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MeK, has to vacate Camp Ashraf in Iraq by July 20, following orders from the Iraqi government to get out.

Almost 2,000 have left, relocating to a temporary facility at Camp Hurriya, while the remaining 1,200 or 1,300 have stayed put waiting for the Iraqi government to act on various demands, officials said.

“It is past time for the MeK to recognize that Ashraf is not going to remain an MeK base in Iraq,” said Ambassador Daniel Benjamin, State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism, on the call. “The Iraqi Government is committed to closing it, and any plan to wait out the government in the hope that something will change is irresponsible and dangerous.”

More coverage of the conference call is available here, here and here.

MeK was named as a terrorist entity by the State Department 15 years ago for its alleged role in assassinating U.S. citizens in the years before the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, and for allying with Saddam Hussein against Tehran.

It renounced violence in 2001, and has since engaged in an aggressive legal and lobbying campaign in Washington over the past two years — enlisting officials from both major political parties – to win its removal from the State Department’s list.

A federal appeals court last month asked the State Department to review the group’s status and give a definitive answer by October. Reports earlier this year indicated a move to de-list the group was underway. But officials said Friday that the group has misinterpreted the court’s ruling.

“MeK leaders appear to believe that the Secretary has no choice now but to de-list them. That conclusion is quite plainly wrong,” said Benjamin.

Benjamin reiterated remarks from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that leaving Camp Ashraf will play a key role in her determination on whether the group will remain on the list of foreign terror organizations, and that this was their best chance at removal.

“This is the MeK’s moment to show that it has taken on a fundamentally different character. It should act quickly and complete the relocation and close Camp Ashraf,” said Benjamin.

UPDATE:

Shahin Gobadi, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran in Paris, of which the MeK is the main member, said in a statement the group never misunderstood the ruling, and that subjecting the de-listing to vacating Camp Ashraf defies the law.

“Had there been any justification for making such [a] connection, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals [for the] D.C. Circuit would have considered it in its June 1 ruling,” he said.

By Samuel Rubenfeld

July 10, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Greed, Cluelessness, and Poor Judgment of the MEK’s American Advocates

U.S. News recently published a long article on the pro-MEK lobbying effort and the terrorist group’s American advocates. Here Karim Sadjadpour offers an explanation for why so many Americans have embraced the group:

Sadjadpour, the Carnegie analyst, finds it remarkable that so many politicians have supported a group with so much baggage. “In some cases it’s greed, in some cases it’s cluelessness, in some cases it’s remarkably poor judgment, and often it’s all of the above,” he said of the political support.

What I still don’t quite understand is how so many high-ranking and prominent people could be genuinely clueless about a group that they are supporting on a regular basis. It would be more understandable if they were simply motivated by anti-Iranian animus and chose to align themselves with the most distasteful allies possible. That wouldn’t make their cavorting with terrorists any less disgraceful, but it would make sense in a very cynical way. What doesn’t make any sense is how so many prominent figures could be so thoroughly ignorant about the background of an organization whose cause they are promoting. At some point, the ignorance defense isn’t credible. Since the MEK’s American advocates obviously know so little about the group’s history, why should anyone else trust their judgment when they say that the group shouldn’t remain on the FTO list?

The Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page would have to be included in the poor judgment category, and unlike the others his involvement has been a one-time event. Here was an interesting part of his recent column that addressed his attendance at the MEK gathering last month:

“Why are they picking on you?” asked one of many outraged emails from supportive readers in a similar vein. “Why aren’t reporters going after the other big names who are raking in big money for speeches like this?” The quick answer: They don’t work for newspapers.

In fact, some reporters, including Justin Elliott, have been publicizing the pro-MEK activism of former officials, politicians, and retired military officers for many months. These reporters have been “going after” pro-MEK advocates for quite a while, so it’s absurd to think that Page received more scrutiny than anyone else. The reason that these other individuals haven’t been censured by anyone is that they are generally no longer answerable to any employer or organization. In that sense, they are free to lend their support to a terrorist group in a way that someone in Page’s position isn’t. Even though they would all seem to be offering “material support” to a terrorist group, there is no real danger that any of them would face charges.

The new report also digs a bit more into the lobbying effort’s finances:

Much of M.E.K.’s support, Gobadi says, comes from the Iranian diaspora. While he doesn’t name the group’s U.S. supporters, the Senate disclosure database reveals the Iranian American Community of North Texas and Iranian American Community of Northern California have been most active. Dozens of similar community groups came into existence after the U.S. government shut down a partner office of the M.E.K. in D.C. in 2003, but many have since disappeared. Requests for comments from both community groups were not returned, but it’s clear that they have had enormous fundraising and sway.

IACNT and IANCC paid the lobbying firms in Washington thousands of dollars to get signatures for the congressional resolution. They paid the speakers lobby thousands of dollars to get Rendell, Giuliani and Crowley, participants said.

P.S. The Post reported late last week that MEK advocates may be in violation of lobbying regulations (via Andrew):

In recent weeks, new questions have been raised about whether private meetings, conference calls and other contact with officials at the State Department and elsewhere in the administration over the past year require the advocates’ registration as lobbyists or agents of a foreign entity.

Under federal law, advocates for foreign organizations are required to register as lobbyists and provide details about their clients and income. But the MEK supporters have not registered, which would require disclosing the amounts they are paid and the identities of officials with whom they meet.

Update: The Post article includes another good quote from Sadjadpour:

“I see them as a cross between Hezbollah and the Branch Davidians,” [bold mine-DL] said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It is legitimate to debate whether the MEK meets the Justice Department’s legal definition of a terrorist organization. But it is outright false to claim that they are a legitimate, democracy-minded opposition group with a wide base inside Iran.”

This false claim that they represent Iran’s democratic opposition is exactly what pro-MEK advocates say about the group all the time.

By Daniel Larison

July 9, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Forever in Exile: The Iranian Mujahideen-e Khalq

The Mujahideen-e Khalq will never have the necessary popular grassroots to carry the banner of a future revolution against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

With the failure of yet another round of nuclear talks and the Islamic Republic of Iran remaining ever more defiant, sentiments in the West may once again shift to regime change and positioning opposition groups as alternatives to the current leadership. The Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian Islamic-leftist terrorist organization, is one of the major such opposition groups to the current regime in Iran.

Espousing a controversial blend of Islamic-Marxism and claimed secular outlook, the MEK originated from anti-Shah university students. It later adapted into the cultish militant group of the Forever in Exile: The Iranian Mujahideen-e Khalq 1990s and eventually into the self-described liberal-Islamic alternative to the regime that exists in Tehran today.

Continuing an apparent metamorphosis, the MEK and its associates claim to have shirked their original anti-Western roots and now seek recognition by the international system in their struggle to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran and to establish an apparent democratic society with secular ideals. From their current base of operations in Iraq and around the world, the MEK continue to fight a battle for legitimacy and identity through a well-funded lobbying campaign to gain the favor of the West and facilitate opposition to the Islamic Republic. Still, the MEK’s violent history and Iran’s long cultural memory do not bode well for its prospects of acceptance by Iranians as an alternative to the authoritarian state. Thus, while it will continue to expediently transform, it is unlikely that the MEK can effectively rebrand its image to suit the Iranian people. This can be attributed to its violent history, cultish overtones, and cooperation with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war.

Enemy of the State

The MEK’s ideology has been developing since the group emerged in 1963. Initially, the organization sought to antagonize what it perceived as a US–Shah dependent relationship. Violent undercurrents were evident in their efforts as some members underwent combat training with fighters from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). By 1972 two failed attacks on the regime brought reprisals as the SAVAK — the Shah’s secret police — imprisoned half their members. The militant trend continued as the MEK’s terrorist attacks and street fighting, with Westerners also in the crosshairs, contributed to the overthrow of the Shah. In the consolidation of power after the Shah fell, the MEK positioned itself as ideologically antithetical to the proponents of an Islamic republic, and thus suffered additional retaliations.

The group eventually dissolved and its remaining leadership fled from the hostility of the Islamic regime. In 1981, the leaders escaped to Paris and completed the transition of the MEK from a grassroots peoples’ movement to a cultish organization focusing on an armed attrition. From their base of operations, the MEK fought a “tit for tat” with Hezbollah, engaging Iranian targets across the world.

From Terrorists to Traitors

While the MEK has an extensive public history of violence in Iran, the pinnacle of its repugnance in the eyes of many Iranians came during its cooperation with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Chased out of Iran, the MEK settled under the wing of the Ba’athist regime in the 1980s. From Iraq, the National Liberation Army (NLA), the paramilitary wing of the group, carried out military excursions and over the horizon attacks on Iran. Directly fighting against their countrymen while guests of Saddam, the MEK reached a new low for Iranians as it became allies with one of Iran’s most hated enemies in one of her bloodiest wars.

After the Iran-Iraq War, the counterstrike between Iran and the MEK continued well into the 1990s. Military incursions into Iran were met with an MEK base falling victim to Iranian airpower. In response, 13 Iranian embassies were targeted by the MEK. Other attacks inside Iran, such as bombings and assassinations, continued throughout the decade.

In 2002, the MEK released corroborated intelligence that Iran was covertly enriching uranium, seeking to gain the favor of the West and to undermine Tehran. Today, the MEK remains on the US State Department’s terrorism list, and its personnel in Iraq at Camp Ashraf remain in a dangerous state of flux while their fate is debated in a newly hostile Iraq. Despite the publically uneasy relations with Western governments, the MEK reportedly maintains a partnership with international intelligence agencies in a covert sabotage and espionage effort against Iran’s nuclear program.

As the MEK continues to weather hostility from the Iraqi government, it also fights a different kind of battle for legitimacy from the West. The MEK’s old hostility towards the West has been supplanted by a professional and well-funded public relations campaign to convince Western policy elites of a reformation from a violent past and of the MEK’s new status as a viable democratic opposition group to the Islamic Republic.

Regardless of whether these claims of rebirth are true, the MEK faces huge obstacles in its struggle for legitimacy in the hearts and minds of the Iranian people. Its violent history of political resistance and its treasonous relationship with Saddam has left a stubborn sense of loathing for the organization within Iranian consciousness. The animosity and mistrust for the MEK will be persistent as history shows that the proud Persian culture does not take such interference and hostility lightly.

For Iranians, past “insults” persist within their cultural memory; the Arab invasion of the Sassanid Empire in the 7th century is still lamented to this day in Iranian culture as a grand affront against Persian heritage. In modern times, Iranian’s have felt their sovereignty was being infringed upon due to the great game in Iran being played by Russia, Britain and the US. Indeed, this has not been forgotten either.

Perhaps most salient is the American led coup d’état of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953, which resulted in a still seething animosity and blowback, which helped trigger the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Furthermore, Iranians are very nationalistic, and in dire straits, such as during the Iran-Iraq War, they have supported their country despite reservations towards the new Islamic Republic. It is thus unlikely that the proud Iranian public will forget the MEK’s violent, cultish and treasonous past.

Although clouded by the intense propaganda from both the Islamic Republic and the MEK, there appears to be very little love or sympathy for the MEK from Iranians. These sentiments are practical corroborators of the theoretical possibility that, despite its resistance to the hated Iranian regime, the MEK will continue to receive its share of animosity from Iranians.

If not mass popular appeal, the MEK does have impressive funding and apparent support from entities not well disposed to the Iranian regime. However, without a grassroots momentum, the MEK can never become the viable superstructure of an opposition movement that some in the West, who ignore the MEK’s failings for the potential prize of overthrowing the Islamic Republic, hope for.

In fact, it need not be.[..]
That is not to say that MEK has no role in Iran’s future. In the past, revolutionary scale resistance movements in Iran have been populist amalgamations of varied and diverse groups from both the right and the left. If the cauldron of popular dissent once more reaches a critical point in Iran, the MEK cannot hope to completely — ideologically and fundamentally — encompass what will surely be a larger and more diverse enterprise. Nonetheless, that reality does not preclude it from some role in fighting with their fellow Iranians, as they have in the past, for a free future.

Ari Katz, Fairobserver

July 9, 2012 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts