Articles

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Ethics Coming to Matter for MKO!

Maryam Rajavi accuses the State Department of unethical behavior for not delisting MKO

In a widespread struggle to be removed from the blacklist, Maryam Rajavi in her speech made on June 25 in objection to MKO’s terrorist tag stated: “Which law and which ethical and humanitarian Maryam Rajavi accuses the State Department of unethical behavior for not delisting MKO principle, would allow the State Department to defer the removal of the PMOI until Camp Ashraf is evacuated?” Has she ever been asked for what ethical and humanitarian cause did the agents of her organization sent many people to their death by planted bombs? And nothing can justify the recorded atrocities of MKO and clean its leaders’ hands of the innocent bloods even if removed from any list.

To dig up truth about the terrorist cult of Mojahedin Khalq Organization MKO/MEK, it is just anniversary of another bloody, flagrant terrorist perpetration. As disclosed in the US State Department’s Report in 1992, the group is unquestionably responsible for one of the most heinous terrorist operations in its armed warfare against Iranian regime. The report states:

“The Mojahedin initiated a wave of bombings and assassinations against the Khomeini regime that reverberates today. The most spectacular attack occurred June 28, 1981, when two bombs tipped apart the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party (IRP, the party of the clerics), killing 74 members of the regime’s top leadership, including the URP’s leader, Ayatollah Beheshti,(14) ministers, and 27 Majles deputies.

In a row of self-suicide operations and blasts, Rajavi’s agents sent many cleric and political personalities to their death. The most spectacular operations occurred on June 28, 1981, when two bombs ripped apart the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party killing 74 dignitaries of the regime including the party’s leader, Ayatollah Beheshti,14 ministers, and 27 Members of Parliament. Majority of dissident groups condemned such bloody, unethical means of opposition and the operation highlighted the terrorist potentiality of MKO as global threat to be later included on the US terrorist list.

June 28, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MKO, A Terrorism Problem to Be Confronted

MKO has to be confronted as a terrorist group that is already turning into a global problem

The common point concerning the terrorist groups on the State Department’s blacklist is that MKO, A Terrorism Problem to Be Confronted majority of them, at least in the coverage of the media, have been downgrading from a major, serious threat as already advertised to insignificant threats or have totally changed their violent means of struggle. There are even cases in which the terrorist perpetrators are referred to in media coverage as “mass killers” or “gunmen”. But there are ones amongst them with inbred violence and have adopted terrorism as a working instrument to achieve their claimed political objectives.

Mojahedin Khalq Organization (aka. MKO, MEK, PMOI, NCRI, NLA, MISA), for instance, has been put on the list from its very initiating in 1997, has a four decade-long history of violence. In fact, from an ideological point of view, violence has been an innately distinguished feature of MKO from the beginning of its formation and that, the key solution to accomplish organizational and ideological achievements has been through practice of violence. That is an undeniable fact and there are irrefutable evidences to be consulted.

Even the European Union that removed it from its list of terror first and Americans who have kept it on the list are still, even with more emphasis, stressing on unrevealed aspects of its terrorist nature. But what distinguishes MKO as a terrorist-oriented organization with others on the list is that its change of position and stances depends on the circumstances and political fluctuations that enable it to command wide-ranging respect and support even from those who were in opposite fronts. Of course, it has provided the appropriate background and framework for forged non-violent and pro-democratic activities through its Paris based NCRI led by Maryam Rajavi, a suitable dummy appointed by her husband to lead the pseudo-democratic wing of a whole structure he himself leads. Taking advantage of civil liberties the democracies provide, she has freedom for maneuvering just in the heart of the arena of democracies to advertise undemocratic fancies.

While the husband Massoud Rajavi, living in hideout whose whereabouts is unknown, delivers messages addressed to veterans and encourages them to be on full alert to outface any probable forceful reaction from the Iraqi forces instead of continuation of a peaceful cooperation, the wife holds extravagant rallies for a pseudo-democratic demonstration mainly aimed at demonizing the adversaries. In his instructions given to residents in Camp Ashraf and Liberty for instance, through his message delivered on May 23, Rajavi repeatedly dares the devoted warriors to be determined in eliciting a violent reaction to repel any resolution inconsistent with group’s demands: “Then, do not be scared of the battle you have to confront, strike. Strike and go forward with confidence. … I want others to know, friends and foes, that today, the power of one thousand Mojahed is beyond that of the regime’s nuclear power they have gathered here in Iraq to negotiate about.“ These type of words totally lacks the needed sincerity to conclude that a terrorist group is truthfully inclined to denounce and decry a mentality of violence.

Although physically claimed to be disarmed, MKO can never denounce its terrorist mentality but undergo a change of tactics. And the societies among whom these mentally programmed terrorists live are more at risk since democratic systems inadvertently provide greater opportunities for these terrorists and create permissive environments in which their networks can operate more easily. More disappointing, the international community and those committed to combat terrorism are dragging their feet to be decisive about a terrorist group that is already turning into a global problem.

June 28, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Mojahedine Khalq terrorist group propaganda

Time for a reality check

For years Massoud Rajavi – that supreme egocentric – has tried to bend reality to suit his own Mojahedine Khalq terrorist group propaganda version of how the world should be, and when actual manipulation of events has failed, has created myths to invent a reality more suited to his cultic agenda. Nowhere has this been more obvious than in the MEK’s grand vision of itself as the ‘only alternative’ or the ‘main opposition’ and the mythical tale that the MEK will ‘overthrow the Iranian regime in its entirety’. Year after year Rajavi has perpetually pretended, whether to himself or to his followers, that this is a reality. And the myth has depended on the willing suspension of disbelief of world public opinion – or at least a few political pundits – who enjoy such hatred of Iran and Iranians that they are happy to participate in the game; though not without financial recompense of course.

In the eighties the MEK used to organise mass demonstrations in Western countries to celebrate its armed struggle. The main event was the anniversary of 30 Khordad (21 June) 1981 when the MEK abandoned its ambition to lead the revolutionary forces and began to oppose the new constitutional government under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini using terrorist tactics. The mass demonstrations in Western countries were popularly supported. But as time passed by and reality impinged on Rajavi’s dream of taking over Iran, instead of bending to reality and adjusting his group’s activities accordingly, he tried to bend reality to reflect his egotistical view of himself in the world. As the MEK’s violence became more and more futile and hence more savage, the demonstrations attracted fewer and fewer actual supporters and instead became more gaudy and showy. As western governments cracked down on the MEK’s illegal and undemocratic activities they were forced to downsize – while inflating advertised attendee figures by the power of ten – and hire (ironically) exhibition halls rather than take to the streets in public.

The latest event at Villepinte in Paris on June 23 was such a spectacle. But it was a spectacle of spectacular failure. Probably the most embarrassing event the MEK has yet had to outlive (and Maryam Rajavi has a series of embarrassing public and private gaffes to her name). Most of the VIPs, who had been rounded up to promote the MEK under the false ‘democratic change’ front groups, called in sick after being briefed by government officials where the money was really coming from and that the support was for a terrorist cult. (For future reference, where the word ‘appeasement’ is used, the article/speech/policy was most probably written by the MEK and is shorthand for ‘let’s declare war on Iran’.)

The VIPs who did turn up could, quite reasonably, have been expecting to address the ‘tens of thousands of Iranian exiles’ who, the MEK declared, had arrived in a ‘thousand buses from all over Europe’. Pictures from the event, which was held in a salon with a capacity of 10,000 standing, show a very different story. No wonder the MEK has been unable to publish film or photographs from inside the salon.

The linked photographs and film were taken by former members who had slipped in unnoticed among the crowd. Several minutes into the film Maryam Rajavi is heard addressing the crowd who are still milling around and clearly disinterested in the performance on the stage. The fervent cheering comes from the actual MEK loyalists ranged in the front few rows. Behind them no one is listening or even sitting down in the places where flags have been placed on every seat for them to wave to create a spectacle to film. The MEK have paid millions of Euros to create the crowd but couldn’t organise them when they arrived. The majority ‘rent-a-crowd’ element of the audience didn’t care much where the money came from or what the event was as long as they enjoyed a free weekend trip to Paris. Even the ever-supportive anti-Iran media could only realistically describe the event as ‘Iranian led’ to disguise the fact that right minded Iranians, inside and outside Iran, actively shun the MEK.

Now, how must it have felt for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and former US Senator Robert Torricelli to address this crowd about regime change in Iran. How much is their dignity worth?

If the MEK had not held this event it would have been better for them. Even to have a small gathering of their own members and supporters would have looked better, less desperate, less like the failing cult the MEK have become. Rajavi could have spent his money on many more effective means to plead his case for removal of the MEK from the US terrorism list. But although external reality has dramatically impacted on Rajavi’s fortunes, it is the leaking evidence of desperation in the MEK’s internal situation that is the most significant.

Unusually this year the MEK’s Photoshopped pictures of the meeting have been sloppily, shoddily perhaps hastily put together; several wide angle pictures concatenated to show a mass audience. But with the blurred join lines obvious on the pictures, the cracks in the MEK’s vision are exposed. And there are more fault lines in the MEK world.

Over the past few weeks the MEK has issued several frantic press releases related to the slow, inevitable demise of Camp Ashraf (where Rajavi has defiantly stopped cooperating with the UN and US like a truculent teenager). The significant aspect of these missives is their dire English style and grammatical mistakes. Clearly, just as with the Photoshopped pictures, Rajavi has lost some key personnel inside his organisation and has had to make do with sub-standard replacements to create the means to perpetuate his myths.

Markedly Rajavi recently lost two of his main Western stalwarts in the UK, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale who died on 19 February this year, and Lord Archer of Sandwell who died on 14 June. Such supporters have, for years, facilitated the MEK’s political lobbying in the House of Lords and of course provided other practical services and support; particularly editing English language documents. Their loss is irreplaceable. And with other Peers creaking with age and MPs subject to the vagaries of elections, Rajavi can only be staring into the well of loneliness.

Increasingly lonely too are those who have, for money, positioned themselves as MEK advocates. Anyone who looks beyond the political hype and anti-Iran propaganda will see an increasing disconnect with reality. Due to the internal demand for constant indoctrination the MEK cannot hold back from advertising its ‘martyrs’ – people who die for Rajavi. This week the MEK announced the deaths of two more people in Iraq. More than anything else it is their ages – 55 and 59 – which exposes the age group of MEK residents in Iraq. Those MEK advocates – including those addressing the Paris crowd – who continue to claim that the MEK is an essential force for change in Iran really ought to save their blushes. World public opinion is not blind or stupid. Accept reality and move on.

June 28, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

The War of Words Against Iran’s MEK

For the last several months, articles about the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian dissident group, have spread like wildfire through the mainstream U.S. press. The firestorm began in early February 2012 after anonymous White House officials accused the group of assassinating several Iranian nuclear scientists with the help of the Israeli government. Media coverage gained further traction after reports surfaced about alleged payments made by the MEK to former, high-ranking U.S. officials in exchange for their work in lobbying to remove the group from the The War of Words Against Iran’s MEK State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

While focused mainly on these issues, the MEK media frenzy has also reflected several notable tendencies. First, the coverage has overwhelmingly depicted the group as a cultish, terrorist organization. Second, with its single-minded focus on the group’s “terrorist” pedigree, reporting on the MEK has made short shrift of the its long, complex, and controversial history. Little background has been provided on the group’s origins as a popular political organization and transformation into a resistance movement in exile, and even less insight has been given about its current status as a cult-like group.

In order to evaluate competing claims about the MEK’s terrorist credentials and its current position vis a vis the United States, Iran, and Israel, an understanding of this history is critical.

The Political Organization

The MEK was established in 1965 by three young university-educated professionals, Mohammed Hanifnejad, who would become the group’s first leader, Saied Mohsen, and Ali Asghar Badi’zadegan. From its inception, the organization dedicated itself to the overthrow of Iran’s then-ruler, Reza Shah Pahlavi. While committed to armed struggle, the MEK’s work remained largely non-violent and focused on spreading its anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist message to students and factory workers, among others.

The MEK espoused a political ideology described as “Eslame Vaghee” or “True Islam,” which combined Islamic concepts with principles of social justice. While religious practices, like daily prayer, fasting during the month of Ramadan, and zakat (alms giving to the poor), formed an important part of its political philosophy, the MEK was far from a militant Islamic organization. Eschewing regressive and reactionary forms of Islam, the MEK’s religious philosophy developed out of a commitment to the progressive, liberating power of Islam and reflected Iranian society’s strong Islamic identity.

Over time, the MEK gained substantial support, particularly among students, religious clerics, and “bazaaris,” Iran’s powerful merchant class. In response to this growing popularity, the MEK’s leadership and many of its supporters were arrested in 1971 by the SAVAK, Iran’s notorious secret police. While the organization’s founders along with most of its leadership were executed in April-May 1972, a handful of MEK leaders were spared execution and sentenced to life imprisonment. Among this small group was Massoud Rajavi, who would go on to become the MEK’s primary leader in the decades to come.

After the Iranian Revolution began and MEK leaders were released from prison, the group formally joined forces with various organizations, including the followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Living as an exile in Paris during the lead up to the revolution, Khomeini had appreciated the value of working with the MEK, which enjoyed a strong support base inside the country.

This collaborative relationship substantially changed after the Ayatollah’s triumphant return to Iran in February 1979, following the ouster of Iran’s shah. Shortly after his arrival, the Ayatollah’s followers presented the MEK with an ultimatum – either unconditionally support Khomeini as Iran’s next ruler or face political isolation. Refusing to accept these terms, the group began publicly opposing Khomeini’s bid for power.

An outright war quickly developed between the two sides, with the new government arresting and killing countless MEK followers. The group responded with armed attacks against government installations and officials. By mid to late 1981, most MEK members who had not been arrested or killed fled the country, in what would become permanent exile for most.

Armed Resistance in Exile

Now focused on toppling the Islamic Republic, the MEK continued its work abroad. It established political headquarters in Paris and operated a series of “kanoons”, or community centers, around the world, including in several U.S. cities. A kanoon, which was typically an apartment or house owned or rented by a MEK supporter, served as a gathering place, center for grassroots organizing, and venue for community celebrations. In the early 1980s, most MEK members living outside of Iran were overwhelmingly young, recent émigrés. For these displaced individuals, the kanoons represented a safe haven, where they could live rent-free, speak Farsi, socialize, and meet other like-minded individuals.

Despite the civic and political work happening in these venues, armed resistance was at the heart of the MEK’s struggle against the Islamic Republic. In 1986, with the blessing of Saddam Hussein, the group established Camp Ashraf, a military base in Iraq near the Iran-Iraq border. Here, the MEK transformed its most committed supporters, both male and female, into a conventional fighting force. Periodically, this small but fervent group of soldiers would stage incursions into Iran [and only Iran], the most notable coming after the 1988 ceasefire ending the Iran-Iraq war.

While Saddam had provided the MEK with the vast majority of its arms, by the end of the 1991 Gulf War, this financial and logistical support had started to dwindle, an unintended victim of UN sanctions against Iraq. While the MEK continued to stage minor assaults into Iran, armed incursions became less and less feasible, and less and less frequent throughout the 1990s.

To add insult to injury, the MEK was also becoming increasingly irrelevant as an opposition group, having lost substantial support among the Iranian public. Many MEK supporters still inside Iran had been executed in 1988, in an infamous purge of the notorious Evin Prison. The decision to center MEK operations in Iraq was, however, the most damaging to the group’s reputation. Despite the clear practical and strategic reasons for this move, many Iranians saw the establishment of Camp Ashraf as an act of national betrayal, coming as it did during the height of the Iran-Iraq war.

The Cult

With prospects of toppling the Islamic Republic increasingly slim, the MEK focused on perpetuating its ideology and maintaining the devotion of its remaining members. Massoud Rajavi was presented as the organization’s god-like ideological father, while his wife, Maryam Rajavi, became the figurehead and public face of MEK leadership. Despite an avowed commitment to democratic ideals, the MEK intensified its already regimented system of internal governance, quashing dissent and rewarding only those blindly obedient to the group’s leadership.

Although these tendencies had existed before the post-Gulf War period, panic and desperation took these practices into overdrive. In the hopes of developing a devoted cadre of followers, the MEK divided families, separating husbands from wives and parents from children. Many of the organization’s most fervent members, who had willingly given up family and career, became wholly dependent upon the MEK. For these individuals, daily life was largely restricted to the confines of Camp Ashraf, the Paris headquarters, or the kanoons. These institutions functioned as echo chambers in which the organization’s philosophy was repeatedly emphasized. To feed this propaganda machine, the MEK, which already published its own books and newspaper, created a satellite television network, began producing its own music, and, eventually, had its own boy band to boot.

While this strategy helped forge a deeply committed, though small, group of MEK supporters, for many the intolerance and subjugation was unbearable. Unsurprisingly, throughout the 1990s, the group lost scores of supporters.

The United States, Israel, and Iran

With its armed activities curtailed, its support within Iran virtually non-existent, and its membership abroad dwindling, in the 1990s, the MEK increased efforts to build support among Western government officials. While the results were tepid at best, the Presidency of George W. Bush, September 11, 2011, and the 2003 Iraq invasion changed the rules of the game. Suddenly, prominent American politicians of the neo-conservative strain were ready to speak with the MEK. And the MEK was more willing than ever to join these conversations.

In 1997, the group had been placed on the State Department’s terrorism list, in response to pressure from Iranian President Mahmoud Khatami. In the hopes that Khatami, a reformer, would soften Iran’s stance towards the United States, the Clinton Administration acquiesced to the request. Although the State Department designation initially had little affect on the MEK, after September 11th, the group’s activities in the United States were significantly curtailed, coming to a near standstill.

Desperation makes strange bedfellows. Facing virtual annihilation, in 2002-2003, the MEK solidified its now notorious relationship with certain neo-conservative elements of the Bush Administration, as well as with the Israeli government. In the short-term, the MEK focused on removing its name from the State Department list and protecting its military base in Iraq, which was threatened by talks of an impending U.S. invasion of the country. In the long-term, the group saw its dreams of toppling the Iranian government align perfectly (for the first time) with the goals of a sitting U.S. President. Israeli support for the MEK was welcomed for similar reasons, although the assistance was deeper both ideologically and logistically. The MEK’s leadership threw itself head on into cultivating these relationships and the rest, as they say, is history.

Conclusion

As it stands today, the MEK is a broken and largely irrelevant group. Concerned only with generating support among a narrow segment of the U.S. political elite, it has engaged in a bitter rivalry with a number of Iranian-American leaders and groups, such as the National Iranian American Council. While this bad blood partly explains the recent negative publicity about the MEK, at base, the group remains very insular and secretive, with little interest in cultivating public opinion within Iran or the diaspora.

Given its past relationships and strategic-interests, rumors about the MEK’s role in assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists may be true, and, if so, raise serious concerns about removing the group from the State Department’s list. Putting these allegations aside, however, the MEK’s reach and impact, whether inside or outside Iran, has dwindled to a trickle. With its Iraqi military base virtually lost and its credibility with most Iranians permanently destroyed, the group has come far from its roots as a popular political organization. Regardless of the power and influence of its new friends, the MEK stands little chance of ever coming to power in Iran.

Muftah.org

June 27, 2012 0 comments

France

The recent actions of Rajavi’s gang in France

The recent actions of Rajavi’s gang in France;
Testing France

Fabricating a file for Mr. Sadegh Mohammad kazem, an Iraqi official, and assailing rally of Iranians opposed to the MeK, were among recent actions of Rajavi’s gang in France.

These measures have been applied by the MeK to test ways to strengthen and expand their organization and paving the way for greater mobility in France.

In the first try, the MeK presented a so- called incontrovertible file to the French Court and, hoping to lead to detention for months or even a verdict against Mr. Kazem.

The complaint against this Iraqi official was a test to examine whether they could hit their opponents by the French judicial tool, or not. If they were able to create such a situation, certainly the defectors and critics of the MeK would not been assailed by Rajavi’s hooligans; Instead, any of these protestors would have a record of participation in terrorist acts!

Although acting against Mr. Sadegh Mohammad kazem apparently was randomly and simultaneously with his passing through France, but, the fact is that the MeK’s leadership already has been informed of this trip through the Baathist Penetrating agents and she had planned for such action, in order to exploit the Iraqi government, also to strengthen the MeK’s organization and securing its members in France.

French judicial system, with releasing of Mr. Mohammad Kazem and apologizing to the Iraqi government, also by detaining several hooligans of Rajavi’s gang, demonstrated that it is not a plaything for the MeK.

However, it is a matter of fact that France for political reasons has ignored the anarchist nature of the terrorist group MeK. This is a serious threat to this country; The MeK’s day and night propaganda against former French authorities who were involved in the case June 17, reveals that if this terrorists were ever able, they would fabricate a file for French authorities, too.

On the Other hand, self-immolation of the MeK’s members, assailing the defectors, and other anti- law actions make clear that this terrorist group is a threat to social order and national security of this country.

France now is on the eve of an important exam. Its governors should know that with the closure of the MeK’s main camp in Iraq, their country will be the center of this terrorist group- whether its individuals could take asylum or not, and Auvers-sur-Oise will be the center of their terrorist acts. So, the best option for France is following the Iraqi government to expel the MeK.

June 27, 2012 0 comments

The MEK to launch Armed Struggle

Tragedy of 7 Tir

On 28th June 1981 (7 Tir, 1360), MKO blew up the head office of the Islamic Republic Party with bombs which resulted in the death of Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, Chief of Justice, four Tragedy of 7 Tir cabinet ministers (Health, Transport, Telecommunications and Energy ministers), twenty-seven members of the Majlis (Iranian Parliament), and several other government officials.

Failed to gain acceptance and popularity among Iranian nation after the Islamic Revolution, Mujahedin-e Khalq terrorist group resorted to terror strategy and announced officially an armed conflict with the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the nation on 20 June, 1981. On this day, Masoud Rajavi orchestrated a cruel and savage military show and ordered the armed contingents and members of his cult to rush onto the streets and begin the terrorist phase of their struggle against the government of Iran. Via this movement, they erroneously expected to spark a general uprising.

MKO terrorists blew up the headquarters of the Iran’s Islamic Republic Party (IRP) in Tehran, while a meeting of party leaders was in progress on June 28, 1981 (7 Tir, 1360). Seventy-three leading officials of the Islamic Republic lost their lives, including Chief Justice and party secretary Ayatollah Dr. Mohammad Beheshti, four cabinet ministers (Health, Transport, Telecommunications and Energy ministers), twenty-seven members of the Majlis (Iranian Parliament), and several other government officials.

The bomber, who was as a young student and a Mujahedin operative named Mohammad Reza Kolahi, had long ago penetrated into the party. After planting the bomb inside the party building, kolahi fled the scene before the explosion.

During a meeting with Tahir Jalil Habbush, head of Iraqi intelligence under Saddam Hussein, MKO ringleader assumed responsibility for this terrorist operation.

June 27, 2012 0 comments

The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Dealing with Terrorism Conundrum in Iraq

The only rights to have been violated seem to be those of the terrorist MKO

The blight of terrorism cast on a society is enough to upset people’s life even if they are not direct targets of terrorist perpetrations. But despite the real and direct impact of terrorism on human rights and its devastating consequences on societies, the struggle of terrorist groups to enforce recognition of some rights on legal communities is far greater than that of the victims of terrorism to call for the protection of their rights in any way if they ever have any.

The flagrant violation of regulations by Mojahedin Khalq Organization MKO/MEK being overlooked, the Iraqi government and other international concerned auxiliary sides to peacefully settle the conundrum in Iraq has encountered never-ending complaints, demands and even warnings by the ringleaders. Even if the members of MKO were terrorist suspects, the Iraqi government considered their expulsion a preventive measure to protect its territory from individuals considered a security risk to the country and the nation. MKO, however, is not a suspect terrorist group but a globally blacklisted one acting as Saddam’s mercenaries in the era of his despotic rule over Iraq.

Neither exiles nor refugees, MKO is the most unwelcome leftover of Saddam’s tyranny whose expulsion the Iraqi government deems to be tantamount to a strict counter terrorism measure in a violence afflicted country. Since the fall of Saddam, The Iraqi government has been busy hunting down the remnants of his regime, with whom MKO has been undeniably reported to have established close connection. If fact, Camp Asharaf, under the protection of the coalition forces that left the internal control of the camp in the hands of the terrorists themselves, became a safe haven for a number of discontent insurgents and opponents loyal to Saddam or fed by external hands to prevent the advance of order and freedom in the country.

However, there is a widespread speculation that despite being blacklisted a terrorist group; multitudes of its members have been deceived into joining the group advertised as a freedom fighter or the starting platform devoted to provide an easy, successful life in European countries. In reality, most of them are vulnerable individuals of a society and victims of a general naivety that terrorist groups and cults take advantage of them to recruit and enslave. Needless to say that a universal consensus confirms, according to undeniable evidences revealed by the defected members of MKO, the painful and bitter truth that MKO is absolutely a terrorist cult of personality run by the wife-husband Rajavies.

The Iraqi government is actually acting to accomplish two indispensable jobs simultaneously by its decision to expel MKO; to uproot the possible threat of a foreign terrorist group and to unshackle the enslaved insiders of a terrorist cult. It is a universal responsibility to help Iraqi government in the task to fulfill. Whilst the rights of the Iraqi government have to be recognized at the regional level, they have not so far been fully protected on the international plane, to provide for the nation an opportunity of enjoying an unprejudiced, peaceful and secure life, it offers an opportunity to the trammeled insiders of MKO to regain their freedom.

But, alas, the policy of appeasement has emboldened MKO to refuse accomplishment of a justified sine qua non. The only rights to have been violated seem to be those of the terrorist MKO; it freely holds rallies and gatherings in the heart of European countries, as held on June 23 in Villepinte, Paris, confidently accusing the US of shirking to remove its terrorist tag and calling for the protection of its bastion in Iraq. But hardly anything serious has been done yet to protect the violated rights of a nation calling to have their home free of violence and disorder. And hardly any ear has heard the desperate cries of help from within the cult that simply fad out in the propaganda ado of MKO.

By N. Morgan

June 26, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Menacing Plots of the MKO against Iran

US Sponsored Terrorists: The Menacing Plots of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) against Iran

The ill-omened, inauspicious plots of the terrorist gang Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization against US Sponsored Terrorists: The Menacing Plots of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) against Iran Iran seem to have no end. The recent letter signed by 44 U.S. Senators addressed to President Obama in which it was implied that time for diplomacy with Iran is over and other options to deal with Iran’s nuclear program should be considered is said to be a magnum opus of MKO.

The website of Habilian, a non-governmental organization which represents the families of 17,000 terror victims of Iran, has recently published a news story, suggesting that the affiliates of MKO are behind the letter which near to half of the U.S. Senators signed and requested President Obama to end diplomatic efforts and dialogue with Iran and consider other options in dealing with the country’s nuclear standoff.

The pro-Zionist Senator Roy Blunt who has made fanatic statements in support of Israeli regime and enjoys strong ties to the Iranian-American Cultural Association of Missouri, an MKO affiliated organization, was the mastermind of the letter to President Obama.

Blunt’s website introduces the Senator as a staunch supporter of Israeli regime, saying that he "believes America’s strongest ally in the Middle East is the democracy in the state of Israel, an alliance that dates back to Harry S Truman."

In the introductory page of his website, it’s further mentioned that "Iran’s ongoing rush to become a nuclear power poses a terrible danger to the region and certainly to Israel… the United States must not allow Iran or any other dictatorship to develop nuclear weapons that can be used against us or our allies."

Now, having in mind Blunt’s unwavering sponsorship of Israel and his clandestine relations with MKO, one may seriously suspect that the hostile letter which the U.S. Senators blindly put their signatures on was spearheaded by MKO.

The website of UK Committee in Support of Ashraf which is a London-based organization that advocates regime change in Iran and has voiced its support for the members of MKO organization has published articles and interviews by Roy Blunt and proposed the idea of removing MKO from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

According to a report published on May 24 on the group’s website, Roy Blunt told a Senate briefing that the decision for delisting MKO should be made as soon as possible and that there’s no evidence confirming the "allegation" that residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq possess weapons.

In his opening remarks, Roy Blunt said, "We’re talking about MEK and Camp Ashraf… we’re talking about people in Iran who have a tremendous desire for freedom and democracy." In a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in March 2012, the Missouri Republican had formally requested "a detailed briefing regarding the State Department’s review of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq" (MEK) designation under section 219." He had noted that "if no satisfactory public or classified information exists to sustain our designation of the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization, it is my belief that the time has come to remove it from the list."

These MKO-associated groups are actively lobbying to convince the Iraqi government, through pressures by Obama administration, to relocate the members of MKO who are now residing in Camp Ashraf, a refugee camp in Iraq’s Diyala province, to another country and provide them with security and shelter. They are afraid that Iraq may hand in the members of the terrorist organization to Iran which unquestionably will be followed by their legal prosecution.

The UKCSA (the UK-based group which supports MKO) calls Iranian government extremist and talks of the members of MKO as freedom and peace warriors who want to bring democracy to their fellow citizens in Iran. The irony is the name of these very "peace warriors" was until recently on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations. EU removed MKO’s name from that list in 2009 in an attempt to pressure Iran over its nuclear program and demoralize, undermine the Iranian government.

MKO is responsible for the killing of hundreds of innocent Iranian civilians and government officials including former judiciary chief, Ayatollah Beheshti.

It’s also said that MKO has played a role in the killing of Iran’s nuclear scientist, Dr. Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan. Referring to the January 11 assassination of Dr. Ahmadi Roshan, Richard Silverstein, a senior Jewish American journalist wrote in his blog , "my own confidential Israeli source confirms today’s murder was the work of the Mossad and MKO, as have been a number of previous operations I’ve reported here."

On February 10, the U.S. paper New York Post wrote that MKO leaders deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for their role in the assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists: "were the MEK (MKO) to play the critical role in derailing an Iranian bomb, it would be far more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than a certain president of the United States we could mention."

The animosity and hostility of the MKO with the people of Iran needs no evidence or proof. They spare no effort to damage the security of Iran and realize their devilish planss. It’s time for the international community to mindfully confront MKO and stop them from furthering their dangerous plots in the future.

By Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari is a frequent contributor to Global Research

June 25, 2012 0 comments

The MEK to launch Armed Struggle

Glorification of An Undemocratic Start

On the anniversary of starting armed warfare MKO celebrates the event under a democratic disguise

It is now three decades when the mass demonstrations of Mojahedin Khalq Organization Glorification of An Undemocratic Start MKO/MEK shook Tehran and many other Iranian provincial towns on 20 June 1981. The outcome was Mojahedin’s declaring a ruthless armed warfare against the newly born regime of Islamic Republic the day after. The day marks a turning point in group’s terrorist pedigree although many believe that it drafted the blueprint of waging an all-out war against the regime soon after the Islamic revolution and the initiation of Iran- Iraq war; it was only looking for a dear opportunity.

The frenzy firestorm on June 20 set MKO on the no return path of initiating an armed move that expanded a wave of terror by launching armed operations, carrying out daily attacks against civilians, assassinating officials and blasting bombs. The horrible nightmare of MKO’s blind operations haunted Iranian people day and night’s life and marks a post-revolution black spot in Iranian contemporary history. However, MKO hardly denounces actions deemed as terrorism in its own narrow vision and refers to them as “revolutionary resistance”.

It is for more than a decade that, for certain political causes and a change in tactics, MKO’s revolutionary resistance has undergone a dramatic shift in action and its propaganda machine and media mainly focuses on a pro-democratic coloring and reflecting democratic tendencies. In fact, any show of democracy orchestrated by MKO is tantamount to a demonstration of its innate potentiality of the revolutionary resistance.

It is now for a few years that just on the anniversary of June 20, MKO celebrates and glorifies the event under a democratic disguise and slogans; this year it is at VillePinte, Paris on 23 June. The advertising slogan is “Protection for Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty”. MKO chants the slogan while it is the main cause of escalating tension in both camps. Those entrapped in the camps need no universally claimed protection, since the UN is decisive in refugee determination process and to convince other countries to accept members, but cooperation of the group to end their predicament. The process of relocation of members from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty has been ceased as MKO leaders are inventing unsound excuses.

MKO’s anti-social nature never changes however it replaces the masks and as English maxim says, the wolf may lose his teeth but never his nature. June 20 is breath of life into MKO’s armed and revolutionary resistance. It has to be commemorated and glorified but with Western favored tint of democracy. The host speaker of the event, Maryam Rajavi, has merely changed, if not wearing under, her military outfit for colorful, stylish ones. And the only ones she never cares for when she calls for their protections are the residents of the two camps living in limbo.

June 24, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Backing the MEK confirms Romney’s hostility to Iranian nation

Ivan Sascha Sheehan takes to the pages of Haaretz to offer the worst campaign advice anyone could give Mitt Romney:

The Romney camp’s recent expressions of support for the organized resistance challenging Syrian President Bashar Assad should now be followed with a similar approach to the Iranian opposition’s Mujahideen-e-Khalq or MEK, the largest movement in the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
Backing the MEK confirms Romney’s hostility to Iranian nation
The rest of the op-ed is the usual pro-MEK song and dance, and it is misleadingly titled “Romney should embrace the Iranian opposition.” Of course, the actual Iranian opposition in Iran loathes the MEK, and it rejects the idea that the MEK speaks for opponents of the current Iranian leadership. The MEK is still listed as a foreign terrorist organization, but that hasn’t stopped its American cheerleaders from spending the last several years to get that designation removed. Romney would be out of his mind to take Sheehan’s advice, but the possibility isn’t as far-fetched as it seems.

It’s true that one of Romney’s advisers reportedly lost influence inside the campaign because of his shilling for the MEK, but that reflected Romney’s displeasure with the adviser’s lack of discipline and not an objection to the substance of what Reiss was doing. One of Romney’s more prominent supporters and possible future appointees, John Bolton, has repeatedly spoken in support of the MEK and has attended MEK rallies. It’s not out of the question that Romney might just be foolish enough to lend some support to the group.

Thanks to the American lobbying effort on behalf of the MEK, Romney would not be on his own. He could point to all of the former government officials and retired military officers that have been advocating for the terrorist group, and he could correctly claim that the lobbying effort for the MEK has been a bipartisan one. Backing the MEK would be disgraceful and unwise, and it would confirm for almost all Iranians that Romney is hostile to Iran as a nation and not just to its current government. Considering Romney’s other foreign policy positions, it sounds like just the sort of thing he would do.

By Daniel Larison

June 24, 2012 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts