Articles

Rajavi’s ten days to shake the world

Massoud Rajavi’s call in mid-May for the instigation of the national uprising in a ten-day period, beginning from June 10 to 20, was his granted opportunity for a joint interaction for many others who were also seeking opportunities from outside of Iran. Rajavi thought himself the center-point of a struggle circle to whom all lesser and minor points around had to attach themselves, a Rajavi’s ten days to shake the world chance set before smaller streams to join Rajavi’s claimed bigger one to form a river. It all started from the point where Rajavi was deluded by the idea that the rebellious uprisings could at least quantitatively, albeit potentially, bring him massive achievements whose big share could go straight into his pocket. Against his expectation, what Rajavi encountered was a negative reaction since the movement, despite being constituted of a young generation majority, had a past experience of blind terror and atrocities perpetrated by the organization.

It seems that the best useful thing Rajavi can do is to at least eliminate the self-made history of the June 20 and destroy it totally. Just like the anti-American campaign resources that it impudently deleted from the history of the organization, this is a stigma that it has to remove from its calendar and resources. Maybe he was under the illusion that the Iranian people, especially the new generation whom he mainly was addressing in the course of his serial messages, had forgotten about and had no notion of the terrorist crimes the organization itself had announced to be responsible for.

But what in fact occurred was in no way different in nature from what they tried to draw out of the past years’ Junes with the exception of some announced prearranged protesting demonstrations that MKO saw as granted opportunities in perspective, that is, to take advantage of circumstances with little regard for principles and putting the interests of the organization before that of the protesters. Withdrawal of the protest organizers, however, apart from a few advertised clumsy photos taken hastily with cell phones and MKO-released reports of some nightly chants whose whereabouts were unclear, resulted in no remarkable achievement for the organization compared with the volume of the invested propaganda.

And the Rajavis are carrying on, now that the June has come to its end, as if nothing has ever been said and promised. There are many subjects currently at hand to divert the attentions; the issue of Camp Ashraf and the families camping before it, the UN Security Council’s resolutions and sanctions against Iran and the like. And none of the people who were arrested in the streets during all these ten days received a message of appreciation and thanks as if nothing had really happened. In fact, nothing was to happen and they were all the victims, as many have so far been, of Rajavis hallucinations and illusions.

And the June wind Rajavi intended to shake the world with rose only to culminate in a colorful fiesta rather than a political gathering in Paris. And that is how they had promised to establish democracy in Iran! And after all these big endeavors made, we see Rajavi again retreating back to overwinter in his hiding cave and to make more decisive and promising decisions, and of course he is the only one who can decide what others should do, that could not only affect the welfare of the Iranian people but the human species in general. Let’s wait for new promises!

July 6, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Gathering in Taverney, the new fiasco

At last, after months of manipulating advertising techniques through its sizable direct and cyber propaganda machine, Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO, MEK, NCRI, PMOI, NLA) managed to hold its announced gathering at Taverney, near Paris, on 26 June. But what happened in Taverney went against the expectations and predictions regarding the number of the participants of the Iranians living in European countries. Far less than the expected minimum number! The organization itself preferred to remain silent about the exact number of those who gathered in the rally but the responsibility, as usual in such cases, was on the others whom it quoted. For example, Terry Glavin in his covering of the story stated “The NCRI gathering, which drew about 30,000 Iranian exiles from around the world, was more like an outdoor rock concert than a political rally. Jean Bouin Stadium in Taverny, a Paris suburb, was transformed into a sea of mauve hats and mauve sun umbrellas”. Or quoting Al-Quds daily, MKO-run media released “In the Iranian massive gathering held in Paris, nearly 100,000 attended, among them hundreds of youths of the Iranian uprising could be seen who had fled the country”. How such a remarkable difference can be justified is a question that only those who are masters of faking figures can possibly answer.

None of the reporters releasing the news and the event were themselves present at the rally and they only repeated what was put before them by the organization. That is obvious that when the sole reporting eyewitness is the organization itself, the rally is publicized as a gathering of tens of thousands, 30,000, 35,000, and at last 100,000. And to conceal the reluctance of the claimed the exiled Iranian participants, compared with similar events, there was no cover better than “a sea of mauve hats and mauve sun umbrellas”.

As the husband-appointed political wing of the organization, Maryam Ralavi had nothing more to add to her previously stated idea of democratic change in Iran. The new points were attaching the creators of the post-election anarchy in Iran to the organization’s policies and to stress that their move was nothing new but the continuation of the line of struggle MKO had already started: “Your uprising represents the triumph of a path for which Ashraf has been the standard bearer”.

Of the organization’s biggest prides in this gathering was the presence of John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, who repeated what the organization was delighted to hear, that is the support of the United Sates government for the regime change in Iran and to remove its designation as a terrorist organization. Of course, there were other ex and retired politicians whose only job was to read from the notes the organization had prepared and set before them. MKO rally at Taverney was in fact the end of a scenario MKO’s was planning and advertising to direct and put into practice just coincident with the anniversary of its bloody atrocities in June 1981, when it destroyed all bridges of any democratic struggle behind it and announced an all-out military campaign. And an end to all promises of Rajavi and Maryam Azdanloo in the past few months.

The bomb Massoud and Maryam had promised to explode in the month of June to change everything, and specifically from June 10 to 20, was turned into the purple balloons that were exploded at Taverney’s gatherings; the created sound was hardly audible to the participants at the rally, let alone to the world and the Iranian people. However, the end of this gathering is the beginning of a rather longstanding planned propaganda from which the organization habitually benefits most, to repeat a thing that they know isn’t true, in the hope that if they keep on saying it, others might come to believe it. But it teaches a lesson to the Rajavis and their advocates and sympathizers as well, that the hired masses and paid hirelings to be demonstrated as Iranian people and supporters, although costly, can build no more hope and aspiration.

Of course, the organization had done its best to attract, if not all but a big number, from among the supporters of Mousavi, the leader of the Green Movement, in abroad to bring them to Taverney’s gathering by declaring its backing of his move. The organization hit another failure, anyway, and adding digits to the number of the participants in its razzle-dazzle rally can no longer save it from the abyss of the illusion it is thoroughly drowned in.

July 4, 2010 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Maryam Rajavi’s background and experience

While I was browsing Maryam Rajavi’s website, which was totally including lie, treason and anti-nation items, I came across a question :”who is Maryam Rajavi?”

The answer included a bunch of lies. They portraited Maryam Rajavi as a saint, the best woman in the whole world! What was the truth? Maryam Rajavi’s background and experience as an MKO member refered to that of her sister Narges Qajar Azdanlou who according to the journal Partow Iran, swallowed a cyanide capsule following her clash with the Shah’s agents a few years before the Islamic revolution. Maryam Azdanlou (Rajavi) was lucky to enjoy the advantages of a revolutionary leader who hoisted the flag of her so-called resistance in order to break a new record of massacre of generations.

She dedicated her personal, emotional life to make female members barren and to sacrifice male members for The Cult of Rajavi.

Launching her ideological revolution in the late 20th century, Maryam Rajavi took her cult to the darkest days of middle ages. She suppressed any freedom not only in Ashraf prisons but also in members’ family and personal life.

Maryam Rajavi points the sharp edge of her cruelty blade toward women in Camp Ashraf. In order to maintain her cult, she has no way except depriving people from their freedom. She has even theorized the issue claiming that the human’s substance was originated in evil and corruption so people’s massacre would be a blessing for them. She succeeded to inject this disappointment to her cult members.

Maryam Rajavi’s historical character signifies a woman who is completely different from ordinary women. She is incredibly a massacre lover who makes women barren to remove the least hope for future family life in their minds.

When in 2003 she was arrested by French Police, she was imprisoned for 15 days but she was never treated badly or tortured but her supporters called her as Iranian Jean d’arc.
Jean d’arch was a girl who fought for the freedom and independence of her nation. She tolerated torture and imprisonment. How can Maryam Rajavi be compared with Jean d’arc? What part of her life is similar to that of Jean d’arc?

Rajavi’s sympathizers also compare her with Martin Luther King whose acts can never be compared with Maryam Rajavi’s crimes. The followings are some of her criminal acts:
Maryam Rajavi issues orders to physically remove certain members based on faked reasons.

Maryam Rajavi forbids the members captured in Camp Ashraf from visiting their families. She verbally abuses the families who are wiling to visit their children.
Maryam Rajavi forces the captured members of Ashraf to attend her TV shows in order to swear at their families.

Following her so-called ideological revolution, Maryam Rajavi sent dissident members to Abu Qoraib prison, Iraq. She launched a massacre, she brainwashed teenagers in order to be mobilized to Iran to launch terrorist operations. She manipulated members’ minds in order to commit self-immolation in case the organization is in need.
She ordered her removal teams to abandon the dissident members on mine fields to be killed; otherwise they had to be shot.

She launched a human disaster in Camp Ashraf on July 28th when a number of members were caused to be killed.

Today Maryam Rajavi is extremely happy with new sanctions imposed on Iranian nation. She is proud of her treasons against her fellow men.

Today she sheds crocodile tears for families of political prisoners in Iran but she doesn’t let the families who have been waiting at Ashraf gates for four months, visit their beloved ones.

To exaggerate the number of her sympathizers, she hires innocent Afghan, Pakistani … refugees to attend MKO meetings to raise the number of participants. She orders her followers to molest defectors of her cult because she is terrified of their enlightening denunciation.

After the collapse of her former land lord Saddam Hussein, Maryam Rajavi fled to France to kiss the feet of her new western supporters.

Translated by Nejat Society

July 3, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Maryam Rajavi, Taverny gathering and fruitless tumult

On July 26th, when MKO propaganda champagne held a gathering in Jean bouin stadium in a small town called Taverny, Maryam Rajavi had nothing to say except repeating her previous nonsense. She was even unable to present new ideas for MKO members. She could not suggest a solution for the mire MKO was stuck in although MKO made efforts to get rid of it.
Maryam Rajavi, Taverny gathering and fruitless tumult
I listened to Maryam Rajavi’s speech on Simaye Azadi[MKO’s TV channel] carefully. The conclusion I made was that she implicitly expressed depressing pulses just like those wrinkles on her face which signifies her senility.

As usual she repeated some mottos and clichés, crying loudly but there was no sign of her harmony with the modern world and its evolutions, neither no sign of understanding the reality in her words. The names and positions of people who attended the gathering as MKO sympathizers seemed also astonishing to me. Besides some trivial political figures including the mayors of Ouver Sur d’Oise and Taverny who were generously funded by MKO, you could see John Bolton former American ambassador in UN, who is anti UN and an anti-Iran neo-conservative. Maryam Rajavi might know better than everyone that inviting John Bolton to attend MKO’s gathering and to speak as an MKO sponsor, in fact signifies the refusal of all principals of the struggle once MKO founders insisted on. Being trapped by politic men of the alleged Imperialists and warmongers such as John Bolton and siding with such an anti-Iran person, shows an extreme scandal of the self-assigned president Maryam Rajavi.

A look at thoughts and personality of this warmonger element reveals shocking facts to those who still have a sense of nationalism and patriotism. These facts may clarify the border between right and wrong.

During his speech in the gathering, John Bolton clearly described his anti-Iranian ideas. "I don’t think that sanctions will prevent the regime from its nuclear weapon program. In my opinion, the sanctions can be helpful for the day the regime falls. We need much more than sanctions.

But, who is John Bolton? He is a senior member of American Enterprise Institute, Council of National Policy and an analyst of FoxNews, also an active member of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

He is an extremist rightist neo-conservative who was imposed to Collin Powel by Dick Chenny the then American vice-president Iin order to supervise the moderate policies of that retired General. He believes that international treaties and even the UN limit America’s hegemony over the world.

At the time of the meeting of vote of confidence he resorted to dissimulation and deception so he could win 57 pro votes against 43 cons. During that meeting Jesse Helms, the extremist senator who approved the "Helms-Bolton" law to impose sanctions on foreign oil firms in order not to invest in Iran, supported her henchman John Bolton by saying words that revealed Bolton’s nature. "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon …[or what Bible calls] the last battle between good and evil."

Ian Williams, UN’s Washington Report correspondent is completely familiar with John Bolton. He warns:"it is not clear where Bolton stands on Armageddon, but it is clear he has the greatest sympathy with the Christian Right’s world view." among these rightist one may find Dick Chenny, Donald Ramsfeld and his under secretary Paul Wolfovitz. "It would be very dangerous to ignore Bolton’s statement. These are harbingers of endless wars" Williams continues.

Mrs. Maryam Azdanlou [Rajavi] probably invited John Bolton to her gathering despite her perfect awareness of his anti-Iranian views including "the relations of America with other countries should be like that of a hammer and a nail."

Richard Curtiss, a contributor to Washington Report reveals that "Bolton seems very dogmatic in his prejudices. He has champagned tirelessly against the International Criminal Court".

Bolton is a supporter of Wolfwitz’s "Opposite Domino Theory", according to Mark Perlman, a correspondent of Forward journal. Wolfowitz believes that invading Iraq would serve as a domino to extend the US’s influence in other parts of the region.

John Bolton who once played an important role in mobilizing the White House and Pentagon to invade Iraq, is now seeking more tensions between Washington, Tehran and Damascus Public opinion, believes that Bolton operates as a radical figure to create a balance against some American moderate politicians. Bolton views Iran and Syria as serious threats to Israel and never allows them to harm Telaviv’s security and esteem. During Bush, the father administration, he prevented the approval of a law that would see Zionism equivalent to Racism. Also, when in London he was asked why Washington would not take a similar approach towards Israel’s nuclear program, he answered:"the US is concerned about the threats against us and our allies ….we do not protect Israel but we protect the benefits of the US."

American famous journalists and experts think that what makes Bolton’s call for Iran’s ban (according to NPT) on its nuclear program funny, is that Bolton himself never believes in respecting international laws.

About four years ago, John Bolton declared clearly: "It’s a big mistake for us to grant validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to so."

Despite what public opinion expect "Bolton has been a staunch advocate of the Bush administration’s revival of the "Star Wars" missile defense system and its rejection of the anti-Ballistic Treaty." Richard Curtiss writes.

"John Bolton is to diplomacy as Jack the Ripper was to sugury, said Ian Williams to Nation Magazine.

Now, there is a question to ask Maryam Azdanlou: when you and other leaders of MKO terrorist cult are in the same campaign with anti-humane and anti-Iranian politicians and supported by them, what is your position?

Are you in position of a patriot or that of a traitor or our enemy’s mercenary?

By Arash Rezaiee

July 1, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Israel’s Iranian Opposition?

(Representatives of Pro-Israili interests rully to promote Mojahedin Khalq terrorists)

Representatives of Pro-Israili interests rully to promote Mojahedin Khalq terrorists Two days ago, I found it curious to learn of a large rally held in Paris by the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI, also known as MEK or MKO) by reading the headlines on Ynet and on Ha’aretz. I usually follow Iranian opposition events via various other Iranian websites, where the rally was not mentioned. And while the Israeli press can be counted upon to have nearly daily entries in its hysterical campaign towards a military confrontation with Iran, it still seemed curious to find this rally by a relatively discredited Iranian opposition group featured so prominently on these Israeli websites. But then reading closely the matter was clarified somewhat (from Ha’aretz):
The rally by the PMOI, which Washington considers to be a terrorist organisation, was attended by former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and Jose Maria Aznar, the former prime minister of Spain.
Bolton and Aznar were there to represent a transatlantic coalition of neoconservative pro-Israeli interests who seem to wish to promote the PMOI as the legitimate opposition to Iran’s clerical regime. Bolton’s credentials need no rehearsal here, but let’s not forget that Aznar has recently signed on as a founding member of a European Friends of Israel, in the face of the disastrous repercussions of the Gaza Freedom flotilla raid. The reason for this is fairly clear: on the issues of Israel and on Iran’s nuclear program the current movement is dedicated to promoting an independent policy for the country. While it is likely they would take a very different tone and approach to both issues, the current movement will likely do little to satisfy the interests of the Israel Lobby and neoconservatives for a pro-Israeli and subservient Iran. With the PMOI as the only reasonably well-established alternative, these groups have thrown their lot in with them. If the confrontation with Iran becomes military in nature, it seems likely that the PMOI will be (again) touted by these interests as the “leadership in exile” for any regime-change scenario.
This is not entirely new. During the Bush years, the PMOI sought alliances with the neoconservatives in the US, with a number of bipartisan congressmen acting as intermediaries to call for their removal from the terrorist list, and to advocate for their recognition as a legitimate Iranian opposition group. They are now at it again, with a new move to give legitimacy to the group launched just days ago, with a number of congressmen signed on. In the past, highly-placed neoconservatives such as Richard Perle have attended PMOI-related events and spoke positively of the group. And the group has done much to complement the interests of these allies: they were instrumental in building up the case for Iran’s nuclear program, and have supplied intelligence they claim to have gathered from inside Iran to bolster the case for an arms program — it’s unclear how accurate or legitimate this intelligence may be, but there are certainly shades of the famous WMD intelligence relating to Iraq in all of this.
Among most prominent activists in the Iranian opposition, the PMOI is rarely remembered kindly, when they are bothered to be remembered at all. Already discredited among most Iranians for their alliance with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, and despised by Kurds everywhere for willfully participating in Hussein’s genocidal campaigns against them, the Mojahedin have come to be seen by most Iranians as an embarrassing aberration in the political landscape. While the Islamic Republic has a virulent hostility towards the group, most secular left or reformist Iranians also will have nothing to do with the group and reject its inclusion in any coalitions to oppose the regime. In Europe and the US, during anti-regime demonstrations supporting the current movement, the appearance of PMOI flags or leaflets often led to standoffs and even fights among the demonstrators, with PMOI agents far outnumbered. They now stand all alone in the Iranian scene, with their only true supporters drawn from the Israel Lobby and the margins of US and European politics.
What is so strange is that there they had once acted as the vanguard of revolutionary activity and as a synthesis of leftist and Islamist idealism in the first years of the post-revolutionary period. However, in exile they have been transformed into a political irrelevancy, made worse by their adoption of cult-like policies to maintain discipline in their ranks. The group demands of the rank-and-file a troubling adoration of the figure of Maryam Rajavi, the nominal leader of the group, relying on systems of regular debriefing and self-criticism which are mandatory for all members. Furthermore the group exerts control of many aspects of members’ personal lives, including in matters of marriage, divorce and parenting. Given what they have become, any idea of their resurgence as a valid player in Iranian politics strikes me as one of the most terrifying possibilities for Iran’s future. Their placement on the US terrorism list was clearly a political gesture during Clinton’s administration, but many Iranians find them more troubling for reasons other than the terrorist acts they have carried out.
Rather than hear me describe these, I think it’s better to let the PMOI represent themselves — in videos they have produced. Also, here, and here and here (and you can find many more just by clicking on the related videos or googling the group’s other videos). It baffles the mind that the PMOI are so blind as to how out-of-touch their fascistic aesthetics are with the ideals of Iran’s democratic opposition and their supporters. Check out the videos linked above, produced by the PMOI to publicize "celebrations" and other group events held in their base in Iraq, and tell me if you don’t find a chill creeping down your spine… Echoes of Triumph of the Will, or the Dear Leader…
Bizarrely, the PMOI continues to enjoy support even among some on the US left. The Huffington Post, for example, offers a forum to two of the group’s more active US propagandists, Ali Safavi and Alireza Jafarzadeh. It seems likely that we’ll be hearing more about them once again as the talk of a military confrontation grows. It’s no surprise that the neocons and Israel’s most steadfast supporters are also now openly backing the PMOI.

Mondoweiss.net By Kamran

July 1, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Aznar and Bolton in a sect gathering in Paris

(Aznar and Bolton joined forced to found the Friends of Israel Initiative)

On 26 June 2010, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (Mujahideen-e-Khalq) convened a gathering of their members at Taverney, near Paris.

This military sect is commanded by Massoud and Myriam Rajavi, although it is not known whether Massoud is still alive since he hasn’t been seen in public since 2003.

While the Pentagon and the Obama Administration have detached themselves from this organisation, the Mujahedin continue to enjoy the support of the neo-conservatives, Israel and France, which hosts its headquarters.

Approximately 30 000 people from all over Europe listened to speeches by former Spanish Prime Minister José-Maria Aznar and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton – who recently joined forces to found the Friends of Israel Initiative- calling on the State Department to stop considering the People’s Mujahedin as a terrorist organisation and on the European Union to unilaterally reinforce the sanctions against Iran.

Voltairenet, June 28, 2010

June 29, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO and Grasping for Support in a Very Wrong Way

In the 1920’s Joseph Stalin, in the spirit of socialization, had plans for justice, democracy and peace. He envisioned a classless society. But his narrowness of perspective combined with an ethnically and politically diverse population became a major challenge in building unity and Former members of MKO have compared its leaders to Stalin consensus. Slavery flourished. And ultimately what became central during his tenure was the building of his cult of personality. His totalitarian leadership, perpetual lying, and deception eventually ushered in the near-destruction of Soviet Russia. Eventually Stalin had no support from the people he so desperately wanted to save.

More than half a century has passed since the world has known of Stalin’s terror and his cult of personality. But beware: There is similar potential retribution toward the country of Iran as the dissident group, Mujahedin el Khalq (MKO) attempts to use the media to sell a message that they exist in the name of justice, democracy and peace. Former members of the group have compared its leaders to Stalin. [1]

Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the MKO, like Stalin, is also a cult of personality and her justice-democracy-peace campaign is deceitful. Her cheap catch-words for the organization’s ultimate goal of overthrowing the Iranian regime—and this goal has been in place for more than three decades—are wrong. In the MKO’s grand effort to achieve power in Tehran, they have stepped up their focus on trying to erase a weird, violent, and bloody past while increasing effort to legitimize their current fiction.

Sam Dealey, a journalist, who in January 2010 became Editor in Chief for the Washington Times, specified eight years ago how the MKO managed to win the support of mainstream US politicians. Dealey’s well researched claim is that “the [MKO’s] political representatives in the U.S. have worked hard to repackage the group as a legitimate dissident organization fighting for democracy in Iran—whitewashing its record and duping our leaders.” [2] And Dealey’s statement still applies today because currently the same political representatives—the crisis mongers of the MKO—are challenging the West’s policy towards Iran while feeding the public mendacity. After a 30-year track record of fabrication, the group’s latest headliner sham proclaims that Iran has nuclear capabilities. But fortunately some US politicians who are aware of the MKO’s track record of producing false and misleading information, along with weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are very suspicious about what MKO leadership says. [3]

After all, in 2003, ten MKO members (two of whom died) staged a bizarre show of solidarity towards their leader, Maryam Rajavi, by setting themselves on fire in cities around Europe. Before the self- immolations even took place, Sam Dealey wrote, “Despite its violent history, the People’s Mujahedin would like to gain international legitimacy as Iran’s ‘government in exile.’ Its immediate goal is to get its name off the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations; to that end, it now purports to support a host of democratic ideals, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to freedom of religion and the free market. It has even abandoned its revolutionary flag — composed of a Koran verse, a sickle, and a Kalashnikov assault rifle — for that of the former shah, whom they worked to depose.” [4]

As early as 1997, TIME ran an in depth article about the group, citing the State Department’s report that the MKO “has Marxist leanings,” and “few democratic tendencies.” TIME’s journalists, observed that “[MKO] troops wear no insignia of rank, live communally and receive no pay. They have taken a vow to remain celibate until Iran is freed. And all express near fanatical loyalty to the woman they hope to install as the next President of Iran: Maryam Rajavi.” Michael Eisenstadt, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy asserts that there is an unhealthy cult of personality around Maryam and Massoud Rajavi. He writes, “If they were to achieve power, it is unlikely they would give it up. The [MKO] are simply not a viable alternative to the current regime because of their ties to Iraq.” [5]

Most recently, Ali Safavi, the MKO’s primary lobbyist in Washington DC, and also a frequent contributor to the Huffington Post, is making a huge effort to deviate the public’s attention away from the group’s strange cult practices and history of terror. He’s pushing the message that the MKO is a legitimate option for the future of Iran, and opportunistically maintains that Maryam Rajavi is the "most prominent Iranian opposition leader" who "has called on the West to support democratic change in Iran by the Iranian people and their organized resistance movement.” He urges President Obama to “strengthen Iran’s democratic opposition,” and “set his sights on a strategic Iran policy by removing obstacles on the path of democratic Iranian opposition groups,” and also criticizes the US administration’s smart and cautious policy towards Iran, claiming that “the track of [US] pressure is insufficient and engagement is problematic.” [6] In short Safavi is suggesting that the Obama administration can and should close dialogue and stop diplomacy with Iran, and then remove the MKO from the State Department’s list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Safavi’s ideal proposal would make way for a terrorist cult group to replace the Iranian government. But Savafi’s proposal must convince more than just the Americans.

Iranians all over the world will admit that the MKO has no support among the Iranian nation. The MKO turned against their own people, as they sided with Saddam Hussein during the war with Iraq. In 2000, Wilfried Buchta of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and author of Who Rules Iran? The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic, analyzes the formal and informal power structures in the Islamic Republic and assesses both the future of the reform movement and the prospects for peaceful change in Iran. [7] Buchta asserts, "The large majority of Iranians inside and outside the country reject the MEK [MKO] because of its support for Bagdad during the Iran-Iraq war and for its [continued] alliance with Saddam. As a result it has only a small dwindling power base in Iran." [8]

As Iran remains in the spotlight, for the sake of public edification, the reality of the MKO must be exposed. The details of the horrors committed by MKO—either against Iranians or their own members in the organization—were the direct result of their terrorist and destructive cult-like nature. Be aware that their campaign is strong, and that MKO opportunists, with their shifty arrangement of excuses regarding past terrorist activities, believe that the seat of political power will be handed to them by the West—if they can persuade the unaware powerful. They simply exist in a very wrong way. They will vitally need the support of the Iranian people—and this is what they mostly lack.

References:
[1] Peterson, Scott. "Inside a Group Caught Between Three Powers." Christian Science Monitor. December 31, 2003 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1231/p10s01-woiq.html>.
[2] Dealey, Sam. "A Very, Very Bad Bunch." National Review. March 25, 2002 <http://old.nationalreview.com/25mar02/dealeyprint032502.html>.
[3] Collier, Robert. "US Gleans Facts on Iran From Debatable Source: Nuclear Arms Allegation Derived in Part From Rebel Group’s Data". San Francisco Chronicle. Sunday, October 26, 2003 <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/26/MNGPE2JMGO1.DTL>.
[4] Dealey, Sam. Ibid
[5] Michael Serrill and Edward Barnes, "Armed Women of Iran." TIME MAGAZINE. Monday, April 21, 1997 <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986213,00.html>.
[6] Safavi, Ali. "Iran Crisis Needs a Firm Response". Huffington Post. May 11, 2010 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-safavi/iran-crisis-needs-a-firm_b_572045.html>.
[7] Buchta, Wilfried. "Who Rules Iran? The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic". Brookings Institution Press. 2000 <http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2000/who_rules_iran.aspx>.
[8] ibid p. 116

By Mazda Parsi

June 29, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Why Mojahedin Khalq welcomes new sanctions against Iran?

To show the delighted for the new Security Council resolution against Iran, Maryam Rajavi in a statement that was released by the National Council of Resistance expressed joy and satisfaction and welcomed the move and the imposition of new sanctions by the US and the European Union. She expressed the hope that these sanctions would improve to a comprehensive technological, diplomatic and oil embargoes against the Iranian regime and emphasized that the international community should press Iran by imposing serious to give up. NCR statement quoted Maryam Rajavi in this regard saying: "The only working approach to deal with this regime is an all-assertive decisiveness. A policy that on the one hand involves comprehensive arms, technological, diplomatic and oil embargo against the regime and on the other hand, implies the recognition for the removal of restrictions against the Iranian Resistance".

In this connection, the official site of MKO while releasing this news, appreciated Hillary Clinton’s quote that the antagonistic attitude of Turkey and Brazil had no effect on the adoption of new sanctions against Iran by the Security Council and referred to the decision as a step towards the global peace. Maryam Rajavi and her propaganda machine have previously and repeatedly emphasized the need for imposing comprehensive sanctions against Iran and have celebrated the decisions completely forgetting that the sanctions are imposed against the Iranian people rather than being punitive measures that more serve to ensure the preservation of the US and Western countries’ interests.

Shrewd opportunist as MKO is, it is always waiting for troubled waters to fish. In this case of welcoming impose of sanctions on Iran, Maryam Rajavi demands her reward and immediately asks the international community to recognize her organization as a symbol of resistance and its removal of restrictions against it. It seems that she is making a deal for her own interest as well, caring not the least neither for the interests of the imposers nor the imposed. However, she is more addressing the US since Americans, as the most influential member of the international community and the Security Council, continue to recognize MKO both as a terrorist group and a cult. Furthermore, despite the tacit support of MKO in Iraq, it has granted the right of tackling with the problem of MKO to the legitimate government of Iraq. MKO, after losing all-round support of Saddam, directed all its efforts to win the support of America and the West, but despite all made attempts to satisfy them, it is still viewed as a violence-oriented, terrorist, ideologically dogmatic, anti-democratic, sectarian, and untrustable organization without the least recognized legitimacy and popularity among the Iranian people.

Although it is removed from some European lists of terror, the move is much rooted in their uncompromising political attitudes against Iranian regime rather than recognizing a terrorist group they themselves have a deeper understanding of its nature. The evidence is a multitude of published reports by state-run research organizations and institutes that recognize MKO responsible for sporadic bombings, assassinations, violence, unrest and anarchy after the 1979 revolution in Iran. Although at the present enjoying the support of the Hawks, the official positions of the US officials and particularly the Congress and the State Department do not confirm that of a supporter and still recognizes MKO as a terrorist group. Maryam Rajavi calls any investment in Iranian regime counter to democracy and human rights, but the West and the US are well aware that more absurd is to have the slightest investment, at least before the eyes of the public, in a terrorist cult that has the least respect neither for the democracy nor for human rights.

June 24, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Who are the terrorists?

As Mujahedin-e-Khalq’s propaganda campaigns and lobbies in the United States government make efforts to gain American politicmen’s support in order to remove the name of their notorious organization from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) of Department of State, Keneth Timmerman ,a contributing editor for Newsmax Media wrote an article "Timmerman: who are the terrorists?" on The Washington Times enlightening his fellowmen on terrorist nature of Mujahedin Khalq, Timmerman suggests that MEK should never be removed from the FTO list ,accusing MEK of committing terrorist activities against American military personnel and Iranian civilians. While Timmerman presents evidences on MEK’s terrorist nature, he believes that MEK is a more dangerous group than PJAK, another terrorist designated Iranian opposition.
Here is an extract of Timmerman’s article:

TIMMERMAN: Who are the terrorists?

By Kenneth R. Timmerman – Washington Times – Tuesday, June 22, 2010

PJAK is a danger only to the Islamic regime
A bipartisan group of House members last week unveiled a resolution in support of the Iranian TIMMERMAN: Who are the terrorists? "resistance," a code word for an opposition group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) that has been on the State Department’s list of international terrorist organizations since its inception in the late 1980s.

The MEK has a long record of carrying out violent attacks inside Iran. During the period leading up to the 1979 revolution, the group proudly murdered U.S. military officers and civilians working in Iran. And while the group’s current leadership and its apologists claim that those attacks were carried out by a splinter group no longer associated with the MEK, eyewitnesses tell me that the MEK continued to celebrate the anniversary of those murders in ceremonies and song in their training camps inside Iraq all through the 1980s.

In the power struggle that followed the 1979 revolution, the MEK actively promoted the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and planted a bomb that wiped out the leadership of the Islamic Republican Party led by Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, arguably the last of the "moderate" leaders of the revolution.

More recently, MEK operatives inside Iran have carried out hit-and-run terrorist attacks on regime officials and have planted bombs in urban areas that have randomly killed civilians. The MEK and its supporters call these attacks acts of "resistance" against the regime.

Senior State Department officials have stated that their condemnation of the MEK’s use of random violence against civilians stems from a desire not to use a "double standard" when it comes to terrorism. The MEK and its supporters claim that keeping the MEK on the State Department’s list of international terrorist organizations benefits the Iranian regime. Some even argue, incorrectly, that the group was placed on the list in 1994 by the Clinton administration as a sop to the regime. (While the Clinton folks kept the MEK on the list in hopes it would encourage a rapprochement with Tehran, the MEK was placed on the list years earlier).

Contrast the MEK’s record of random violence against civilians with the use of violence by the Free Life Party of Iranian Kurdistan, PJAK, a group that was designated by the Treasury Department as a terrorist organization in February 2009.

PJAK guerrillas operate inside Iran in trained groups. Their primary mission is political: That is, they seek to spread a message that Iranian Kurds must abandon tribalism and traditional politics if they want to aspire to democratic self-governance.

Indeed, at PJAK camps I visited in northern Iraq in October 2007, the emphasis was on the political indoctrination of new members, not military training. PJAK prides itself on its inclusiveness: More than 30 percent of its guerrilla fighters and leadership are women.

PJAK makes no bones about its use of violence. Indeed, a Google search of the terms "PJAK attack" results in dozens of incidents in which PJAK guerrillas have attacked Iranian military targets and bases inside Iran. Almost all of these attacks have targeted the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

But PJAK uses violence in defense of the Kurdish population, not as an instrument of terror against civilians. In contrast to the MEK, PJAK has never planted bombs in public areas or targeted regime officials for assassination.

By Mazda Parsi

June 23, 2010 0 comments

The Ideology of the MEK

MKO Armed Warfare, an Ideological Necessity

Mojahedin-e Khalq strategy of armed struggle that constitutes its organizational infrastructure from its very formation has now confronted the organization with a new challenge in spite of its widespread propaganda to convince the West it has made revisions. Although the challenge has failed to break the deadlock over Mojahedin’s proceeding with its revolutionary diplomacy in the outside world, the strategy is the main factor that stabilizes the group’s internal relations especially within Camp Ashraf. That is to say, for the outsiders the organization displays the dual policy of abandoning militarism and armed activities; for the insiders it is a strategically unquestionable principle.

That is a contradiction pervading MKO and, of course, the group has not resolved to convince the Westerners to have adopted a different attitude. It seems that MKO gets much advantage out of an equivocal attitude. In many occasions, MKO has admitted the necessity of armed struggle as an ideological necessity that constitutes the violent ontology of MKO. Definitely stated in the State Department’s report presented to Congress on the People’s Mojahedin of Iran in 1994, MKO developed an eclectic ideological blend of Islam and Marxism that dictated both a war of armed struggle and a war of propaganda to achieve political power.

They [Mojahedin] established an organization dedicated to armed struggle. As they explained in a 1974 newspaper article, "We had to ask ourselves the question, "What is to be done?" Our answer was straightforward: ‘Armed Struggle.,"(1) Commitment to this strategic principle has defined the history of the Mojahedin, from the group’s formal establishment in 1965 until today…. The MKO’s embrace of armed struggle flows from the group’s ideology. Its conceptual framework was painstakingly developed through years of study and discourse and aggressively disseminated throughout Tehran.

Being so fervently devoted to a violent strategy, MKO should undergo a complete ideological cleansing before renunciation of terrorism and militarism. But first it has to be investigated that is it possible by any means to change an ideology that institutes infrastructure of an organization?

During the past two decades, majority of MKO’s propaganda and published documents strongly advocate the strategic importance of the adopted tactic of armed warfare following the organization’s first mass movement on 20 June in 1981; the turning point that was broadly being propagated at the time and which was supposed to speed up the inevitable collapse of the regime. In his first series of speeches delivered on the first anniversary of the phase Khordad 30th (20 June 1981), Massoud Rajavi talked about the influential role of MKO’s ideology on the event:

A one-year review of implacable struggle indicates that it is a widespread, organized struggle and resistance matchless in Iranian history. It is not a merely review of political, military, strategic and tactical issues. All of them together, as different organs of body, constitute a cohesive essence that is Mojahedin’s ideology; they all remarkably signify this truth.*

In Rajavi’s analysis of the year-long armed struggle, you come across issues focusing on the inevitability and necessity of armed struggle and violent acts. Rajavi is in no way sceptical about the adopted strategy of armed struggle and is critical of anybody who may oppose the strategy:
All the nonsense woven against the armed struggle during this one year is loathsome and even ludicrous to listen to for those who are in close contact with reality.

In fact, the telling reality Rajavi points out is that armed struggle is the spirit of the organization without which it cannot survive:

In essence, we owe our existence and survival before anything to the widespread armed combat of the Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization.

There are much more evidences found in MKO’s ideological sources that implicitly and explicitly denounce abandoning the strategy of armed warfare adopted by Mojahedin and consider any made criticism and disapproval as definitely illegitimate. Those who are familiar with the group’s dual nature consider MKO’s claimed renunciation of militarism nothing beyond a tactic of duplicity.

Since MKO’s resort to armed combat and militarism is an internalized ideological principle, its renunciation also needs a similar process of ideological revision. If MKO is standing resolute to abandon terrorism as it claims, at least a review of its previously adopted resolutions will imply the earnestness of its decision. Renunciation of terrorism and militarism, although MKO has refrained to denounce publicly, first needs a through ideological polish, something MKO has dodged to go through at least up to now. MKO should explain how commitment to an ideological necessity can possibly be deserted while the ideology itself remains intact.

*All Rajavi’s quotes are from Mojahedin’s published A one-year review of the armed struggle

June 22, 2010 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts