Articles

A look at Maryam Rajavi’s interview with AFP

In her recent interview with Agence France Press (AFP) Maryam Rajavi claimed :” on the ground ,in the streets, all those who want the overthrow of the regime are working together.”
It seems that Maryam Rajavi would rather think about the tragic situation of her declining organization than the overthrow of Islamic Republic of Iran.
She also predicted that “the government would fall within 12 months if foreign powers remain neutral in the crisis.”

It seems that Maryam Rajavi would rather think about the tragic situation of her declining organization than the overthrow of Islamic Republic of Iran. She forgot that her terrorist cult is now in a terrible cul-de-sac after three decades of committing terrorist acts, killing thousands of innocent civilians and spying for foreign governments such as Iraqi Baathists, Israel and America.

She speaks of the overthrow of Iranian regime with AFP!!?

Maybe Maryam Rajavi doesn’t want to accept the fact that she and her fugitive husband have to be brought on justice due to their terrorist acts and human right abuses committed in their cult.

She’d better have look at the limbo Camp Ashraf has been tangled In. the truth is that the case of Camp Ashraf doesn’t enjoy the least value or importance in political transitions of the world. This is what Maryam Rajavi should worry about.

She has to notice the long years of working as mercenary for Iraqi former dictator, Saddam Hussein and spying for him on Iranian intelligence during the eight years of Iran-Iraq war.

Although these acts are not the only charges MKO is accused of but they are enough for the hatred of Iranian nation against them.

It is obvious that the leaders of MKO terrorist cult are resorting to democratic gestures, claiming slogans of freedom in order to cover their past crimes against humanity but the historic memory of Iranian people never forgets the treasons MKO have always committed against their own nation.

By Arash Rezaiee

January 9, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The West must cut its terror ties

The world has been put on notice that Yemen is a worrying center of activities by terrorists. The question is, how many other countries can be added to that list? The Daily Star is publishing an open letter to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, by Massoud Khodabandeh, a UK-based consultant who demands that the Mojahedin-e Khalq organization be brought under control. The group, which is termed “terrorist” by the United States, is allowed to operate freely in Germany, France and the United Kingdom, and its satellite programs are inciting violence on the streets of Iran.

Meanwhile, the Iranian authorities are claiming that some of those arrested in the demonstrations and clashes are Mojahedin-e Khalq members, purportedly acting with the connivance of Western intelligence agencies.

Whatever the exact degree of Western involvement with the Mojahedin-e Khalq, the group remains a candidate for partnership with Western governments, who preach about fighting terror.

The Mojahedin-e Khalq might be a footnote in the wider struggle, but it’s the nail that punctures the great powers’ approach to Iran. Why harbor the group if it’s terrorist? If the West can’t agree on who’s a terrorist, how do they expect an agreement with the Muslim world?

The partisans of the Mojahedin-e Khalq aren’t just reporting the news from London; they’re inciting and agitating, and acting as a fifth column (whatever their actual size). They help ensure that the dispute between factions in Iran takes a course that leaves behind any possibility of reasonable settlement.

People in this region mentally note that the West, in some way or form, enables the efforts and activities of the Mojahedin-e Khalq while demanding action on terror. Today, Hillary Clinton is warning us about Yemen; can we be absolutely sure that such shadowy foreign policy tools aren’t being used there too?

Similar credibility damage has come from Blackwater in Iraq, and the larger Private Military Contractor phenomenon. Many Iraqis have suffered the exactions of these mercenaries; last week, a group of Blackwater employees found out that they wouldn’t have to stand trial for murder. People hear the stories of Blackwater, and the Mojahedin-e Khalq, and all of the Obama administration’s rhetoric of fighting extremists and violence goes out the window.

Even worse, people assume that the West actually seeks a clash with the Muslim world, by allowing these harmful elements to survive or flourish.

If the West wants to go forward with new sanctions on Iran, and seeks regional and international support, it simply must clean up its act. It can’t allow these terrorists and non-state actors to wreck the chances for making a real fight against the economic underdevelopment and political illegitimacy that plagues us, and that incubates the terror that Washington is so worried about.

The Daily Star

January 6, 2010 0 comments

The MEK to launch Armed Struggle

The New Year and the new promise of MKO leader

The assertion by Iranian authorities to have arrested a number of MKO members during the Ashura riots in Tehran is an indication that the organization is so fickle in its pro-democratic claims concerning a democratic change in Iran. Regardless of what the Iranian regime’s authorities refer to as the engagement of foreign hands in the recent anti-government riots, for certain the agents that carried the operations have been those who have long announced war and armed struggle against the regime and have proved to be serious in their strategy and can never make any change to turn to peaceful and democratic ways.

It is a tactic to temporally renounce violence and terrorism to achieve certain organizational goals as MKO could easily dupe the Europeans, as it can also be regarded a bilateral cooperation and a mutually arrived agreement, to be removed from the terrorist list of the EU. The evidence mainly focused on was MKO’s claim that it had stopped its terrorist plots against the Iranian regime since 2001. At least in a number of post-election violent riots in Iran that left many casualties and deaths the organization has claimed to have played a role and the announced arrest of its members asserts their claim. Just following the bloody Ashura clashes, Maryam Rajavi told AFP in Paris that her followers were already cooperating with more recent protest movements on the streets of Tehran and called on opposition leaders to do the same.

The Iranian people have known the violent nature of MKO from the long past and know that it has a direct, or claim to have, role in aggressive and violent anti-government moves and unrests; it is either engaged in or glorifies terrorism. For sure, the world is watching and hearing. The Rajavis statements only make it much more difficult for them to be accepted by any country, none yet, as the Iraqi Government is decisive to expel them. Some believe the organization has started a new round of suicide attempt as it did in the Operation Eternal Light and attacked Iranian borders to try its chance to overthrow the regime. Of course, at the time it had the abundant military and logistical backing of Saddam when it received the heaviest military strike.

Now, again, Mrs. Rajavi has predicted that the government of Iran would fall within 12 months if foreign powers remain neutral. And of course they never intend to act directly but through all media and propaganda potentialities that foils any sense of impartiality. And the New Year has just started. Does it mean that the advocates, members and sympathizers, most in their mid and old ages, have to wait another year, as they have in the past thirty years? And of course, most of them know nothing will come out since the organization has not changed its policy of devotion to use of violence that is instead pushing the organization further onto the eagle of a precipice. Besides, the Iraqi Government does not seem to have any intention of setting another 12 months deadline to reprieve relocation of Ashraf.

January 5, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Mojahedin Khalq used again to disseminate false information

U.S. Intelligence Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged

WASHINGTON, 28 Dec (IPS) – U.S. intelligence has concluded that the document published recently by the Times of London, which purportedly describes an Iranian plan to do experiments on what the newspaper described as a "neutron initiator" for an atomic weapon, is a fabrication, according to a former Central Intelligence Agency official.
Philip Giraldi, who was a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, told IPS that intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources do not rule out a British role in the fabrication, however.

The Times of London story published Dec. 14 did not identify the source of the document. But it quoted "an Asian intelligence source" – a term some news media have used for Israeli intelligence officials – as confirming that his government believes Iran was working on a neutron initiator as recently as 2007.

The story of the purported Iranian document prompted a new round of expressions of U.S. and European support for tougher sanctions against Iran and reminders of Israel’s threats to attack Iranian nuclear programme targets if diplomacy fails.

U.S. news media reporting has left the impression that U.S. intelligence analysts have not made up their mind about the document’s authenticity, although it has been widely reported that they have now had a full year to assess the issue.

Giraldi’s intelligence sources did not reveal all the reasons that led analysts to conclude that the purported Iran document had been fabricated by a foreign intelligence agency. But their suspicions of fraud were prompted in part by the source of the story, according to Giraldi.

"The Rupert Murdoch chain has been used extensively to publish false intelligence from the Israelis and occasionally from the British government," Giraldi said.
The Times is part of a Murdoch publishing empire that includes the Sunday Times, Fox News and the New York Post. All Murdoch-owned news media report on Iran with an aggressively pro-Israeli slant.

The document itself also had a number of red flags suggesting possible or likely fraud.

The subject of the two-page document which the Times published in English translation would be highly classified under any state’s security system. Yet there is no confidentiality marking on the document, as can be seen from the photograph of the Farsi-language original published by the Times.

The absence of security markings has been cited by the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, as evidence that the "alleged studies" documents, which were supposedly purloined from an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons-related programme early in this decade, are forgeries.

The document also lacks any information identifying either the issuing office or the intended recipients. The document refers cryptically to "the Centre", "the Institute", "the Committee", and the "neutron group".

The document’s extreme vagueness about the institutions does not appear to match the concreteness of the plans, which call for hiring eight individuals for different tasks for very specific numbers of hours for a four-year time frame.

Including security markings and such identifying information in a document increases the likelihood of errors that would give the fraud away.

The absence of any date on the document also conflicts with the specificity of much of the information. The Times reported that unidentified "foreign intelligence agencies" had dated the document to early 2007, but gave no reason for that judgment.

An obvious motive for suggesting the early 2007 date is that it would discredit the U.S. intelligence community’s November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran had discontinued unidentified work on nuclear weapons and had not resumed it as of the time of the estimate.

Discrediting the NIE has been a major objective of the Israeli government for the past two years, and the British and French governments have supported the Israeli effort.
The biggest reason for suspecting that the document is a fraud is its obvious effort to suggest past Iranian experiments related to a neutron initiator. After proposing experiments on detecting pulsed neutrons, the document refers to "locations where such experiments used to be conducted".

That reference plays to the widespread assumption, which has been embraced by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran had carried out experiments with Polonium-210 in the late 1980s, indicating an interest in neutron initiators. The IAEA referred in reports from 2004 through 2007 to its belief that the experiment with Polonium-210 had potential relevance to making "a neutron initiator in some designs of nuclear weapons".

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the political arm of the terrorist organisation Mujahedeen-e Khalq, claimed in February 2005 that Iran’s research with Polonium-210 was continuing and that it was now close to producing a neutron initiator for a nuclear weapon.

Sanger and Broad were so convinced that the Polonium-210 experiments proved Iran’s interest in a neutron initiator that they referred in their story on the leaked document to both the IAEA reports on the experiments in the late 1980s and the claim by NCRI of continuing Iranian work on such a nuclear trigger.

What Sanger and Broad failed to report, however, is that the IAEA has acknowledged that it was mistaken in its earlier assessment that the Polonium-210 experiments were related to a neutron initiator.

After seeing the complete documentation on the original project, including complete copies of the reactor logbook for the entire period, the IAEA concluded in its Feb. 22, 2008 report that Iran’s explanations that the Polonium-210 project was fundamental research with the eventual aim of possible application to radio isotope batteries was "consistent with the Agency’s findings and with other information available to it".

The IAEA report said the issue of Polonium-210 – and thus the earlier suspicion of an Iranian interest in using it as a neutron initiator for a nuclear weapon – was now considered "no longer outstanding".

New York Times reporters David Sanger and William J. Broad reported U.S. intelligence officials as saying the intelligence analysts "have yet to authenticate the document". Sanger and Broad explained the failure to do so, however, as a result of excessive caution left over from the CIA’s having failed to brand as a fabrication the document purporting to show an Iraqi effort to buy uranium in Niger.

The Washington Post’s Joby Warrick dismissed the possibility that the document might be found to be fraudulent. "There is no way to establish the authenticity or original source of the document…," wrote Warrick.

But the line that the intelligence community had authenticated it evidently reflected the Barack Obama administration’s desire to avoid undercutting a story that supports its efforts to get Russian and Chinese support for tougher sanctions against Iran.

This is not the first time that Giraldi has been tipped off by his intelligence sources on forged documents. Giraldi identified the individual or office responsible for creating the two most notorious forged documents in recent U.S. intelligence history.

In 2005, Giraldi identified Michael Ledeen, the extreme right-wing former consultant to the National Security Council and the Pentagon, as an author of the fabricated letter purporting to show Iraqi interest in purchasing uranium from Niger. That letter was used by the George W. Bush administration to bolster its false case that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons programme.

Giraldi also identified officials in the "Office of Special Plans" who worked under Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith as having forged a letter purportedly written by Hussein’s intelligence director, Tahir Jalail Habbush al-Tikriti, to Hussein himself referring to an Iraqi intelligence operation to arrange for an unidentified shipment from Niger.

By Gareth Porter

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

January 4, 2010 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Member – Leader relationship within MKO cult

In order to achieve power on Iranian political scene, MKO leaders view three basic factors for their organizational promotion:
Working more actively, dissolving in the organizational system and actually the most dependence on the organization. The internal relation in MKO has been based on “ambition” and “obedience” as the two faces of same coin.

The internal relation in MKO has been based on “ambition” and “obedience” as the two faces of same coin. The “ambitions” of leaders lead to “obedience” of members. Such a notorious relationship makes a horrifying network of terror and cult-like practices.

Member-leader relationship, in MKO is based on “absolute humiliation” and “absolute power”. In such an organization, the principal rule is the absolute devotion of members and sympathizers to leaders. The minor members have to obey the superior members as an unchangeable principal. The members never believe in their own talent, independence and abilities.

According to MKO cult-like methodology, human rights do not include freedom and democracy as a natural right for human being. The leaders believe that freedom is an obstacle against member’s relation with his UNIQUE leader: Masud Rajavi. They believe that member’s mind is disabled unless when it links to his leader. Thus, they believe that democracy is corruptive and not reforming.

The leader is the only source of goodness and if the relation between the leader and the member interrupts for a moment, the member’s fall (collapse) is inevitable.
The member should never trust his own mind. A member who is not dependent on the leader is always guilty.

Therefore, information is the worst poison for members’ minds. Awareness is a tool for free will and making free decision so it bars the members from absolute obedience. Therefore, awareness is not only redundant in the cult also an obstacle in the way to obey the center [the leader] of the cult.

Behind such bars in the cult of Rajavi, the members submit themselves to the organization. They see the whole world from the restricted aspect Maryam and Massoud Rajavi force them to.

Long term membership in such a cult paralyzes logic and common sense of individuals and paves the way for manipulative practices the leaders use to achieve their ambitions. When the member’s individuality is denied, his thought and emotions will be consequently ruined, the only remaining idea is what the leaders want. So, member becomes an automatic machine which works under the leader’s order. Thus they are always prepared to be sent for suicide operations.

By Mazda Parsi

January 3, 2010 0 comments

Iraq

A wasteland for MKO to settle

The Iraqi authorities have reiterated that they are decisive in their decision to relocate Ashraf residents to the southern part of the country as a prelude to expelling them. The decision is the outcome of many failed attempts to convince the Western countries and other international bodies and organizations to find another willing host country for them since Iraq is no more interests to host the remnant terrorists of the former regime. However, the hard point is that there is still no specifically set timeframe for the relocation of Camp Ashraf to a certain temporary camp. It is much because none of the local provincial officials have assented to accept the risk of Ashraf residents’ relocation to the areas under their control and have warned that it would spark violence in peaceful areas. That is in absolute contradiction with MKO’s widely advertized claims that it has the support of many Iraqi Sheikhs and tribe leaders as well as known figures on its back.

As stressed before, MKO is the only opposition among all that has turned into a real problem for not only among other opposition but its own advocates in western and non-Western countries and parliamentarians since it has proved not to be a trustable company despite its beneficially hireling activities for all adversaries against the Iranian regime, from Saddam to the US that has globally registered it as a terrorist group. The worst, there is no Saddam to defend it against any opposition and no area on the Iraqi soil is willing to accept them even for a short while before their complete erase from the country.

The first signs of protest were publicized when, as a new devised strategy for Ashraf residents, the Iraqi government announced it would shut Camp Ashraf and move the occupants to Muthana, a province in southern Iraq. The local officials in Muthana resoundingly rejected the resolution and Ibrahim Salman al Mayali, the provincial governor, said he would do all he could to oppose a relocation. He argued that his people would not welcome a terrorist organization that once Saddam had sent its members to stop a revolution against him in 1991. He reasoned that “I cannot stop my people’s anger against this terrorist group. Maybe they will want to take revenge for 1991 and attack them. I certainly could not guarantee security for the MKO here.”

A leading local tribal leader, Sheikh Resan al Myasar, also cautioned there would be violence if the government resolved to send MKO members south. He justified that “We have not forgotten that they showed us no mercy when they crushed the uprising and so now the sons of our tribe would show them no mercy. There is malice here; the people of Muthana want to bury them with their hands.”

Whatever measures the Iraqi authorities decide to take with regard to the future of Camp Ashraf is lawful and according to the constitution but the people of Iraq have also the right to be sure of their security when they are just close to a temporary camp where the notorious accomplices of the ousted dictator are to reside. The thousands numbers of MKO’s claimed supporters exist only on the papers and its own publicized sites. The only ones MKO believes can be of any help to it are out of Iraq as it urges the United Nations and the American government over and over to guarantee the protection of Ashraf residents and ensure prevention of forcible relocation and a repeat of use of force and violence against them.

So far, the failure of the Muthana relocation attempt means that the issue of the MKO remains stuck in a stalemate. That is much because nobody is still convinced that the group’s terrorist potentialities are diminished and its link with insurgent groups gut off; it is a risk to have them around. The new proposal for solving the problem, although no country has yet assented to receive the group, by the Iraqi Government is to move Ashraf residents to Nuqrat al-Salman, a desolated prison camp. Although MKO has started a vast propaganda blitz to show its strong opposition to the decision, does Rajavi deserves any other place on the earth than a wasteland to wander?

January 3, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

No excuse can acquit MKO of violence and terrorism

In a part of a rather long article related to the US open meddling in Iran affairs published under the title of The New York Crimes: All The Lies That Fit to Print, the author, Nima Shirazi, directs attention to the Bush administration’s attempts to exploit MKO in its belligerent gesture against the Iranian regime. The argument starts by quoting The Sunday Telegraph when it corroborated the information that Mr. Bush had signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the Iranian regime.

It is also well-known that, a year later, the Bush administration was granted $400 million with which to further destabilize Iran via, as the Washington Post reported at the time "activities ranging from spying on Iran’s nuclear program to supporting rebel groups opposed to the country’s ruling clerics…" The rebel groups supported by such funding and training include, according to both Counterpunch’s Andrew Cockburn and the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, the militant Sunni group Jundullah, or "army of god," and the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK or PMOI), which maintains an "enduring position on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups."

"U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight. The money for Jundullah was funneled to its leader, Abdelmalek Rigi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states."

These connected Iranian exiles are members of the MEK, the Iranian opposition network that, in 1981, assassinated about 70 high ranking Iranian officials including cabinet members, elected parliamentarians, and the new Chief Justice when it bombed state headquarters. After the Iranian Revolution, the group moved its headquarters to Iraq and was supported by Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War that claimed the lives of over a million people. The MEK also claims responsibility for informing the United States and its allies about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program, for which no verifiable evidence has ever been found.

On December 15, 2009, Texas Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee addressed Congress regarding that fate of MEK exiles currently living in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. The Congresswoman pleaded for the Obama administration to "save" the "Iranian dissidents [who] are now huddled [at Camp Ashraf], fearful for their lives." She claimed that the Iraqi government, which is now tasked with guarding the camp after US forces recently handed over control, had put the exiles "at risk of arbitrary arrest, torture or other forms of ill treatment and unlawful killing," and described the MEK – which, again, is designated as a terrorist group by the US State Department – as "dissidents who simply want to live in peace and alone." Apparently, Ms. Jackson-Lee saw nothing wrong with begging the United States to support terrorists, as long as those terrorists have the goal of toppling the Iranian government.

Plus, just last week, Iranian Intelligence Ministry announced that a number of MEK members have been arrested for violent activity and destruction of public and private property at recent anti-government protests in Tehran.

But the question concerning MKO seems to have vexed a Mr. Alex George who in response to Mr. Shirazi’s comments on the terrorist group tries to contradict Mr. Shirazi who does not hesitate to give due responses to him. The followings are the responses in order.

1. alex george on December 30th, 2009 at 6:46:

It is strange indeed that when it comes to the main Iranian opposition group, the MEK, the writer is parroting the misinformation put out by the notorious Iranian ministry of intelligence and security. Whose side are you on Mr. Shirazi, any way?

It is common knowledge that the terror label on the MEK was a failed attempt by the Clinton Administration to placate the real terrorists, the turbaned tyrants of Iran. While the top counterterrorism official in the State Department pushed for the MEK’s removal from the list in November 2009, Condoleezza Rice overruled him because she was more interested in opening up an interest section in Iran on the advise of discredited Iran appeasers in Washington, DC.

There is absolutely no factual, legal and moral justification for keeping the ban on the MEK, which acts as the catalyst for change in Iran. Whether the author and his likeminded apologists for Tehran like it or not, the slogans chanted in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities today are the ones espoused and disseminated for three decades by the MEK.

Indeed, the millions in Iran want to see this regime go, as does the MEK. In a free Iran, Mr. Shirazi and those who for 30 years did the mullahs’ bidding have a lot to answer for. The Iranian people do not forget their friends, nor do they forget their enemies.

Alex George

2. Nima Shirazi on December 30th, 2009 at 17:46:

Thank you for your close reading of my article, Mr. George, and for your response.

I do, however, beg to differ with you about the MEK’s noble aspirations. I too have a big problem with the US State Department’s determination of what and what is not a "terrorist organization" and it is obvious that most designations are made for political reasons. Just look at Hamas and Hezbollah, for example. Clearly, the fact that Nelson Mandela and other former ANC members were only removed from the US terrorism watch list in July of 2008 speaks volumes as to how absurd the whole thing is in general. That said, the point I make in my article is that the MEK, which is designated as a terrorist group (a label the EU dropped a year ago) and funded by the US – in part by the US government via covert channels and also by the large and wealthy Iran monarchist contingent in Los Angeles and elsewhere – is treated by members of Congress when it suits their agenda as simply a "dissident group" that stands in opposition to the Iranian government. It seems that certain "terrorist groups" are better than others, according to Washington DC…the groups that fight against US and Israeli hegemony and occupation in their own countries are evil monsters, but the groups that fight to overthrow governments that don’t bow down to US domination are to be supported.

You say that there is "absolutely no factual, legal, and moral justification for the ban on the MEK, which acts as the catalyst for change in Iran." I, too, hope for change in Iran. I am no fan of any sort of theocracy – even one with strong republican elements – and I would very much like to see Iran’s human rights record improve, just as I have hopes for the United States government to improve its own. But I wonder how your claims square with the evidence of MEK responsibility for the 1992 near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and institutions in thirteen countries, the 1998 assassination of the director of Iran’s prison system, Asadollah Lajevardi, the 1999 assassination of the deputy chief of Iran’s armed forces general staff, Ali Sayyad Shirazi, the February 2000 “Operation Great Bahman,” during which MEK launched twelve attacks against Iran, the 2000 mortar attack on President Mohammed Khatami’s palace in Tehran, and the series of mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids during 2000 and 2001 against Iranian government buildings, one of which killed Iran’s chief of staff. Human Rights Watch has also accused the group of perpetrating serious human rights abuses, including torture, at a number of secret prison camps.

Furthermore, the MEK’s funding by and support of Saddam Hussein during the eight-year war against Iran is unconscionable. During the war, the MEK launched suicidal, mass wave attacks against Iranian forces. The MEK’s siding with the Iraqi regime is widely seen as undermining their credibility among the Iranian public and, as Newsweek reported just days after the June election, the MEK "enjoy[s] very little popular support inside Iran, yet in their propaganda they have been claiming that the protestors are out in the streets in support of their cause."

It appears you have bought into this very propaganda yourself when you state that "the slogans chanted in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities today are the ones espoused and disseminated for three decades by the MEK." You seem to forget that the Iranian opposition movement chants include "Allah O Akbar!" – God is Great – along with "Peace be upon the prophet Mohammad and his family!" and "Ya Hossein!," all deeply religious phrases which prove that the dissident movement in Iran is not a "secular revolution," as you and the MEK perhaps hope, but rather has strong undercurrent of religiosity like most aspects of Iranian culture.

Are you unaware that the color green, which has been appropriated by the opposition movement and seen by Western commentators and casual observers as the bucolic color of progress, environmentalism, clean energy, rebirth, and renewal, is also the color of Islam? Iranians are well aware of the symbolism of wearing green. Green is one of Iran’s national colors, not some chromatic infiltration of kaleidoscopic revolt.

Opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi has written to his supporters, "Let’s not abandon the green color which is a symbol of spirituality, freedom and religious mentality and moderateness and the Allah O Akbar slogan that tells us of revolutionary roots…This is the color and slogan that is still unifying our nation and will be the best measure to connect our hearts and needs." Mousavi has also declared that "We, as those who are loyal to the Islamic Republic and its constitutional laws, consider the Holy Jurisdiction one of the fundamentals of this regime and follow the political movements within legal frameworks." Even Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard, a highly-regarded champion of women’s rights in Iran, has felt the need to remind a group of students that she and her husband still believe strongly in the ideals of the revolution and don’t regard anti-Islamic Revolution elements as their allies.

This all hardly sounds like a movement dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, as the MEK would like. You say that "millions in Iran want to see this regime go," and this may be true, but in a country of 70 million people, you’d need many many millions of Iranians to back any sort of regime change movement for it to actually work. Meanwhile, a September poll taken by WorldPublicOpinion (WPO), a project of the highly respected Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the University of Maryland, showed that about 80% of Iranians consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be the legitimately elected president of Iran and that nearly three out of four respondents expressed either "a lot" (38%) or "some confidence" (34%) in the Ministry of Interior, which ran the election. Additionally, 85% expressed either "a lot" (64%) or "some" (21%) confidence" in Ahmadinejad himself, 83% expressed "a lot" (52%) or "some" (31%) confidence in the police. 60% of those polled said they were comfortable with the extent of Ayatollah Khamenei’s power.

Now, I’m sure you will claim that these numbers can’t be trusted and that they are due to governmental intimidation. And yet, we’ve seen tens and hundreds of thousands of people in the streets of Iran who seem not to be intimidated or deterred by the government.

Also, for me to hear what the Iranian people want and what they "do not forget" from someone like you is pretty hilarious. Perhaps next time I speak to or visit my hundreds of family members (some of whom are staunch supporters of the opposition while some are not) in Tehran, Varamin, and Karaj, I’ll pass along what Alex George has told them they want and see how they respond. My guess is it’ll be something like, "Allah O Akbar!"

Thanks again for your comment and insight.

3. alex george on December 30th, 2009 at 18:52:
Thank you for your measured response.

Re the list of "terrorist" activities you have mentioned, several points are to be made:

1. The MEK has made no bones about the fact prior to 2001 it did carry out operations against ligitimate military targets, including for example a criminal like Gen. Ali Sayyad Shirazi, who publicly boasted of killing hundreds of MEK members during the group’s military incursion deep inside Iran in 1988 as well as the massacre of innocent people of Iranian Kurdistan in the early days after the Iranian revolution in 1979.
As for the "simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and institutions in thirteen countries," I refer you to the book, which I found quite persuasive and well-documented, "Democracy Betrayed." It is strange that in your mind, and of course, the State Department (since this allegation seems to be have been taken right out of its reports on the MEK). As for Asadollah Lajevardi, I assume you agree that he was notoriously known as Eichmann of Iran for personally murdering thousands of prisoners of conscience and raping or ordering the rape of many innocent girls because he and his likeminded mullahs did want to send virgins to heaven.

In your logic, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Nelson Mandela, Yasser Arafat, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg and the French patriots would all be terrorists. I am only reminded of the great American Statesman Thomas Jefferson, who said, ‘The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.’ And I guess, for you as an Iranian, and a Muslim, I presume, there is no shortage of historical legends, such as Imam Hussein and the revolutionaries of the 1906 Constitutional Movement, the Jungle movement, etc.

But all of this is academic. The MEK rejected violence and terrorism in 2001 and voluntarily handed over its weapons, all 20,000 pieces of them, to the U.S. military. Its leadership announced its commitment to a UN-sponsored referendum of election on regime change. Moreover, after a thorough and exhaustive review of 15 volumes of evidence, the UK specialist Tribunal, POAC, and the English Court of Appeal said the terrorist desingation of the MEK was "perverse" because not only the open evidence, but also the classified evidence reinforced their view that the MEK is not engaged in terrorism and does not have the intent and the capacity to do so in the future.

Frankly, I do not ascribe to the mindset that once labeled a terrorist, always a terrorist.

As for the discredited HRW report, I refer you to a book by a European Parliamentary delegation that visited Camp Ashraf and investigated every single one of those allegations, which were hatched by Iranian intelligences services and rehashed by 12 people who had sold their services to Tehran.

Moreover, a 16-month investigation by seven different US agencies, including the FBI, the CIA, and the State Department into every single member of the MEK at Ashraf found nothing of the sort that HRW claimed. Last but not least, the author of that report was a board member of an ostensibly Iranian-American group that is well-known inside the beltway to be a lobby and a front for the Iranian regime.

Re the Green movement, I do not believe it would be worth my and your while to argue over its message or the significance of the color. During the Ashura uprising, it was clear that those who chanted "death to the principle of the velayat-e faqih" had gone far beyond Mr. Mousavi. And I suggest you watch Iranian state media in the past three days for they are lamenting that the millions in the streets of Iran were chanting the slogans of the MEK.

I could not agree with you more when you talk about the need for many millions to overturn this regime, Obviously, if the international community, the Europeans and the US, toughen up their stance against the regime, the Iranian people may feel heartened to become engaged even more than they have. I must admit, having been witness to the 1979 revolution as an undergraduate student at UCLA, that the scenes in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities last Sunday had more than the markings of what happened 30 years ago.

The MEK is not after a theocracy. It has said it wants a republic based on the seperation of church and state. As for the "republican" support for the MEK, FYI, in a resolution currently in the House of Representatives, there are actually more democrats than republican signatories. And Ms. Jackson-Lee is considered a far-left representative.
Finally, I really believe that if the Iranian people had one reason to hate the Shah, they have a thousand reason to hate Khomeini and his disciples, including Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. Let us not kid ourselves with poll numbers. They only tell you what you want them to tell you.
Alex George

4. Nima Shirazi on December 30th, 2009 at 19:07:
Mr. George,

Thanks for your response. I must clarify that when I spoke of "republicanism," I was referring to the political ideology of representative government, not about the Republican party. Your references are duly noted and I thank you for them. I thought I made clear that the MEK is a secular organization; I never suggested they wanted at theocracy, quite the contrary. Also, I made the point that a "terrorist" watch list is a silly thing in general, as evidenced by Nelson Mandela’s designation.

I also am not a Muslim. I am an atheist.

If the Iranian people wish to change their government, I hope they do. But that is not the same as supporting regime change from outside sources, especially those aligned heavily with both the US government (which has a grudge to settle) and pro-Shah monarchists. Iranians of all political affiliations have no affinity for foreign infiltration or manipulation. The people of Iran will decide their own fate and we don’t need to cultishly support the Rajavis for that to happen.

Palestinianthinkthank

January 2, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

A solution to counteract MKO misinformation

On early December, BBC quoted Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO, MEK, PMOI, NCR) that it never consents to evacuate Camp Ashraf under any condition adding that any attempts by the Iraqi Government to force the group out of its base might result in further bloodshed. Earlier in a message, Rajavi had announced his readiness to leave Ashraf on condition of receiving a big sum of money for the price of the camp. Of course, many were of the opinion that his words meant buying more time and lengthening the process of relocation. But one thing is certain that the Iraqi Government’s ultimatum reaching its final days, the organization is also preparing to confront, as it has already threatened, any move by the Iraqi forces against its bastion as it did in July that resulted in many casualties.

That is while according to the state’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi forces and police had “an order not to use any live rounds”. The residents’ fierce resistance against attempts to quell the violence eventually led to an estimated casualty of two deaths and 110 injured from the Iraqi forces and 11 claimed deaths and some 500 wounded from among the Ashraf residents.

What is of great significance and attention in all these is MKO’s broad and widespread propaganda to demonize the Iraqi Government and to demonstrate itself as the oppressed. While the Iraqi Government prefers not to run out of patience with the group to find a peaceful solution to end the issue, MKO has insisted on the application of violence and continuation of an aggressive resistance. The government is doing nothing but trying to execute the law that the constitution and the nation requires to be accomplished rather than appeasement of a terrorist group that claims an autonomous territory on the soil of a sovereign state. The organization’s subsequent propaganda blitz against the Iraqi Government mainly aims to attract the attentions of advocates to interfere and to take the side of Mojahedin to impose them on the government and guarantee their stay in Iraq.

That is why suddenly a rightful enter of a country’s forces to impose the law turns into the eye catching headlines of “crime against humanity”, “barbaric attack by Iraqi forces”, “storm against Camp Ashraf” and the like by MKO’s media and propaganda machine that did much better than the Iraqis in this respect. The incident was recorded mostly from MKO’s cameras and reports released as the group aired. In fact, all the media and news agencies reflected just what MKO had released about the incident with the very same words, pictures and footages.

In contrast, Iraq underestimated the need to counteract the group’s heavily influential propaganda by making it clear that it was not so complicated an issue and violation of any right but just an ordinary act of controlling a terrorist group imposed on it as an unwanted and problematic legacy of the ousted dictator. MKO has come to understand that its relocation to Baghdad means a never-return to camp Ashraf and the beginning of expulsion and wandering in nowhere. As a result, it prefers to save its present foothold that seems much secure by any means and price. It has whatever it needs to line against Iraqi’s determination; the well trained militants that are ready to follow any organizational command just as when Rajavi encouraged them to initiate a suicide operation against the Iranian borders just after the announced ceasefire between Iran and Iraq. It is a scenario that can be put into action easily whenever necessary and to put the blame on the other side.

At the present MKO has chosen the psychological warfare whose bullets are bloodless and unethical with the outmost impact on the public opinion. It is a seemingly peaceful but offensive weapon that attempts to exploit the Iraqi’s weaknesses in media and propaganda coverage that helps further tactical achievements for the terrorists. It will be a good move by Iraq to invite international observers, as it invited reporters, to prove that its words mesh with its actions concerning its good-intention when dealing with the group according to its adopted laws and decisions.

The presence of the international humanitarian bodies and organizations like ICRC and UNHRC, as well as the reporters’ cameras side by side of the Iraqi forces when the government announces the exact date of the Ashraf relocation to execute the law can well judge between the side that is violent and infringes the regulations and the laws. For sure, MKO’s propaganda machine fails to spread misinformation before responsible eyes and cameras watching closely.

December 31, 2009 0 comments

Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

Human Rights in MKO’s Ideology – Part 3

In her message, Maryam Rajavi heightens hypocrisy to pretend her faith in Islam using the verses of holy Quran to justify their inhumane activities giving them an Islamic cover.
Maryam Rajavi speaks of Islamic kindness so enthusiastically that one may think she has never heard of violence and terror
The peak of such interpretation of Quran was the so-called ideological revolution when Massoud Rajavi was called as ideological leader.

The misuse of Islam, Imam Zaman [last Imam in Shiite Islam who is expected to return to salvage the world as well as Jesus] calling Rajavi as the ideological leader paves the way for Rajavi to view himself as the owner of people’s lives, wealth and spouses and to declare officially that all women in the organization are his own wives and other men are not allowed to even look at those women.

Despite above mentioned argument, Maryam Rajavi hypocritically resorts to Quran and speaks of Islam’s blessing and kindness. For those who have lived in Ashraf and witnessed the cult-like relations ruling the Camp, it is obvious to see a huge contradiction between Maryam’s words and activities. The terrorist, violent nature of the organization has never included kindness and blessing.

Maryam Rajavi speaks of Islamic kindness so enthusiastically that one may think she has never heard of violence and terror. You may not believe that she is able to order her members to commit terrorist activities. The following topics include some instances of Rajavi’s kindness and affection!

– Assassination of Iranian citizens before the eyes of their families.
– Torture against dissident members of the cult who labeled as the spies of IRI under the direct order of Massoud Rajavi.
– Opening fire on Captured Iranian soldiers who were detained after Eternal Light Operation.
– Firing Katyusha rockets on Kurdish towns of Iraq in Iraqi Intifada, in 1991,under the order of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.
– Taking Iraqi Kurds under MKO tanks in order to save their bullets for Iranian soldiers.
– Launching grenade attacks on residential areas in Iran killing innocent citizens in 2000 and 2001.

The self – assigned president elect of NCR has been waiting for the overthrow of Iranian regime and then her own presidency in Iran. She claims that she will recognize individuals’ freedom for women in future Iran and will respect women’s rights as well as human rights.”

It is fun to see the big difference between Maryam Rajavi’s claims and her divorce revolution where a large number of members were forced to divorce their spouses because Rajavi believes that family is the center of corruption and marriage is forbidden. There have been long years that no one has got married in MKO and all women are widows or divorces but engaged with Massoud Rajavi. This clear contradiction doesn’t prevent Mrs. Rajavi from claiming that she believes in equal right of divorce for women.

While she claims that any type of force or impose on women for their family life, is forbidden, Maryam Rajavi imposes the most serious forced separations on MKO families especially on those women who were in love with their husbands and had lived with them for a lot of years. So far a lot of women have gone depressed or psychological diseases due to the high pressure the organization imposed on them including Hamideh Kouzegar’s case which ended with her death.

The women in the cult of Rajavi are evenforced to bear hysterectomy operations, according to Batoul Soltani, former member of MKO’s leadership Council. She said that Nafiseh Badamchi (a doctor in MKO) was responsible to carry out the operation.

In the last part of her message, Maryam Rajavi forbids polygamy and promises to execute this law after her illusional rule on Iran!!! Apparently she forgets to confess that Massoud Rajavi now has more than 600 wives! (All women in leadership Council).

As Batoul Soltani describes in her memoirs “ they told us that we were all Massoud’s wives and he was our husband … there was a meeting held in Leadership Council where a marriage certificate was introduced for each member of the council and so all women became Massoud’s ideological wives.”

The above mentioned instances reveal just a small part of Rajavi’s deceitful personality who tends to deceive western politicians under the cover of pro-democracy slogans.

December 29, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

The significance of regular inquisition within MKO cult – Part 2

null

December 29, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts