Articles

Rajavi’s ideological purges

Besides approaches applied by Rajavi to purge qualified, old veterans while in Pahlavi’s jails, he devised whatever plots afterward to exclude the remnants of MKO’s early central cadre and intimates of Hanifnejad. Soon after the victory of Iranian revolution, they criticized Rajavi for his egotistic, ambitious, and totalitarian ideals in a statement issued in an Iranian newspaper, Keyhan. Instead of giving a convincing answer to the criticisms, Rajavi took a hostile stance and asserted that they were no longer MKO members while he had introduced them as the official representatives of the organization abroad a few weeks before. Finally, they published a book entitled “The process of separation” and therein they openly declared their separation from the organization and Rajavi. In this regard, Mohammad Mehdi Jafari states:

As far as I remember, I think in 1981, Mr. Raisi Toosi and his friends detached MKO and even wrote some articles in Keyhan paper disclosing the feats done by the organization and then published a book entitled “The process of separation”. 1

He further refers to ungenerous attitudes of Rajavi in expelling a particular group of three, as they were close comrades of Hanifnejad, from MKO:

The way organization dealt with those three and Reza in particular was very ungenerous. The organization even claimed that he has never been a fighter and that he had been studying in the Europe in years before the victory of the revolution while Reza Raisi Toosi was one of the early founders of MKO. Keyhan paper referred to this issue, too; yet it was denied by Mojahedin officially. Reza and his friends were among those who bravely stood against those members that perverted from Islam in the Europe and issued a long and detailed statement on it. 2

In this regard, Anne singleton, a European member of MKO who had contact with them in the Europe introduces Raisi as follows:

Reza Raisi was one of the close friends of Mohammad Hanif-Nezhad. He had been in close contact with the Mojahedin since its inception and had escaped from Iran when they were being attacked in the early 70s. He took up residence in London, studying a PhD. in politics. Then, about two years before the 1979 revolution, Raisi started an organisation named Committee in Support of the Mojahedin. 3

Jafari also expounds on Rajavi’s mischievous adoption of the same tactics for the removal of other early members of the organization including Meisami and Mohammad Gorgani, who were experienced veterans of the organization and would criticized Rajavi’s totalitarianism and egocentrism:

I was not in prison but I heard the news that the organization had boycotted people like the engineer Meisami and Mohammad Gorgani because they had adopted a clear position toward ideological deviation and drift to Marxism and opposed to “peaceful coexistence” of the rival sides and believed in self-criticism. But the imprisoned rankings like Massoud Rajavi and Musa Khiabani did not concurred with any criticism and moved on their own way although they bragged of observing criticisms. 4

As it was mentioned before, these mechanisms were common in all phases of Rajavi’s hegemony over the organization. Parviz Yaqoubi, one of the earliest members, as well as Saeed Shahsavandi, a member of the organization’s central cadre up to late 1985, are other victims of Rajavi’s inflexibility in his views who were expelled or Rajavi claimed their expulsion despite their voluntary separation from the organization. Anne singleton refers to Parviz Yaqoubi and writes:

Parviz Yaqoubi, a member of the former Central Committee, was in Paris and married to Ashraf Rajavi’s (nee Rabii) sister. He refused to accept the marriage and Ideological Revolution and refused also to keep quiet about his objections. He was put on trial in a court, which Rajavi concocted and headed, and was condemned. He was ‘convicted’ for not taking the side of the revolution, but rather taking the side of Khomeini. Masoud in this court on one occasion refused to accept that Yaqoubi has the normal rights of a court and said this is not a court rather it is a learning session for others to listen and take note. Of course, only selected people were present. Yaqoubi was placed under severe hardship. He was isolated, his financial support from the organisation was cut and he was evicted from his home as an example to others. 5

In fact, the ideological revolution of Rajavi can be considered the final phase of extending his political purges in MKO. Expelling Ali Zarkesh, his trial and sentencing to execution, his exile to Camp Ashraf, and plotting his death in the operation Eternal Light (Forouq-e Javidan) is another instance of Rajavi’s misusing power to eliminate all members who were much more qualified than him. Also, there are a great number of MKO members who were killed after the declaration of the ideological revolution due to their disagreement and criticism. However, their exact number is unknown but a handful of them have been mentioned in Human Rights Watch report or have been referred to by eyewitnesses.

Still much remains untold of methods applied by Rajavi to purge the dissidents as well as the parameters and factors paving the way for him to achieve his egocentric objectives which have to be investigated in depth. It is up to conscience of readers to judge if these cruel acts have been deliberately planed and put into practice or regarded as common errors of Rajavi, something far beyond reality. However, the fact is that according to many early members like Meisami, things could be different if Rajavi had assumed a peaceful mannerism, goodwill, tolerance, and sincerity.

Still there are people who believe Rajavi’s grave errors can be compensated if he will resign and let more qualified people accede to the leadership. It really requires honesty and courage, which Rajavi lacks, to sacrifice oneself for the legitimate causes of a political organization and apologize for the errors made before an authorized court regardless of personal and organizational prejudices.

Resources:

1. Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Jafari’s interview with Seyed Qasem Yahosseini, MKO from inside, Negah-e Emrooz publication, 2002, p.48.

2. ibid, p.78.

3. Singleton, Anne, Saddam’s private army, Iran-Interlink, 2003.

4. Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Jafari’s interview with Seyed Qasem Yahosseini, MKO from inside, Negah-e Emrouz publication, 2002, p.84.

5. Singleton, Anne, Saddam’s private army, Iran-Interlink, 2003.

March 26, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

The intrusive tone of Rajavi’s message

In his message of 26 January 2009, Rajavi once more expressed his delight over the removal of MKO from the EU terrorist list. The message, aside from repeating the cliché discussions as before, is mostly founded on perversion, fabrication, threat, sedition, and denouncement aiming at achieving his totalitarian objectives. A brief look at the main points of this message may reveal more facts about the true nature of the cult of Mojahedin.

1. He is putting the blame of the decision made by Iraqi government and the expulsion of Mojahedin on Iranian government stating “the closure of Ashraf is demanded and dictated by the reactionary, clerical regime and thus illegally unfounded”.

This claim is in fact the most apparent form of MKO’s interference in the internal affairs of Iraq and its legal government and has certain consequences. Rajavi makes an attempt to instigate Iraqi people against their government by introducing it as an illegitimate and illegal organ. He does so to sidetrack his full cooperation with Saddam in oppressing Iraqi people and all his crimes and brutal acts as Saddam’s main supporter and ally. Also, he poses challenge to the independence and sovereignty of Iraq to intensify its internal tensions and sidetrack the attentions from the issue of the expulsion of Mojahedin.

2. Rajavi in his message declares that “I openly announce to be heared: Iranian people and resistance as well as Ashraf Mojaheds never surrender to the dictated will and policy of the religious fascism governing Iran”.

Making these statements in which he has replaced the term Iraqi government with Iranian government, he implies his decision on initiating war against the Iraqi government by gesture. In fact he has no scruples about making an all-out war against the Iraq since he has already made the ground for it by means of intensifying the internal tensions of Iraq as well as making the naively made claim of winning the support of 5.2 million Iraqi people. Undoubtedly, Mojahedin have their most hostile position toward Iraqi government and their present status in Iraq corresponds to that of 1980’s in Iran when they passed a so-called political phase and then entered the phase of armed struggle against Iranian government. All their false claims on taking a tolerant position toward Iranian government were futile. As the facts prove, as soon as Rajavi got the illusion of the possibility of his coming to power in Iran, he initiated an armed struggle the result of which was victimizing his followers in a way that now after three decades has reached a cul-de-sac. The hostile position taking of Mojahedin in a country where they are to receive political asylum well reveals Rajavi’s psychopathic ambitiousness and megalomania.

3. Rajavi quotes Mojgan Parsaee of the possibility of the occurrence of a cultic and human disaster, that is, a general “hunger strike to death”. In fact, it is a warning to Iraqi officials of an imminent war. He also refers to the decision of the EU and tries to use it as a proof on the legitimacy of MKO’s settlement in Iraq. Furthermore, he claims that the name of Mojahedin has never been in the terrorist list of the Security Council. It seems that he has forgotten the recent statement of the White House and Obama on endorsing the terrorist nature of Mojahedin. Now Rajavi has resorted to making a gap between FBI and the US state department as a new trick to pave the way for his misusing the EU decision making.

4. Rajavi in his message states “During invasion to Iraq in March and April 2003, I ordered Mojahedin and NLA warriors to tolerate and fire not against American forces despite their bombardments and firing. It has been approved and signed in a “ceasefire” contract between American forces and MKO/NLA in 15 April, 2003”.

This is the funniest part of Rajavi’s message. As used to, Rajavi petitions in a reverse form. Due to his extreme illusionist and egotistic personality, Rajavi denies his total compulsory surrender to the US forces in 2003 and considers it as a deliberate action. Whether his statement I ordered Mojahedin and NLA warriors to tolerate and fire not against American forces despite their bombardments and firing is the result of his illusion or is part of a new trick is ambiguous. However, it is evident that the claim of the Don Quixote of the third millennium is making the American forces burst into laughter more than anybody else. The only difference between Saddam and Rajavi in the course of coalition forces’ invasion to Iraq is that contrary to his ally, Rajavi and his wife had left Camp Ashraf a long time before. An act that surprised the residents of Camp Ashraf more than others when they found out that their she-guru, Maryam Azdanlu, has left Camp Ashraf for her luxurious residence in France. Rajavi’s pretending to have surrendered to disarmament willingly despite availing military and logistic superiority over coalition forces is mostly insulting for residents of Ashraf who felt the pain of failure and surrender by heart and soul and it comes only from an ill and psychopathic mind or a big charlatan.

5. Simple mindedness and naiveté of Rajavi is well-defined when he claims that Iran can no longer enforce Iraq to expel Mojahedin for their terrorist charges. It aims two objectives. First, leading to passivity and silence of Iraqi officials on the issue of MKO’s remaining in Iraq and second, in case if Iraqi officials insist on their legal decision, Rajavi may grab at international levers to provoke internal tensions of Iraq. However, the statements of Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraqi national security advisor, made a few days after Rajavi’s message on the determination of Iraq to expel Mojahedin awaked Rajavi from his daydreamings. Not only he emphasized on the expulsion of Mojahedin but also asserted that Iraqi judiciary would prosecute 14 high rankings of MKO for their violations of human rights in Iraq. These statements were a telling retort to Rajavi who makes an attempt to stabilize the position of MKO in Iraq by means of fabrication, pressure, and propaganda blitz. Mowaffaq al-Rubaie stated openly that the vote of the EU has no effect on the decision making of Iraq. Also, he informed Mojahedin of Iraq’s conferring with some European countries on determining the destiny of Mojahedin and it proves further the naiveté of Rajavi since it is evident that the EU decision is never considered a must for Iraqi government. Consequently and despite all activities of Rajavi, the main issue of expelling Mojahedin from Iraq is still of effect and pursued legally.

6. Rajavi further maintains that from now on, commuting from and to Camp Ashraf is a legal right of Mojahedin and Iraqi government cannot prevent it. In fact he means that by doing so, the Iraqi government may avoid hatred and anger of Iraqi citizens. It is obvious that Rajavi is openly interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq and tries to escalate tensions. His words are in absolute contradiction with international conventions that puts the responsibility of providing security for political refugees on the country if it has ever granted asylum. Now, it is not clear what Mojahedin have to do with insurgent groups in Iraq and what are the objectives followed by them. However, it is clear that calling a number of these dissidents as Iraqi citizens, or whatever the Iraqi government is the only authorized source to call, aims at intensifying internal tension and disorder. The Iraqi government is well aware of the main objectives of Mojahedin and also its absolute right of controlling those entering and exiting Camp Ashraf.

In a nutshell, the efforts of Rajavi for misusing the war-torn and unstable conditions of Iraq for achieving his objective in keeping his ideological bastion, i.e. Camp Ashraf, are vain. He is well aware that the sole looser in this play is himself and a number of MKO members who are victims of ambitious and egocentric objectives of a cult leader.

(Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, cult leaders)

(Maryam Rajavi directly ordered the massacre of Kurdish people)

(A cult session in Ashraf Camp Iraq – under the protection of Saddam)

(Chemical attack on Halabche, Kurdistan, Iraq)

(British Lord!! Corbett promoting terrorism under the Logo of MKO for the past 25 years)

(In the streets of London with Lord Corbett!!)

(MKO members in European Countries 2003)

March 14, 2009 0 comments

European Union

Europe vs. MKO

Europe vs. MKO: West controversial act in war on terror

Foreign Ministers of EU voted for the removal of MKO from terror list. An act that shows west’s contradictory behavior in its war on terror.

Protection of human rights is going to the opposite way in the West, although MKO is still designated as a terrorist organization by many countries.

EU couldn’t declare a group’s being or not being terrorist by itself, rather a just court should announce such a ruling and determine terrorist designation. In fact, terrorism is an international crime that according to international laws and an international fair court is the only competent tribune for terrorism designation.

It seems that EU didn’t obey Vienna Convention (which is binding for all individuals) and removed the group from terror list in a political act.

MKO has committed numerous crimes worldwide especially in Iran and Iraq and its terrorist designation is perfectly documented based in true facts.

Terrorism evidences in a legal view:

In various concepts of human science and specially politics the determination of a standard is neither possible nor acceptable. Therefore, lack of a standard for terrorism definition, makes it mixed with political or sometimes beneficial interests.

According to the International law commission the below-mentioned issues are considered as terrorist acts:

(i) Any act causing death or grievous bodily harm or loss of liberty to a Head of State, persons exercising the prerogatives of the Head of State, their hereditary or designated successors, the spouse of such persons, or persons charged with public functions or holding public positions when the act is directed against them in their public capacity (A large number of Iranian politic men were assassinated by MKO after the Islamic Revolution)

(ii) Acts calculated to destroy or damage public property or property devoted to a public purpose (So many governmental or non-governmental buildings, buses, cars have been bombed by MKO or damaged in MKO mortar attacks)

(iii) Any act likely to imperil human lives through the creation of a public danger, in particular the seizure of aircraft, the taking of hostages and any form of violence directed against persons who enjoy international protection or diplomatic immunity ( MKO’s violent acts include a large range of attacks, such as their simultaneous attacks to 13 Iranian Embassies all over the world in 1992)

(iv) The manufacture, obtaining, possession or supplying of arms, ammunition, explosives or harmful substances with a view to the commission of a terrorist act.( MKO has formally declared its armed struggle to overthrow the Islamic Republic)

A lot of international conventions, acts, treaties and agreements on the terrorism phenomenon, have been signed. There are numerous international bodies involving in fighting terrorism, having various plans to control such inhumane, immoral acts.

Indeed, the most important motive to cause terrorism is political but the efforts to control terrorism have just had legal aspects.

One can claim that the international laws in this case are only a cover for the political interests of the states to whether support or condemn a terrorist incident.

It should be noted that the war on terror is caught between various paradoxes which gives the superpowers and their agents an opportunity to abuse the current atmosphere.

Evaluation

The EU’s move is violation of the international laws and implies their political benefits.

The EU’s position regarding MKO’s case will bring about heavy damages. It might become a new approach to deal with other terrorist groups.

Values like human rights and freedom are nowadays a tool for implementing political pressure by those who claim to call for freedom.

However, the West does take no position against Israelis who massacre civilians in Gaza, the EU removes MKO from the black list. The file of various crimes committed by MKO against Iranians is achieved on the so-called human rights’ table of the West.

The dual standards of the West considering terrorism and human rights is viewed as funny by the international community.

War on Terror will never be successful unless the superpowers put away their ambitions or reckless political interests. Terrorist acts of evil MKO group might continue in the safe haven of the West.

Islam Abad-Ahmad Farahani – Translated by Nejat Society

March 11, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Required recruiting tool

Love Bombing & Relationship Control; required recruiting tool

“They flatter you in a way that you don’t even realize they are doing so” says Ann Singleton who has once been an MKO member. She explains the ways the Organization treated her when it needed to recruit her;” they really put BEWARE OF “INSTANT FRIENDS”, REMEMBER TRUE FRIENDS DEVELOP OVER TIME themselves on a pedestal so that when you want to join them you feel special.”

Cults know that if they can control your relationships then they can control you. Whether we like it or not we are all profoundly affected by those around us. When you first go to a cult they will practice "love bombing", where they arrange instant friends for you. It will seem wonderful, how could such a loving group be wrong! But you soon learn that if you ever disagree with them, or ever leave the cult then you will lose all your new "friends". This unspoken threat influences your actions in the cult. Things that normally would have made you complain will pass by silently because you don’t want to be ostracized. Like in an unhealthy relationship love is turned on and off to control.

The same as all cults, MKO bombards the individuals with love and emotion while recruiting them. Mrs. Singleton was so bombed by MKO’s love that she believes :

“They replaced my family, relationship and I rejected all my old values.”

Cults also try to cut you off from your friends and family because they hate others being able to influence you. A mind control cult will seek to maneuver your life so as to maximize your contact with cult members and minimize your contact with people outside the group, especially those who oppose your involvement.

BEWARE OF “INSTANT FRIENDS”, REMEMBER TRUE FRIENDS DEVELOP OVER TIME.

BEWARE OF A GROUP THAT TELLS YOU WHO YOU CAN AND CAN NOT SEE.

Now that the members are cut off from their whole relationships and individuality, the cult of Rajavi practices mind control techniques on them. Ann Singleton says:” I loved the camp and it felt liberating to obey the orders, because you lose all your responsibility over yourself … If the leader has said kill yourself, I would have killed myself.”

Mazda Parsi

Reference: HowCultsWork

Is Iran’s MEK a Threat to the Islamist Regime?

The People’s Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI), more commonly known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (“people’s mujahideen”; MEK), is one of the most organized and controversial Iranian opposition groups. Although it maintains an armed wing—known as the National Liberation Army (NLA)—and numerous front organizations, it derives its greatest strength from the slick lobbying and propaganda machine it operates in the United States and Europe. The MEK also boasts extensive support within U.S. government and policy circles, including many of the most vocal advocates of a U.S. invasion of Iran [1].

The MEK remains on the list of banned terrorist organizations in the United States and European Union (EU). Both parties have indicated no intention of reconsidering their positions. The May 7 decision by the United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal to overrule the British government’s inclusion of the MEK on its list of banned terrorist organizations, however, may pave the way for both the United States and EU to reassess their positions regarding the MEK down the line. Given the MEK’s history of violence and its willingness to act as a proxy force against Iran, such a move would represent a major escalation in hostilities between the United States and Iran, with consequences in Iraq and beyond.

Ideology

The MEK is an obscure organization with a long history of violence and opposition activities. It emerged in the 1960s, composed of college students and leftist intellectuals loyal to Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq; the popular leftist nationalist prime minister was deposed by a U.S.- and U.K.-backed coup in 1953 that restored Mohammad Reza Shah to power. Its revolutionary zeal combined aspects of Marxist and Islamist ideologies in pursuit of its goal to overthrow the U.S.-backed shah through armed resistance and terrorism. Its primary targets in the 1970s included ranking officials and symbols of the shah’s regime, both within and outside of Iran. The regime responded in kind with brutal repression through SAVAK, the shah’s notorious domestic intelligence apparatus. Thousands of members and associates of MEK were killed, tortured and jailed during this period. Consequently, like many Iranians at the time, the MEK viewed the Islamist opposition as a positive force for change. The MEK supported the revolutionary forces and the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy and subsequent hostage crisis led by student activists in Tehran. The group’s unique brand of Marxism and Islamism, however, would bring it into conflict with the rigid Shiite Islamism espoused by the post-revolutionary government. The failure of a June 1981 coup attempt intended to oust Ayatollah Khomeini elicited a massive crackdown by the regime against the MEK, forcing the group’s leaders and thousands of members into exile in Europe. When France ousted operational elements of the group in 1986, many made their way to Iraq, where they joined Saddam Hussein’s war effort against Iran and enjoyed a safe haven [2].

Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, a charismatic husband and wife team that fled into exile in Europe, lead the MEK. From her base in France, Maryam Rajavi currently holds the position of “President-Elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)” after her husband’s disappearance sometime in 2003. He is presumed to be in hiding [3]. The Rajavis enjoy a fanatical cult-like following among MEK members and supporters [4]. The group’s cult-like character was displayed when 16 followers of the Rajavis staged dramatic public acts of self-immolation over a period of three days in June 2003 across major European and Canadian cities. The protests followed the arrest of Maryam Rajavi and 160 of her followers after a French court ruled that the MEK and its numerous front groups constituted a terrorist organization. According to former members of the group, the MEK’s “human torches” are a testament to the stranglehold the Rajavis have over their followers and the extent to which members are brainwashed and manipulated psychologically into blindly following them. The MEK is reported to maintain a list of volunteers ready and willing to perform acts of self-immolation on the orders of the leadership [5]. Like other cults, MEK members are often separated from their children and families and discouraged from maintaining contact with individuals outside of the group. Former members who defected from the MEK describe the Rajavis as autocrats who demand unquestioned loyalty from their followers (pars-iran.com, January 30, 2006).

Women make up a significant contingent of the MEK’s ranks, especially in its armed wing. In addition to its Marxist and Islamist pedigrees, the rise of the Rajavis to the group’s leadership led to the introduction of feminist ideologies into the group’s discourse. This aspect of the MEK’s ideology indicates their attempt to tap into local grievances and international sympathy regarding the position of women in the Islamic Republic [6]. In this regard, the MEK presents itself as a liberal and democratic alternative to the rigid brand of Islamism espoused by the ruling clerics, an image it has cultivated in U.S. and Western policy circles to great effect [7]. The U.K. court based its ruling on the premise that the MEK has renounced violence and terrorism, and that it currently maintains no operational capability to execute future acts of violence.

Violence and Terrorism

The MEK’s long history of violence and terrorism includes the abduction and assassination of ranking Iranian political and military officials under the shah in the 1970s, as well as attacks against the clerical establishment throughout the 1980s. Foreign-based MEK operatives also targeted Iranian embassies abroad in a series of attacks. MEK militants struck diplomatic officials and foreign business interests in Iran under both the shah and the Islamists in an effort to undermine investor confidence and regime stability. Furthermore, the MEK targeted and killed Americans living and working in Iran in the 1970s, namely U.S. military and civilian contractors working on defense-related projects in Tehran (mkowatch.com). The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties.

In addition, the MEK’s repertoire of operations includes suicide bombings, airline hijackings, ambushes, cross-border raids, RPG attacks, and artillery and tank barrages. Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 [8]. MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule.

Despite its history of high-profile attacks, the MEK never posed a serious threat to the Iranian regime. The group never enjoyed popular domestic support, despite its claims to the contrary. Many Iranians actively oppose the clerical regime and sympathize with segments of the opposition. At the same time, most Iranians also regard the MEK as traitorous for joining the Iraqi war effort against Iran and resent its use of violence and terrorism against Iranians at home and abroad (mkowatch.com).

Approximately 3,500 members of the MEK remain in Camp Ashraf. Following an agreement with U.S.-led Coalition forces, MEK units allowed Coalition forces to disarm the group. Decommissioned MEK units are currently under surveillance in Camp Ashraf. Their future status, however, remains a point of controversy. Despite their demobilization, Iran believes that the United States is holding on to the group as leverage in any future confrontation with the Islamic Republic (see Terrorism Monitor, February 9, 2006).

Political Activism

Although it has been disarmed, the MEK retains the capacity to remobilize, especially if it gains a state sponsor. Nevertheless, it is the MEK’s lobbying and propaganda machine in the United States and Europe that enables it to remain a relevant force in Middle East politics and a key factor in U.S.-Iranian tensions. The MEK’s political activism falls under the auspices of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)—an MEK political front organization that also serves as an umbrella movement representing various Iranian dissident groups. These efforts persist despite the fact that U.S. authorities ordered NCRI offices in Washington to shut down in 2003 (New York Observer, June 5, 2007).

From Iran’s perspective, the U.S. position on MEK is both ambiguous and at times hypocritical. On the one hand, the MEK remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of banned terrorist organizations, yet the group remains on Iraqi soil, albeit disarmed and under surveillance by Coalition forces. The MEK has cultivated a loyal following among an outspoken network of U.S. politicians, former and active government officials, members of the defense establishment, journalists and academics advocating violent regime change in Tehran. The MEK is even credited in some of these circles for disclosing aspects of the Iranian nuclear program [9]. At the same time, it is accused of fabricating intelligence information to boost its profile in the United States (Asia Times, March 4). With their call for regime change in Iran and pleas for international support, media-savvy MEK representatives based in the United States appear regularly on the cable news show circuit and other forums in Washington, DC in a campaign reminiscent of the one led by Ahmed Chalabi and the network of Iraqi exiles who mustered American support for the Iraq war [10]. The MEK has also gained legitimacy as a liberal and democratic force for positive change in Iran, despite evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion

The MEK will continue to capitalize on the ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran by enlisting the support of elements in Washington seeking a bargaining chip against Tehran. It is important, however, to see this bizarre organization for what it is; that is, to see through the façade of liberalism, democracy and human rights that it purports to represent through its propaganda. The well-documented experiences of scores of former MEK members are reason enough to consider this group and any of its claims with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Notes

1. See “U.S. Policy Options for Iran,” prepared by the Iran Policy Committee (IPC), February 10, 2005 at www.nci.org/05nci/02/IranPolicyCommittee.pdf.

2. For a historical narrative of the MEK’s formative years, see Ervand Abrahamian, The Iranian Mojahidin, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992). For an insider’s perspective on the history of the MEK from a former member, see the website of Massoud Khodabandeh at www.khodabandeh.org/.

3. See “Cult of the Chameleon,” an al-Jazeera documentary on the MEK (broadcast October 17, 2007) at www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=3384. For an insider’s perspective on the cult-like character of the MEK, see the website of the Dissociated Members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran at pars-iran.com.

4. For an overview of the events of 2003, including graphic photographs of the acts of self-immolation, see “MKO Human Torches” at www.mojahedin.ws/art_pdfs/MKO-HUMAN-TORCHES.pdf.

5. For an overview of the MEK’s position on women, see Shahin Torabi, “Women in the Cult of Mojahdin,” March 5, 2003 at mojahedin.ws/article/show_en.php?id=653 and Sattar Orangi, “The Strives [sic] for the Freedom of Women,” March 13, 2008 at mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=1601.

6. A. Afshar, “The Positive Force of Terrorism,” October 10, 2006 at mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=842.

7. See “MKO and Massacre of Kurd and Turkmen Iraqis,” April 19, 2006 at pars-iran.com/en/?mod=view&id=664.

By: Chris Zambelis

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4950

March 7, 2009 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Deluded Masud Rajavi demands Iraq obey European law

The first sentence of Masoud Rajavi’s message in December, 27th on MKO’s removal from the EU terrorist list referred to his ecstasy of delight for excluding the possibility of Mojahedin’s expulsion from Iraq. He resorted to the point that since the EU has removed MKO from its terrorist list, terrorist accusations of MKO are no longer of any effect and Iraqi government cannot prevent their presence in Iraq due to their terrorist charges. Surprisingly enough, from among all possible positive consequences of the decision made by the EU, this aspect is a priority and of utmost significance for Rajavi. Making a comparison between Rajavi’s new position taking and previous claims on considering MKO’s inclusion in terrorist list as their main barrier to overthrow the Iranian government and also their democratic claims and rejecting the policy of armed struggle reveals an apparent paradox.

Now, the newly made messages of Rajavi suffice to prove their false claims of stopping armed struggle since it is ambiguous that after their removal from terrorist list and their opportunity to pursue their political activities in the west, as repeatedly petitioned by Rajavi when MKO was blacklisted, why Mojahedin insist on staying in Iraq? Is the answer anything other than the fact that Rajavi seeks to misuse the tensions inside Iraq to follow his past strategy of armed struggle to fulfill his never achieved promise of overthrowing the Iranian government? This is a question to be answered by MKO’s western advocators who dared to remove the name of a notorious terrorist group from the EU blacklist.

Rajavi further expounds on his other demands like making all traffics to and from Camp Ashraf smooth and limitless. He has also warned Iraqi government of the point that any measure taken by Iraqi officials in putting bans and limits on MKO as well as their expulsion or relocation may trigger Mojahedin’s severe reaction even up to their sacrifice. His message implies that removing MKO from the EU terrorist list has solved their problems in Iraq as well as the west. However, the fact is that it has nothing to do with the decision made by Iraqi government on their expulsion since part of the blame placed on Mojahedin on the part of Iraqi government is its terrorist nature and activities during the reign of Saddam in Iraq. Evidently, the stance of the EU toward MKO in itself suffices not to recognize the legitimacy of MKO’s remaining in Iraq acquitting them of all terrorist charges.

Furthermore, it has to be noted that despite the EU’s removing MKO from its terrorist list, the US state department issued a statement in an immediate reaction on the terrorist nature of Mojahedin and asserted that there are no evidence or sign of a shift in the policy and position taking of Mojahedin. Obviously, the viewpoint and decision of the US that is present in Iraq and is considered one of the parties involved in the settlement of tensions therein is more authentic than that of the EU. Also many European countries like France, England, Italy, Czech… acknowledge the terrorist nature of MKO despite the decision of the EU and some regard it a hasty decision to be reconsidered. Therefore, the illusion of Rajavi on a shift in the policy taken by Iraq toward MKO has no rationale and is more like a kind of psychological and propaganda war initiated by him and now followed strongly in Mojahedin media.

As it was mentioned, the rationale behind the Iraqi government’s decision on expelling Mojahedin from Iraq is not limited to the terrorist accusations of MKO rather according to Iraqi officials there are many evidences on crimes and cooperative activities of MKO with Saddam against Iraqi people and also their present efforts to misuse the unstable conditions of Iraq to intensify sectarian conflicts and make contacts to Iraqi problematic groups to commit terrorist activities against Iraqi people and neighboring countries. Therefore, Rajavi’s resorting to the vote of the EU is unlikely to solve his problems and Iraqi government recognizes the obligatory settlement of Mojahedin in Iraqi soil contrary to asylum rights and conventions. In addition, whenever a country consent to offer asylum to Mojahedin, their insistence on remaining in Iraq would be of no effect.

Before, it seemed that removing MKO from blacklist would makes the ground for their transferring to a western country to pursue their political activities in security therein yet as it is evident, Rajavi prefers an unquiet and war-torn country to European countries for MKO’s settlement. In addition, according to common sense, if Mojahedin are to force a country to provide them with asylum it should be one of the members of the EU that dared to remove MKO’s terrorist label whereas Rajavi refrains to express the least inclination to do so and ever-increasingly insists on keeping Mojahedin in Iraq. The reason is clear. Rajavi has two major factors in Iraq without which the survival of MKO is unlikely. First, Camp Ashraf as the ideological container of Mojahedin and second, the Iraqi soil as a strategic lever in the hands of Rajavi to follow his struggle of armed struggle against Iran therein. The main challenge posed on Iraqi government as a result of the settlement of Mojahedin in Camp Ashraf is security considerations and the danger posed by Mojahedin for national interests and stabilization of peace and security in Iraq. Mojahedin have also warned Iraqi government that they would resort to group self-immolations in case if Iraqi government consents not to satisfy their demands. In fact, they are threatening Iraqi officials to enforce them to let Mojahedin reside in Camp Ashraf.

The Iraqi government is to be aware that even its least tolerance toward Mojahedin in the present conditions may result in the stabilization of MKO status in its soil and freedom of action therein. Iraq should engage those countries removing MKO from the EU terrorist list in this challenge and ask them to provide asylum for MKO if they have been convinced of the termination of terrorist activities of MKO rather than advocating their residence in a place too far from their soil and people where Mojahedin can pose no danger for their national interests and security considerations.

March 7, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Is Israel next option for MKO?

The People Mujahedin of Iran has a long history of treason and shifting in its belief so the settlement of MKO forces in Israel soil is not an unexpected option. There are many reasons for such a move. As in the cult of Rajavi the goal has always justified the means, the above-mentioned option could be an alternative for MEK remaining forces after their expulsion from Iraq.
Anyone who has studied the MKO’s background would also have found out that in the early years of its foundation, the MKO members were sent to Palestine to receive military training from the Palestinian armed groups such as PLO. Regarding this fact, one many think its too bizarre that the MKO takes refugee in a nation to which they have once been hostile but the truth is that shifting the believes to an opposite one is far from new in the history of MKO cult.
There are so many other examples like these: The very MKO organization that has assassinated American military personnel and civilians in the 1970’s, is now lobbying to gain the American congress support. It’s a common contradiction in MKO that the so-called former imperialism is now their savior.
The similar approach is headed by MKO towards Israel. The main supporters of MKO in the US government including Raymond Tanter are the leading promoters of the Israeli lobby, AIPAC which is the strongest lobby in the American administration and the best option to advocate MEK’s cause in US. Therefore, the former enemy of America and Israel has transferred to an ally that is the enemy of their enemy and so their friend.
MKO claims to have denounced the alleged intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program, and AliReza Jaafarzade uses it as a pretext to advocate MKO support in his shows on FoxNews, but according to various sources their intelligence had basically come from the Israelis and MKO was only a loud speaker! In case of MEK’s expulsion from Iraq and the shut down of Camp Ashraf their new safe heaven could be Israeli since no third country has accepted to grant refugee to the MKO terrorists. However, the serious violation of human rights in Camp Ashraf and the cult-like manipulation practices of MEK leaders would surely end with the defection of a large number of members. After the fall of Saddam many (about 600) members used the very small overture in the gates of Ashraf and escaped out of the bars of the cult. Thus, there won’t be a lot of people to go to the safe heaven of Israel, following the closure of Ashraf, for it will be an opportunity for those who have long been threatened and forced to stay in the cult under the physical and mental pressure of cult leaders.
By Mazda Parsi

March 5, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MKO; Iran Exile Group in Line for Huge Cash Windfall

US-Protected Iran Exile Group in Line for Huge Cash Windfall

"The MEK can use some of that cash to pay legal settlements with former members that they tortured, as well as the families of Iranians they killed when they fought on the side of Saddam against Iran."

The controversial Iranian exile organization MEK, which the United States calls a terrorist group, could soon see a windfall of tens of millions of dollars as the result of the European Union’s decision Monday to take it off its list of terrorist organizations.

If so, it will mark dramatic turnaround the group’s fortunes.

The MEK, shorthand for the Mujahedin-e Khalq, and also known as the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran, looked like it was on the ropes only days ago, when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he wanted its U.S.-protected military base near the Iranian border closed within two months.

The MEK can use some of that cash to pay legal settlements with former members that they tortured, as well as the families of Iranians they killed when they fought on the side of Saddam against Iran. But the E.U.’s Jan. 26 decision not only unlocks untold millions of dollars frozen in European banks, it allows the militant anti-Iran organization to go public with appeals for millions more, perhaps catapulting it into a leading role in the Iranian opposition abroad.

The MEK could claim $9 million held in France alone, along with "tens of millions of dollars" worth of assets locked away in other EU countries, its spokesman told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

What will it do with the windfall?

"Set off car bombs around Iran," jibed former CIA operative Robert Baer, whose pursuit was dramatized by George Clooney in the 2005 movie "Syriana."

The group says it has renounced violence, but the MEK has carried out dozens of terrorist attacks and assassinations against Iranian targets both inside and outside of the country. Some of those were launched from its base in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

MEK leader Maryam Rajavi said the unfrozen millions "will be used to increase our political activities … including to further disclose the mullah regime’s secret nuclear weapons sites."

Since Hussein’s overthrow, the 3,000 MEK fighters in Camp Ashraf, as it’s called, have been under the "protection" of U.S. troops, even though they’re still officially labeled terrorists by the State Department.

The seeming anomaly can be at least party explained by frequent reports that the MEK has been secretly helping the CIA run operations against the Islamic regime from its base in southeastern Iraq.

Its terrorist label was earned before the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution, when the group, which bills itself as Marxist-Islamist, targeted Americans working in Iran. Indeed, 30 years ago this month the group helped overthrow the U.S.-backed shah and take 52 American hostages.

But eventually it turned against the religious regime. In 2001 its sustained opposition to Iran, its supposed renunciation of violence, and its portrayal of itself as a "progressive" political force won it admirers in the Bush administration and pro-democracy groups in Europe. Of no small note, it has also played a major role in exposing Iran’s nuclear activities.

Walid Phares, a scholar on terrorism and American of Lebanese descent, called the closing of Camp Ashraf "a significant Iranian victory."

"Ashraf was the only base for the MEK against Iran’s regime," he said by e-mail. "If it is shut down, they will lose the only base they have."

"More than a military base of the opposition against Tehran," he added, "Ashraf was a political base for broadcast and political outreach to the opposition in the inside."

On the other hand, the E.U.’s decision will conceivably allow MEK fighters entry into Europe, at least temporarily solving the problem of what to do with them once Ashraf is closed.

That, and the new money, can only add to the MEK’s political clout, which was put on display last year when the group drew 85,000 people to an anti-Iran protest outside Paris.

To date, exile communities have been divided over the MEK because of its attacks on Iranian troops from Iraqi soil during the two nations’ 10-year war. Some call the organization a puritanistic "cult,” because of its iron-fist leadership by a husband and wife team who have been accused of violating the human rights of their own followers.

But the E.U.’s decision could give the MEK a big boost over its rivals, Phares suggests.

"Once they are decertified [as a terrorist group] they will act as an international NGO [non-governmental organization] and will most likely receive even more donations from Iranian exiles," said Phares, a senior fellow at the hawkish Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington.

"De-certification by itself will strengthen the group within the Iranian diaspora," he continued. "Will they access to frozen funds in EU banks? This is another issue and will have to be negotiated. But certainly they will have a legal base. They will spend it to widen their base, and on strategic communications regarding Iran."

All things considered, it’s not hard to suspect a hidden American hand in the E.U. decision, or at least acquiescence in it, since it so neatly finesses the eviction notice served on Camp Ashraf by Prime Minister Maliki.

In any event, it keeps MEK alive — and more — despite the threatened closing of its longtime base in Iraq.

The Iranian regime reacted sharply to the E.U. move, accusing the union of a "double standard" on terrorism. It also said it was drafting a plan to put MEK members on trial, "either in the Islamic Republic or outside the country,” according to Press TV, an Iranian news service.

CQ Politics By Jeff Stein

March 4, 2009 0 comments

The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Iran pushes Iraq to close MKO camp

Pressure is growing on Iran’s main opposition group to leave Iraqi territory after living under US military protection in a camp north of Baghdad since 2003. Some 3,400 militants of the Mujahideen- e Khalq (known by the acronyms MKO or MEK) face eviction by the government of Iraq, which has tired of a group that once fielded its own army under the tutelage of Saddam Hussein and remains on Washington’s list of terrorist groups. On Saturday, Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, encouraged Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to follow through with Baghdad’s longstanding desire to disband Camp Ashraf, which came under Iraqi control on Jan. 1. "We await the implementation of our agreement regarding the expulsion of the hypocrites," Ayatollah Khamenei told Iraq’s visiting president, referring to the MKO by the term often used by the Islamic Republic. Mr. Talabani was quoted as saying that the MKO "have committed many crimes against the Iraqis, and the Iraqi government is determined to expel them and will go forward with its decision." His words echo those of Iraq’s national security adviser, Muwafaq al-Rubaie. "The only choices open to members of this group are to return to Iran or to choose another country," Mr. Rubaie said in Tehran last January. "Over 3,000 inhabitants of Camp Ashraf have to leave Iraq, and the camp will be part of history within two months," said Rubaie, adding that more than 900 are dual nationals and that he would be holding talks with officials of 12 countries. Those options are limited for the controversial cultlike group, whose armed wing came under Pentagon control after the fall of Mr. Hussein. Despised in Iran for bomb attacks and the killing of government officials and civilians in the first years after the 1979 Islamic revolution – and later for fighting alongside Iraqi troops against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s -the MKO was disarmed in 2003 but kept intact as a possible tool for use by the US against Tehran.

Terrorist list status

In January, the group toasted its removal from the European Union terrorist list. But it was delisted for legal reasons – using its removal from the British terrorism list in 2008 as part of its case. The decision has been appealed by France, and the group remains on the terror lists of some individual member states. The delisting, though, may enable some militants to be accepted in Europe. Many fear returning to Iran, though more than 300 "quitters" – as the MKO calls those who leave the organization – have gone home with little incident. "This is the end of the terrorist label," says Alireza Jafarzadeh, the group’s spokesman in Washington until 2003, when the MKO, with its several arms and variety of names, was closed down in the US. Removal from the EU list is a "major victory for the MEK and the resistance movement overall," he says. Mr. Jafarzadeh says the EU decision "strengthens" those at Camp Ashraf who refuse either to return to Iran or to leave the camp for Europe. "Any justification to expel them [from Iraq], which has been always coming from Tehran, is now gone," he says.

Still, Baghdad announced that it planned to close the camp last December, the same month the US reaffirmed the MKO’s "terrorist" status. Last year, the State Department’s global terrorism report noted the group had "planned and executed terrorist operations against the Iranian regime for nearly three decades;" had killed several Americans in Iran in the 1970s; and "displayed cultlike characteristics," such as vows of "eternal divorce" [to avoid competing loyalties] and weekly "ideological cleansings." For years, Tehran has offered amnesty to members who voluntarily return to Iran, facilitated by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Returns have almost stopped in the past year, as Iran now wants Iraq to first screen potential returnees. "For those who wish to come back to Iran, we hope the Iranian government would give again this green light," says Peter Stocker, the head of the ICRC delegation in Tehran. Concerns in Camp Ashraf that returnees could be mistreated in Iran have not proved true in cases the ICRC has handled. "It is important to know that if anything happened to them, I don’t think it could remain hidden," says Mr. Stocker. US officials say Iran wants to prosecute 50 top MKO leaders, and has provided a list, but that perhaps only 20 are at Camp Ashraf. Returning to Iran is "absolutely not" an option, says Jafarzadeh, now an Iran commentator for Fox, contacted in Washington. "These people who are staying at Camp Ashraf are the people who are determined to oppose the Iranian regime."

Lenient treatment for returnee

Still, at least one high-ranking MKO member forced back to Iran received prison time but relatively lenient treatment. Ebrahim Khodabandeh, a British passport holder, was arrested by Syria while facilitating the exit of MKO leaders to Europe from Iraq after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The Syrians told him he was being taken to London, but then flew him to Tehran. If he had had a cyanide pill, he says today, he would have committed suicide. "The first time I was in Evin prison, I told them: ‘My bones, my blood, my flesh is all made with the name Rajavi, so the best you can do is execute me,’" says Mr. Khodabandeh, referring to the surname of the husband and wife leaders of the MKO. "It took me two years to come to the point of realizing the MKO was a cult and I had been manipulated." He was driven around Tehran by his case officers, who wanted to show him how the capital had changed in the decades he had been away – and to show how different it was from the world described by the MKO.. Khodabandeh says Iranian intelligence understands the need to avoid the death or abuse of MKO members who return, to avoid creating martyrs. "This was very much to the benefit of the Islamic Republic," he says, now free in Tehran. "If I were executed, I would be a martyr and have my picture in the newspapers. The problem for the organization is they haven’t had a martyr for many years."

Scott Peterson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

March 3, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Should the MEK Stay or Should it Go?

This is what Maryam Rajavi – head of the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran (PMOI, or MEK, or MKO) stated in Brussels on January 27, 2009 while standing in front of her many supporters, right after the decision of the ECJ (European Court of Justice) to put her movement off the list of terrorist groups:

"My fellow compatriots, Friends of the Resistance,

The MEK is still on the list of terrorist groups of the United States, because its fundamental values are anti-western and violent The obstacle of the terrorist allegation has crumbled. The spell has at last been broken. With perseverance and determination, you courageously rose above the flames of injustice and rendered law and justice victorious…This marks a decisive turning point on the course of democratic change in Iran."

Although, the US State Department’s report on terrorist organizations states the following:

"The MEK advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970’s. MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond.

The MEK emerged in the 1960s as one of the more violent political movements opposed to the Pahlavi dynasty and its close relationship with the United States. MEK ideology has gone through several iterations and blends elements of Marxism, Islam, and feminism".

Funny, cause if you head your browser toward the official website of Maryam Rajavi, each time you’ll read a sentence like this one: "Our aim is not to attain power at all costs. Our aim is to guarantee freedom and democracy at all costs, even at the cost of sacrificing our own existence." It all sounds much more like a Ghandi’s statement that the one of a terrorist inspired by Marxism, Islamism and Feminism.

Who’s right?

The MEK is still on the list of terrorist groups of the United States, because its fundamental values are anti-western and violent. The group took part in the 1979 revolution against Reza Palahvi’s the pro-western government, helping the present Iranian government to take power in Iran. Although, once the main target has been hit (French revolution anyone?), the winning coalition starts an internal power struggle, with which the real leader will be chosen. This is what happened to MEK, at odds with Islamic Republic. The leadership of the PMOI attempted to overthrow the newly formed IRP (Islamic Republic of Iran) but failed. Ayatollah Khomeini, in response, started a crackdown on the MEK militia and the group was forced to move to France.

In "The Persian Puzzle", Kenneth Pollack describes these events as following:

"…the MEK had made itself a primary target of the IRP. It decided that the best defense was a good offensive and tried to decapitate the IRP leadership in the hope of either toppling the regime or forcing a compromise. On June 28, 1981, a massive explosion inside the IRP headquarters succeeded in killing much of the party’s top leadership. …

…Two days later, a bomb narrowly missed killing Hojjat-ol Islam ‘Ali Khamene’i as he delivered the Friday sermon in Tehran. Sensing that this was their last chance to survive (let alone take power), the Feda’iyan-e Khalq, the Communists, and other leftist groups also joined in the bloody campaign. Thereafter, the MEK and its leftist allies launched a sustained terror campaign that assassinated roughly two hundred government officials by the end of August. Then, on August 30, the MEK pulled off another dramatic coup, smuggling a bomb into the prime minister’s offices and killing President Raja’i (who had succeeded Bani Sadr in blatantly rigged elections), Prime Minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar (who had in turn taken Raja’i’s old office), and three other senior officials. 23 Naturally, the regime reacted with concomitant ferocity. …"

Are we talking about holy water or the devil itself? The Council on Foreign Relations has a detailed description of the MEK:

"…Experts say that MEK has increasingly come to resemble a cult that is devoted to Massoud Rajavi’s secular interpretation of the Koran and is prone to sudden, dramatic ideological shifts."

The MEK, in fact, also has a political arm, called The National Council of Resistance of Iran headed by Maryam Rajavi’s husband, Massoud. No one really knows where Massoud Rajavi is living now, but an interview to a former MEK member appeared (briefly) online on February 2, 2009. If you google for the words "mek" + cult the interview will come out.

Only, if you click on it, you’ll be redirected to some other piece of news not related to the subject. The only thing you can read is the title of the article – Ex-member says MEK, ‘is like a cult’ – and a few other words.

Of course, the fact that the EU removed the MEK from the list of terrorist organizations sparked the reaction of Tehran’s government: "The European Union must realize that a political approach to terrorism, which threatens the lives and security of people around the world, is totally unacceptable for the global public opinion." Iran’s permanent envoy to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazaei, wrote to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

"The EU’s politically motivated decision will not change the terrorist nature of the group. It will not ‘turn the page’ of history on the cult’s terrorist activities and massacre of innocent civilians, nor will it cleanse the terrorist group of its criminal past," he added.

It sounds like a power struggle between the EU and the IRP (of course there’s also a war going on between Teheran and the MEK itself). And it seems as if the MEK is being used as a leverage tool here. But this is just a superficial analysis. The truth is far from being exposed, and this could easily be a question of money. Several well informed sources claimed that the MEK leadership has been paying some major politicians and judges to get the sentence they wanted: their group out of that European black list as soon as possible. Of course this is just an assumption and there is no legal evidence to support the thesis of corruption.

On the contrary, it seems unlikely that the European Union could be so easily corrupted, even though they say that the MEK has a lot of money to spend. The fact that Saddam handed over the money he got from the "Oil for food" program to the PMOI, for example, is common knowledge.

Anyhow, the People Mujaheddin of Iran (this is the extended version of the name) may not be considered a terrorist group in the EU but it is still considered a terrorist organization in the US, should it stay there? According to Paulo Casaca, no: "I think this issue has several angles – he told us – all of them quite important. First: it raises the question of the rules, principles, methods and proceedings of terrorist lists. This is a very important question that I addressed in conferences and books; Second: it shows that only after four strong sentences the Council decided to act ‘better late than never’, but the lack of respect of the Court by the Council is scaring for all of those who believe in a "State of Law"; Third: the EU, as the US, are fully engaged in an appeasement policy that did not and will not work, .."

Casaca is a member of the European Parliament for Portugal’s Socialist Party and a supporter of the MEK. A very well informed journalist (anti-MEK), who has researched and written on the matter, told us that she cannot confirm allegations of corruption that have been made in the media. In her opinion, though, the real problem now is the MKO’s Ashraf camp in Iraq. The camp must be closed in two-three months from now.

"The Iraqi government has every right to send these people [the MKO members that are in the camp Ashraf] out, now the question is, where are they going? It will be easier to return to their country in Europe, now that the ECJ ruled them out from the list of the terrorist groups. They are more or less 2.000 brainwashed people, it will be a humanitarian crisis!"

The Iraqi National Security advisor, Muwafaq al-Rubaie, told the press that "the only choices open to members of this group are to return to Iran or to choose another country… Some of the MKO members have expressed interest to return to Iran and we are making the arrangements for this….We are acting under international humanitarian regulations and international laws. These people will themselves choose where they want to go."

So, someone thinks that the MEK (or MKO or PMOI) is a blood-thirsty terrorist cult that only wants to put its paws on Iran, whatever it takes. Someone else thinks that this group is the only democratic and legal alternative to the radical anti-western and corrupted Islamic Republic of Iran. It is very hard to give an answer here, but there are some good questions at least: what will the Obama administration do about the Ashraf camp and the MEK? Will the US State Department remove the group from the black list? Is the MEK going to play a role in the future of Iran?

hudsonny.org By Andrea Loquenzi – Italian Journalist and Research Fellow, The Magna Charta Foundation

March 2, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts