Articles

Terrorist Comments in Talk with CNN

In a CNN special report on January 15, Alireza Jafarzadeh joined with Lou Dobbs.in a debate on Iran and the US. Jafarzadeh’s comments contained many notable as well as ambiguous points. Regardless of his stress on encouraging and advocating the US military moves in the region, his justification of such moves somehow indicates that he is anticipating promising results out of the expansion of the US militarism. During the talk, Lou Dobbs made interruptions to react against Jafarzadeh’s baseless comments on Iran’s internal situation and its nuclear program. In answer to Lou Dobbs’ question that "How effective, how significant is U.S. military power in the equation of Iran in its thinking?" Jafarzadeh said:

Well, I think there’s a big difference between Iran and Iraq, not only in terms of the size and the population, but the overall strategy, impact, the population in Iran, the very defiant population that you really didn’t have in the case of Iraq.

In fact, Mr. Jafarzadeh’s answer implies that the US main problem in Iraq is that it is confronting people who reject to disapprove Saddam’s ousted regime while the US might be much successful in respect to Iran because the majority of people there are dissatisfied of the ruling regime that is susceptible to fall. His comments not only exculpate Saddam of his crimes and atrocities done against people and signal a green light to his supporters, but also distinguish between the two Ian-Iraq nations referring to the latter as a "defiant population".

Jafarzadeh intends to say that if the US is caught in Iraq that is because it challenged a legitimate regime much supported by people. He might be criticizing the US for not invading Iran prior to Iraq. That is just what Mohammad Mohadessin referred to in one of his Direct Talk programs aired by Mojahedin’s TV network as he enunciated on the UN Security Council’s resolution issued against Iran. Discussing Iraq’s invasion into Kuwait, he stated that for years they had been reiterating that to have a peaceful Middle-East, the solution was to topple the Islamic Republic. Implicitly he stated that Saddam was following the line of a second attack against Iran, when invaded Kuwait, in an attempt to stabilize the disturbed region.

A remarkable point in Jafarzadeh’s interview is his criticism of the US for not investing on Mojahedin as the main democratic alternative. The crisis in Iraq, he believes, is the outcome of a lack of alternative there while Iranian are not deprived of such an alternative. As a solution to end Mojahedin’s stalemate and the US problems, he said:

The third option, which is reaching out to the Iranian people, empowering the Iranian opposition, who are already calling for regime change in Iran. This is the option the United States needs to pursue. And this is something that has not been done.

Jafarzadeh’s comments contained much more interesting points. Out of the three proposed antidote to restore stability in Iraq, that is to say – an increase in the number of troops there, withdrawal of the troops, and confronting Iran – Mr. Jafarzadeh asserts the last one and forewarns Mr. Bush that the crises in Iraq last forever unless the Islamic Republic is dealt with. He seems to have forgotten that the alternative he is referring to has occupied an everlasting status on the list of the US blacklisted terrorists.

Omid Pouya, Mojahedin.ws, January 24, 2007

January 25, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Iran, the MKO and Freedom

Note: the MKO is referred to by various names such as MEK or PLOI depending on the source.

Well oiled from the current war, U.S.A.’s propaganda machine has geared up for a possible war against Iran. As U.S. warships and the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower wait ominously in the Persian Gulf1, the media is launching a war of its own, using their patented method of demonizing Arabs as anti-Semites, misogynists and terrorists. Yet behind the scenes, the US government is collaborating with a group they define as terrorists- a group they cited to prove that Saddam Hussein had connections to terrorist organizations.

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) identifies themselves as a Marxist-Islamist guerilla army, but has a long and complex history of violence and betrayal that makes it difficult to understand exactly who and what they stand for. Their recent collaboration with the U.S. intelligence and military blurs their identity ever more.

Send in the Terrorists

In an April, 2006 article from the alternative news website, The Raw Story, Larisa Alexandrova interviewed several former intelligence officials who implicated the U.S. in what appears to be the initial plans for a war with Iran. One of her sources said, “The US army secured a key MEK facility 60 miles northwest of Baghdad shortly after the 2003 invasion, but they did not secure the MEK and let them basically be because [then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz was thinking ahead to Iran.”

“These guys are nuts,” another former intelligence source was quoted as saying. “[Stephen] Cambone [the Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence] and those guys made MEK

members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.”

The sources also indicated that among the US supporters of the MKO are former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld; the latter two were responsible for the aforementioned plan to “convert” the MKO into democratic freedom fighters.2 “In 2000,” Wikipedia’s article on the MKO reads, “200 US congress members signed a statement endorsing the organization’s cause.”3

“Nucuelar” Un-intelligence

According to Green Left Online, some of the US intelligence on alleged nuclear weapons development came from Alireza Jafarzadeh, former spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the semi-legitimate political arm of the MKO. Jafarzadeh apparently provided US agents with drawings of planned underground tunnels where nuclear weapons were to be developed and tested.4

Which Side are They on?

I have to admit that as a western radical, at first glance the MKO is enticing. They formed in the 1960’s as a people’s liberation army, with a mix of Marx and Mohammed fighting against the Shah and, later, the oppressive clerical regime that has made a thousand empty promises to the poor of Iran. However, we shouldn’t fetishize or idealize the MKO, in the exact same way that western leftists in the early 70’s idealized the Khmer Rouge, right before they revealed themselves as genocidal psychotics in the vast killing fields of Cambodia.

To their credit, the MKO fought bravely and successfully to free Iran from the Shah and his puppet-masters, assassinating US officials and launching a guerilla war that helped turn the tides of the Iranian revolution. At one point in time the MKO were truly fighting for, and alongside, the people of Iran and had a good chance of gaining popular support for a full-scale revolution. But that time ended as the Ayatollah outlawed and began to persecute the MKO. It was then in the early 80’s during the Iran-Iraq war that they sought the assistance of Saddam Hussein, even as he murdered Iranians with bombs and mustard gas. Hussein armed and funded the MKO during and after the war in an attempt to destabilize Iran- the same strategy the US is now attempting. It failed for Saddam. In fact, Khomeini consolidated his power through the opposition of Iraq and the MKO.3

In 1989, the MKO moved their base of operations to Iraq, after being exiled from both Iran and France. They fought for Saddam, aiding him in his brutal campaign against both the Shiites and the Kurds. The instances of Hussein’s cruelty have been well documented by the mainstream media, so I won’t go into detail, but a quote from a former MKO leader will concisely illustrate their involvement: “Take the Kurds under your tanks and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.”5

In the spring of 2005, Human Rights Watch interviewed 12 former members of the MKO, five of whom were held in Abu Ghraib after the MKO turned them over to Saddam Hussein’s regime. The interviews revealed MKO practices of “… detention and persecution of ordinary members wishing to leave the organization …” and “… lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings, and torture of dissident members.” The Iraqi Republican Guard sent one of the men to Abu Ghraib and held him in solitary confinement for over eight years.6

A Deadly Hypocrisy

So after all of this the US is using the MKO to support their claims of an Iranian nuclear arms program and as a proxy-army to clear the way for a US occupation. The MKO, in turn, has no qualms about accepting the support of a foreign aggressor whose war will invariably cost many Iranian lives. This two-faced policy is obviously nothing new. Look no further than Saddam Hussein, Nicole Cescareau, Slobodan Milosevic or Alqueda and Bin-Laden himself and you will find a history of foreign policy rich in hypocrisy and the empire’s ability to turn their lackeys into monsters when they become inconvenient.

It is hard to wade through the propaganda of all sides and figure out exactly what the MKO are fighting for. Are they terrorists? A people’s liberation army? Are they even Marxists anymore? Although they still identify themselves as Marxist-Islamists, according to Wikipedia one of their demands is a free market economy in Iran.3 And the Raw Story article about CIA-MKO collaboration refers to them as “a right wing terrorist organization.” 2

Regardless of their ideology, the MKO supported Saddam in his attacks against Iranians and now appears like they will help the US military slaughter more of their own people. One can only imagine how the organization, with their unpopularity in Iran, will go after civilians who oppose them, as they have in the past. Unless the MKO dramatically changes its ways, its tarnished name and key members, it is no longer a viable means for Iranian liberation. The students, workers and youth on the other hand …

The defenstrator – By Colin Cascia – 2006-11-30

January 25, 2007 0 comment

USA

US using MKO terrorists as bargaining chips, says BBC

Nearly four years after overthrowing of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the US are still using some 3,500 MKO terrorists at Ashraf camp in Iraq as a bargaining tool in its relations with Iran, BBC reported.

Britain’s state-funded broadcaster said the US cannot decide what to do in its hypocritical policy, with some statesmen in Washington still seeing the MKO as potential allies even though the grouplet is officially branded as terrorists.

A documentary for Newsnight, screened on Wednesday, suggested there was a split between the US State Department and Defence Department, where there was said to be a "strong pro-MKO lobby" despite the removal of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff, expressed regret that the terrorist group had been used as a US source of confrontation against Iran.

"I think failure of the US for six years to make some meaningful overture to Iran is a terrible mistake," Wilkerson told the program.

Kenneth Pollack of the Brooking Institute said that the US and Iran needed to work together to stabilize Iraq and on nuclear issues and that he did not want the MKO to be used "to muddy trouble waters." The documentary introduced the MKO a "cruel and manipulative cult" that had killed and wounded hundreds of Iranian politicians and civilians for more than two decades.

Former members were interviewed describing the psychological warfare and torture used by the Iraq-based terrorist organization as part of its system of control.

A spokesman for the MKO front group in London, Ali Safavi, even admitted that all members were asked to divorce to show their devotion to the organization that had led to the break up of their families.

From Iraq, where the terrorists had been given their military base as guests of Saddam, numerous invasions of Iran were carried out.

But since Saddam became an enemy of the west, they had become a terrible liability with the new Iraqi government wanting the MKO removed from Ashraf.

The report suggested that the US had missed opportunities to make deals with Iran first during its war in Afghanistan and then following its invasion of Iraq.

But it now believed that time was finally running out for the MKO and that they would be "probably be used as bargaining chips in a diplomatic game" by the US for better relations with Tehran.

London, Jan 18, IRNA

January 22, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Timmerman’s New Plan for Regime Change

Despite being a strong supporter of Israel, at least Kenneth R. Timmerman antagonizes MKO’s seizing the power in Iran, indicating that the group is not at all a pro-democratic activist as it advertises. A journalist, policy advocate, and activist, R. Timmerman directs the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, which he founded in 1995 with two other neoconservatives, Joshua Muravchik and Peter Rodman. The National Endowment for Democracy provided the initial funding to the group.

Strongly denouncing the recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group that the United States should engage in direct talks with Syria and Iran, Timmerman praises the Bush administration’s increased commitment to Iran regime change through support of dissidents inside and outside of Iran and believes that the United States must devote serious assets to helping pro-democracy forces to help the regime change. Seeing that the administration still has no plan of how to do it, Timmerman has recently proposed a new plan released in Front Page Magazine on January 18. He states:

I believe the United States should be prepared to commit a minimum of $300 million over an initial six month period if we are to have any hope of a successful outcome.

The very first step must be the appointment by the President of a Special Envoy for Iran, with full presidential authority to convene a loyal type meeting of several hundred prominent Iranian leaders. The majority of those able to attend such a meeting will of necessity come from the diaspora; some will come secretly from the inside.

In his drafting a detailed game plane, he suggests organizing massive non-violent protests against the current Iranian rule in Tehran. But he does not throw caution into the wind to warn about MKO’s potential exploitation of opportunities. He also draws the strategy for â€œpreventing the Islamic-Marxist Mujahedin Khalq from exploiting the situation and seizing power in a putsch’.

Mr. Timmerman’s strategy for establishing democracy through a regime change plan in Iran utilizing the Iranian themselves does not, however, mean that he and his colleagues are really concerned about Iranian people but that it is the easiest and most sensible strategy to avoid confrontation while ensuring the best results for the US.

Supporting regime change by Iranians, while containing Syria, not only makes the best strategic sense for America, it is the right thing to do.

Mojahedin.ws -Sattar Orangi -January 21, 2007

January 22, 2007 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

An Unexpect Trip Disarrays the MEK Headquarters

The trip of Ms. Fariba Hashtroodi* to Iran and her meeting with the representatives of Habilian Association and Mr. Ibrahim Khodabandeh has overwhelmed MKO members and leaders in their headquarters in France.

People close the MKO report of disappointment of members of this organization, particularly the members of Council.

That’s why the MKO has made so much noise by its forces- through taking position against Ms. Hashtroodi.

In recent months, the cases on defection of several MKO supporters and old sympathizers as well as MKO members and their departure from Auvers have been on Maryam Rajavi’s desk.

The issue of the European-based MKO members’ differences with the group has forced the Gestapo of this terrorist organization to take measures to control the situation; however, Ms. Hashtroodi’s trip to Iran thwarted these measures and accelerated the process of defection so that some people have left the Camp in Auvers in recent days.

In the process of defection, most of focus is on the situation in Camp Ashraf, since the MKO officials there in the Camp are watching the members individually to prevent them from going to the US-run Camp (TIPF). However, the situation in Auvers is not better than that of Ashraf, especially now that MKO leaders are not able to send dissidents to Iraq to control them in better way.

————————————————————–

* Ms. Hashtroodi was formerly a senior member of NCRI

January 18, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US’s New Strategy and the MKO

Bush’s new speech and his announcement that more than 20000 new troops will be deployed to Iran and repetition of his hostile stance against Iran and Syrian is not a new strategy; it’s not even a tactic. It’s a policy to advance Bush’s plans.

It’s a long time that plans such as "the Big Middle East" have been marginalized. What have caused this change were the key changes starting by removal of Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and Khalilzad, Abizaid and Negroponte.

Now we should wait to see US’s new plan, for the execution of which Bush has decided to deploy more troops to the country- despite all opposition by politicans and people.

Bush and his team have for long focused on getting out of Iraq in a proper way so as to save the face of the US.

This plan has also other dimensions including giving more authority to the Iraqi government and accepting regional policies of President Talabani and Prime Minister Maliki.

Some may think that the US wants to start more wars in the region, but the evidence doesn’t support this idea.

Harsh stances by Rice and Burns against Iran and Syria and their support for Bush’s comments and the softer stances of Robert Gates indicate that after Baker-Hamilton report, Bush’s team is centering its policies on political work. Even the recent UN resolution against Iran should be seen along with other political pressures on Iran.

Indeed, harsh gesture of Americans against Iran and Syria is a planned move to pave the way for talks with these two countries!

By accusing Iran and Syria and attributing the unrest in Iraq to these two countries, Bush is in fact reminding these two countries of their duties for establishing security in Iraq.

It’s amazing that Mr. Talabani is heading to Syria right after Mr. Bush’s comments!

US’s new plan is complex and it should be discussed at a right time. However, it can be said that it’s based on Baker’s analyses as well as on US’s intelligence on the threats from Al-Qaeda and Baathists- despite current propaganda against Iran.

Meanwhile, MKO’s position and status in Iraq is more interesting for us!

I agree with comments on MKO’s hopes about this new plan since, regarding MKO’s opportunistic nature, nothing else can be expected.

The fact, however, is that according to the advices of all security experts, US is trying to recreate the golden opportunities it lost in 2003; an opportunity according to which, it was possible to extradite MKO members in exchange for receiving privileges from Iran.

Keeping an eye on Rajavi and transferring him to another place for more protection also show that Americans are aware of the value of this exchange.

In addition, Americans have expressed their support for the security projects of Maliki’s government according to which MKO should be expelled from Iraq. However, they want to take advantage of their extradition to Iran.

So, the current process in Iraq is moving towards the strengthening of Mr. Maliki’s government and weakness of security threats on which the MKO relies. The outcomes of these plans will soon appear.

Mohammed Moradi – 2007/01/15

January 18, 2007 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

On the daring return of Fariba Hashtroudi to Iran

In his struggle to live on, man must preserve his honor; otherwise, he would be nothing more than a walking corpse.

The big words are not always uttered be great men. The anonymous and the less-known people can also, because of the experience they have gained, speak big words. That is the outcome of the past experiences of a man who has preserved his intellectual freedom and independence in the face of any sanctimony and quasi ideals and causes. I think the age of slavery, in any form, is nearing its last days. The few who unquestionably succumb to any title and motives of any purpose, could be possibly believing in things inferior to man’s reason and intellect and his historical experiences. These few fellows, I believe, have unknowingly been decomposed, while holding onto humanity, idealism and ideology, in the cycle of the modern slavery. So grave is the tragedy that I can hardly conceal my delight when someone in bond is unbound as a result of test and error. Moreover, this time the unbound is someone who I could hardly be convinced, from the very beginning, to be subject to entrapment. Now I am relieved of many suppositions surging inside me, and I feel relaxed to write happily.

Mrs. Hashtroudi, it might be hard for you to found somebody you hardly know talking so enthusiastically. The fact is that on account of your social status and familial background, it could not be so strange a thing. Your detachment from the NCRI, or better to say Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), as well as your unexpected return to Iran are two coincident daring acts that deserve appreciation. You deserve it first for renting asunder the bonds and then for courageous return to Iran, a quest not made to overcome the phobia the people’s quasi-opposition had inspired you with but to prevail over all the possible impeachments and accusations expected form the so-called democratic alternative called the NCRI and which you have to sustain patiently.

Instead of praising the victims that are readily led onto the cult of Mojahedinâ€™s abattoir and ridicule the death by self-immolation and deeply bruising people, I take my hat off to admire your courageous deed and the price you have to pay for your freedom and recognition of the truth.

I do not know, as a member of the opposition, how my claim is esteemed that the opposition insisting to be accounted as the Iranians popular and legitimate alternative is the most incognizant of Iran’s social and political ambience among all contemporary political oppositions. Your journey to Iran and close inspection of the current political atmosphere and people’s want on the one hand and people’s real stance about the claimed alternative on the other hand can at least lead us out of the possible disillusions we might be caught in and open a new window for a better recognition of the truth. The dark and desperate picture of Iran depicted in our minds in the Western countries and the charlatanism that propagates to demonize it has blurred our vision to see the truth. No Iranian in any position, critics or opponents, is invulnerable to the political and media offences of this charlatanism.

You are, for certain, aware that this democratic alternative, under the illusion that no opposition but itself has the right to breathe, caused a commotion over Shohre Aghdashloo, the Iranian actress residing in the US, who announced her willingness to return to Iran regardless of being compelled to wear veiled costume in her own country. She was offended and her patriotism was questioned and Mojahedin tried to instigate the Iranian artists in exile against her. Fortunately, to the group’s great disappointment, none but three associates of the NCRI signed an issued statement.

All these were plotted against a woman who had actually nothing to do with politics and the alternative. Her sole love was cinema and play as well as writing. Of course, there can be found many of her example whose repute was blemished by the democratic alternative on baseless accusations.

Your feat is much more courageous than that of those who commit self-immolation to sacrifice themselves before the imposters of political and propagandistic activities.

Mrs. Hashtroudi, no doubt, your presence in Iran would promote us here in the West, who knowingly or unknowingly are desperately entrapped among the political charlatans, to picture a clear and true image of Iran. We believe you, because of your political status, can ply a decisive role to disillusion the opposition. It is a shame on the masters of the great media and technological revolution that victimize the truth for the interest of political superiority. That is also true of this opposition that to assume political power, creeps deep to worsen the international rifts to give rise to another Iraq in the region.

I assume that one of the main causes of your detachment was that you were cognizant of the aftermath of possible militarism predominance in the region at the cost of millions of innocent lives. You know well that the NCRI and MKO attempt to silence voices of resisting any military offence against Iran and to isolate the aware consciences by the raised communicative club of labeling them the paid agents and mercenaries of Iran. Mojahedin believe that the antithesis of any phenomenon inevitably emerges out of the same phenomenon. If true, now you can act as Mojahedin’s antithesis and echo the true face of Iran as you see it. Once more I admire your courageous option of becoming the target of the Council and Mojahedin’s offences and hope that your honest evaluation based on reason and political intellect concerns the national interests. Wish you good days in Iran.

M. Taymorian, Germany

M_Taymorian@yahoo.com

Mojahedin.ws

January 18, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

US’s New Strategy and MKO’s Position

It seems that the early slogans of US warmongers on the spread of democracy in the Middle East is an issue even the US’s failed politicians are too tired to repeat in their speeches.

Drawing a goal as "spread of democracy" was from the beginning a hollow slogan and what was important for Neocons was to impose US’s hegemony on region’s country and people and to get the oil resources. That’s why this goal is followed by deploying more US troops and threatening the countries of the region, and not by respecting the will of majority of Iraqis (who ask for the exit of occupiers).Warmongers’ obstinate competition with democrats, now representing the Americans’ requests on US’s foreign policy (particularly putting and end to the war), is another factor for the insistence of Bush’s team on killing Iraqis and others in the region.

Warmongers are well aware they have totally failed and that changing the strategy can’t help them. While experts had suggested their ideas on different solutions, warmongers still stress the spread of violence only to satisfy their hatreds.

In this way, they have resorted to the policy of creating tension between Arabs-Persians and Shiite-Sunnis to take advantage of the situation.

Their reliance on such a policy, with its whole negative consequences for the people of region, means "committing suicide" and getting more entangled in the quagmire. This will also intensify negative reactions in US’s domestic political scene.

US’s new approach, which will certainly be accompanied by more bloodshed and violence in Iraq and the region, would be welcomed only by anti-Islamic and anti-human movements whose lives are tied to setting up the fire of war and US invasions against other countries.

Among those who will welcome this are Israel and its followers in the region (those who, like warmongers, claimed of spreading democracy); failed from achieving their goals by the slogan of peace, they are in dire need for such policy by the US.

The terrorist group of MKO should also be included in this group. Lacking a clear strategy and surviving only by the support of Saddam Hussein, this group is now facing the strong opposition by Iraqi government and people and is also at the threshold of being deported from Iraq.

Believing only in bloodshed and violence and weakening the government of Iraq as the only ways to survive, Rajavi’s cult hopes it would be used by warmongers as an influential force.

It doesn’t seem the warmongers (who see the best solution as deploying 21000 troops) are interested in using 3000 desperate members of MKO who’ve been disarmed by the Americans themselves. However, if the warmongers are stupid enough to use bankrupt forces of Rajavi, it will be proved that Rajavi’s murderous gang is unable to do anything and that part of US forces should take care of these people. This has been proved during past 20 years when Saddam was taking care of the group.

Apart from this reality, what’s important and should be paid attention by MKO members and supporters is MKO’s recent stance, which exposes the depth of this group’s crimes.

Now, it can be said that Mojahedin-e Khalq is proudly paving the way for policies of the most hated parties of Imperialism all over the world the crimes of whom are known to everyone.

Today, another black page should be added to the treacherous records of this group- after cooperating with Saddam against Iranians. The crimes of the cult will never help the group survive but it will add more problems for the group.

Irandidban – 2007/01/14

January 15, 2007 0 comment

The Ideology of the MEK

Mojahedin Laid Criterion for Patriotism and Democracy

Following Saddam’s execution, the MKO-run media have mainly focused on tendentious reports that reprove the dictator’s hanging. The group’s move on such a suspicious line implies that Mojahedin attempt to exculpate Saddam of his myriad crimes to compel a mentality to identify him as a national hero. They have resolved to walk on the line of the opponents to Saddam’s execution, each impelled by different motives, in an attempt to win their support to accomplish their own ends, as they did when the master was in power. No doubt, Mojahedin’s present approach has its own strategic importance but it should be noted that the reach of their siding with Saddam’s supporters lies beyond the scope of the conventional dealings which require much deeper study.

Mojahedin’s silence over Saddam and the Baath Party through the past three years for itself speaks an unspoken truth. Notably, before Saddam’s fall, the two, Saddam and Rajavi, were each other’s sole recognized supporter. Mojahedin, enjoying a strategic position in the region and hardly turning to their Western lobbies, anticipated a promising future settled on Iraq-Iran borders to play their decisive role to overthrow the Islamic regime. Although they were aware that their dream was not to be fulfilled so soon and easily as they portended, at least they could continue to survive in Iraq and keep the members waiting mesmerizing them with murmurs of an imminent victory.

Once in his meeting with Saber al-Duri, who was in charge of the Iraqi security system, Massoud Rajavi stressed that the group’s settlement in Iraq was not a temporary but a long-lasting stay:

Tell him [Saddam] on my behalf; we were and are and will remain at your home as long as possibly we can. [1]

Regardless of their sharing of strategic interests, Rajavi and Saddam’s tie was rooted in a mutual historical and ideological understanding. A passing look over Rajavi and Saber al-Duri’s interlocution reveals the kernel points that ties one to the other. In many parts, Rajavi’s references are an analyzed synthesis of Mojahedin’s ideology with that of Baath Party:

– We share the same destiny.

– Our bloods are intermingled.

– The tie between we and you, be it either the government or the Baath Party whose leader and symbol is Mr. President, is not merely a political tie. It is an absolute brotherhood.

– Anything that is against you is against us as well and vise aersa.

– Our security and the strikes we receive are the same.

– Our progresses are also the same.

– Neither in my mind nor in my heart can I distinguish between our collective interests and losses.

– Our interests are closely associated.

– Our principles have got us together to be side by side in a front. [2]

The Iraq now turned into a country vulnerable to fluctuations with Mojahedin’s facing stalemate indicates that Rajavi was well aware of the grave consequences of Saddam’s fall and its aftermath effects on MKO. Thus, sensing his unquestioning liquidation, Mojahedin took a different turn to tie a destiny with Iraqi people at least to secure their stay in Iraq. In a sudden shift, they tried to establish the same conduct paradigm with Iraqi people, this time chanting slogans of democracy rather than brotherhood. Interestingly, knowingly or unknowingly, Mojahedin somehow consider Saddam and the Baath Party, compared with the present government in power, more democrat and patriot. Sediqeh Husseini, a ranking member of MKO, in a speech made at Camp Ashraf stated that:

Talking of democracy and a democratic Iraq, a key parameter is this same conduct with Mojahedin. [3]

She further stressed her claim in a message sent to Dayali Province Sheikhs but with a different tone:

Thus, we appraise the degree of patriotism and popularity of any movement according to the scale of opposition to interferences and, consequently, friendship with and respect for Mojahedin. [4]

It is easy to have a sound judgment on Iraq’s past situation and Saddam himself. Mojahedin’s contradictory position after the dictator’s execution and indirect expression of sympathy on his death with pro-Saddam factions that appreciate him as a hero helps a good deal to have a just analysis of Mojahedin on condition the fog of doubt has not completely evaporated. If the establishment of democracy in Iraq, as Mojahedin define, reconciles with their stay in Iraq, then, on account of Saddam’s granting them the bliss of settlement in Iraq, Saddam can be identified as the most democratic person. Consequently, not only the Baath Party represented democracy but also, compared with the current government, occupied a much higher platform of democracy. Mojahedin’s proximity to Saddam in behalf of the mentioned factors on the one hand, and their proposed criterion of democracy on the other hand are actually two sides of a coin that Mojahedin, under the vicissitude of fortune, avail themselves of it only with a little change of tone and literature.

Notes

[1]. To be judged by the history.

[2]. Ibid.

[3]. Sediqeh Husseini’s speech made at Camp Ashraf on the anniversary of Iran’s century long Constitutional Revolution.

[4]. MKO’s message to Dayali Province Sheikhs

Bahar Irani – January 10, 2007

January 15, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Making a Martyr out of a dictator

Witnessing the last moments of a man’s life is never a pleasant sight, even if it involves a man like Saddam Hussein.

After a year long trial, Saddam Hussein, the former dictator of Iraq was hanged on the 30th of December 2006, as we all know by now. The verdict, however flawed is still considered as unprecedented in the greater Middle East. The trial and the following execution were largely due to the American presence in Iraq. It’s reasonable to believe that had Saddam Hussein been under the care of the Iraqis from the get go; he would have met his fate much sooner.

As to the reason for deciding to trial Saddam for the crimes he committed in the town of Dujail, is a matter of discussion. During his reign in power he committed hundreds of such atrocities, some of them involving more victims than the city of Dujail.

If the courts where to examine the 8 year Iran – Iraq war, the attack on Kuwait in 1990 or the killing of 5000 Kurds in the town of halabche in 1988, there would also had to be fingers pointed in the direction of Arab leaders and most western governments.

From the time the American government decided to use Saddam Hussein as a leverage in controlling Iran’s power after the revolution of 1979, the funding of these policies has always been taken care of by wealthy Arab Countries (such as Kuwait who during the Iran-Iraq war was an active supporter of Saddam Hussein but later found itself in the receiving end of Saddam’s chokehold).

The west also provided Iraq with intelligence and weapons.

But it was the people of Iran, Iraq and Kuwait who ultimately bur the brunt of this theater directed by the west and produced by the Arabs.

Saddam Hussein was in power for more then 30 years and during his time he was responsible for killing more than 1 million Iraqi shi’as and over 300 000 Sunnis. In the 8 year war against Iran, the Iranians suffered more then 1 million in causalities, injured and countless of people displaced.

120 000 Iranian soldiers fell during the war, some of them from chemical attacks by the Iraqis. Even after 17 years after the war ended thousands more are still suffering from the effects of exposure to chemical weapons.

Saddam acquired those weapons of mass destruction through companies in France, Germany and the Netherlands. The technology and the know-how in building these weapons were given by the west approval.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who got rid of each and every one of his opponents with no sense of remorse or mercy. After the downfall of Saddam, tens of mass graves have been discovered around Iraq, where hundreds of Iraqi have been buried after apparent mass executions.

In 1991, he ordered the shelling of the holy city of Karbala, (a predominately shi’a city and considered by many muslims around the world as a holy place) and conducted direct attacks on the holy mosque of Imam Hussein, as a reprisal against the shi’a uprising.

Under his power, the sunni minority had but all of the power but now find it very difficult to lose that control. This is one of the most important reasons for the insurgency and resistance among sunni Iraqis against the current government led by the majority shi’a and sunni kurds.

A part of the Iraqi Sunnis and other Arab block, are eager to make a martyr out of Saddam Hussein by using the flawed execution of Saddam.

The Mojahedin-e Khalq of Iran, a terrorist organization based in Iraq has also sided with the ba’thist party who regard in presenting Saddam Hussein as an Arab martyr and a hero.

His death symbolizes the end of an era of both his reign and the ba’thist party. It is now up to the sunnis to decide whether they would like to use their fair share of power in the newly established government or to continue the futile resistance against the will of the majority of Iraqis.

Former ba’thist, Al-Qaeda and Mojahedin-e Khalq of Iran are the ones who benefit most from a chaotic and violent Iraq. Order and progress is not in the interest of neither of these groups.

As far as the Iranian neighbor is concerned it seems probable that the Iranians share a common goal with the Iraqi government in a stable and calm Iraq.

There is now a government in power in Iraq, whose leaders have in the past either spent years in exile in Iran or have close connections with the Iranian government. What purpose would the Iranian have in fighting and undermining a government who share most its own goals and visions.

The real perpetrators in the meddling and undermining of the current government of Iraq can be found in the western borders of Iraq in countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

A fear in shi’a stronghold in the region is what is motivating these countries to support and fund the ongoing conflict and sectarian divide.

Those are the true enemies of Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Karim Haghi

09.01.2007

January 11, 2007 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts