The EU has argued that the court’s ruling focused on procedural problems and did not imply that the group had to be removed from the list and that it has complied with the judgment by supplying documents explaining its decision. The EU even granted MKO an opportunity to present counter arguments. MKO has so far failed to adequately explain why it should be taken off the EU list of terrorist organizations.
Americans are well aware that the MKO has no popular support inside Iran and has no place. We know that the US always uses some cards against its enemies but this time it has chosen a loser card; it’s like betting on a dead horse, which has no influence on the political scene. We also know that this desperate organization is supported by both the US and groups like Al-Qaeda, Baathists and pro-Saddam elements.
When we hear that Mr. Maliki, as the chief commander of Iraqi armed forces, has asked for the expulsion of terrorist Mojahedin-e khalq organization from Iraq, we ask ourselves about the levels of the power of an elected prime minister because we wonder who he is addressing. He’s the chief of executive branch, so he should order not ask. He should execute the law in Iraq. Shouldn’t his government arrest these terrorists according to international and domestic laws?
…revealing that the White House, gearing up for invading Iraq, distributed a background paper listing the MEK as a pretext for a future war with Iraq. The paper provides evidences that Iraq is notoriously known to sponsor terrorism and is a bastion of terrorist groups including MEK. The paper’s first evidences are …
As a historian and former soldier, he takes clear-cut lessons from the check, his son’s death and the broader war.”When you use force, the unintended consequences that result are so large and the surprises so enormous that it really reaffirms the ancient wisdom to which we once adhered — namely, to see force as something to be used only as a last resort.”
This formula is already exposed since all unilateral policies of the US across the world- its aggression, occupation of Iraq and the continuation of its threats against Iran- are confirmed according to this formula and the MKO expresses concern about changes in it. For instance, they see disadvantages for the group in US-Iran talks, therefore they warn the occupiers as follows:
The idea conjures at a time when Americans insist to accuse Iran of advocating Iraqi insurgents and escalating disorder in Iraq and believe that a total uproot of terrorism is the decisive solution to end disorder in Iraq. Regardless of Iranians’ rejecting of giving any aid to insurgents, to be optimistic, a decisive decision about MKO in itself helps to restore peace and order to Iraq.
In MKO, similar to other cults, the partisans are under the influence that only those who adhere to the group’s ideology are on the right path. But to accept the cult’s proposed ideology, the insiders’ old system of beliefs has to be fragmented to be replaced with the revolutionary one. It is the prerequisite for the total obedience of the leader. Dennis Tourish expounding on the issue states that:
The fact is that the stupid remnants of Rajavi had promised their desperate members, tired of relying on foreign powers, that they”would push the US to clash Iran in Iraq”and that”a new resolution would be passed against Iran”that will worsen Iran’s situation in the international scene. However, since the previous resolutions have proved to be futile and with Iran-US’s scheduled talks, desperate members in political section of the group have cautioned that measures of Rajavi cult are useless.
The emphasis from both sides that Iraq and only Iraq will be discussed is evidence of their deep mutual mistrust and enmity. Keeping each other at arm’s length, each side is skirting carefully around the elephant in the room, that is, the deeply divisive issues that have poisoned Iran-US relations for nearly three decades. Clearly neither side would have agreed to meet unless forced by necessity. But has that necessity forced the beginning of a new phase in relations, or should we accept