Articles

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Iran Focus: The MKO Propaganda Machine

I’ve written several times about my distrust of several news sources by hard-line monarchists or the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organziation (a.k.a MKO, MEK, National Council of Resistance of Iran, NCRI, People’s Mojahedin of Iran, PMOI, etc.) as well as those who rely on these sources as "news". Reading news from one of these agencies isn’t about reflecting on different interpretive accounts of events. This isn’t like choosing between the New York Times and Washington Post where there are different “spins” on the same source of information. Both the Time and the Post believe they are being objective, but in different ways. Relying on news sources by hard line monarchists and the MKO, is about choosing an agency that absolutely lies or exaggerates incidents in order to enhance their own political objective. Let us take Iran Focus as an example. In the past I have noted that Iran Focus is a agency run by the MKO for various reasons:

1) The current executive director of Iran Focus is Mohammad Hanif Jazayeri. Hanif is the son of Hassan Jazayeri. Until three years ago, Hassan Jazayeri was rumored to have died in 1980 as a result of being abandoned by MKO and Iraqi trainers. Later the story was changed to Hassan being executed by the Iranian regime for his membership with the MKO. Given Iran and the MKO’s history of human rights abuses, I won’t argue which is the correct account. Before Iran Focus was ever created, Hanif has time after time advocated his support for the MKO. In fact, earlier this year Hanif was engaged in a campaign to remove the MKO from the UK’s list of terrorist organizations (it is worth noting that the MKO is also included in the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.)

Additionally, in various posts dated in1998 and 1999, Hanif has advocated his support for the MKO as Iran’s only "democratic alternative."

Hanif’s signature also appears on this petition supporting the MKO cause.

2) Iran Focus along with its sister site Iran Terror (look at the website designs and stories as well as the website for the MKO and you can easily see they’re created by the same designer) are registered in London and Paris respectively. In fact both organizations, including the MKO, tried to allege that the Human Rights Watch report illustrating all the human rights abuses committed by the organization was a result of some conspiracy between HRW and agents in the Iranian government. A response to the allegation can be found here. I’d like to add that the "Gulf 2000 list" which Iran Focus and Iran Terror refers to is a listserv with hundreds of academics, politicals, and thinkers on the Persian Gulf with different political viewpoints. Nevertheless, the Iran Terror email refers to emails sent in the listserv as "secret emails" which they had intercepted.

3) The Iran Focus website uses language supporting the MKO cause. There are particular ideological positions and phrases which MKO members and supporters use. By continuously using the MKO as Iran’s "democratic alternative" both the Iran Focus and Iran Terror websites intend to create the misleading image that the group, as well as their political counter-part NCRI, are legitimate proponents of human rights and democracy with a significant backing inside and outside of Iran. Read this article, this article, and this article for an image of the type of propaganda used by the websites.

As I stated before, the purpose of both Iran Focus and Iran Terror is twofold: 1) to disseminate information for political purposes and enhance a movement for external regime change and 2) legitimize the MKO in Western government by removing them from terrorist lists and enhancing their political influence. The sum of these objectives is to persuade Western governments to militarily engage Iran in order to replace with Mullahs with the Mujahedin.

That being said there’s a variety of reasons to view the MKO news agencies and similar modules as instruments of propaganda as opposed to instruments of news.

First, the organization is a terrorist group under both US and European law. The State Department continues to list the MKO as a terrorist group. Although MKO agents have claimed that the inclusion was part of Clinton’s appeal to the reformist government in Iran, the argument is no longer cogent in light of the fact that during Bush’s 5 years in office he has yet to remove the MKO as a terrorist group despite significant political pressure by various neo-conservatives (this includes Daniel Pipes who currently has a chair with the US Institute of Peace) and various Republican Congressmen. (see this article for a summary of US political figures who have been lobbied by MKO representatives and supporters). Not only were the MKO were designated as a terrorist group under executive order on November 2, 2001, but the President used the MKO as an example of Saddam’s support for terrorism during the drive up to the Iraqi war:

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

By their very nature as a terrorist organization, information by them should not be trusted. Lets put it that way, would you trust al-Qaeda about news in the US or Lebanon?

Second, the MKO have demonstrated time and time again the extents for which they’ll engage a disinformation campaign for purposes of propaganda. For example, the MKO continuously contend that no Mujahedin member has targeted Americans or Europeans figures during acts of terrorism. These arguments are clearly false in light of the following:

– In 1973, the MKO assassinated Lt. Col. Lewis Hawkins, a U.S. military advisor in Iran.

– In 1975, MKO members shot and killed two U.S. Air force officers in Tehran and attacked a U.S. Embassy van in Tehran resulted in the death of a local employee.

– In 1976, the MKO assassinated three American employees of Rockwell International working in Iran.

– In 1979, the MKO openly supported the holding of US hostages until 1981 when they began directing their attention to Khomeini.

Whether or not the MKO targeted Americans or not is a irrelevant argument anyways. Terrorism anywhere is terrorism everywhere regardless of our relationship with its targets. Evidence of MKO propaganda in Iran Focus is also apparent when we compare their report to a report by the Washington Times concerning a recent MKO event. The Iran Focus report indicates that there were thousands of participants, while the Times only reports 300. See a similar report where Iran Focus reported that over 40,000 participants intended to protest in Berlin. Interesting for an organization that is only reported to have 10,000 members.

Lastly, the MKO are highly disliked and disregarded by Iranians worldwide. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Saddam Hussein financed and utilized the MKO to institute several attacks against Iranians. (Note: the MKO were also responsible for assisting Saddam Hussein suppress Shiite and Kurdish uprisings in 1991.) It is no surprise, therefore, that most Iranians regard the MKO as a cultish organization. There is no statute of limitations against murderers or conspirators to murder, nor is there one for terrorists and those who conspire with terrorists. Similarly, the MKO do not gain immunity for their previous actions simply by refraining from targeting European and American targets for 30 years. Nor have they in the eyes of Iranians.

For all these reasons I note that Iran Focus, Iran Terror, people who rely on the two for information, and all affiliated groups should not be used as a source of "alternative information." There’s nothing alternative about propaganda, regardless of if it addresses the same human rights issues which we are concerned with. "The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly distorted."

I would like to note that often those who do not share the same political sentiments of the MKO or hard-line monarchists are branded as “apologists” as if to place them in the same group as hezbollahis. We are not apologists when we wish freedom Iran based on principles of reconciliation and accountability. To do so would be similar to saying that opponents to the Khmer Rouge were apologists when the Cambodian government was committing human rights abuses in the early 70’s. As Congressman Bob Ney rightfully stated, “Opposition to the Mujahedin is not the same as support for the regime in Iran.”

July 20, 2005 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Faded hopes for Iranian exiles

Engulfed by various crises, and reeling from a Human Rights Watch report that branded it a serious abuser of human rights, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) still insists on touting itself as a credible alternative to the ruling political system in Iran. Its relentless propaganda notwithstanding, there is now every sign that the MEK will disintegrate some time in the next five years.

For the past two decades the MEK had based its strategy on a carefully constructed three-tier approach encompassing a political coalition (in the form of the National Council of Resistance), a disciplined political organization at the heart of this coalition (ie, the MEK) and an armed force in Iraq (the so-called National Liberation Army). But rather than reflecting actual capabilities, this three-tier strategy was essentially propaganda and designed to consolidate the MEK’s position as the leading enemy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This illusion worked well just as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq. It is for good reason then that MEK observers identified the March 2003 US invasion as the biggest strategic setback in the organization’s 40-year history.

The contention here is straightforward: deprived of its armed wing and its ideological leader, unable to organize effectively in the West due to its terrorist designation and with events in Iran developing on a trajectory that is least favorable to MEK designs (the big turnout in last Friday’s presidential election is one example of this), the MEK is faced with several fundamental crises that it cannot overcome. The only realistic scenario (and indeed solution as far as some of the more progressive forces in the MEK are concerned) is the dissolution of the organization as presently conceived.

The ‘third’ way

Since the ouster of Saddam, the MEK has discovered "peaceful" politics. Previously insistent that the only roadmap to regime change in Iran was through an invasion of the country by its 3,000-strong force based in Camp Ashraf, in Iraq’s Diyala province, the MEK had to revise this overly ambitious strategy after its forces capitulated to the American military and surrendered their arms.

The MEK’s "third" way is refreshingly simple to the point of bewilderment. The only effective way of forcing change in Iran, according to the organization’s spokesmen, is neither through war and an American invasion, nor compromising with the Islamic republic, but in empowering the Iranian opposition (ie, the MEK).

There are several fundamental problems with this reductive argument, not least because an American "war" against Iran is unlikely, and what the MEK terms "compromise" with the ruling regime is mired in ambiguity. Aside from this basic observation, the whole notion that the MEK can affect anything in Iran (let alone overthrow the Islamic republic) is no longer taken seriously by anyone. MEK spokesmen claim that if the organization was removed from US State Department and European Union terrorism lists, it would be in a position to effectively challenge the ruling regime. The problem with this argument is that before 1997 the MEK was not only not on any terrorist lists, but it also enjoyed the whole-hearted support of Saddam and could use Iraqi territory as it wished, and even in those highly favorable circumstances it could not advance its agenda even by a millimeter.

To advance this latest "third" way approach, the MEK has made some minor and cosmetic changes to its organization and tactics. Most importantly, the organization has resorted to establishing pressure groups and consultancies in North America. These organizations are run by veteran MEK members, and their primary function is to establish and manage relations with neo-conservative organizations and interests in the US.

The heads of these effectively fake organizations also contribute opinion pieces to sympathetic US dailies and publications, promoting the "third" way and the so-called Iranian resistance. Arguably the most well-known consultancy is Near East Policy Research Inc, which, according to a website that investigates MEK lobbying in the US [1], was established in May 2003 by Ali Safavi, a well-known and veteran MEK member. Another well-known MEK member, Ali Reza Jaafarzadeh (who was previously the MEK’s official representative in the US) is currently working for the Fox News network as a Middle East analyst.

This latest MEK initiative has all the trappings of the MEK’s previous ambitious and failed programs and is unlikely to amount to anything in the long term. Its biggest success so far has been to mobilize neo-conservative support for the "third" way. At the forefront of this support is the Iran Policy Committee (IPC), an organization made up mostly of retired military officers with impeccable neo-conservative credentials. The IPC published a white paper, outlining US policy options for Iran, in February. Although mostly a clumsy report written by non-experts, this white paper was remarkable for its whole-hearted support of the MEK.

The best way to understand the MEK’s "third" way is to place it in a continuum of failed strategies in the past. The MEK’s "first" way of gaining power in post-revolutionary Iran was to start a serious terrorist campaign in June 1981. The leaders of the organization had grossly overestimated their strength and conversely underestimated the determination of the Islamic republic to put down armed challenges. The result was the complete elimination of the MEK network inside Iran, to the extent that by late 1983 the MEK had no serious presence in the country. The failure of this "first" way led to desperate measures, which culminated in an alliance with Saddam, the invader of Iran.

The MEK’s entry into Iraq led to the creation of a conventional, albeit very small, armed force along the Iran-Iraq border. The "second" way envisioned capturing power through an invasion of Iran backed by Iraqi air cover. This crazy strategy was taken to its mindless extreme in July 1988, when the MEK army launched operation "eternal light" and invaded Iran from the central border regions. Not surprisingly, the small MEK force was destroyed by Iranian forces after the Iraqis backed off from providing prolonged air cover. The MEK admitted losing more than 1,200 fighters in the operation, but the true figure was nearer to 2,000.

The end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 might have heralded the end of the "second" way had it not been for Saddam’s wish to keep the MEK both as a strategic trump card against Iran and an internal security tool within Iraq. This ensured that the strategy of toppling the Islamic republic through an armed invasion was not abandoned, until the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 put an end to the MEK’s tried, tested and failed plans. This paved the way for the concoction of a "third" – and most probably final – MEK strategy of overthrowing the post-revolutionary order in Iran.

An organization in crisis

The MEK knows better than anyone else that the "third" way is a non-starter. Firstly, the organization has no presence inside Iran and little credibility with Iranians outside the country. At best, the organization is simply dismissed as decrepit and irrelevant, while a majority of Iranians regard its members as eccentric traitors who fought alongside their enemies in the Iran-Iraq war. The MEK also knows better than anyone else that it cannot gain recognition from the US government. It is not just because the MEK is the only Iranian organization that has murdered Americans and publicly boasted about it, but also because the US government is well aware of the checkered history, authoritarianism, limitations and hopeless future of this quixotic organization.

The MEK’s "third" way is simply a tactic to buy time and prepare the organization psychologically for the inevitable expulsion of its remaining members from Iraq. In the final scheme of things, the "third" way is designed to prevent the organization from disintegrating, but it is unlikely to work.

Essentially, four factors drive the dynamics of organizational disintegration. First and foremost the loss of its armed wing and the effective end of the "armed struggle" is profoundly unsettling for the MEK. The entire organizational ethos and world view of the MEK revolves around "armed struggle" and the romanticism and cult of martyrdom that surrounds it. All its slogans, insignia, flags and imagery are woven around this theme. Indeed, one of the main reasons that the MEK came into conflict with the Islamic republic was the organization’s insistence that it maintain its own armed militia in the country. Moreover, the whole-hearted and obsessive attachment to political violence was a factor in the US State Department’s decision to add and maintain the MEK on its terrorist list.

Secondly, the disappearance of Massoud Rajavi, the ideological and spiritual leader of the MEK, deprives the organization of effective long-term leadership. Rajavi went into hiding the very day that Saddam abandoned Baghdad to American invaders, and not a word has been heard from him since. Whether or not he physically survives in the decisive months and years ahead is beside the point, for the fact is that he is now politically dead and cannot be revived.

As critics of the organization have been quick to point out, any leader who decides to go into hiding at a time when his organization is experiencing its most stressful period since its inception cannot expect to be rehabilitated. Rajavi has gone into hiding for good reasons, since the disasters that have engulfed the MEK in recent years have largely been a result of his decisions and style of leadership. But Rajavi’s incompetent leadership notwithstanding, his loss is a big blow to the organization. Above all else it completely undermines its elaborate and complex ideology. To put it simply, the MEK believes that it is at the forefront of human evolution, and that its ideological leader, Rajavi, stands at the very peak of historical evolution. The fatal damage that the loss of this so-called ideological leader inflicts on the MEK’s eccentric world view is self-evident.

Thirdly, the MEK cannot resettle effectively in the West. The group’s highly centralized and disciplined organization means that it needs a discrete territorial base from which to operate. The vast Ashraf camp in Iraq’s Diyala province was ideal for the MEK and its loss cannot be over-estimated. Following the downfall of Saddam, the MEK tried to relocate most of its people and resources to its European headquarters in the Parisian suburb of Auvers-Sur-Oise, but these plans were foiled on June 17, 2003, when French counterterrorism agents stormed into the sleepy village and detained more than 165 MEK members, including Maryam Rajavi.

Finally, political developments inside Iran have made it increasingly difficult for even the most hardcore of MEK members to believe that regime change is a realistic scenario. The MEK has consistently misread political developments in Iran for the past quarter century, partly because it has not had a presence inside the country. For instance, Rajavi, the disappeared ideological leader, was for three years telling his organization that the Islamic republic would collapse before the end of Mohammad Khatami’s first term as president in June 2001. This wildly optimistic assessment turned out to be yet another example of wishful thinking on the part of the overly pretentious Rajavi.

This month’s closely contested presidential election and the surprises it has thrown up – Mahmud Ahmadinejad – indicates, first and foremost, that the reformist discourse of making major changes to the country’s political institutions has been eclipsed by more parochial and practical concerns with social justice and the nature and scope of economic development. Therefore, if the reformist program (which is inherently loyal to the Islamic republic and seeks to gradually reform it from within) is increasingly dismissed as irrelevant, groups that advocate the overthrow of the Islamic republic in its entirety are clearly beyond the pale as far as the vast majority of Iranians are concerned.

The factors outlined above encompass core features of the MEK and go to the very heart of this organization as a coherent and viable entity. The fact that all these characteristics have not just been undermined, but simply eliminated from the equation, speaks volumes about the existential crisis that has engulfed the MEK. In fact, there are already signs that the organization’s remarkable discipline is breaking down. Sources inside the British, Dutch and Canadian sections of the MEK speak of a sharp decline in the morale of supporters and a tendency by some peripheral elements in the organization to speak to other Iranian organizations. A few years ago, this would have been unthinkable, since the MEK bans any interaction with members of groups and organizations that are not under its influence.

In the event of disintegration, at least two distinct groups will emerge from the carcass of the MEK. Veteran member Mehdi Abrishamchi (long considered Massoud Rajavi’s right-hand man and the former husband of Maryam Rajavi, who divorced her so Massoud could launch his so-called ideological revolution) will most likely emerge as a leader of a breakaway faction. Abrishamchi will likely attract those MEK elements who want to go back to the roots of their organization, before Massoud Rajavi transformed them into an isolated cult. Veteran member Mohsen Rezai (better known as "Habib") might constitute another pole of leadership. Known as a pragmatist and realist, Rezai could attract the more talented members of the organization, especially those who currently perform political and diplomatic tasks. Maryam Rajavi is unlikely to emerge as a leader of any sorts since she derives all her legitimacy from Massoud. One of the arrangements that followed the MEK’s ideological revolution in 1985 was that Massoud would be the "ideology" while Maryam would perform executive tasks.

The above scenario is clearly speculative, but in all likelihood factions motivated by the aforementioned agendas will emerge from the carcass of the MEK. The point to be made is that the MEK – despite all its faults – has 40 years of history behind it and to expect it to disappear entirely is unrealistic. Although the MEK is the oldest Iranian political group of modern times, the disintegration of the organization in its current form has been long overdue. Various factors have converged to ensure its survival to this point, of which the most important was the patronage of Saddam. And in the final analysis, whatever emerges from the carcass of the MEK, the greatest legacy of its demise will be the final and definitive repudiation of terrorism as a legitimate tool in Iranian politics.

Mahan Abedin – June 29, 2005

"Mahan Abedin is the editor of Terrorism Monitor, which is published by the Jamestown Foundation, a non-profit organization specializing in research and analysis on conflict and instability in Eurasia. The views expressed here are his own."

July 10, 2005 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US may support controversial Iranian group

An armed Iranian exile group listed as a terrorist organization by the USA and European Union may now get US support to help topple Iran’s ruling regime. The Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) has its European headquarters in Norway.

Although the MKO has been listed as a terrorist organization by the USA and EU since 1997 and its leaders are banished from most European nations, it is not listed by the United Nations.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs press spokesman Karsten Klepsvik explained Norway’s stance on the MKO to Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) on Thursday.

“The USA’s list has nothing to do with us, but in connection with the EU list, which we do follow, we have authority to pursue the group if they do something illegal in Norway,” Klepsvik said.

Support from Washington?

British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that the Pentagon is now considering aiding the MKO as part of an overall strategy of trying to destabilize and topple Iran from within.

According to the Telegraph, the group’s “military expertise and discipline has impressed the Pentagon, which has suggested it could be renamed and operate with clandestine American help”.

The MKO has carried out several political assassinations in Iran and built up an army on the Iran border with the blessing of former Iraq head Saddam Hussein.

Middle East expert Kari Vogt at the University of Oslo is extremely skeptical to a strategy involving the MKO, whom she says is an undemocratic and violent group that has no foothold in Iran.

“They have made themselves extremely unpopular with the Iranian people. Norway has been a bit more willing than other European nations, which have gotten extremely cold feet, towards them,” Vogt said.

Norway’s Foreign Ministry has no plans to investigate MKO activities inside this country.

“If this group had been on the United Nations terror list we would have had obligations of international law to examine how they are financed and what their members do,” Klepsvik said.

Aftenposten English Web Desk – by Jonathan Tisdall

July 3, 2005 0 comments

USA

U.S. bombs Mujahedin; backers hide

Congressional supporters of an Iraq-based terrorist organization kept a low profile this week after confirmation that U.S.-led coalition forces attacked their bases during the final days of the war.

The group, known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), is made up of Iranian dissidents based in Baghdad. Despite a history of violence against Americans and its common cause with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the group developed a significant following in Congress for its opposition to Tehran’s regime.

In 1997, the State Department identified the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization. Last Tuesday, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged in a briefing at the Pentagon that the U.S. bombed MEK forces.

“We are still pursuing elements of the MEK inside Iraq,” Myers said, adding: “It’s possible some of them may surrender very soon to coalition forces.” We’re still interested in that particular group.”

House supporters of the MEK, led by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), staunchly defended the group when The Hill reported April 2 that U.S. officials were targeting their bases in Iraq.

“They’e a combatant,” a State Department spokesman said at the time. “Targeting data is being provided to the Pentagon. We believe they are undertaking some of the actions in the south [of Iraq] where enemy combatants have disguised themselves as civilians.”

Ros-Lehtinen insisted at the time that the State Department spokesman was wrong and that her sources in the U.S. government assured her the MEK was not considered a combatant.

“This group loves the United States; they’re assisting us in the war on terrorism; they’re pro-U.S.” she told The Hill. “This group has not been fighting against the U.S. It simply isn’t true. “ I have attended many classified briefings on the Hill, and never once has this group been brought up.”

Over the years, officials in the counterterrorism office at the State Department have regularly tried to meet with lawmakers who support the MEK in an effort to dissuade them.

Aides to Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House International Relations subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, did not return several calls for comment after Following confirmation from Gen. Myers confirmed that the MEK was regarded and treated as an enemy during the war.

Earlier this month, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) expressed shock upon hearing that the State Department considered the MEK combatants. “If these reports are accurate, that’s the end of it for me,” he told The Hill three weeks ago.

But citing “information of a different nature entirely from people who are closer to the scene than the State Department,” Tancredo later called The Hill to reassert his backing of the MEK. He declined to identify his sources at the time, except to say that they were with “our government”

Like Ros-Lehtinen’s office, Tancredo’s aides did not return calls this week seeking comment.

Other lawmakers who have long backed the MEK also declined comment. They are Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas).

Although the MEK’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance, has garnered signatures of support from a number of U.S. lawmakers, it’s unclear whether those members were adequately informed about the group when they signed on.

Ros-Lehtinen claims 150 colleagues signed a letter she circulated last year in support of the MEK. Although the letter was released in November, Ros-Lehtinen has repeatedly declined to name those Congress members who backed her.

“A list has not been published because most members who initially signed on have withdrawn their support and the list has dwindled down to no more than a handful of Congressional supporters,”charged Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), a vocal critic of the MEK.

Several lawmakers said they asked to have their names removed when they learned more about the group. In addition, Reps. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), the chairman and ranking member of the House International Relations committee, respectively, wrote a counterletter to their colleagues providing “ful” and “accurate” information on the MEK.

The group’s supporters on Capitol Hill may decrease after Myers’ comments. On Thursday, other senior administration officials echoed Myers’ comments to reporters. “The [MEK] forces were fully integrated with Saddam Hussein’s command and control [and] therefore constituted legitimate military targets that posed a threat to coalition forces,” said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher in Washington.

“We know there’s a presence of the [MEK] inside of Iraq, and indeed we have been targeting them for some time,” said Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks from Central Command in Doha, Qatar. “There’s work that’s ongoing right now to secure some sort of agreement that would be a cease-fire and capitulation,” he said.

On Monday, The Associated Press reported a military spokesman saying that a cease-fire had been negotiated with MEK forces in Iraq.

By Sam Dealy

July 3, 2005 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Richard Perle Supports Terrorism

He spoke at a terrorist fundraiser

He is the author of a book that criticizes the U.S. government for being too soft on terrorism. He was an advocate of invading Iraq and most of the other Arab countries in the Middle East – long before 9/11. He wants us to give up a lot of our civil liberties, including submitting to a national ID card, and he’s taken to the hustings promoting an approach to the "war on terrorism" that’s more royalist than the king.

His name is Richard Perle, and he’s one of the leading and certainly one of the most visible neoconservatives in Washington, D.C., whose combative style and clear contempt for his opponents has earned him the sobriquet "Prince of Darkness."

He is also a supporter of terrorism.

Why else would he have agreed to speak at a January 24 fundraiser, billed as "A Night of Solidarity," supposedly to raise money for Iranian earthquake victims an event sponsored by groups that have links to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization?

MEK is a formerly Marxist group with odd, cultic overtones. Led by Maryam Rajavi, the self-proclaimed "President Elect" of Iran, and her husband, Massoud, head of the group’s military wing, they originally supported Khomeini when he overthrew the Shah, and carried out terroristic attacks on Americans, only to turn against the regime.

MEK took up residence in Iraq, where they were given sanctuary and armed by Saddam Hussein. They fought against their own country on the Iraqi side during the long Iran-Iraq war. During the U.S. invasion of Iraq, MEK carried out military operations in defense of the Ba’athist regime, and its main base came under attack by U.S. forces. MEK agreed to capitulate, but there was some question about to what extent they disarmed. Even today their main force remains intact.

Their fate has become a political football, pitting the U.S. State Department against the neoconservatives in Washington who now have Iran fixed in their sights. The neocons are pushing the idea that we can use the MEK to overthrow the Iranian regime: this is the same group that tried to ingratiate itself with the Bush administration by sharing "intelligence" that supposedly pointed to Iran’s intention of developing a nuclear weapons program.

U.S. law enforcement conducted a series of raids that rounded up prominent MEK cadre, closed down their offices, and froze their assets, but, operating under the protection of Washington’s War Party, these terrorists are freely going about their business, and even gaining open support from prominent U.S. government officials, like Perle. What’s interesting is that their support cuts across ideological and party lines.

It isn’t just the neocons who have been giving them their support, inside government and out: the Feminist Majority Foundation is also on board, on account of the MEK’s fervid feminism. Around half of the MEK’s fighters are women, and Ms. Rajavi is marketing herself, with some success, as a feminist icon.

In Congess, where more than a hundred legislators signed a letter of support for MEK, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) is their Boadicea, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) their Joan of Arc. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) is another of their major champions, a group that includes Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Bob Filner (D-Calif.)

Writing in The Hill, Washington’s political newspaper of record, Sam Dealey gives us details on the various MEK front groups. What’s interesting is that the other groups listed, including the Justice Matters Institute and something called "Near East Policy Research," provide an object lesson in the weirdly relentless efforts of a terrorist group to implant itself in American politics.

The Justice Matters Institute, headquartered in downtown San Francisco, serves its clients a mixed salad of California-style touchy-feely ethno-politics, drenched in a feminist-flavored sauce:

"Justice Matters Institute defines a socially just society as one in which every group has a voice, every culture is respected, and every individual has equal access to resources and means of communication. Working for social justice entails working to overcome current injustices while building solutions that make a better world. "

Right on, comrade!

But one group listed as a sponsor of the fundraiser that Dealey doesn’t delve into is the mysterious "Near East Policy Research," which, along with the JMI, sent along a "solidarity message" to the fundraiser.

There is no such group going by that exact name, but there are two possibilities: one is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-MEK thinktank that has defended the Rajavi cult. On their website, MINEP posts a piece by Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson, in which the authors deny that MEK is a terrorist organization â€“ that’s now all in the past, they write:

"Can the MEK be useful? Yes. Western spy agencies are short on "human intelligence" meaning spies on the ground in Iran, as distinct from eyes in the sky. Coalition military commanders should seek out the MEK for information on the Iranian regime agents in Iraq."

Does it matter that MEK is a Marxist cult with a violent history, and longstanding links to the regime of Saddam Hussein and that the group helped put down the 1991 Shi’ite rebellion, in which many thousands were killed or forced to flee? Does it matter to Pipes and Clawson that support for the MEK nutballs only discredits the U.S.?

Of course not. All that matters is the neoconservative goal of overthrowing the regime in Tehran.

The other possibility is the Center for Near East Policy Research (CNEPR), the American branch of which, according to its official IRS papers, is headquartered in West Roxbury, Massachusetts. Headed up by one Arnold M. Soloway, CNEPR is "a membership organization" that "helps Israel Resource News Agency maintain its operation," although now it appears the organization has since moved from Roxbury to Wellesley. The Israel Resource News Agency headquarters is listed as "Beit Agron International Press Center Jerusalem, Israel," with David Bedein as the "Bureau Chief."

CNEPR’s views are indistinguishable from WINEP’s: Israel can do no wrong, the Palestinians can do no right, and America must side with the former in every instance.

What is Israel’s interest in all this? Iran’s development of nuclear power has the Israelis threatening to bomb Iran’s alleged nuclear facilities, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is on record as saying that Tehran is now the main danger to the Jewish state. That Israel’s supporters in the U.S. are not averse to supporting a terrorist group which, nonetheless, serves Israeli interests is hardly surprising: what’s astonishing, however, is that they would do it so openly.

In France, members of MEK were rounded up after a plot to attack Iranian embassies across Europe was exposed: fanatical MEK-ites set themselves on fire in protest. Clearly, these are a bunch of dangerous radicals, who might resort to violence at any moment. When the MEK connection to the January 24 event came out, the Red Cross and La Leche International, which had agreed to lend their names, withdrew. Even Rep. Tancredo, formerly a staunch defender of the group, backpedaled, withdrawing his support for the fundraiser.

But not Richard Perle.

Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) is demanding an investigation into how an organization officially deemed a terrorist group could operate so openly in Washington. Let the process start with an inquiry into the Perle connection.

For Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board, to make a public appearance in the middle of his book tour! in front of a group that killed at least 6 U.S. citizens, and wouldn’t hesitate to kill more in pursuit of their goals, is an outrage. If someone with an Arab name and connections to Muslim organizations had dared do such a thing, he would have been shipped to Guantanamo so fast his head would’ve spun off its axis. People are being jailed and deported for much less, these days: but I guess there’s one standard for the Richard Perles of this world, and another for the rest of us.

by Justin Raimondo

July 3, 2005 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

NOOSE TIGHTENS ON TERRORISTS

Tehran frequently complains that Western states accuse it of terrorism, but at the same time they allegedly shelter the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO or MEK) and even encourage its activities, which include mortar attacks and bombings in Iranian cities and assassinations of Iranian officials. Recent moves by the U.S., U.K., and Germany against the MKO may be a signal to Tehran of sensitivity to its complaints. In the U.S. case, the actual arrest of MKO fund-raisers may be a call for reciprocity in the investigation of the 1996 bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Seven people were arrested at Los Angeles’ international airport on 27 February on charges of raising over $1 million for the MKO. In a tactic common to MKO operatives, they posed as charity workers and solicited funds for orphans while displaying photos of alleged Iranian atrocities. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent James DeSarno explained at a 28 February press conference that "[t]his cell of the MEK raised funds on behalf of a charity front known as the Committee for Human Rights or the CHR in Iran. The CHR purported to use the money for humanitarian aid. This investigation has revealed that the money was really used to support terrorist actions"

DeSarno explained that the funds were transferred to bank accounts in Turkey. From there, in at least one case, the money was transferred to a used auto parts store in Dubai. Eventually, DeSarno said, "It is believed that the money was used to buy arms such as mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs."

The operation was initiated by the German Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), which informed the FBI that MKO members in Los Angeles were involved in money laundering.

In the U.K., meanwhile, the MKO was identified in a list of 21 terrorist groups under a new anti-terrorism law that aims to curtail their funding and support in Great Britain. The list, lumps the MKO with Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda, Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Abu Nidal, and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, as well as Algerian, Basque, Egyptian, Kashmiri, Sikh, and Sri Lankan groups.

he MKO, which operates under a variety of cover names (National Liberation Army of Iran, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, Organization of the People’s Holy Warriors of Iran, National Council of Resistance, Muslim Iranian Student’s Society), is designated as a terrorist organization in the State Department’s annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report. In May 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to change the MKO’s terrorist designation. MKO operatives disrupted an April 2000 conference in Berlin, and two of them attempted to disrupt the November 2000 conference of the Middle East Studies Association in Orlando. Many Iranians view the MKO, under all its guises, with revulsion because it fought on the side of Iraq during the 1980-1988 war. During the 1970s, the group assassinated American officials and it conducted terrorist activities against the shah’s regime.

Bill Samii

July 2, 2005 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

A Cult is Trying to Hijack Our Iran Policy

These fanatics seek to replace Tehran’s religious tyranny with their own.

About 15,000 people, most of them Iranian Americans or exiles, recently flocked to Washington to denounce the fundamentalist Islamic government of Iran. The crowd shouted slogans against Iran’s reviled clerical regime and hoisted placards encouraging President Bush to take whatever action necessary – including preemptive military strikes – to ensure that Iran did not develop nuclear weapons.

By all appearances, the march seemed like a protest by concerned Iranians who supported regime change in Iran. In reality, it was a meticulously orchestrated political rally in support of a violent, pseudo-Marxist Iranian religious cult – the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, also known as the Mujahedin Khalq (MEK) – an organization that has been on U.S. and European Union terrorist watch lists for years.

Ever since the invasion of Iraq, the MEK (and its Paris-based political front, the National Council of Resistance in Iran) has tried to establish itself as the Iranian equivalent of Ahmad Chalabi’s "government in exile," the Iraqi National Congress – and not without success. Like the INC before the war, the MEK has advocates in the highest levels of government. And like the INC, the MEK has been inundating the U.S. intelligence community with uncorroborated and, according to some intelligence officials, highly suspect information meant to encourage the White House to carry out the same policy of regime change in Iran that it did in Iraq. But the United States will probably discover that the MEK – just like the INC – can’t be trusted.

The MEK, formed in the 1960s as one of several anti-imperialist organizations struggling to overthrow the oppressive and corrupt regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, gained widespread fame by killing dozens of the shah’s political cronies, as well as several U.S. soldiers and civilian contractors who were working in Iran at the time. But after the shah’s expulsion in 1979, the MEK found itself left behind in the ensuing power struggle over who would control the new Iran. Neither the secular democrats who formed the provisional government nor the religious factions who followed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini wanted anything to do with the MEK’s Marxist agenda

Reza Aslan is the author of the forthcoming book, "No God but God: The

Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam," to be published by Random House

Los Angeles Times – December 14, 2004

July 1, 2005 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

U.S. Congress, Timothy McVeigh and Mojahedin-e Khalq

Opinion: U.S. Congress, Timothy McVeigh and Mojahedin-e Khalq

As the date of Timothy McVeigh’s execution approaches, and in light of the Secretary of State’s recent testimony on counterterrorism before the Senate, I am drawn to note the lack of unity in Congress in recognizing and dealing with this dilemma. Timothy McVeigh is being executed because of his role in the murderous and deadly attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Paradoxically, and through a twisted sense of rights and logic, the Mojahedin-e Khalq/National Council of Resistance (MEK/NCR) and their supporters claim similar cause to detonate bombs and execute mortar attacks and other violence against Iranian government and civil structures frequently resulting in death and injury to civilians and bystanders. Although the MEK/NCR has long been rightly identified and designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, and in spite of the fact that the FBI has made numerous arrests and broken up immigration fraud and bogus charity front rings operating in support and on behalf of the MEK/NCR, nevertheless this has not prevented a handful of members of Congress from endorsing the MEK/NCR and circulating letters of support amongst their colleagues.

One might reasonably be astonished that members of the U.S. Congress could even think to support a terrorist organization, particularly one with American blood on its hands, but it is a sad fact that such letters have been sponsored over the years by Robert Torricelli, Gary Ackerman and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, amongst others. A longer list of congressmembers have appeared at MEK/NCR press conferences and their photographs and kind words have graced the pages of the MEK newspaper, Mojahed, alongside their machine gun logo, no less. But it does not stop there. Gary Ackerman and Ros-Lehtinen have publicly claimed over 200 House members’ signatures on their letters, thus abusing the good name of our representatives and the sanctity of the U.S. Congress to provide aid and comfort to violent terrorists. While this has pleased the MEK/NCR and confounded our efforts to gain international cooperation on terrorism and to convince certain countries such as Iran of our sincerity, Ackerman and Ros-Lehtinen steadfastly refuse to divulge the names of the alleged cosigners. When prodded with the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, for example, Jonathan Berger of Ackerman’s office cynically replied to the author that the FOIA "does not apply to Congress".

We have a serious problem in this country when a few members of Congress can claim in the name of a majority of their colleagues endorsement of a violent foreign terrorist organization and then deny basic information on such claims to the very citizens that they have been elected to represent.

It is particularly disturbing because the MEK/NCR have become an important point of contention between Iran and the U.S. The State Department has regularly expressed its concerns about terrorism and its desire to discuss this subject with the Iranian government but such actions by members of the U.S. Congress have hampered efforts to address terrorism as a global problem of concern to all. How can we expect the Iranian government to take us seriously when our own representatives encourage terrorist violence on their soil?

In May of 1998, for example, Ros-Lehtinen and Ackerman claimed to have 220 House members’ signatures on a letter supportive of the MEK. Days later, emboldened by this support, the group detonated a series of bombs in Tehran killing civilians. These and similar acts have brought condemnation from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

And while MEK/NCR members are being portrayed as some kind of "freedom fighters" by their friends in Congress, developments in the U.S. indicate that they will do and say anything to further their cause in contravention of U.S. laws. In 1992, MEK members stormed the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York and took hostages at knife point. In 1999, the FBI arrested dozens in an immigration fraud ring linked to the smuggling of MEK members into the U.S. Just this year the FBI made arrests in the case of a false charity allegedly collecting donations for refugees and then funneling the money to the organization to purchase weapons. Alarmingly, the "charity" had been granted non-profit status in the State of California and had been given license to solicit door-to-door in some communities.

McVeigh’s judgement comes because we Americans find murder and violence an abhorrent and intolerable form of political expression. Terrorism is fundamentally at odds with democracy and human rights. There are no good terrorists. Ackerman and Ros-Lehtinen owe the American people an explanation for their activities. At the very least, our elected officials have a responsibility to discuss these matters publicly and not through "secret" letters for the benefit of terrorists.

——————————————————————————–

About the author: I am a research engineer (B.S. and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering) and also a personal activist that believes that open civic dialog and trust in one’s representatives are fundamental to the enjoyment of the full fruits of democracy. My interest in the MEK was sparked by a recognition that important basic information about Iran and Iranians was being conveyed by an extremist few and that widespread mainstream Iranian-American participation in U.S. politics was sorely lacking. I also believe that this distorted perspective has hindered U.S. efforts at formulating effective policy in resolving the differences between our nations. Bradley J. Hernlem, Ph.D

June 29, 2005 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

Laughing for The War

Minority warmongers laugh at Majority peace-seekers!

Terrorist brutes laugh at the victims of terrorism!

Ungrateful traitors laugh at decomposition of their country!

Mercenary hypocrites laugh at masses (of people)!

“ but at the day of judgment, terrorist brutal warmongers will cry.

When Khorramshahr was freed from the occupation of Baath army, Iranian masses celebrated and bowed to the Iranian resistance to scandalized warmonger enemy. But at that time, mercenaries who had camped in the home of Iran’s enemy were upset from this victory. From that day up to 6 years later, when they separated the city of Mehran and presented it to their master, they have always been beating the drum of war, celebrated and laughed.

Ceasefire was a flaming charcoal into their throats; so they sought another war with defining the strategy of “spark and war”, wishing (like a vulture) to take advantage of the outcome of the events. Suddenly, the bloodthirsty master was hunted by another hunter and hungry vultures, which hoped to stay, mourned for their godfather.

Now, the strategy of “spark and war”, is being followed by those very vultures in a larger scale and whenever a dragon threatens Iran of making a war against it, these vultures congratulates the bats laughingly!

Prostitutes, who relied on military victories of a devil like Saddam, are now waiting for a military attack against Iran in order to take advantage of the events. Clearly, they want to show themselves as modern, peace-seekers and human rights protectors in the nonsense they say, that’s why they appear with mummy face in European Parliament and add that”no war, no compliance, only let the resistance (cult) liberate Iran” and then they write this very bluff in Herald to pretend that they’re against the war!! But they agree with terrorism under the name of ”liberating movement”! and they think that if a wolf pretends to be a dove, others will easily accept!

When Iranian cities were hit vainly by Iraqi missiles, Massoud Rajavi asked Saddam Hussein to stop bombings!! And then claimed that his requests were signs of his friendship with Iranian people! And then he ordered his forces to fulfill the uncompleted missions of Saddam Hussein by mortaring.

We remember that he called peace”the execution rope of regime” and said that the fall of regime following the peace is certain. He did this to get the figure of peace-seeking! And when the ceasefire was put to practice, they started second war with the strategy of “spark and war” and this is how they were registered in the memory of Iranians, and in the history of mercenaries, as dirty opportunists.

Now that they deny the war and promote the liberation of Iran by Mojahedin, they have initiated exactly the same previous tactics. The tactics which have taken the form of this strategy that “basically, the war has become a kind of sadism for Mojahedin which makes them happy, and they are fed from the bloodshed; and they are waiting for a big war against Iran”. But they are ignoring 3 points. First, warmongers are aware of MKO’s inefficiency and believe that these cursed ones have no base in Iran; second, they are well aware that if Mojahedin could do anything they would have done something when supported by Saddam. Third and above all, God scrambles all the equations of warmongers and turns these equations against themselves and restrains dragons, vultures and dictators from convenience and relief, and also scandalizes them in both worlds;The time and history will confirm this claim.

Shahin Torabi

June 29, 2005 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Charity Event May Have Terrorist Link

Pentagon Adviser Who Spoke at Function Thought Money Was for Quake Victims

Pentagon adviser Richard N. Perle, a strong advocate of war against Iraq, spoke last weekend at a charity event that U.S. officials say may have had ties to an alleged terrorist group seeking to topple the Iranian government and backed by SaddamHussein.

The event, attended by more than 3,000 people Saturday at the Washington Convention Center, generated enough concerns within the administration that officials debated whether they had the legal authority to block the event, U.S. officials said yesterday. FBI agents attended it and, as part of a continuing investigation, the Treasury Department on Monday froze the assets of the event’s prime organizer, the Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia.

Perle, in an interview, said he was unaware of any involvement by the terrorist group, known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and believed he was assisting the victims of the Bam earthquake when he delivered the paid speech.

"All of the proceeds will go to the Red Cross," Perle said. Informed that the Red Cross had announced before the event it would refuse any monies because of the event’s "political nature," Perle said: "I was unaware of that." Perle declined to say how much he received.

The Web site for the $35-a-person event, billed as "a night of solidarity with Iran," flashed between references to support for "the Iran earthquake victims" and "a referendum for regime change in Iran." One administration official said that the FBI determined that at least three of the sponsoring organizations were associated with the MEK, while a senior Treasury official said "there were general indications the MEK may have an interest in the event," but it could not yet prove it.

The day before the function, Treasury sent a letter to the Convention Center warning that the "MEK may have an interest in this event or may attempt to use the event to raise funds." But the Treasury official said officials moved cautiously because in general they did not want to chill possible charitable acts. "This is what makes terrorist financing so complex," he said. "You often have a blending of purposes and interests."

No one answered the phone at the Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia, and messages seeking comment were not returned.

The MEK, though listed on the State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations since 1997, in the past year has been the subject of an administration tug of war over its status. The group maintained for the past decade thousands of fighters armed with tanks, armored vehicles and artillery in three camps northeast of Baghdad along the Iraq-Iran border. U.S. analysts concluded its primary support came from Hussein’s government.Nevertheless, some Pentagon officials considered the MEK as a possible vanguard against the Iranian government, which they viewed as a threat in the region. But in May President Bush ordered the group surrounded and disarmed. Even then, reports persisted of an easy-going relationship between the military and the MEK forces, leading the White House to clarify late last year that the MEK is "part of the global war on terrorism" and its members "are being screened for possible involvement

in war crimes, terrorism and other criminal activities."

Jacki Flowers, a spokeswoman for the Red Cross, said the relief agency had been contacted by the sponsors about receiving funds raised at the event several weeks before it took place. But the Red Cross decided to reject the proceeds once it became aware that the event was "political in nature," specifically the promotion of regime change. She said accepting the funds would "compromise our fundamental principles of neutrality and impartiality."

Perle, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, said he was contacted by the Premiere Speakers Bureau in mid-January about giving the keynote speech. He asked for more information about the sponsoring organizations and received a letter saying aid would be coordinated though the Red Cross and describing the event as "solidarity with earthquake victims in Iran and an evening for Iranian Resistance."

The Iranian Resistance is often an alias for the MEK. In August, the State Department shut down the U.S. offices of the political arm of the MEK, known as National Council of Resistance of Iran.

He said the hall was full of families and children and "it did not have an aura of an event with terrorist sponsorship."

Raymond Tanter, a University of Michigan professor who introduced Perle, has long maintained that the MEK does not belong on the list of foreign terrorist organizations. He said MEK was never mentioned in speeches, "but I did hear references to Camp Ashraf," which is where U.S. troops are holding MEK fighters.