Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
Nejat Society
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip
© 2003 - 2024 NEJAT Society. nejatngo.org
Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Rajavi’s drums of war silenced by trade envoy Baroness Nicholson

The Mojahedin Khalq (MEK) is busy preparing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an annual ‘June 21st’ rally which celebrates its failed coup d’état in 1981. This year, as every year, the MEK will be paying for both audience and speakers alike to attend. The show convinces nobody. For years the MEK has survived solely on a hollow propaganda campaign which tracks and mirrors Neoconservative and Israeli interests. To please its Western backers the MEK has, over the years, supported Saddam Hussein and more recently Saddamists and insurgents in Iraq, played a part in manufacturing a nuclear crisis for Israel, acted as a loudspeaker for the Israeli/Neoconservative ‘bomb Iran’ narrative and, when all these failed, most recently postured as human rights advocates.

After thirty years, the MEK’s promise of regime change and the establishment of a pro-West Iranian government has come to nothing. Even during the 2009 post-election unrest, the Iranian people showed no inclination to start another revolution or to overthrow their government and especially didn’t resort to violence; such designs exist only in Massoud Rajavi’s personal grandiose delusions. Clearly the Iranian people, assessing the Rajavi cult as an alternative, overwhelmingly prefer the governance they currently have, even with all its faults to that of a mind control cult.

But worse for the defunct MEK is that since President Rouhani’s election a seemingly irreversible and fundamental shift in approach has taken hold on both sides of the Iran-West confrontation and the MEK is being firmly shoved off the bandwagon. The MEK are rapidly losing what specious ground they held in the world of Iran bashing. Significantly, since the beginning of nuclear negotiations last Autumn, a wave of government representatives and businesses have visited Iran from all over the globe, not just Western countries, keen to do business. These changes are characterised in the opening paragraph of an article in the Washington Post on May 28: “For the first time in decades, businesspeople from the United States are visiting Iran in significant numbers, exploring the possibility of future partnerships as Iranian and American entrepreneurs begin to envision a reopening of long-closed commercial channels.”

Nothing could be more toxic to the MEK’s role as purveyors of chaos and violence than the establishment of trade and economic ties. But it is not only on the issue of Iran that the MEK has lost. Since 2003, the group had made itself indispensable to the Saddamists and pro-war and pro-Israel elements who tried to claw back power in Iraq through exactly that continuation of chaos and violence. Now the successful elections in Iraq at the end of April have turned the tide irrevocably against them in that country too. Nor did the MEK fare any better from the European Parliament elections either, losing its two key lobbyists Struan Stevenson and Alejo Vidal Quadras from the Iraq Delegation of the European Parliament.

So the British Prime Minister’s personal appointment of Baroness Emma Nicholson of Winterbourne as his Trade Envoy to Iraq with the mandate to ”increase trade and economic co-operation between the UK and Iraq”, was certain to provoke a fierce reaction from the MEK. Baroness Nicholson is an old adversary of the MEK, as she was of the entire Saddam Hussein regime. In a MEK-fed blog, Samuel Westrop questions her appointment because of “Her pattern of support for the Iranian regime” before asking “Exactly whose interests will Baroness Nicholson be serving?” For a group which operates on the basis of corruption, deception and exploitation, naturally this would be their primary question. But the naïve answer to their own rhetoric, ‘Iran’, shows total lack of comprehension about the real world and politics. Emma Nicholson, whose ‘British Establishment’ credentials run through her veins, will work for the interests of Britain of course, and not even party political agendas or partisan groups.

This is not the real issue though. The precursors to economic and trade links are stability and security.

Mindful of its urgent need to establish security in the country, the Iraqi government formally asked the United Nations to fulfil its obligations to expel members of the MEK and transfer them to other countries to protect Iraq’s national security and that of its neighbours. The Iraqi Cabinet goes further, however, and suggests scrapping the 2009 agreement between the US, the GOI and UNAMI because of the inordinate delays and stalling by the UN in fulfilling its obligations. This would allow Iraqi security forces to close Camp Liberty and scatter its occupants as well as bringing some of the MEK to justice for crimes committed in Iraq in the same judicial manner that other elements of the Saddam regime were brought to justice.

It is no wonder then that the MEK is panicking as it faces the dissolution of rank and file members on which it bases its claim to be the “main opposition” or “only alternative” to the IRI. The group is rapidly losing its unique position as a proponent of regime change and war because the world has moved on. It is occupying an increasingly isolated position, one which has fewer and fewer customers. Even so, grooming the MEK for use in the armoury of tactics to attack the IRI began some years before the current impasse was reached. After the MEK was removed from the US terrorism list in 2012, Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen began her promotion of the group, introducing Maryam Rajavi as a human rights advocate. Toward the end of 2013, as the manufactured nuclear crisis began to lose its potency as a platform for more sanctions and threats of war and bombs, the MEK tried hard to re-fashion itself to suit the anti-Iran agenda pursued by Ros-Lehtinen and Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu – that of attacking Iran’s human rights record.

But the debacle in the Canadian Parliament revealed that inclusion of the MEK in a human rights forum only exposes the politicised nature of this platform and the anti-humanitarian agenda of its proponents. Maryam Rajavi, a woman who personally dispatched thousands of untrained, badly armed civilian MEK supporters to fight the battle hardened Iranian army and IRG in the 1988 Eternal Light operation resulting in around 2000 futile deaths, and who stands accused by tens of hundreds of former MEK members of violating their rights and abusing them, cannot ever be held up as an advocate of human rights.

In Israel itself there is a backlash against Prime Minister Netanyahu over this use of the MEK in an increasingly desperate attempt to derail the nuclear negotiations. It seems that Netanyahu and the MEK stand alone while the rest of the world has moved on.

The fresh economic vision for the Middle East which is increasingly beginning to take hold in the imagination of Western governments depends on peace and security. When these conditions are established not only do trade links improve and economic prosperity grow, but when a country is thereby able to open itself up to greater engagement with the international community this helps improve the human rights situation for its citizens too. In direct contrast to Maryam Rajavi and the MEK’s destructive role, Baroness Nicholson’s involvement in Iraq as Britain’s Trade Envoy will not only be helpful for the British economy but will also help in improving human rights in Iraq.

June 9, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Terrorist groups and the MEK

Syrian Opposition Betrayed by the MKO Propaganda

Following the recent meeting between Ahmad Jarba, head of the so-called Syrian National Coalition (SNC) and MKO head Maryam Rajavi in Paris where Jarba called the terrorist Mujahedin khalq as brothers, the turnout was far from what both sides expected.

The Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian slammed the visit in what Mahan Abedin an analyst of Iranian politics calls" a dismissive reaction”." Jarba does not know who to meet in his foreign meetings”, Amir-Abdollahian said.

“In our opinion, when it comes to politics, Ahmad Jarba is a weak person … he is the most inappropriate person for the future of Syria,” the Iranian official stated.

Mahan Abedin, describes the MKO, as" formerly proscribed as a terrorist organization by the West and widely reviled by Iranians on account of the group’s two-decades old alliance with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussei," and its leader as "a self-appointed president-elect of the Iranian resistance".

"By meeting Rajavi, whose group has killed over 17,000 Iranians since 1981, the Syrian opposition has sent an unmistakable message of ill-will and hostility to Tehran," Abedin suggests."  The meeting is also being interpreted as a sign of desperation on the part of the Syrian opposition who have been reduced to engaging with a discredited and exiled Iranian organization."

According to a report by the Iranian newspaper Jomhouri e Eslami , Jarba has found out his wrong  approach regarding the MKO as a terrorist cult with a dark background of terror acts, violence and cult-like behavior. "The MKO deceived us" Jarba said.

To answer why he met Maryam Rajavi he said, "We had no idea that they were the so-called mujahedin. We were told that they were National Council of Resistance, just like the Syrian National Council; we realized it right now, now that our American and French friends told us that we were duped."

Ultimately, the whole story demonstrates the opportunistic substance of terrorist in any form. However, as we know the meeting was held under the request of the MKO representatives who had visited the Syrian opposition figures a few days earlier. While both sides expected a beneficial mutual relationship, the final meeting between the two self-claimed presidents sounds to be a lose-lose game.

Mazda Parsi

June 8, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

Iraq addresses United Nations to speed up MKO expulsion

The Iraqi Council of Ministers announced Tuesday that it has assigned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to address the United Nations, "to fulfill its obligations", in removing the members of the "MKO", considering their existence as contrary to the Constitution for being a "terrorist organization."

The council said in a statement a copy of which received by Ashraf News  , that, "the Council of Ministers has decided to instruct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to address the UN to fulfill its obligations it agreed on with the Iraqi Government to get the MEK out and transfer its members to other countries."

He added that the reason for the decision of the Council is, "the growing problems caused by the presence of the Organization (MKO) on Iraq’s national security and the security of neighboring countries, and because their presence is contrary to the Constitution for being a terrorist organization."

The Committee on ending MKO file announced, in September 22, 2013, that the Iraqi Government had lost patience with the file of the MEK terrorist organization, and confirmed that it was considering other options to issue a binding decision to end their presence in Camp Liberty. As the UN called upon the States concerned with the Camp to provide money to resettle MKO members in other countries and not just the giving tips, it held the Iraqi Government responsible for the safety and security of the residents of the camp.

June 7, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Historian: Israel gave fake Iran dossier to MKO

In an interview with Press TV, Gareth Porter said he has evidence of MKO’s submission of documents to the German intelligence in 2004, claiming that Iran has been seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

“And the MKO undoubtedly got them from Israel – A document that connects the MKO and Israel that the MKO had been laundering intelligence for the Israelis for years,” he said.

Porter, author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of Iran Nuclear Scare, said there is “absolutely convincing evidence” that the MKO documents were “fabricated.”

He said Israel and the United States started in 1983 fabricating documents against the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program by raising claims that Iran is running a “covert nuclear weapons program.”

The investigative journalist said under former US President W. George Bush (2001-2009), the Israeli regime moved to “essentially create a set of documents that would indict Iran as pursuing nuclear weapons.”

However, he said, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) made it clear that it had “not established the authenticity of those documents.”

“[The IAEA then director Mohamed ElBaradei] insisted they should not be used as evidence in regard to Iran’s nuclear program,” said Porter.

In his book, Porter wrote that the international hype created over Iran’s nuclear energy program has been in fact a scenario orchestrated by the Israeli spy agency Mossad and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

June 7, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest – 55

++ Last week Mohammad Eghbal,a member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) wrote an article which was posted on MEK websites. The article was a rant and swearing badly against his two sisters in France who are running a campaign to help the people in Camp Liberty. This attracted a reaction from many Iranians outside Iran. Among them is Ghorbanali Hossein Nejad who worked with Eghbal in the MEK’s Arabic section for decades. He has explained why someone like this, an old man in his sixties from a highly respected and educated family, has written like a lumpen in the MEK system and has been so vulgar and offensive against his own sisters that he has even called them prostitutes.

++ Massoud Khodabandeh Facebooked a short note about Mohammad Eghbal and his sisters. Khodabandeh points out that the sisters are not against the MEK, rather they are internal critics. Form this it is clear that the problem for Rajavi is not criticism or critics or any other issue, his problem is how to keep Mohammad Eghbal inside the MEK. Eghbal was brought to Paris recently from Camp Liberty. This is the price he had to pay. He has had to estrange his sisters to ensure that he has no other physical or mental place to escape to, not even to them. Khodabandeh says, “Irrelevant of our different ideas and beliefs, I advise his sisters not to close the doors on him and to accept that this writing is from Rajavi himself and has nothing to do with their brother. And in whatever way they can they should pass this message to their brother, that they don’t disown him and he will be welcomed by them any time he comes out.”

++ The execution in Iran of MEK member Gholamreza Khosravi Savadjani attracted various responses. Khosravi admitted that he was in direct contact with the MEK and had worked for them in the past. He provided intelligence from inside Iran to the MEK to give to MOSSAD. The IRI made public some of the documents he had passed, including military and other sensitive sites in Iran. The IRI clarified that he was not executed because he supported the MEK – pointing out that there are thousands of former MEK living freely in Iran who have not changed their beliefs and that Iran has no problem accommodating those beliefs – Khosravi was sentenced and executed for activities against the state on behalf of the MEK, including spying for Israel. Human rights organisations in the West have condemned the execution of Khosravi on the grounds of due legal process and opposing the death penalty. The US Department of State has also come out and condemned it. Prominent human rights activist Abdul Karim Lahiji, however, has gone further claiming he was clearly executed for his political beliefs. (He does not even say his political activities, but he does not offer any explanation of this.) Ironically he is a lawyer. Ironically none of these entities have ever condemned the even worse things that happen to members inside the MEK itself.

++ This week was the anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini. Referencing the execution of Khosravi, a part of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s speech was devoted to the West’s support for terrorism under the guise of human rights. He ended by saying the real enemy is not the brainwashed terrorists but those who feed them physically and mentally. Iran’s spokesman for the Foreign Ministry responded to the US State Department’s concern about the number of executions in Iran, pointing out that the US doesn’t have a leg to stand on while they kill people by drones and kill prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Europe without trial. The spokesman said Khosaravi had undergone due process in a court of law, and according to our laws this is the punishment for spying. Observers and analysts inside Iran have written that the importance those in the West are placing on this specific execution is exactly because he was a spy for the MEK and MOSSAD and they are worried that this will increase the market price of agents sent to Iran because the danger has become more palpable. They point out that after the assassinations of several Iranian nuclear scientists they have not succeeded in killing anyone else because their agents have all been tracked down and apprehended.

++ Farsi sites have been buzzing with exposures of the MEK’s agents who are actively trawling travel agencies and refugee camps in Europe to recruit the paid audience for the MEK’s June 20th rally in Paris. The speakers, as many point out, are already known creatures. In an article titled ‘Gholamreza Khosravi, victim of the Rajavi gang’s agenda’, Mohammad Alavi from Aryia Association in Paris has explained how the MEK have used this execution against Iran, but goes on to describe its specific use by Maryam Rajavi. In Paris the MEK are preparing large bill boards depicting Khosravi for the MEK’s annual rally on 20 June. This is so that Maryam Rajavi can sit underneath his image and claim him as her martyr as she did with the victims of self-immolation in 2003. She badly needs more blood. In addition, the MEK are desperate to pay any agent they can in Iran to find the family of Khosravi and convince someone from the family to be smuggled out of Iran to attend the rally in Paris as an MEK supporter. Alavi says that no one can condone execution for any reason, but using the issues of human rights and anti-death penalty to feed a terrorist organisation which itself claims to have killed 25,000 Iraqis and 17,000 Iranians is not something which will be washed away from the people who support it, and cannot be excused by saying “I’m getting paid”. You can’t claim fair exchange between blood for money.

In English:

++ Ahmed Qobadi in Mehr News writes about the MEK’s track record as a terrorist group and about the human rights abuses against its own members.

++ Press TV reports on the execution of Gholamreza Khosravi Savadjani who was “sentenced to death for providing documents and photos of Iran’s important centers including military sites as well as giving financial aid to the MKO and the media affiliated to the terror group. He had also tried to recruit for the terrorist organization. Khosravi Savadjani’s death sentence was approved by Iran’s Supreme Court after he was tried and sentenced at a Tehran branch of Islamic Revolution Court in the presence of his lawyer and the representative of the country’s prosecutor general.”

++ In a long analytical article for Middle East Eye, ‘Iran ponders its future in Syria – Iran’s support for the Syrian government is unflinching, but victory for its ally may not create the perfect regional outcome for Tehran’ Mahan Abedin writes about the MEK’s association with the issue of Syria. ““Jarba does not know who to meet in his foreign meetings”, that was the dismissive reaction by Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian to news of a meeting last week between Ahmad Jarba, the head of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, and Maryam Rajavi, the leader of a notorious Iranian opposition group… Jarba’s meeting with Rajavi is being widely seen in Tehran as a vindication of Iran’s Syria policy. By meeting Rajavi, whose group has killed over 17,000 Iranians since 1981, the Syrian opposition has sent an unmistakeable message of ill-will and hostility to Tehran. The meeting is also being interpreted as a sign of desperation on the part of the Syrian opposition who have been reduced to engaging with a discredited and exiled Iranian organisation.”

++ Mazda Parsi from Nejat Bloggers writes that the ‘MKO’s Irresponsible Fear-mongering Goes on’. “The Israeli backed MKO cult is determined to manipulate US policy. Claims about an Iranian “breakout” on the nuclear agreements are falsified. The MKO propaganda –led by Israel– repeats its fabrications with disturbing regularity. Neocon warmonger sponsors of the group also repeat after the MKO.”

++ Gareth Porter, author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of Iran Nuclear Scare told a Press TV interview that “he has evidence of MKO’s submission of documents to the German intelligence in 2004, claiming that Iran has been seeking to develop nuclear weapons. “And the MKO undoubtedly got them from Israel – A document that connects the MKO and Israel that the MKO had been laundering intelligence for the Israelis for years,” he said. Porter said there is “absolutely convincing evidence” that the MKO documents were “fabricated.” He said Israel and the United States started in 1983 fabricating documents against the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program by raising claims that Iran is running a “covert nuclear weapons program.””

June 06 2014

June 7, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

MKO’s Irresponsible Fear-mongering Goes on

Once again, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) builds up nonexistent threats. It multiplies the fake evidence fabricated by Israeli Intelligence about Iranian nuclear program. Surprisingly the American prominent newspaper supports it with its propaganda against the Iranian government.

On May 27, the US newspaper Wall Street Journal cited a report by the MKO as saying that Iran “has kept active and intact its core team of weaponization researchers.” The news –it was definitely a news piece—was published on the editorial page of the newspaper. It somehow sounded bizarre to other journalists and politicians.

"Noticeably, the WSJ did not claim to have verified the MEK’s allegations that Tehran has continued to pursue nuclear weaponization research," Eli Clifton of the Nation wrote criticizing the WSJ’s editorial board that "apparently felt no compunction to inform readers about the source of this “plausible new report".

“The MEK has a mixed record,” Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based arms control advocacy group, told The Nation. “It’s curious that it occurred in the editorial page section and not the news section,” said Kimball. “The editors don’t appear to have tried to vet the information and they don’t stand behind it.”

The MKO’s misleading champagne on the Iranian Nuclear Program is aimed to monger more fear and hostility against Iran. This major tactic of the group was formally warned about in the 2004 FBI report on the MKO published in June 2011.  "Additionally, the MEK continues to practice misinformation operations in the U.S. and Europe.  MEK lobbyists routinely hold press conferences and pass information regarding the current Iranian government that is inaccurate and is designed to influence Western Media and governments."[pg 18]

The Israeli backed MKO cult is determined to manipulate US policy. Claims about an Iranian "breakout" on the nuclear agreements are falsified. The MKO propaganda –led by Israel– repeats its fabrications with disturbing regularity. Neocon warmonger sponsors of the group also repeat after the MKO.

Gareth Porter the prominent American investigative journalist and political analyst says in his new book Manufactured Crisis that the allegations about the Iranian nuke is a plot to justify an unjustifiable conflict with Iran. "Fear-mongering propagandists may well succeed in pushing the United States into a situation of increased tension with Iran",said Gareth Porter.

The MKO substituted nonsense for truths. It is just an irresponsible act by a newspaper editorial board to become the tribune of a terrorist cult like group that never admits its crimes against humanity.

By Mazda Parsi

June 3, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The cult of Rajavi

MEK; from slaughtering 12k Iranians to physical abuses of members

Terrorist MEK organization has been involved in many sabotaging acts and slaughters against the Iranians, Iraqis and even their own members. Following is a brief report of the terrorist records of wrongly-believed Muslim group of Mojahedin-e Khalgh inside and outside Iran.

The Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO or Mojahedin-e Khalgh) is an armed Iranian opposition group that was formed in 1965 during Shah Regime. After the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979 and the Shah regime was overthrown by the Iranians who were followers of Imam Khomeini the organization turned to be an opposition of the newly established regime.

MEK is mistakenly claimed to be an Islamic organization while the principles followed by the members did not read with the basics of the Islamic lessons.

After the Islamic Revolution of Iran and during the imposed Iraqi war upon Iranians MEK members were camped inside Iraq and they did slaughter many Iranians and had tried for a lot of sabotaging inside Iran.

The organization claimed the responsibility of 12,000 Iranians slaughter for no crime. They also killed many Iraqi and Shiites and Kurd in accordance to Saddam’s wills.

Due to a many crimes, the MKO was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and several European governments. The MKO’s leadership was engaged in an extensive campaign aimed at winning support from Western politicians in order to have the designation of a terrorist organization removed.

Later the U.S. State Department delisted the terror organization Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) in order to clear legal obstacles in the way of overtly arming and funding the terrorists in pursuit of a proxy war with Iran, the LA Times reported.

Human Rights Watch, published articles on 18 May 2005 proving that inside the Mojahedin Khalq Camps, there were a lot of physical and psychological abuses. The articles are available.

Human Rights Watch published that during Saddam’s last year in power, some Iranians held in Abu Ghraib prison were repatriated to Iran in exchange for Iraqi prisoners of war (POWs). These were dissident members of the MKO who had been sent by the organization for "safekeeping" in Abu Ghraib. The release of these prisoners in 2002-2003 provided a direct window into conditions inside the MKO camps that was previously inaccessible to the outside world.

Human Rights Watch interviewed five of these former MKO members who were held in Abu Ghraib prison. Their testimonies, together with testimonies collected from seven other former MKO members, paint a grim picture of how the organization treated its members, particularly those who held dissenting opinions or expressed intent to leave the organization.

The former MKO members reported abuses ranging from detention and persecution of ordinary members wishing to leave the organization, to lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings, and torture of dissident members. The MKO held political dissidents in its internal prisons during the 1990s and later turned over many of them to Iraqi authorities, who held them in Abu Ghraib. In one case, Mohammad Hussein Sobhani was held in solitary confinement for eight-and-a-half years inside the MKO camps, from September 1992 to January 2001.

The witnesses reported two cases of deaths under interrogation. Three dissident members – Abbas Sadeghinejad, Ali Ghashghavi, and Alireza Mir Asgari – witnessed the death of a fellow dissident, Parviz Ahmadi, inside their prison cell in Camp Ashraf. Abbas Sadeghinejad told Human Rights Watch that he also witnessed the death of another prisoner, Ghorbanali Torabi, after Torabi was returned from an interrogation session to a prison cell that he shared with Sadeghinejad.

The MKO’s leadership consists of the husband and wife team of Masoud and Maryam Rajavi. Their marriage in 1985 was hailed by the organization as the beginning of a permanent "ideological revolution."7 Various phases of this "revolution" include: divorce by decree of married couples, regular writings of self-criticism reports, renunciation of sexuality, and absolute mental and physical dedication to the leadership.8 The level of devotion expected of members was in stark display in 2003 when the French police arrested Maryam Rajavi in Paris. In protest, ten MKO members and sympathizers set themselves on fire in various European cities; two of them subsequently died.9 Former members cite the implementation of the "ideological revolution" as a major source of the psychological and physical abuses committed against the group’s members.

Human Rights Watch interviewed by telephone twelve former members of the MKO living in Europe. These witnesses provided credible claims that they were subjected to imprisonment as well as physical and psychological abuses because they had either expressed criticism of the MKO’s policies or had requested to leave the organization’s military camps.

Each witness was interviewed separately several times between February and May 2005. All witnesses were living in Europe then. Each witness provided independent accounts of their experience inside the MKO camps, and their testimonies corroborated other evidence collected by Human Rights Watch.

The MEK threatens an antiwar radio guest of Huffington Post writer, Shawn Amoei, for Calling Them Terrorists.

The MEK had spared no efforts to act in accordance to terrorist standards ranging from slaughtering the civil, apolitical, innocent Iranians to killing of innocent Iraqis and sexual harassment of their own members.

June 2, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Was the Iranian threat fabricated by Israel and the U.S.?

In a new book and in a conversation with Haaretz, U.S. historian Gareth Porter charges that U.S. and Israeli policies on Iran have been based on fabricated evidence.

A narrative is a story that we tell ourselves, and not necessarily what happened in reality. For example, the “Iranian threat” narrative, which has become the common wisdom in Israeli public discourse. A new book by Gareth Porter, an American historian and researcher specializing in U.S. national security, shows how the actual state of the Iranian nuclear program does not match the Iranian threat narrative.

The book’s title, “Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Nuclear Scare” (Just World Books), already tells us that it is going against the current. Porter appears to be the only researcher who has read with an unprejudiced eye all the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency from the past decade. He also had access to American intelligence reports on the Iranian issue from recent decades. In addition, Porter interviewed generations of American officials and analyzed the testimony of senior officials before Congress.

The result is a highly detailed and well-documented book for all interested in understanding how we arrived at the Iranian nuclear crisis, and the “attack scenarios,” and invented facts and intelligence reports whose purpose was to support the preconceptions. At the same time, the book is invaluable for those wishing to understand what is being discussed in the intensive nuclear talks that have been taking place Iran and the superpowers (or, more accurately, Iran and the U.S.) since the signing of last November’s interim agreement, which surprised many Israelis.

According to Porter, it was a hidden political agenda of U.S. decision makers (from long before Israel entered the picture) that gave rise to the Iranian nuclear crisis. This is one of the book’s main subjects, and the starting point for a discussion with which we in Israel are unfamiliar.

The story begins with U.S. support for the Iraqis during the 1980s Iraq-Iran war. The critical point comes with the collapse of the Soviet empire. According to Porter, that event and the end of the Cold War pulled out the rug from under the CIA’s raison d’être. The solution the Americans found to continue providing the organization with a tremendous budget was the invention of a new threat – the merging of weapons of mass destruction (an ambiguous term in itself) and terror. Iran, which rose to the top of the list, provided the threat that “saved” the CIA.

The empowering of the CIA’s organizational interests was reinforced by the gallant neoconservatives, led by ideologues Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton, who had in the meantime reached senior positions in the government. They launched a campaign to delegitimize the Islamic Republic with the aim of toppling the regime (using the sanitized term “regime change”).

Running through Porter’s book is the well-substantiated claim that U.S. and Israeli policies on Iran derived from their political and organizational interests, and not necessarily from careful factual analysis of the Iranian nuclear program, which was subject to IAEA monitoring, or of the intentions of the Iranian leadership.

According to Porter, no systematic analysis was made of the goals of the Iranian nuclear program, and neither U.S. nor Israzeli policy makers devoted any thought to why all of Iran’s official declarations on the subject were in line with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Furthermore, in U.S. discussions until 2007, and in Israel until today, hovering overhead is the nuclear “axiom” that Iran is dashing toward a bomb via the route of uranium-enrichment centrifuges. Porter and the IAEA found no proof of the dash to the bomb.

Following is Haaretz’s interview with Porter, conducted via email.

You have spent years of research analyzing IAEA reports, intelligence reports and interviewing officials about the Iran nuclear issue. What motivated you to write your latest book?

“It was the realization that a narrative about the Iranian nuclear issue had gained unchallenged credence, but that I had discovered over the years a number of major ‘anomalies’ – important facts that could not be reconciled with the narrative. I also came to realize that I was the only journalist who was closely tracking the evidence surrounding the issue. And finally – and perhaps most importantly – I realized that it  was impossible to convey the truth … in an article or series of articles; I had to write a book.”

Is it fair to say that your book shows us that the whole nuclear crisis as it has unfolded over the past 10 years is about U.S. and Israeli attempts to prevent Iran from developing a non-militarized nuclear program, even though such a program is permitted under the NPT, and that this obscured the fact that Iran never intended to develop nuclear weapons?

“Yes, I put considerable emphasis on the early history of the interaction between Iran’s nuclear program and policy, and the policies of the United States and Israel toward the program. I show how the Reagan administration’s intervention, beginning as early as 1983, to pressure Germany and France to refuse to cooperate with Iran in completing the Bushehr reactor, and to refuse to provide the enriched uranium reactor fuel for Bushehr, meant that Iran had to either give up its nuclear rights under the NPT altogether or go to the black market, in defiance of U.S. policy, to get its own independent enrichment capability. And despite subsequent U.S. and Israeli charges that Iran was interested in enrichment for nuclear weapons, there was and is no evidence whatever to support that charge.”

In my Haaretz blog, I emphasize the paradigm change of the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, and still valid today, which concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The Israeli public is unaware of this halt. Furthermore, many commentators believe that U.S. intelligence “corrected” itself and that the 2007 estimate has been annulled. Could you enlighten our readers about the important 2007 NIE?

“The 2007 NIE broke with previous NIEs [in 2001 and 2005], which had concluded that Iran was then running a nuclear weapons program. It concluded instead, with ‘high confidence,’ that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons. That conclusion was of course opposed by the Bush administration and Israel, because it had been the charge that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons that justified the threat of military force against Iran. And it did indeed make the ‘military option’ irrelevant to U.S. policy for the rest of the Bush administration and for much of the Obama administration.” 

According to the 2007 NIE, however, some nuclear weapons research was carried out in Iran until 2003. Could you elaborate on what kind of research was undertaken; when, where and by whom, and what its scope was?

“Precisely who was carrying out research and what kind of research is still completely unclear, despite my effort to get any additional information on the subject from Thomas Fingar, who was in charge of the estimate. What was said by U.S. intelligence officials to be ‘snippets of conversation’ intercepted by U.S. intelligence in 2007 appears to indicate that some research related to nuclear weapons was being undertaken. But how many people were involved remains entirely unclear. And the testimony of the French ambassador to Tehran, as well as other evidence presented in my book, strongly suggests that the Supreme National Security Council had not authorized it and was not happy that it was going on.

“Not only did [Iran’s then-president] Hassan Rouhani order it halted in October 2003, when he was named the first coordinator of Iran’s nuclear policy, but Rouhani prevailed on the Supreme Leader to declare any work on nuclear weapons illicit under Islam in order to compel the researchers to give up their work on weapons. Understanding that episode correctly is clearly necessary to comprehending Iran’s nuclear policy accurately. 

“Unfortunately, as I argue in my book, the evidence indicates that the team of intelligence analysts, who had been wrong about the existence of a nuclear weapons program in 2005 and again in an early draft of the 2007 estimate, got it wrong in their conclusion that the Iranian government had an actual nuclear weapons program [before] late 2003.”

In your book, you explain in great detail the sought-after “smoking gun,” i.e. the mysterious “laptop studies” and the Parchin “bomb test chamber.” The Israeli public is unfamiliar with the details of these “cases.” Could you explain the “possible military dimensions” and comment on the credibility of the “evidence”?

“I devote an entire chapter to the ‘mysterious laptop documents’ and show that they were actually fabricated by Israeli intelligence and given to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq [a militant Iranian opposition group] to pass on to German intelligence in mid-2004. The ‘giveaway’ that they were fabrications is the fundamental error in a series of studies depicting efforts to integrate a nuclear weapon into the Iranian intermediate-range missile, which shows the Shahab-3 that Iran had abandoned in 2000 in favor of a much-improved model that was first tested in August 2004 – too late to correct the mistake before the papers were passed to the MEK. 

“Among the indicators that the documents originated in Israel is the fact that the MEK is not sophisticated enough to have fabricated such a large number of documents, and the well-known history of the terrorist organization’s close working relations with Israeli intelligence. Equally important is the fact that former IAEA director general ElBaradei revealed in his memoirs that Israel had passed on documents and intelligence reports to the IAEA directly in 2008 and 2009, which depicted Iran work on nuclear weapons even after 2003 – obviously prompted by the 2007 NIE.

“Those documents included information alleging that Iran had built a large metal cylinder to carry out tests of nuclear weapons designs at its Parchin military base. The IAEA made that allegation a major news theme by publishing it in its November 2011 report.  But no other evidence except the Israeli intelligence report has ever been produced to support that highly dubious charge. “

The emphasis in your book is on the centrifuges and the “enrichment track to the bomb.” Can you comment on the Arak heavy water reactor that is linked in Israel to the “plutonium track” and is behind the preemptive scenarios that have been developed in the Israeli press.

“The main weakness of the argument that Arak is an Iranian scheme for a ‘plutonium track’ to a nuclear weapon is simple: Iran has already agreed to arrangements under which it would be prevented from maintaining control of the plutonium produced by the reactor. In other words, all of the plutonium would be exported to another country. But there is a second major reason that it is not the threat that is being claimed: To build a plutonium reprocessing plant requires extensive construction as well as time, and it cannot be concealed.”

What is your assessment of the current negotiations between Iran and the P5+1? Is a final agreement to close the Iranian file on the table?

“I am pessimistic about the outcome of these talks, in the coming months at least, because the Obama administration – influenced by the false narrative surrounding the issue and overconfident about its ability to pressure an Iran it assumes has been significantly weakened by the sanctions – is planning to demand that Iran give up all but a very few thousand of its 19,000 centrifuges for many, many years. That demand, based on a notion of Iranian ‘breakout’ that is quite divorced from reality, is an obvious deal-breaker. Iran cannot and will not agree to give up its ability to provide nuclear fuel for more nuclear plants, for which it is planning. In my view, this demand will lead to a much higher level of tensions unless and until it is substantially altered.”

In your view, what is behind the Israeli-Iranian rivalry? Is there a chance for Israeli-Iranian détente following the achievement of a final agreement in the Vienna talks and the possibility of new openings in U.S.-Iran relations?

“In my view there have been political considerations on both sides of the Iran-Israel relationship that have stood in the way of a detente over the past 15 years: On the Israeli side, the first Netanyahu government in 1996 was actually willing to give detente a try, so there is no inherent reason why it could not happen again. It was the opportunity to use the U.S. to put intense pressure on Iran, if not to use force for regime change, that swayed successive Israeli governments to take the ‘existential threat’ approach to Iran. If and when the U.S. pursues a truly independent policy toward Iran, that Israeli motive will disappear.  

“On the Iranian side, the main obstacle to softening of its attitude toward Israel, in my view, has been the degree to which taking a hard line toward Israel makes Iran popular in the Sunni Arab street and counterbalances, at least to some extent, the anti-Iran policy of the Sunni regimes. So Iran-Israel detente has become hostage, to a great extent, to both the pro-Israel stance of the U.S. and the Sunni-Shi’a cold war.”

A final question: Is there a possibility that you are wrong, that you have been misled by some optimistic and naïve theories?

“My operational principle as an investigative journalist is that if there is a single verifiable fact that conflicts with my general understanding of an issue, I need to look more closely to understand why that anomaly exists. In the case of Iran’s nuclear program, I have found an unbroken string of anomalies that undermine the credibility of official U.S.-Israeli narrative, but I have yet to find a single fact that would invalidate my reconstruction of the history of the issue.”

By Shemuel Meir

The writer, a former IDF analyst and associate researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, is an independent researcher on nuclear and strategic issues, and author of Haaretz’s “Strategic Discourse” blog (in Hebrew).

June 1, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iran Interlink Weekly Digest

Iran Interlink Weekly Digest -54

++ Behzad Alishahi’s wife has responded to the saga involving a threatening article in Iran Global. She says although she doesn’t usually look at anything from either the MEK or IRI, because this involves her husband she is obliged to set a few facts right. She explains that Behzad Alishahi has not been charged or criminalised. Instead, in June 2013 he was refused permission to stay in the Netherlands and in February 2014 was detained by the Immigration service for overstaying. He is not in prison but is being held in an immigration service camp for his own safety. He doesn’t have a case against him and there is no question about his going or not going to Iran; he has not left the Netherlands at any time since he arrived. He has never been questioned by either the police or the intelligence services. The problem is that he admitted to once being a member of the MEK and taking part in armed struggle and he has been refused permission to remain on these grounds. It is ironic, says Mrs Alishahi, that the MEK should be so excited and pleased about his situation instead of decently trying to help someone who had been involved with their armed struggle. She continues, “Having said this, I wish the MEK would go to Iran and understand more about the real situation there – how a series of pictures of women who took their scarf off, or young people who danced, has a much greater effect on the situation there than the MEK’s thirty years of so-called fighting Iran”. In conclusion she says that Alishahi has no complaint against him in his file let alone a 150 strong petition. These are fictions created by the MEK to divert from their own failures – the things they say they can do, but never have. The second reason is to terrify the stranded people inside the organisation with the fear that the same thing might happen to them. Thirdly, it is an attempt to intimidate MEK critics by claiming to be so powerful that they can make these things happen to them. But the allegation of ‘spying for Iran’ that the MEK banks on so much is entirely invalid because as long as Iran has an enemy like the MEK it doesn’t need to do any spying; the MEK can destroy any opposition much better than any spy could do. She concludes, “our problem has a solution, but the MEK’s problems will have no solution until, as my husband has always said, they sit down and see what it is they are doing and change.”

++ Sahar Family Association translated some Iraqi papers this week. In one example, Dr Adnan Al Seraj’s article in Al Mizan goes into detail about events of the last few yeas and how Rajavi has tried everything possible to hinder and prevent the UN from giving help to the people in Camp Liberty, whether to get them out or simply to give them help inside the camp itself. Quite a few items in the Iraqi media after the election cover many MPs speaking out and demanding that the situation with the MEK has to end. One is Vaheb MP, who clearly states that the UN has failed to live up to its agreement with the government of Iraq and that this needs to be looked at again and reworked. This failure means, he says, that although the MEK are under the protection of the Americans and the UN, they should be treated like the rest of the Saddamists and put on trial.

++ There has been a vast amount of writing from every side – from inside Iran, from ex members and from other opposition groups and personalities – about the new initiative to try to pass Maryam Rajavi off as a human rights advocate. Several point out that this is an insult to the intelligence of people across the globe. One witty writer observes, “This is like trying to paint a pigeon and sell it as a Volkswagen!”

In English

++ According to the Tehran Times, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, told a gathering of Revolutionary Guards, that Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was standing strong against the Europeans in the nuclear talks in Vienna. He said that Iran has adopted a win-win approach in nuclear talks and will not grant any concessions to the West. He said that the Zionist, Arab and Mojahedeen Khalq lobbyists are campaigning hard against the Geneva deal in the U.S. Congress. Adding that if nuclear talks fail, no one can blame Iran.

++ The Canadian Iranian Coalition for Peace have asked Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to rein in one of his MPs Reza Moridi who “knowingly or unknowingly, has supported an infamous ex terrorist group in Iran (Mojahedin Khalq) MEK and their lobbyist in Canada which have kept a few young Canadians in Camp Ashraf against their will. MEK is promoting hate and violence in Iraq and Iran which is totally against Canadian values and principles… MPP Moridi also supported the closure of Iranian consulate in Ottawa, which has caused a tremendous amount of inconvenience for all Canadian-Iranians in our country Canada. He is simply following the Conservative Party mandates. Supporting sanction and war, this is against the Liberal party’s policy and philosophy. Therefore our community cannot distinguish between the Liberals and the conservatives… We request that you as the leader of the Liberal party of Canada to guide some of the party members to follow the Liberal path, rather than their own personal agenda!”

++ Iran’s Fars News agency reported a meeting between Head of the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SCO) Ahmad Jarba and Maryam Rajavi in Paris. One former MEK member Mohammad Razzaqi said the MEK has been training some militant groups fighting the Syrian government, including the FSA, on bomb manufacturing, planting and detonation methods, assassination and street war. He noted that some MEK leaders have had a series of meetings with the Syrian opposition leaders in France and Jordan and discussed help and assistance to the FSA and a number of other extremist Salafi groups in Syria. In late 2012, deputy commander of the FSA Malek al-Kurdi said the MEK acted as a role model for Syrian insurgents. “Mojahedin-e Khalq is our role model, and we inform them that all doors of our houses are open to them.”

++ In a televised speech, Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Seyed Hassan Nasrallah congratulated his forces saying they had pushed back the Syrian opposition forces so far that they have been reduced to sitting and talking with the MEK in Paris which is nothing more than a defeated enemy, a dead horse.

++ An article by Mazda Parsi of Nejat bloggers begins with details of the MEK’s record of human rights abuses inside its own organisation. From this context, which explains more fully why UN Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed cancelled his speech at the Spotlight on Iran in the Canadian Parliament, Parsi says the decision looks less bizarre. Dr. Shaheed’s assistant explained that Shaheed felt the event’s framing “made it feel less like a briefing and more of something that encroached upon what he believes is his independence on the issue” of human rights in Iran.”

++ Iran Pen Association congratulates the people and prime minister of Iraq and wishes Iraq peace, stability and tranquillity. “We condemn the interventionist and divisive policies of MEK/PMOI and demand the leadership of MEK Cult, Mr. Massoud Rajavi and Mrs. Maryam Rajavi , that instead of plotting such desperate attempts and insisting on remaining in Iraq at any cost and victimizing the captive members in your Cult; try for once to be rational and stop persisting on your gross blunders and transfer these victims from Iraq.”

++ Iran Interlink interprets the result of the European Parliament election for the MEK in a short piece titled, ‘Rajavi/Saddamists stranded by European Parliament losses’. “The MEK and Saddamists have lost two key lobbyists in the new session of the European Parliament. Struan Stevenson (UK) threw in the towel and didn’t stand again. Alejo Vidal-Quadras (Spain) tried to garner the far right vote by creating the new Vox Party – which took less than 2% of the vote. Vidal-Quadras was exposed in the Spanish media before the election for supporting terrorism and being greedy for money. Both MEPs had previously worked in the Iraq Delegation for a bloc of anti-Maliki groups and MPs in Iraq which included the MEK.Rajavi will, of course, not be able to further influence the situation in Iraq where Maliki’s coalition was a clear winner. But the MEK will no doubt declare a ‘basij’ (gathering of forces) in the European Parliament to actively hunt, recruit and corrupt new MEPs to keep its terrorist-logo flag flying there!”

++ According to Press TV Iran’s diplomatic mission at the United Nations condemned a report in The Wall Street Journal as a fabrication. The US newspaper cited a report by the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) as saying that Iran “has kept active and intact its core team of weaponization researchers.” The statement added “that Tehran expects the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain — plus Germany to abide by their commitments concerning Iran’s nuclear rights, regardless of the “uproar” by anti-Iran lobby groups.”

++ On the same subject, Eli Clifton writes in The Nation, ‘What the ‘Wall Street Journal’ and the MEK Get Very Wrong About Iran’s Nuclear Program’. “Even while uncritically reporting on the allegations, the article contained one major factual error… But perhaps more surprisingly, the WSJ editorial board apparently felt no compunction to inform readers about the source of this “plausible new report.” This, despite the fact that the Journal’s editorial team even includes one outspoken critic of the MEK, Sohrab Ahmari, an editorial page writer based in Europe.” “Noticeably, the WSJ did not claim to have verified the MEK’s allegations that Tehran has continued to pursue nuclear weaponization research.” Clifton concludes, “The MEK may be onto something with its contention that Iran continued with its nuclear weapons work (the IAEA’s reporting about the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program only covers the period before 2003). But relying almost exclusively on the organization is, to borrow a word, problematic, and raises a question: Why did the MEK approach the ideologues of the Journal’s opinion pages instead of its newsroom staff with its exclusive report? Perhaps the paper’s veteran foreign affairs reporters, who have no doubt had many interactions with the MEK, are more skeptical of the group’s claim.”

30 May 2014

May 31, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

What the ‘Wall Street Journal’ and the MEK Get Very Wrong About Iran’s Nuclear Program

The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages have long served as a welcoming home to pundits toeing a hawkish line on Iran, Iraq and a laundry list of foreign policy challenges facing the United States. Tuesday, the Journal’s editorial board exclusively published details of a report provided by the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled Iranian opposition group that until less than two years ago was designated a terrorist group in the United States and Canada.

Noticeably, the WSJ did not claim to have verified the MEK’s allegations that Tehran has continued to pursue nuclear weaponization research.

Even while uncritically reporting on the allegations, the article contained one major factual error. It read:

…having ceded a right to enrich and permitted the Islamic Republic to develop an advanced enrichment capability, the West is now left with preventing weaponization as the final barrier against a nuclear-capable Iran…

In fact, no administration or international negotiating body has “ceded” Iran the “right to enrich.” Iran has enriched uranium for the better part of the last decade despite sanctions from the past two administrations and demands that they cease enrichment. Even in the recent flurry of diplomacy between the P5+1 and Iran, no agreement has been made public and nothing has been formally conceded. (A November accord accepted de-facto enrichment while limiting Iran’s enrichment from 20 percent down to 5 percent.)

But perhaps more surprisingly, the WSJ editorial board apparently felt no compunction to inform readers about the source of this “plausible new report.” This, despite the fact that the Journal’s editorial team even includes one outspoken critic of the MEK, Sohrab Ahmari, an editorial page writer based in Europe.

In a 2011 Radio Free Europe column, Ahmari characterized the MEK as “a mostly irrelevant group as ideologically coherent as Lyndon Larouche’s cult and just as ineffective." Later that same year, Ahmari, writing in Tablet, warned that the MEK was an “Islamo-Marxist cult.” Many critics have pointed to the group’s cult-like features, though over the last the few decades the MEK shed its Islamo-Marxist roots—a past many adherents today deny entirely.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, Ahmari, along with a small group of neoconservative pundits, promoted the article on Twitter but Ahmari, even while defending the MEK report, admitted the source was “problematic” in a tweet directed at me.

.@Ali_Gharib @EliClifton Because problematic sources can never disclose important, useful and newsworthy info, right? #Natanz #Arak

— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) May 27, 2014

Indeed, the MEK has proven an unreliable source in the past.

In 2010, following an MEK claim to have discovered a secret nuclear site near the Iranian city of Qazvin, State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley told Fox News, “The MEK has made pronouncements about Iranian facilities in the past—some accurate, some not.”

While the Journal’s standards may be different for editorial content, a simple warning that the source was “problematic” and that much of the report was unverified, would be a reasonable expectation from one of the world’s most widely read newspapers.

“The MEK has a mixed record,” Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based arms control advocacy group, told The Nation. “It’s curious that it occurred in the editorial page section and not the news section,” said Kimball. “The editors don’t appear to have tried to vet the information and they don’t stand behind it.”

The MEK may be onto something with its contention that Iran continued with its nuclear weapons work (the IAEA’s reporting about the "possible military dimensions" of Iran’s nuclear program only covers the period before 2003). But relying almost exclusively on the organization is, to borrow a word, problematic, and raises a question: Why did the MEK approach the ideologues of the Journal’s opinion pages instead of its newsroom staff with its exclusive report? Perhaps the paper’s veteran foreign affairs reporters, who have no doubt had many interactions with the MEK, are more skeptical of the group’s claim.

The Nation – Eli Clifton 

May 31, 2014 0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Recent Posts

  • The black box of the torture camps of the MEK

    December 24, 2025
  • Pregnancy was taboo in the MEK

    December 22, 2025
  • MEPs who lack awareness about the MEK’s nature

    December 20, 2025
  • Why did Massoud Rajavi enforce divorces in the MEK?

    December 15, 2025
  • Massoud Rajavi and widespread sexual abuse of female members

    December 10, 2025
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Youtube

© 2003 - 2025 NEJAT Society . All Rights Reserved. NejatNGO.org


Back To Top
Nejat Society
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Media
    • Cartoons
    • NewsPics
    • Photo Gallery
    • Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Nejat NewsLetter
    • Pars Brief
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Editions
    • عربي
    • فارسی
    • Shqip