It is said that seven Iranian affiliates of MKO have been tried for planning to collect money as well as one case of direct financial aid to the organization in California. The defendants have been accused of founding a disguised charity for collecting subscriptions sent to Mojahedin and have been awaiting their trial for seven years. The anti-terrorism rules of the US consider any support of terrorist organizations as a great and serious crime based on which up to 20 years of imprisonment can be determined for defendants. It implies the seriousness of the US in facing terrorism and its supporters to avoid the negative effects of terrorism for the US citizens and government.
Iran-Efshagari site of Mojahedin has released this news and quotes the defendants as accepting this accusation and crowing about it. It also enlists the name of the defendants as follows: Roya Rahmani, Alireza Mohammad Moradi, Mostafa Ahmadi, Hosein Afshari, Hasan Rezaee, Navid Taj, and Mohammad Omidvar. The rationale behind imposing a severe punishment for laundering and assisting Mojahedin is its conflict with the anti-terrorism rules of the US and the fact that the US is highly sensitive about terrorist groups and gives priority to fighting against terrorism. It is even much heavier than the retributions awaiting MKO members and sympathizers in Iran that is the main victim of the terrorist activities of the organization. It seems that the US is to prove its decisiveness in fighting terrorism due to its irreparable costs for its nation and government. It also implies the deeper understanding of the US of the issue of terrorism compared to that of the European countries. It is necessary for all countries to join the US in acting against terrorism.
This is one aspect of the issue yet the other side of the coin is the dual policy of the US toward terrorism and MKO in particular. Here this question arises: what is the difference between the US and other nations and governments in foiling the danger of terrorism? What is the reason the US has turned the right to fight against terrorism as a monopoly of itself while in Iraq it supports the presence of MKO as a recognized terrorist group? Comparing 20 years of imprisonment for financial aid to MKO with the numerous terrorist activities of MKO in Iraqi soil in recent two and half a decade may reveal the insincerity of the US policy. MKO has committed various criminal acts like suppressing the Iraqi dissidents, monetary misuses, interference in internal affairs of Iraq, cooperating with Iraqi problematic trends as well as allying with the governmental terrorism of Saddam at a time when there is no country to legitimize Saddam or Mojahedin yet the US takes no step to help the Iraqi government in getting rid of this terrorist group.
The American court accuses MKO sympathizers up to 20 years of imprisonment for giving financial aid to Mojahedin while the head and body of the organization are settled in Iraq under the support of the US disregarding their apparent interference in internal affairs of Iraq. In fact, the US is acting as the shield of Mojahedin against the sovereignty of Iraq. Why the legal right of Iraq in expelling MKO from its soil has been broken and its citizens have to bear the negative consequences as well as considerable costs of the presence of a terrorist cult of personality therein? If acting sympathetically toward Mojahedin in the United States is a crime, then their expulsion from Iraq is the least the Iraqi people may demand from international bodies. At a time when the presence of seven MKO sympathizers in the US is so punished, the presence of a great number of MKO members in Iraq responsible for mass terrors therein has evidently a heavier compensation.
The US government has to accept the truth that if Mojahedin are terrorist and dangerous, then all nations and governments have the right to confront them. The judiciary system of Iraq has enlisted a number of MKO members to be arrested for committing crime against humanity.
However, up to the time being the execution of this vote has been hindered due to the mentioned supports and the act of the US in stepping between Mojahedin and the law. The excuses of the US for their dual policy are still unclear. It has even classified terrorism into good and bad terrorism. It seems that the US has an instrumental viewpoint toward Mojahedin and also refrains to pay any cost for its fight against MKO outside its soil yet it has to appease Mojahedin by supporting them in Iraq. In other words, the US is to introduce itself as the pioneer of fighting terrorism and also is to keep this good terrorism for a rainy day. If so, the Iraqi people are the primary victims of the US strategy.