MKO adopted violence as a necessary means for bringing about democracy
The likelihood of finding principles of democracy practiced within the terrorist cult of Mojahedin Khalq, as the group claims it is adhering to after its de-proscription, is much lower than expecting a Palestine–Israel peace treaty. History is about remembering and no tide of history can wash away the countless records of terrorist deeds perpetrated by the most hated terrorist MKO. Now on the anniversary of one of its most heinous terrorist operations inside Iran, blasting the Iranian Prime Minister’s Office, MKO has to be reminded of the bloody deed it deemed necessary for bringing about democracy! Can recorded evidence of this most ruthless terrorist operation be washed away when strongly and repeatedly asserted in the documents of a government aiming to take it under its protection? As asserted in the report by the US Department of State in 2007:
“In 1981, MKO leadership attempted to overthrow the newly installed Islamic regime; The MKO instigated a bombing campaign, including an attack against the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Prime Minister’s office, which killed some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar.”
On 30 August 1981, MKO set off a bomb in Iranian Prime Minister’s Office at 3 pm where the National Security Council was holding a meeting. The blast killed the new Iranian President, Muhammad-Ali Rajai, and his recently named Prime Minister, Mohammed Javad Bahonar. Now nearly three decades after the terrorist perpetration, it can be studied from different aspects. The details of the bombing exposed in the media abroad well suggested the role of MKO although the group refrained to directly accept the responsibility for the operation.
The terrorist act, one of the most outrageous and blamable form of terrorism in the world history, was somehow endorsed by the West when they deliberately preferred to remain silent on the act that would trigger a global tension if it happened in a Western country. At the same time, none of the Western countries approved use of terrorism as a means of implacable determination to achieve undemocratic and ambitious ends. Oddly enough, it was committed at a time when MKO was plotting its terrorist plans in its Paris safe-haven under French protection.
Bombings perpetrated by MKO not only arouse outrage and anger among the Iranian people, but also were condemned by a global consensus on the issue. That is true that some countries for certain political motives and interests hardly respect the principles of combating the truculent phenomena of terrorism, the global consensus to combat terrorism in no way justifies use of terrorism in any form.
An analysis of any terrorist deed with the cost and impact imposed on the society among whom it has been committed illuminates dark aspects of the reason behind the deed. In fact, any terrorist act carries indirect messages from its perpetrators to the target societies. In other words, it can be said that any terrorist act is an abrupt undemocratic reaction against democratic and legal practices within a society. MKO’s terrorist deeds that plagued Iran following its defeat in post-revolution political and social fronts each carried coded messages. In fact, MKO’s terrorist acts directly targeted the vote of people rather than being enraged by the leading figures of the regime themselves.
MKO issued no immediate announcement to accept the responsibility of the operation and took no clear position. However, in a telephone interview reflected in some Western newspapers at the time, Massoud Rajavi said that the fatal bombing at the prime minister’s office was carried out “by the legitimate resistance movement”. But his further explanation made it explicit who he meant by the ‘resistance movement’: “I am not informed at this time exactly who planted the bomb, but it was the resistance movement and I do not deny that the Mujahedeen make up the majority of that movement”.
MKO claimed to have committed the crime as a legitimate resistance on behalf of the nation, but there is no record of when and where people voted to recognize the legitimacy of a self-proclaimed resistance that possessed no patience to fit social disobedience. It is common in most democratic countries that struggle for power is conducted through free, democratic elections and no loser engages in aggressive, violent activities to revenge his defeat. Being great losers in political scene, MKO’s terrorist, violent deeds imply that the group in no way respected the democratic principles exercised by people.
The message of the August blast conveys is that MKO never stands for any legitimacy; if MKO were to receive no political recognition to assume power, then, neither could the legitimacy of any election be recognized nor the votes of the very same people whose legitimate right decides for the legitimacy of any power structure. Actually playing no decisive role in Iranian revolution, MKO later came to arrogate the right of the leadership. The flight of Rajavi and Bani-Sadr to France, from where they conducted the terrorist operation of blasting the prime minister’s office in Tehran, approves a fact that they could never distinguish justification from legitimacy, that democracy can never be achieved through violence.