Camp Ashraf Affairs

Iraq firm on extraditing MKO ringleaders to Iran

BAGHDAD – Tehran’s chief diplomat in Baghdad has said that Iraq is serious about handing over MKO ringleaders to Iran.
Hassan Qazemi Qom ,Tehran’s chief diplomat in Baghdad
Hassan Qazemi Qom told the Mehr News Agency that the Iraqi government is determined to expel the MKO group and it has already taken steps in this regard.

According to Iraqi resources about 3,400 MKO members are held at Camp Ashraf in Diyala province near the border with Iran.

Qazemi Qomi said since the Iraqi people are worried about the behavior of this group in their country and the Iraqi government has put the expulsion of the group on its agenda.

“In recent months a number of hypocrite members have left Iraq and certain have returned to Iran,” the ambassador noted. “We expect the Iraqi government to expedite its efforts in expelling the hypocrites.”

Mojahedin Khalq Organization are referred to as hypocrites in Iran.

The MKO began a campaign of assassinations and bombings in Iran shortly after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The group moved to Iraq in the early 1980s and fought Iran from there until the United States invaded the country in March 2003.

The group was also involved in the suppression of the Iraqi people during Saddam Hussein’s rule.

Extradition of criminals

The envoy said during the Iranian parliamentary delegation’s visit to Iraq a number of lawmakers sitting on the Majlis Legal Committee exchanged views with the Iraqi side on signing a deal on extraditing criminals.

Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani made a five-day tour of Iraq at the head of a parliamentary delegation from November 4 to 8.

November 15, 2009 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Tensions in Iranian Exile Camp Ashraf in Iraq

CAMP ASHRAF, Iraq — There seems, as with many problems in Iraq, no good answer for Camp Ashraf, as tensions here rise and American soldiers get closer to leaving: what to do with the few thousand Iranian dissidents here trained in explosives and proficient with tanks and machine guns who have sworn to overthrow the government in Tehran?

(Giti Zardestian, with a portrait of her son, and Reza Nawrozi, right, both from Iran, said that they had been waiting nine days to see relatives at Camp Ashraf)

The group that lives here, the People’s Mujahedeen, has had a long and winding history. It killed Americans, supported the takeover of the United States Embassy in Iran during the 1970s and was given sanctuary in Iraq by Saddam Hussein. But after the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the group was protected by the United States after supplying information about Iran’s nuclear program. Still, the United States regards it as a terrorist organization.

The Iraqi government, allied with the group’s enemy, Iran, is now losing patience: In July, the Iraqi Army launched a raid on the camp with the purpose of establishing a police station there. Police officers and soldiers opened fire and ran over people with military vehicles, killing 11 and wounding more than 500. The government wants to throw the group out of Iraq.

“That’s our goal, to get them out of the country,” Ali al-Alak, an adviser to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, said in a recent interview. “We have enough to worry about.”

A standoff has been in place since the deaths in July, though both Iraqis and members of Camp Ashraf worry about a new round of violence if a solution is not found soon.

Among other complaints, members of the camp say that the Iraqi Army intermittently blocks fuel and food from reaching them and prevents them from coming and going.
Iraq has prohibited news organizations and most humanitarian groups from entering Camp Ashraf since the July raid, but the government allowed a reporter and photographer inside the camp last week to interview its members and their relatives.

During the visit, the tension between the group and Iraqi security forces was conspicuous. The Iraqi police and army units said they generally stayed in a police station set up after the raid and had little contact with the camp for fear of being attacked.

Large sections of the 14-square-mile camp were patrolled by unarmed camp members. United States soldiers were also seen at the camp.

While Ashraf’s residents said that Iraqi forces had been doing the bidding of Iran, Iraqi Army officers described the members of the People’s Mujahedeen as being in a cultlike thrall to their leaders, too frightened to leave or to speak to Iraqi police officers and soldiers.

“It is not a civil society,” said Col. Saadi Habib al-Duleimi, who oversees the camp. “It is a complex political-military system. Personal opinion is not important. Decisions are not up to the individual. If a leader at the camp tells you to die, you will die.”

The camp resembles a small military town — only neater. It has an artificial lake, sports fields, a shopping mall, a hospital and rows of poplars. Some structures, including a mosque, are replicas of buildings in Iran.

In one of Ashraf’s parks there is a set of large swings but not a child in sight. Camp leaders say the children were moved out years ago because of the military nature of the group, which in the past has launched attacks into Iran, has assassinated Iranian officials and has come under fire from Iranian rockets.

Since the raid, the camp has been in limbo.

The United Nations and Iraq have been seeking countries willing to accept Ashraf’s residents, but they have had a difficult time persuading governments. Most residents say being returned to Iran, where most of them have citizenship, is out of the question because they would be executed.

But residents also say that life at the camp since the raid has become intolerable.

“The situation has deteriorated; people are in a constant worry,” said Hossein Moradi, 46, an electrical engineer who has lived in the camp for 22 years. “We need a guarantee that Ashraf will not be attacked again.”

In a recent statement, the United Nations said that “efforts are now needed on all sides to reduce tension and look for solutions,” calling on “the international community to provide all possible assistance in this regard, including resettlement to third countries.”

During the visit to Ashraf, a group of families had been waiting for days outside the camp’s gates to see relatives. The Iraqi Army would not allow them, and the residents refused to go to the camp’s entrance.

The accounts of the family and of the camp members were remarkable in their dissimilarity: While the relatives said their loved ones had been kidnapped or tricked into joining, Ashraf residents said they were there willingly.

Nisreen Lufti Zada, 60, said she had been waiting at the camp for nine days to visit her daughter, Susan Banihashimi, 45. “She had nothing to do with politics or activities against the Iranian government,” Mrs. Zada said. “I have no idea why she came here.”

During a visit five years ago, she said, her daughter “had been afraid of everything — even the walls around her.”

But on this day, Ms. Banihashimi was a picture of poise. Some of her responses, as well as those of other Ashraf residents, sounded mechanical. “I voluntarily left Iran,” Ms. Banihashimi said. “I was on the verge of being executed because of my activities.”

Asked why she had refused to see her mother, Ms. Banihashimi said her mother had been compelled by the Iranian intelligence service to come so it would appear that Ms. Banihashimi was being held against her will.

“It is better I don’t see her, although I would love to see her, because then the Iranian regime would then put even more pressure on her,” she said.

Mrs. Zada had said that her daughter had been gang raped by Ashraf leaders and that similar acts happened to other women there. But Ms. Banihashimi said no such thing had happened.

“Their allegations are not new,” she said. “It is one of the dirty plots of the Iranian regime to try to break the will of women.”

Two days later, mother and daughter met, but Ms. Banihashimi said the reunion had been tense.

“Once she realized I wasn’t ready to come back, she insulted me and slapped me in the face,” she said. They did not decide on whether to meet again.

Reporting was contributed by Riyadh Mohammed and Mohammed Hussein from Baghdad, and Sa’ad Izzi and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Diyala Province.

TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

November 11, 2009 0 comments

Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

MKO leaders refused to let Iranian families meet their children in Camp Ashraf

Despite the humanitarian efforts of the Iraqi Government, MKO leaders refused to let Iranian families meet their children in Camp Ashraf

Leaders of the Organization refused to allow the reunions of Iranian families coming from Iran to Iraq to meet with their children who are members of the organization in Camp Ashraf, although they have undergone long separations.

This news came during a visit by a number of Iranian families with the consent and support of the Iraqi government to Camp Ashraf in Diyala province on Saturday to meet their children who are from the organization’s members. The families were disappointed when officials of the organization refused to allow them to meet with members of the organization for fear that these members will leave and return to their homeland and their families.

For its part, the Government of Iraq has asked the American side and a delegation from the United Nations and International Committee of the Red Cross and international human rights organization to hold direct negotiations with the leaders of the organization for continued long hours to convince them of the need to deal with this situation in a humane and approved way and for the Iranian families to meet with their children instead of the organisation publishing statements which accuse the Iraqi government of violating human rights laws.

Ultimately the negotiations failed as a result of the absolute rejection by the leaders of the organization of this humanitarian initiative. To achieve their aims the families have begun a sit-in at Camp Ashraf to demand that the Iraqi government and international community intervene to pressure the leaders of the organization in Camp Ashraf to give their children complete freedom to make personal decisions in response to their emotions and their sentiments.

Meanwhile the Iranian families stressed the amount of suffering and pain they face at the moment and over the years as a result separation from their children. The families said that the main objective of the existence of Iranian families in Iraq is to help their children and return them to Iran to live with us in peace.

Translated by Iran Interlink

November 5, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization members' families

Families on hunger strike to protest American support for MKO terrorist group

Families on hunger strike to protest American support for terrorist group which holds their loved ones hostage ..American Army established a check point to prevent families release their loved ones from a terrorist cult

Iran Interlink update on Camp Ashraf

Al Khalis, Iraq, November 04, 2009 – Eight families (named below) travelled to Iraq from Iran this week to find and meet with their relatives who are trapped in a terrorist cult. Once again American soldiers, apparently acting as lackeys for the MKO leaders in Camp Ashraf, have blocked all attempts of these families to meet their loved ones.

Efforts by the Iraqi authorities, U.N. representatives, the ICRC and others to facilitate the humanitarian move have been blocked by the Americans.

Although Iraqi police have established a base inside Camp Ashraf in an effort to enforce Iraqi law among the residents there, the American soldiers have established a further buffer checkpoint which effectively prevents them from carrying out this duty.

Families who arrived at the camp on Saturday 31 October were able to pass through the Iraqi checkpoints to the camp, but were blocked at the final checkpoint which is manned by U.S. military personnel.

The families are now staying at the first check point and an Iraqi officer is acting as liaison between them and the camp. The US army is apparently resisting the requests of the families and insists that the Iraqis should ask permission from the MKO leaders to let families see their loved ones. The MKO is not only an illegal foreign terrorist group in Iraq but has since 1997 been on the U.S. terrorism list.

The families are living in temporary container units. They say they are grateful to the Iraqi military for accommodating them at the first check point and providing security as well as attempting to organise meetings between the families and their loved ones. It is now four days that the families are living in the military check point with the obvious lack of facilities.

From November 2 the families began a hunger strike. They demand that the Iraqi government as the only responsible body in Iraq must take charge and allow the freedom of their children.

The Iraqi government’s attempts to dismantle the terrorist camp and release the victims has been facing strong resistance from the Israeli lobby and neocons who support the return of Saddamists to Iraq. The Mojahedin Khalq Organisation has acted as their proxy in Iraq with Camp Ashraf being used as the base for gathering and coordinating the Saddamists after the American Invasion of Iraq in 2003. By order of the Pentagon, the camp was protected and held together by the U.S. until their retreat in 2008. Americans left a unit at the camp to make sure the terrorist HQ is not dismantled by the new Iraqi government.

The MKO leaders, with the backing of the U.S. army, refuse to accept families meeting their children. They say the families are “agents of the Iranian secret services” and have refused even to hand over the letters the families have written to their children.

Names of the families currently visiting Camp Ashraf:

1- Mr. Jahanshir Sassani – looking for his son Mohammad Ali Sassani . Mohammad Ali was a P.O.W. during the time of Saddam’s war with Iran. He was handed over to the MKO during the war in defiance of international law. He has been in Iraq for 21 years. This is Mr. Sassani’s fourth visit to Iraq to try to meet with his son.

2- Mr. Reza Noroozi – looking for his son Abdolmajid Nooozi. Abdolmajid was a P.O.W. during the time of Saddam’s war with Iran. He was handed over to the MKO during the war in defiance of international law. He has been in Iraq for 22 years.

3- Mr. Akbar Moradi Rizi – looking for his brother Hossein Moradi Rizi. Hossien has been in cult isolation for the past 30 years.

4- Mrs. Nasreen Lotfizadeh – looking for her daughter Soosan Banihashemi. Soosan has been in cult isolation for the past 21 years.

5- Mrs. Parvin Saberi – looking for her brother Aghil Saberi. Aghil has been in cult isolation for the past 16 years.

6- Mrs. Giti Zartoshtnia – looking for her son Roozbeh Attaee (aka: Ali Mahdavi). Roozbeh has been in cult isolation for the past 10 years.

7- Mrs. Masoumeh Mahboob – looking for her husband Arzil Dialeh and sons Mohsen and Peyman Dialeh. They have been in cult isolation for the past 7 years.

8- (…)

November 5, 2009 0 comments

Iraq

European countries urged to host PMOI

BAGHDAD- The Iraqi cabinet’s secretary general on Wednesday revealed attempts by the Iraqi government to convince European countries to host the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), which is currently based in Iraq.

“Iran has called on Iraq to hand over the PMOI’s members, but the (Iraqi) government does not want to force them to go to a country against their wishes, just as it does not want them to stay in Iraq,” Ali al-Allaq said in an exclusive statement to Aswat al-Iraq news agency.

“There is no justification for the organization’s members to remain in Iraq,” Allaq added.
The official explained that it is not possible for the Iraqi government to look after the PMOI’s members, who are taking refuge in the country, at a time it declares security and reconstruction as its top priorities.

The PMOI, also known by the abbreviations MKO and MEK, is a militant socialist organization that advocates the overthrow of Iran’s current government. Founded in 1965, the PMOI was originally devoted to armed struggle against the Shah of Iran, capitalism and Western imperialism.

The group officially renounced violence in 2001 and today it is the main organization in the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an “umbrella coalition” parliament-in-exile that claims to be dedicated to a democratic, secular and coalition government in Iran.

November 5, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Dissident Iranians Live In Limbo In Iraq

Iraq: We treat Mojahedin Khalq have no status

Listen to the Story (4min, 27Sec)
An old Middle East aphorism says "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." With the United States and Iran at odds, it should mean warm relations between the United States and the opponents of Tehran.

But a group of 3,400 Iranian dissidents, currently living north of Baghdad, has posed a dilemma for the U.S. government.

They were given U.S. military protection in 2003 after the American-led invasion of Iraq, but now the Iraqi government wants them out. The trouble is that they don’t want to leave.

The Mujahedeen-e Khalq organization, known as MEK, was part of the alliance that overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979. But it quickly ran afoul of the Islamic revolution. The organization moved to Iraq in the 1980s. Since then, the dissidents have lived as refugees at Camp Ashraf, north of Baghdad.

Refuge in Iraq came at a price, though. Saddam Hussein put them to work against their own country during the Iran-Iraq war. And he had other jobs for them, as well.
Ali al-Zuhairi, an Iraqi tribal sheik in the town of Khalis, near Camp Ashraf, recalls bitterly how the MEK helped Saddam put down the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings in 1991. Zuhairi claims the MEK killed rebel Iraqis and left their bodies in the street. He calls them "terrorists."

Officially, the U.S. government agrees, and designates the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization. But on the ground in Iraq, the U.S. treats the group differently, says Mohammad al-Shemari, another resident of Khalis.

Quil Lawrence, National Public Radio

November 4, 2009 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Washington backed MKO terrorist cult Bars Family Meetings with Members in Iraq Camp

Leaders of the anti-Iran terror group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), have barred the group members incarcerated in a military base – about 60km (37 miles) north of Baghdad – form visiting their family members and relatives, fearing their defection, informed sources said on Monday.

According to the Habilian website (run by the family members of Iranian terror martyrs), a number of MKO members’ families, including their mothers, fathers and relatives on Saturday went to Camp of the New Iraq (formerly known as Camp Ashraf) to meet their sons and daughters but the guards at the camp didn’t allow them to do so and reciprocated their demands with harsh and insulting behavior.

The Camp guards also disrespected representatives of the international human rights bodies dispatched to the area to accompany the families.

Statements made by the MKO leaders in response indicated that they would not allow such meetings for the fear that families might encourage their beloved offspring to defect the terrorist group.

Iraqi security forces took control of the training base of the MKO at Camp Ashraf – about 60km (37 miles) north of Baghdad – in July and detained dozens of the members of the terrorist group.
The Iraqi authority then changed the name of the military center from Camp Ashraf to the Camp of New Iraq.

The MKO has been in Iraq’s Diyala province since the 1980s. The Iraqi government and parliament have announced that they would not tolerate the group anymore and that they are seeking to expel the group from the country in the near future.

The anti-Iran terror group has been blacklisted as a terrorist organization by many international entities and countries.

The MKO is behind a slew of assassinations and bombings inside Iran, a number of EU parliamentarians said in a recent letter in which they slammed a British court decision to remove the MKO from the British terror list. The EU officials also added that the group has no public support within Iran because of their role in helping Saddam Hussein in the Iraqi imposed war on Iran (1980-1988).

Many of the MKO members abandoned the terrorist organization while most of those still remaining in the camp are said to be willing to quit but are under pressure and torture not to do so.

A May 2005 Human Rights Watch report accused the MKO of running prison camps in Iraq and committing human rights violations.

According to the Human Rights Watch report, the outlawed group puts defectors under torture and jail terms.
The group started assassination of the citizens and officials after the Islamic Revolution in Iran in a bid to take control of the newly established Islamic Republic. It killed several of Iran’s new leaders in the early years after the revolution, including the then President Mohammad Ali Rajayee, Prime Minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar and Judiciary Chief Mohammad Hossein Beheshti who were killed in bomb attacks by MKO members in 1981.

The group fled to Iraq in 1986, where it was protected by Saddam Hussein and where it helped the Iraqi dictator suppress Shiite and Kurd uprisings in the country.

The terrorist group joined Saddam’s army during the Iraqi imposed war on Iran (1980-1988) and helped Saddam and killed thousands of Iranian civilians and soldiers during the US-backed Iraqi imposed war on Iran.

The MKO was put on the US terror list in 1997 by the then President, Bill Clinton, but since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the group has been strongly backed by the Washington Neocons, who also argue for the MKO to be taken off the US terror list.

November 3, 2009 0 comments

Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

The enslaved in Ashraf have the right to live free

The propaganda machine of MKO never ceases to advertize the expressed concerns of its European advocates over the situation of human rights in Iran and especially its members in Anybody who claims to be a defender of human rights, oppressed people and women in particular should have the issue of Camp Ashraf on his conscience Camp Ashraf, in Iraq. It seems that these advocates are totally unaware of the fact that the group they are backing was formed as an armed opposition and which is long despised by Iranians and expelled because of its many bloody, brutal terrorist activities against Iranian authorities and civilians. Or the reports that it has been designated a terrorist group since 1997 by the US as well as being, a few years later, recognized a cult of personality for its cultic practices like committing self-immolations and systematic application of brainwashing techniques as well as subjecting members to intense physical and psychological pressures.

Regardless of all this truth, I want to take the opportunity to tell them that we are also concerned about the members not living but enslaved and held in Camp Ashraf against their own will. If they cannot, we can see how the organization is exploiting them as human shields to safeguard its own entity rather than being the least concerned about the members themselves. No member has ever been forced to return to Iran, though a number have already returned and are now safely living with their families. They can be sent to any country that accepts them but it is the organization’s strict cultic rules and pressures that has so far impeded the process of releasing the members from the bonds of the cult. The most authentic sources are the detached members of the organization whose views are released regularly through a number of their personally run-websites and whom are labeled by the organization with many names.

Anybody who claims to be a defender of human rights, oppressed people and women in particular should have the issue of Camp Ashraf on his conscience, not in the way the organization wants it but rather as a real issue of humanity and to put an end to their sufferings and exploitations. Considering that a remarkable number of the victimized members held in Camp Ashraf are women who have long been abused as sexual slaves, instruments to advance the cult and group’s objectives, and in general, servitudes of a masculine hegemony. The predicament of these insiders, who under the hollow slogans of being the pioneers and heroines of freedom and democracy suffer crushing physical and psychological pressures, is even worse than those enslaved in the outside world. They are under severe physical and psychological cult bounds of the organization and deprived of free will, thought, and as we have recently witnessed, forced onto the frontline of defenders of Ashraf to confront the entrance of the Iraqi police into the camp.

Many of them mothers and wives now detached from their families and each running a life in isolation because of the strict cultic regulations, they are all victims of most inhuman practices carried out within the MKO terrorist cut. For the outsiders it is hard to believe, as they might have read it in the books or seen on the screens, that just in a real piece of land in a neighbor or far country a terrorist cult is misusing modern science against women, that is, to make them infertile. Publically admitted by Batoul Soltani, an experienced rank of the organization’s leadership council who managed to escape the cult:

“The women members who have dedicated their family life, children and husbands to the cult leaders are totally separated from the outside world by the removal of their womb. In the organization, the hysterectomy surgery is considered as reaching the peak.” (Presstv)

In two phases, at least to mention, women suffered under the extreme exploitation exercised by MKO. In the first phase, on pretext of removing obstacles for the advancement of the struggle, the leaders ordered compulsory inter-organizational marriages. These marriages didn’t take place according to the members’ tastes or ages. This was closely related with rising and degrees of merit. The couples thus married were forbidden to have children and their conjugal duties and meetings were under strict control. In fact, the marriage was an ideological practice; the couples were the property of the organization and their marriage had to be channeled for the advancement of organizational ends rather than to secure familial and emotional relations. The target was not love, emotion, sexual pleasure or continuation of the generations but the control of the forces and maintenance of the organization. Women were utilized as the objects of controlling the male insiders and motivating them onward.

The second phase began with the ideological divorces after MKO’s failure in the military operation called Eternal Light. To justify the failure, Massoud Rajavi in 1991 completed his philosophy of ideological revolution by the decree of ideological divorcing. He gave the command of general divorcing of all married members. Thereafter, women, suffering grave humiliation, had to succumb to the wills of the leaders. In 2003, the world was shocked to see members of MKO setting themselves on fire to protest Maryam Rajavi’s arrest by French police. Two women members, Marzieh Babakhani and Neda Hassani, died of the injuries. They had the order to sacrifice themselves for the leader.

Many of women members are crushed under heavy physical and psychological pressures at the present. They suffer humiliation by regular confessions of the sins they have never committed before other members and have to write and report about their dreams and fancies. Where in the world women are treated as they are? Confined within the walls of a heavily guarded military camp in Iraq, these women are susceptible to any form of assault and harassment and we think the Iraqi government has taken a sound and wise decision to close Camp Ashraf at least because all enslaved insiders, and particularly women, will possibly achieve the freedom they never dream.

It is a duty on all humanitarian, international bodies and defenders of human rights to seek eliminate violence against the members of MKO, a proven case of exploitation and violence that lies before their eyes. If they are determined, they can easily hear the help cries of these men and women who do not wish for much; they want to live like other free people in the world as it is their right and any move that may hinder the process is criticized as siding with the cult leaders whose false, pro-democratic visage has duped many so far.

October 31, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Camp Ashraf, MKO’s political excuse in the West

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – a précis of parts 33-34

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms. Soltani, your given reasons for preservation of Ashraf implies that MKO does not shrink to sacrifice all of the camp Ashraf members to survive the organization considers two functions for the camp, political and strategic with your focus more on the latter function. You also had references to the organization’s attempts in the West to preserve Ashraf which I classify as the former function. Do you have anything more to add?

Batool Soltani: Your classification seems accurate and right. Besides considering the strategic potentialities of Ashraf that secures the permanence of the organization, there are other interests that it strives to achieve in the West. As you have noticed especially in the recent years, Ashraf has given the organization a good excuse to orchestrate a variety of rallies and gatherings, some arranged with only a handful of people, in different Western cities. They work as fuels to run the organization’s propaganda machine throughout the world as a vindication of its entity and practically influential political life.

Naturally, to survive on the world’s political stage to show off as a potential alternative it has to buy credit by playing up whatever trifle. The victimization of Camp Ashraf can influentially impress the public opinion that the organization exploits as a working leverage in European countries.

The volume of reports and news released at the present concerning Ashraf indicates that the organization has no other lever to rely on to advance its political ends in the West. While the organization calls the world’s attention to Ashraf to intervene to stop the human tragedy taking place there, which also puts its great impact on the Ashraf residents as well, it does not shrink to sacrifice all of the camp’s members to survive and further its ends. The propagandas persuades insiders to insist on their resistance since they may come to believe that for sure something would come out of these propagandas and they may achieve Rajavi’s promised victory to start a triumphant return to their home country. Would not you be influenced by such illusion if you are made to believe that you have the support of whole world behind you?

The consequent easy result will be that Rajavi can persuade Ashraf residents to commit suicide for the final battle to gain the victory. That is the political function the organization intends to grab at and to convince the West that Ashraf is no more a military camp housing listed terrorists but a city that resists to survive and it is a duty on the world to join the resistance. That is why in most of its programs on Ashraf aired by its TV it focuses on the existing facilities, accommodations, green avenues and gardens as well as people in civilian, clean outfits rather than military uniforms.

SFF: If you will, Ms. Soltani, lets return to our unfinished issue, that is, reasons for Mojahedin to stay in Iraq, and the possible fluctuations that may help them to continue with their strategy of overthrowing the regime. How is it possible and what guarantees it to achieve the end by effectuating its stay in Iraq?

BS: You know, the principal thing Rajavi exclusively relies on is the time, which plays a crucial role for someone in his position. He knows well that the question of time can be either accelerating or deterring the accomplishment of events. He has the experience of being driven forth by the time in tortuous paths and strained circumstances. He knows that the states are after their own interests and may dodge to be observant of their promises. He has reiterated again and again that neither Europeans nor Americans believe in any principle but accomplishment of their own interests and they consider no ethics in their relations, feeling under no obligation to be observant of their pledge.

Thus, each side was after achieving its own interest more or less and Rajavi believed that it would be so treasured if the organization could convince them to support it even if it imposed makeshift costs on the organization to furnish them with the interests that pleased them. Such reasoning was enough to push them into an attempt to draw the US political support regardless of a notorious anti-American history and assassination of its personnel. The organization hoped that the pass of time had changed many things and the two sides reckoned on a guarantee that could well ensure collective interests.

As a result, the organization needed to procure time to pass over the crises and to continue its anchor in Iraq. That is why from the very beginning of Saddam’s fall the organization began to invest on the existing internal disorder and frictions among the dissident groups. It is still through the support of some factions and individuals that the organization hopes a permanent residence in Iraq. However, the question of buying time and letting their supports profit out of it remains a strategic priority in its global relations. Why France tolerates presence of Maryam Rajavi on its soil while it is well aware of the costs that her presence imposes on the country? Does not it know all problems the organization is facing in Iraq? While France is still opposing removal of the organization from the EU terror list, we see the leader of the organization is freely active in the heart of the country?
SFF: For sure it is looking after its own interests.

BS: Exactly. Since 1997 Maryam Rajavi has two times travelled between Iraq and France with no restriction. France could have easily occluded or expel her for leading a blacklisted, clandestine terrorist group in France. If France had abjured to grant her asylum, no state or organization would have condemned it for breach of human rights because the organization had been listed a terrorist group. Not only the French government let her settle on its soil, but also provided for her protection. Trading a profitable political deal, France tries taking advantage of a potential lever by paying the least cost. Of course, we have nothing to do with Franc’s reluctance to receive Ashraf residents as it is another case to discuss. What is of great importance for the organization at the present is to be removed from the US list of FTO which may grant the organization the legitimacy of a liberation army permitted to carry arms. That is the future in perspective.

SFF: But it is possible on condition that the organization has soil to settle on. It is impossible to organize a liberation army when it has no piece of land on the border. How is it possible?

BS: That is it. It depends on the influence of Americans on the Iraqi government. It would be enough for the organization if the US could convince Iraqis to let it carry arms, of course on condition it is removed from the US terrorist list. It all relies on possibilities and ifs, but does it have any other choice but to wait for the unexpected opportunity to arrive? So, the organization waits and waits for the ripe time that can change its course and connect another ring of the chain. As the violence is innate in its nature, violent tactics of mass suicide and immolation may work as good instruments to evade or pass over the temporal impediments.

Rajavi believes that a tree with dried leaves and branches can possibly bloom but it cannot if it is uprooted. It is the very same case with the organization and the duty on the members is to prevent uproot and demise of the organization so it may be rejuvenated by a new political entity. The members play the role of the leaves that their drop, as they sacrifice for the organization, help safeguarding the trunk that may come to life by shooting greens. So it is the body that is of significance and all have to do their best and sacrifice their lives to protect it.

SFF: Ms. Soltani, will you be clear enough to say that how can the organization kill the time to use the present Iraqi Government as a lever to effectuate its strategy of armed struggle and liberation army?

BS: The organization insists to become an outlet of violence and arms for both Americans and Iraqis to carry out their ambitions against Iran. It hopes to be equipped with arms and does whatever it can to instigate tension that deters any peace. By demonizing Iranian regime, they try to justify the right of carrying arms.

Link to the previous parts

October 28, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Urgency of safeguarding Camp Ashraf at any price

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – a précis of parts 31-32

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms. Soltani, it is of great significance that the organization stresses on defending Camp Ashraf to impede its fall even through a mass suicide or an organized human tragedy. Regardless of the camp’s magnitude in preserving the whole structure of the organization, there must be other strategic factors that necessitate preservation of Ashraf. I think your elucidations can help reach alertness to hamper a human tragedy.

Batool Soltani: it can be observed from a variety of angles, but I believe that the organization is entirely depended on Ashraf for a range of pivotal political, strategic, social, propaganda and even fundraising concerns. For the insiders, Ashraf would be depicted as a strategic bastion where resistance could be fully interpreted, not because it below life into the organization but as it was located in the proximity of Iran’s soil.

SFF: Or to restate it, to continue the very same strategy of liberation war to topple Iranian regime.

BS: Exactly. What they meant at the end was that the fall of Ashraf presaged demise of the liberation army, that meant backsliding to a beginning stage when the organization was desperate what to do and where to begin from. It would cost a lot and could even lead to a crisis that could seriously challenge the permanence of the organization. The stability of Ashraf meant that the liberation army was still alive with a spirit of fighting that legitimized its existence.

So the organization needed a stronghold in the vicinity of Iran’s soil for other reasons as well. It could help fundraising. The organization would say Ashraf had been the cause for many sympathizers abroad to donate. Ashraf denoted that the organization was still alive and active and needed support of the sympathizers to live on. No sooner had the organization suffered its disgraceful defeat in the operation Eternal Light than it plotted the assassination of Sayyad Shirazi and Lajevardi and launched a series of mortar attacks just to advertize and display its military potentiality. It could help drawing sums of money and recruiting new forces from among the sympathizers in abroad. And all these came out of Ashraf, so it was vital both for the organization and the sympathizers and advocates to help reinforce Ashraf and its fighters to keep the military strength going.

The organization was also counting on the regional fluctuations and calculating that a disturbed region could grant it the opportunity of plotting assaults against Iranian borders to lead Iran into a real crisis, or it could collaborate with the US forces if they had any military plans against Iran. It all depended on the existence of Ashraf and its military dynamic.

The significance of Ashraf can be looked from a different angle, too; it is its very context and the fabric of its structure. Natural enough, those who have not seen Ashraf from the close can hardly perceive what I say. But for me who have been there for years it is easy to realize its vitality for the organization. It had long strived and spent money to revive a piece of dead desert and to establish many facilities of a city there; relocation of Ashraf means forcing the people of a city to evacuate their home.

Suppose Iraq has no intention of evicting Mojahedin from Camp Ashraf and they have to be relocated for certain protective measures. Do you think it is easy to abandon a piece of land that it has revived and had helped it recuperate many of its losses? It will cost the organization a lot to reestablish a similar bastion anywhere with all facilities designed for short and long term ends as it has set up in Ahraf. Now you may fathom the preciousness of Ashraf for the organization to safeguard it even through persuaded mass suicides and human tragedies. Of course, evacuation of Ashraf may not be considered the total demise of the organization but, for sure, it will burden it with heavy costs and weigh down the scope of its activity for some time. So, as the most worthless thing for the organization is the life of its members, it costs the organization much less if it could keep Ashraf by sacrificing the prepared, ready scapegoats. However, it is not all the thing said concerning the significance of preserving Ashraf.

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms. Soltani, you have already elucidated on the strategic significance of Ashraf for the organization, I mean, its need to preserve a spot on Iraqi soil because of its strategic vitality to confront Iran. But you know best that it was all founded on the patronage of Saddam that had helped the organization to make a shift in its strategy of struggle to open a new war front vis-à-vis Iran and to start a new phase of collaboration with him that tied their destiny together. But now it is different and for a variety of reasons Iraqis cannot tolerate the presence of the organization on their soil or even accepting them as refugees. Now, the question is why the organization insists to safeguard a bastion that deprives it of any chance of utilizing it as a strategic opportunity?

Batool Soltani: It is true from your point of view, meaning that it is better for the organization to leave Iraq today rather than tomorrow. As you pointed, the fall of Saddam blurred the role of Ashraf as a pivotal strategic bastion to a great degree. But immediately, the organization began to calculate how it could both stay and to maintain its already bolstered potentiality. That is true that leaving Iraq benefits the organization in accelerating the accomplishment of the ends sparked within Ashraf, but where can it go? None of the neighbors bordering Iran, regardless of any existing tense of relations with Iran, have problems with Mojahedin themselves and are aware of the consequences of accepting them in. As a result, the organization, also knowing the truth, prefers to accept the risk of staying in Iraq at any price.

SFF: Sorry, why, then, the organization insists to stay in Iraq knowing the very consequences of staying or leaving?

BS: I have already underlined that its existence is tied to the survival of Ashraf. The prospect you pointed to is all guaranteed by the permanence of Ashraf. Consequently, the organization has no other choice but to move alongside the tactic of preserving the camp where its future destiny may shape. To tell you the last word, it is not at all an issue of strategic importance but to survive and it is possible only through the resistance of Ashraf. Then, where can it go when it lacks the needed political footstep all invested within its bastion? The one who is drowning grabs at any stick to survive rather than thinking about his future. That is the case with the organization and it is thinking of the present than the future.

To survive, it appeals to anybody, even to the adversaries. To get the least results, the organization pays the highest prices, that is the life of members through mass suicides. It still believes that the hope to topple the regime originates from Ashraf; the only thing it follows is to be permitted to stay disarmed on Iraqi soil close to Iranian borders. If the circumstance fails to be ripe to overthrow the regime, no problem, maybe future grants it the opportunity it has been after. So long it has been promising its members and fostering hope in them to victoriously assume the power, let them wait some more time! Surprisingly enough, the organization reckons on and hopes for unexpected circumstances that can change the course of events it can well exploit.

Unlike its claims, the unexpected have always worked as parameters that have hampered the materialization of the overthrow and have worked as excuses that the organization manipulates to justify its strategic defeats. It is out of these unexpected factors that the future is determined and the organization takes the next step. Its forward motion relies on a chain of events that keeps each ring waiting to connect it to an unpredicted one. Once, for instance, it deployed its forces to Iranian western borders of Kurdistan province after suffering failure in its announced tactic of armed struggle. But it soon fell out with the Kurdish Democrat Party and had to move to Europe where it was offered to unite with Saddam and to establish its bastion on Iraqi soil. None of these events were already calculated and expected for and the organization encountered the opportunities as it moved forward. Thus, the organization draws on its past experiences of coming across opportunities to pass over the crises.

To be continued

October 24, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts