Hot Topics

MEK as Human bargaining chips in deals with Iran

Seven summers ago, in a crowded conference room of a Washington hotel, an Iranian exile leader gave the first detailed public account of Iran’s until-then secret nuclear projects at the cities of Natanz and Arak. It greatly turned up the volume of a seemingly endless international controversy over Iran’s nuclear intentions.

The disclosures, on August 14, 2002, did little to earn the group that made them, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), merit points from the U.S. government. A year later, the Washington office of the NCRI, the political offshoot of Iran’s Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) resistance movement, was shut. The State Department placed the group on its list of terrorist organizations. (The MEK, also known as the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran, had been given that designation in 1997).

Now, another five summers later, two dozen MEK supporters are on hunger strike across from the White House to exhort the U.S. government to stick to promises to protect some 3,500 members of the organization in a camp north of Baghdad. Iraqi forces stormed Camp Ashraf in late July and the MEK says nine residents were killed in the initial assault. Two have since died of their injuries.

Hunger strikes in solidarity with the residents of Camp Ashraf were also taking place in Berlin, London, Brussels and Ottawa and at the camp itself. They draw attention to an arrangement that was both unique and bizarre – an enclave of people labeled terrorists by Washington but protected by U.S. military forces – and speak volumes about erratic U.S. policies on a group hated by Iran’s theocracy.

Those at Camp Ashraf, including around 1,000 women, have become, in effect, bargaining chips in the complicated relationship between the United States, Iraq and Iran. The raid on the camp coincided with a visit to Iraq by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. What better way for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to demonstrate that the Iraqis, not the Americans, are in charge now that Iraqi troops have assumed control under the Status of Forces Agreement signed last year?

What better way, too for Maliki, once derided as an American puppet, to show Iran’s hard-liners and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iraq’s Shi’ite-dominated government wants to tighten relations with Tehran? The raid on Camp Ashraf drew applause from Iranian officials, including Ali Larijani, the hard-line speaker of parliament. "Praiseworthy," he said, "even though it is rather late."

The MEK was founded in 1965 by leftist students and intellectuals opposed to the Shah of Iran, and it played a part in the Islamic revolution that toppled his rule in 1979. But it soon fell out with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and was banned in 1981, when it began a campaign of bombings and assassinations of government officials.

WARNINGS OF HUMANITARIAN DISASTER

In 1986, under an agreement with Saddam Hussein, it established bases in Iraq from where it launched cross-border raids into Iran.

Since 2003, when U.S. forces disarmed MEK guerrillas in Camp Ashraf and took over its protection, the government in Iran has repeatedly demanded that they be turned over to Iran. Their prospects there would be bleak, more so at a time when the Iranian government is staging mass trials of people who demonstrated against Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election in June.

In an open letter to President Barack Obama, in the form of a full-page advertisement in the Washington Times, MEK supporters this week warned of a humanitarian disaster unless U.S. forces reassumed control, at least temporarily. "The long-term solution to the problem is the presence in Ashraf of United Nations forces or at least a U.N. monitoring mission."

This is not the first time that the MEK has served as a bargaining chip in Middle Eastern politics. The group was placed on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations in 1997 at a time when the Clinton administration hoped the move would facilitate opening a dialogue with Iran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami, who was seen as a moderate.

The European Union put the MEK on its terrorist blacklist five years later. Critics of the decision saw it as kowtowing to Iranian demands to avoid harming important trade relations. After years of legal wrangling, the EU took the MEK off its list of banned terrorist organizations on Jan. 26, a decision that infuriated Tehran.

Somewhat ironically for a country described as the world’s "most active state sponsor of terrorism" by the U.S. State Department, Iran said the EU’s decision meant Europe had "distanced itself from the path of the international community in fighting terror."

The Obama administration has shown no sign of even considering taking the MEK off the terrorist list and thus further complicate its already complicated relations with Iran. Is abandoning the people at Camp Ashraf to an uncertain fate an option?

Bernd Debusmann August 20th, 2009

September 9, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

The manipulated approach to spur immolations

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part fifteen

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms. Soltani, you averred that the reaction of the members of the The manipulated approach to spur immolations Leadership Council to Maryam’s arrest was a histrionic rather than genuine; a mixture of pretense, sincerity, and the agitated atmosphere that made quite an impression on the audience. Then, it becomes clear that in spite of the created flutter following the news of Maryam’s arrest, the shown sentiments lacked the needed depth and most were imitating and role playing feelings. In such an abrupt outpour of emotions, it won’t be surprising to see a senior member, excited and impressed by the atmosphere, set himself on fire. Imagine what would have been the effect on the lower ranks.

Now my question is, what process had it to follow to convince and instigate others to practically engage in self-immolations, peoples like Neda, Marzieh and many others. Of course, even Rajavi himself knew well that there was no rationale for such practices and maybe laughed at the simplicity of the suicide. The question is what were the factors that forced these emotionally grounded outbursts into action and what role did the organization play as the motivator? And how these ostensibly arbitrary actions could be tallied with their concretely orchestrated nature as a show of strong commitment?

Batool Soltani: It is a little hard to analyze the case. I mean, we cannot precisely decide about the motives and their classification. In one point, it is a matter of strong commitment among the high ranking members, that is, their step by step education to reach a point where you may call it transmutation, I call it commitment, but in organizational teachings they call it ‘unification point’ or identification of within and without. We have already talked about the sophisticated psychological techniques cults manipulate for coercive persuasion or thought reform of the insiders. There are so many cults that have professionalized their approaches and techniques of persuasion as you can well trace in Al-Qaeda. But I think it is much more complicated when we talk about the organization since it utilizes a combination of techniques just in the same way that its ideology is eclectic.

However, the organizational preparedness of volunteers cannot be disregarded. They are people who can be said to have reached a point of selflessness. They have been trained to do whatever they have been imbued with. Some of them may have reached top echelons through a cunning role playing but the majority has succeeded to convince seniors about their truthfulness of actions and intentions. Some are really nasty with repulsive behavior; they may even pass over their most beloved to prove their loyalty and commitment. These are the main actors of the case we are talking about and, consequently, the lower ranks are mostly impressed by the ideas they impregnate them with. Let’s return to concrete aspects of your question.

I assure you that if what happened in France was to happen inside Camp Ashraf. Mozhgan (Parsai) would be the first to take a gallon of gasoline to run towards Americans. Have no doubts that even me, who was skeptical of the whole issue, would follow her with another gal. Logically enough, other chief rankings would catch her to avert her act of immolation. But the story would not end here because her move had already agitated some in hot pursuit whom nobody came to stop and you could soon see human torches running around. It is a general formula within the organization and it makes no difference where the scenario is to be put into practice, in Ashraf, Auvers, or any other part of the world.

I have no doubt that in Paris’s immolations seven or eight seniors like Mozhgan had rushed to set themselves on fire. These are professional starters whose main role, as I explained, is to provoke others to follow. The members who set themselves on fire, like Marzieh Babakhani, Sediqeh Mojaveri and Muhammad Sani, were ranking members who had followed the professional starters who in turn had been stopped mid-way while the others went on to finish the job. None of these people, including those I named, immolated on arbitrary decisions and I am sure they had been fully briefed on the operations they had been chosen to carry out in the headquarters of Paris and London; they dad been fully crosschecked in a process of mood-altering program and relevant ideological commitment to leadership to avert any antagonistic attitude that might cause them to shrink from fulfilling the mission. To tell the truth, I closely knew Marzieh Babakhani; she was, I beg your pardon for using such terms, a real charlatan and quarrelsome who indeed played a key role to provoke others and charge the atmosphere with sentiments that could easily be a trigger for action.

Indeed, she played the very same role as Mozhgan, or Beheshteh Shadroo and other similar rankings under Rajavi’s direct command could have in the Camp Ashraf. I have no doubt that one or two of these seniors rushed into the street towards the Police with gallons of gasoline in hand; naturally sub-rankings like Neda (Hassani) and others dashed after them. On the way, the forerunner ranking, suppose she was Beheshteh Shadroo, received a message ordering her to return since she had no right to set herself on fire. It is a general process within the organization with numerous examples to spotlight. The scenario might be planned to be played either for immolations or other disciplinary cases.

For instance, one had to be rebuked and scolded before other members in a general meeting. While he was speaking, one like Abbas Davary, who had already been assigned for the purpose, started to assail him and yell at him. A few other members automatically stood to join Davary as assailants. Here, Davari’s mission was over and he would sit down to let others continue.

Most of the time, those who got involved in the assail had no real reason for what they were doing; the only thing they knew was that they had to enthusiastically continue along with the others in the raised fuss. In such an agitated climate, all tried to conform and hardly anyone opted to remain passive. It is the same scenario put into practice in the pattern of self-immolations; one senior starts and sub-rankings hurry after to take their opportunity of displaying commitment. They are the real victims who may be unaware of the good reason for what they are doing.

The organization sees no reason to brief victims on what they have to be sacrificed for. Only the seniors and those who are the leading starters receive the appropriate trainings and instructions concerning safeguarding the interests of the organization and leadership. They are trained how to start and provoke others to continue with the mentality of injustice imposed on the organization and a due responsibility to stand up for restoration of justice. The members never receive similar trainings in the organization. Marzieh Babakhani and I were both in offices in London and members of the Leadership Council but with different ranking status; there was a body called the Leadership Council but with a variety of hierarchical levels and what promoted members was the degree of their devotion and commitment to the leadership.

Sediqeh Husseini and I were simultaneously announced as the members of the Leadership Council but soon she was promoted to first secretary while I had made no advance to upper organizational ranking as I failed to follow her in growing the sense of commitment. They know on whom they invest for the critical situation as she did set herself on fire when the time came.

This is through such approaches that the organization prepares to counteract impending crisis. The death of Neda Hassani as a result of her self-immolation was the outcome of an abrupt emotional burst to rush after a catalyst who was never intended to commit the suicide. Look at Neda’s age, education and depth of her political background. She fails to be qualified and experienced enough to be included in the circle of senior rankings; she belongs to the class of the victims who was stirred into action just in the middle of an agitated climate to display her so-called commitment to the leadership.

It is in total contrast with what the organization usually advertizes for the public outside to boast about the rank and file and sub-rankings as the main body whose decision runs the main policy of the organization and affects the leadership’s decision makings. As Rajavi rudely put the responsibility of his egocentrically initiated armed phase on the members and claimed that it was the members who convinced the leader to adopt an inevitable decision.

Or when they referred to Ahmad Rezai’s suicide operation whenever talking for the rank and file, they intended to instill into them he was a leading ranking who had committed suicide to become an archetype for lower ranks to follow. The adopted approach has undergone a qualitative change through the years but the mindset of sacrificing for the survival of the organization and safeguarding the interests of the leadership have been increasingly fortified.

To be continued

September 8, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

MEK dissident broaches US ties with Rajavi cult

Sobhani was separated from his daughter and wife for more than eight years.

A former member of the terrorist Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) claims the US turned a blind eye to the terrorist nature of the ‘Rajavi cult’.

Mohammad-Hossein Sobhani, 49, from the central Iranian town of Saveh, came into contact with the MKO two years before the 1979 revolution in Iran, which overthrew the pro-US Iranian monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Five year later, after working in the organization’s administrative and student departments, he was whisked away to Iraq to assume his role”as a unit commander at the training school for urban guerrilla warfare.”

After questioning the organization’s”armed struggle and presence in Iraq”, Sobhani claims he was beaten, tortured and”held in solitary confinement for eight-and-a-half years, from September 1992 to January 2001.”

“The reason why I started to raise my objection was that I believed that the strategies employed by Masoud Rajavi were meant to secure his domination on its members,”Sobhani said in an exclusive interview with Press TV.

The former senior MKO official said Rajavi resorted to”cult-like”practices, including forced divorce and celibacy.

He would separate couples claiming that”such practices would liberate the members”from competing loyalties. Their children were also sent to European countries, Sobhani said.

“Rajavi would justify forced divorces by claiming that these practices would free a member, and pave the way to transform a micro society into a macro one and overthrow the Islamic Republic,”Sobhani said.

During his interview, he also claimed that because”the organization forbids matrimony, for the past 25 years no child has been born to a man and woman inside the organization.”
He said the US had committed a colossal mistake in not dealing with the residents of the MKO training camp in eastern Iraq, known as Camp Ashraf.

The camp, home to 3,400 Iranians loyal to Rajavi, was the base for operations against the Tehran government during the eight-year war as well as operations against Iraqi Kurds and Shias during the 1991 uprising against former dictator Saddam Hussein.

“Rajavi maintained a mercenary-like relationship with Saddam Hossein, after Iraq’s invasion he wanted to forge the same relationship with the Americans so he announced that he was ready to [willingly] lay dawn his arms,”Sobhani explained.

“Although the Americans were fully aware of the fact that the MKO was a terrorist organization, they still cooperated with Rajavi,”he claimed.

Americans in Iran were one of the primary targets of the group throughout the 1970s. They assassinated a number of American citizens, namely William C. Cottrell, Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins, Donald G. Smith, and Colonel Jack Turner inside Iran.

“As a former member of the group, I feel that the Americans have made a grave mistake with regards to the organization. Six years after overthrowing Saddam, the MKO is still brainwashing the residents of Ashraf Camp with the help of the Americans,”Sobhani said.

The MKO was founded in Iran in the 1960s, but its top leadership and members fled the country some twenty years later after carrying out numerous acts of terror inside the country.

The group masterminded a series of assassinations and bombings inside Iran, including the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party, in which more than 72 senior Iranian officials were killed, including the then Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti.

Download MKO dissident broaches US ties with Rajavi cult

September 5, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi’s passion for women and his ambition for leadership

Memoirs of Ms. Batoul Soltani – Final Part

When the so called detachment between women and Rajavi was removed, they were completely comfortable to speak about any sort of problem in the meetings. In fact, the ease in the Rajavi's passion for women and his ambition for leadership relationships was the outcome of those arguments made by Maryam about “traditional woman “or “woman in quotation marks”. Massoud Rajavi never limited himself to present any sort of problem. Even before marrying every woman in the leadership council, he was always relaxed to ask his questions or to convey his arguments in a manner he desired.

Even where there were some reports on immoral relationships in various levels of the organization, he simply asked detailed questions to know what he needed to know. He asked our opinion and what we knew about that immoral relationship. He never felt shameful among the members in every level of MKO to seek the details. He was totally open in his relations and behaviors.

Among the members, there were some people who left meetings after such cases were presented. It is worth knowing that Massoud’s reaction was so humiliating. He called them "peasants" or “mullahs”. Maryam also accused them of being superficial or reactionary.

Despite these reactions there were others who stood up and asked why they are saying so and that was not their problem. Thus they faced the case from a superior position. After some time gradually those so called "peasants" became relaxed in the meetings due to the process the leaders used in order to despise them.

As a matter of fact, those justification meetings lasted for around a hundred hours in order to achieve the desired result. The problem cannot be solved in a short-term meeting.

During the meetings some of the members protest, they leave the hall to think outside, and then they get back saying that they were wrong. They explain their reaction towards that case. The leader asks them what their problem is. They confess that they got angry regarding the discussed case.

To justify their reaction, Rajavi says that these thoughts are the remaining of the reactionary traditional thoughts of Mullahs. He relates the protests to different things and finally accuses the person of being under the influence of her ex-husband and then he concludes that “she hasn’t actually divorced her husband; her divorce is not a real one! She is basically problematic and that is why she doesn’t attend the meeting. She has to start from the beginning.” Such arguments sometimes last one to two hundred hours.

I think Rajavi stands on two virtual legs: One is his passion for women and the other is his ambition for leadership. These traits lead him to a totalitarian, power seeking personality.
I think he is able to achieve his ambitions using these two aspects of his personality. He is definitely capable of using them. I’ve already explained that he cannot bear the presence of a man among his so called leadership council. This certifies that he has a psychological problem. In a wide echelon (the leadership council) he gathers his passion for women with his ambition for leadership to accomplish what he wants.

Rajavi believes that a woman works more obediently than a man. He thinks that when he orders a man to do a job, he may ask why, but a woman never asks questions about the demands, she would immediately execute the order. And that’s exactly what Rajavi wants. This is the potential that he cannot see in his male members. What matters to him is that who the best to achieve his goals is. Comparing men with women, Rajavi believes that women are different phenomena whom he can invest on.

I think this approach has a very basic role and makes good tools to achieve further objectives.

Translated by Nejat Society

September 2, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Sobhani broaches US ties with Rajavi cult

Sobhani was separated from his daughter and wife for more than eight years.

A former member of the terrorist Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) claims the US turned a blind eye to the terrorist nature of the ‘Rajavi cult’.

The former senior MKO official said Rajavi resorted to”cult-like”practices, including forced divorce and celibacy.

He would separate couples claiming that”such practices would liberate the members”from competing loyalties. Their children were also sent to European countries, Sobhani said.

“Although the Americans were fully aware of the fact that the MKO was a terrorist organization, they still cooperated with Rajavi,”he claimed.

The MKO was founded in Iran in the 1960s, but its top leadership and members fled the country some twenty years later after carrying out numerous acts of terror inside the country.

Click here to view the video file Download MKO dissident broaches US ties with Rajavi cult

August 27, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Nejat Society Azarbayjan Branch letter to ICRC

Dear Mr. Fredrick,

ICRI deputy In Tehran,

A number of defectors of Mujahedin Khalq Organization who were assisted by the respectful authorities of ICRC to return home, declare their position on recent incidents in Camp Ashraf where a group of members have been victimized by MEK leaders’ Machiavelli’s tricks to violate international and Iraqi laws:

Your Excellency,

Regarding the crucial fate of the members who are under the organizational restrictions in Camp Ashraf and have no idea of what is happening outside the Camp and also considering their families concern about their situation and their desire for their beloveds’ return to Iran, we ask your Excellency to provide the possibility for the return of those physically and mentally captured ones in Camp Ashraf.

Dear Mr. Fredrick,
The letter signed by MKO defectors residing in Western Azarbayjan Province on August 2nd, 2009, is published on Nejatngo website:

Arash Rezaie
Marziye Qorsi
Gholamreza Shirdom
Saied Baqeri Darbandi
Hojat sayyed Esmaili
Hamed Mehmankhah
Ali Namakian
Qader Rahmani
Shahram Dehqan
Naser Sayyed babayee
Mansur Tanhaee
Farhad Purmeshki
Afshin Jafarzade
Morteza Jaafarzade
Mahmud Akbari Moqadam
Fathollah Amani
Sajjad Purhashemi
Mohammad Araghi
Naser Shirdom
Saieed Yaldaiee
Alireza Pejmanfar

CC:
International Committee of Red Cross in Tehran & Geneva
HRW
Amnesty International
Iraqi Human Rights Organization

August 26, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Massoud asked arrogantly:”Does anyone claim to have a husband other than me?”

Memoirs of Ms. Batoul Soltani – Part 22

The members of the Leadership Council were convinced to marry the leader with the reasoning Massoud asked arrogantly: "Does anyone claim to have a husband other than me?" and logics that Maryam and Massoud gave them. They may simply be convinced due to the way Maryam viewed them. She had already spoken to the members in a humiliating manner in order to make sure that they would be persuaded that “ideological marriages are superior to normal marriages”!

This reasoning recalls Surdell’s dialectic that says:” to escape from humbleness, the individuals have to shelter before the one who humiliates them. Therefore, the relationship between leaders and members was managed in a way that the justifications were easily accepted. I would like to note some justifications Maryam and Massoud made to convince us.

Maryam accused us of having a reactionary mind that motivated us to feel a distance between Massoud and ourselves In order to convince us to marry him, Massoud Rajavi said in a meeting: “if the peak of sexual marriage is 10, then the peak of ideological marriage will be one thousand. Imagine that you are in a hall with a very high ceiling, if you are under a table, the top side of the table will be the peak of an ordinary marriage which signifies a wife-husband relationship, but the ceiling of the hall will be the peak of an ideological ideal relationship. Your mind is filled with old thoughts; you think that I am stranger to you, so you are not comfortable with me. Now that we want to remove this obstacle and we want to remove the quotation marks from the women, we use this scheme.” According to the leaders of MKO, “Women in quotation marks” (cult jargon) signifies women who have grown up in an ordinary society with normal regulations ruling it. They meant the traditional weak women.

Maryam Rajavi tried to degrade the traditional women who “are always owned by their husband.” She insisted that we were still in that situation and we didn’t pass over those old thoughts.

Naturally, we tried to remove that humiliating view from ourselves. The leaders looked dawn on us so we accepted everything they said. They always tried to make us doubt our individuality. If we were not able to present a case about one of our minor colleagues, Maryam would punish us. She accused us of distancing ourselves from Massoud. Then she concluded that the problem comes from our thinking. I could never convince myself to accept their justification from the bottom of my heart.

Maryam accused us of having a reactionary mind that motivated us to feel a distance between Massoud and ourselves. Then she concluded that in order to remove this distance, we should marry him. She made us believe that we never had the right to have another husband. Then in the meeting Massoud asked us arrogantly: "Does anyone claim to have a husband other than me?"

Then he added “if anyone feels she belongs to her ex-husband for the least part, she should get out of the room.”

In fact, with his reasoning, Massoud convinced the members that he sacrificed himself to release the women from the old, traditional, reactionary thoughts that always exploited women in the history.

In MEK, the leaders try to make you believe that Massoud Rajavi is the only one who is always ready for change and revolution; the only one who scarifies himself to solve others’ contradictions; he is the only one who accepts every responsibility. Therefore he is not an ordinary man! This is what the organization makes us to believe.

August 25, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization members' families

Alireza Ahmad Khah’s family appeal against MKO leaders

Alireza Ahmad Khah, a resident of Camp Ashraf was killed.

Immediately after the publication of the news of MKO residents’ clashes with Iraqi forces, families who are members of Nejat Office in Gilan including Ahmad Khalh family came over. They welcomed the act of Iraqi government to take complete control of Camp Ashraf, appealing the Iraqi government and all Human Right bodies for the release of captured residents of Ashraf from the bars of Rajavis’ cult.

They are also looking forward for the fate of their beloved ones who might face a bright future, by visiting their families far from the deadly atmosphere of Camp Ashraf.

Ali Reza Ahmad Khah was among those Ashraf residents who were killed in clashes which were intensified due to MKO leaders’ stimulations. His family was seriously concerned about his health. They regularly came to Nejat Society office to get news of health of their beloved son.

He was another victim of Rajavi’s ambitions.

It is worth to know that MKO itself anticipated contacting Ahmad khalh family to inform them of the death of their son! Of course not for informing them but for abusing his blood to make a new show off in front of world witnesses but Ahmad Khah family who suffered years of being uninformed of their beloved son, insulted the caller that “ why you never called us to give the news of his health in all those past twenty years?!”

Now we see you as responsible for the death of our beloved one. You must be tried before all international courts.

The following is Ahmad Khah family’s appeal for justice:

August 25, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Weekly sessions, a process to secure obedience to Rajavi

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part twelve

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms, Soltani, you pointed out something interesting concerning the Weekly sessions, a process to secure obedience to Rajavi mechanism of suicide operations and self-immolations, that is, how easily one can carry out these organizationally inculcated operations just by making a liaison with a point out of one’s own self. That is, one overruns his individuality and will for a greater cause crystallized in another person called leader. The logic, regardless of its justifiably luring virtue, does not end here because any thought and attitude can easily justify itself through such a logic. That is true about many adherents of cults who do anything for the guru, preaching right or wrong notwithstanding. Following such logic, any group can claim to be rightfully on the right path and it has nothing to do at all with the nature of the source of liaison. There were people on the side of Yazid (a reference to a historical event when the army of Yazid massacred all forces on the side of Imam Hussein, the third Shi’it imam) who had accepted the leadership of Yazid and fought against Imam Hussein with a gesture of goodwill and for the sake of God. Is it right to say that liaison with a source of leadership justifies a truth? If so, there are many antitheses to discuss. Was there any opportunity to discuss these discrepancies and what were Rajavi’s responses?

Batool Soltani: Indeed there were many controversies and, of course, Rajavi insisted that the members of the Leadership Council take their time to solve any ambiguity and raised question. But his answer to these ambiguities was that first it had to be discovered why people had joined the side of the wrong. He insisted on recognition of what had motivated them to join. There was no question if they had joined for worldly and ambitious causes but it was different if they were fighting on the wrong front for the cause of truth. Then it turned to be a matter of the ideologically polluted system of the opposite front. He mainly focused on the polluted ideology of the followers of the opposite front. He gave example of the operation Eternal Light saying that we would call our killed forces martyrs as did the Islamic Republic and strongly contradicted its claims to be on the right path; he believed that the IR had deceived and misled who had come to confront the rightful Mojahedin’s forces. The IR forces had not erred in attaching themselves to the IR leadership but it was the wrong ideology that had misled them.

SFF: Then it was not totally a matter of ambitions since they too fought for ideological causes and had attached themselves to someone out of their own self.

BS: That is why he would say they had ideologically been misled and anybody following Khomein’s ideology failed to be accounted as our forces who could never be ideologically affiliated with the regime. None of the either sides could possibly agree on the oriented ideology of the opponent, but there were those who walked a middle path and dodged seeing their interests in danger. He would call them compromisers who never walked in a fixed front and changed their position whenever sensed danger from any side. Thos who shunned, for example, committing suicide or self-immolation when it was necessary belonged to this very same group. They are people of ambitions and opportunists who are enslaved by their whims and avarice and infiltrate into both sides to fill their pack and have nothing to do at all with the ideology and the leadership. In fact, he believed, they were attached to nobody but themselves while the real forces adherent to either ideology resisted to the end and never changed their positions.

Those who stood on Rajavi’s side were known to be the true believers of a right ideology while the others on the opposite front were perverted and aberrant. He would adduced the Quran as his proof for his theory and would say the Quran classifies people into four groups; the righteous, the martyrs, the faithful and the prophets. Nothing was to be told about the last group that was an exception. One way to recognize the sincere who assented to commit suicide operations was to see his frequent attendances of weekly hold sessions of ablution and confession*. It was the recognized boundary between the true ideological believers and the opportunists. It was Rajavi’s instructions preached in the meetings of the members of the Leadership Council and insisted that those who refused and dodged to attend weekly sessions of cleansing and confession would certainly stop midway in the path of struggle while others, who attended sessions, continued to the end.

These instructions were all included in the especial book prepared by himself for the members of the Leadership Council who had to attend weekly sessions as well to prove their sincerity. He would call the weekly ablutions a ‘great crusade’ through which one could unite his within with without and dared to outpour all counter-values that hindered when the time came to sacrifice to defend the leader and his interests. These were the faithful who had even outstripped the martyrs, that is what he believed in. There were sympathizers who came to take part in the demonstrations and would donate sums of money to help but never risked their life in practical struggle. They were the righteous but still lagged far behind the martyrs. Unlike them, the faithful risked their life anywhere in the world just to defend and safeguard the interests of the leadership by setting themselves on fire. They outshined the martyrs.

Now, what was the touchstone to distinguish them? They could be recognized in the frequency of taking part in the weekly sessions of ablution and who cleaned their selves by pouring out what was passing within them; their personal penchants, lust, insincere tendencies, and whatever hindered them to be unified with Rajavi. The ones that merged with Rajavi made no attempt to conceal anything from him and if they had to, it was a matter of submission to his order. Nothing could come between them and the leader and they had fused into one. No doubt, such devoted people never disappointed their leader when the time came to commit suicide and set themselves on fire. Thus, this is an answer to existing contradiction within Rajavi’s system. But I can give more details to resolve these contradictions. I think Rajavi followed a model that he had theorized in its most extreme form.

At times in inter-organizational relations and meetings, Rajavi would decry the idea of being touched by Khomeini. He meant that we should not do things to be afraid of being condemned of following the models and ideological guidelines of Ayatollah Khomeini. But then it changed. Rajavi resolved that his relation with the members and sympathizers had to be set on such pattern that was further explained in a speech by Mehdi Abrishamchi. What he said in general was that the organization should have no reluctance in abandoning fears of condemnation and following a pattern in its struggle to topple the regime. The best pattern at hand he recommended to adhere to and practice within the organization was Ayatollah Khomein’s relation with his followers, mainly founded on people’s compliance with him. Of course, they disregarded his charismatic influence on his followers that goes far beyond ordinary logic or self-interest and since Rajavi failed to understand and explain such devotional relationship, he tried to interpret it within the terms like detachment from the self and attaching to a source without; that is, the members have to be completely devoted to their leader and prepared to do anything he commands- even kill others, or themselves.

The more the time passed, the more he was obsessed with plans to become a magnet to draw devoted members and insisted to exactly, even if forcibly, accomplish the pattern he was holding onto. He was merging the principle of guidance with its authoritative aspects and opportunism to create a holy man of himself called the ideological leader. He dissolved all those assemblies and bodies whose role was to supervise the leadership and became the egocentric leader and center of all decision makings and identical to nobody in the modern world; a morally, ideologically and politically infallible leader who was even exceeding the pattern he had chosen. Thus, he became a leader from whom even the ideology drew its legitimacy.

To be continued

*. According to a recently published official report by RAND, the MeK holds daily, weekly, and monthly “sessions” that involve forced public confessions aimed at expelling deviant thoughts and behaviors that are believed to undermine group coherence. MeK members are required to keep daily records of their thoughts and nighttime dreams, particularly sexual thoughts and desires (which are, of course, forbidden), as well as observations about their fellow members. They must submit their journals to their supervisors. During large meetings, members often are forced to read their reports aloud and to make self-critical statements. MeK members are often required to admit to sexual thoughts.

August 24, 2009 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

A clash at Camp Ashraf left 11 MEK members Camp Ashraf dead

In a letter to a British parliamentarian last month, a senior State Department official insisted that the United States was “doing its utmost” to ensure that Iraq’s government would treat 3,400 Iranian exiles living at Camp Ashraf in eastern Iraq “humanely.” Two weeks later, a clash The Iraqi government claims the exiles threw stones and Molotov cocktails when Iraqi forces entered the camp, ostensibly to establish a police post. The exiles have video showing Iraqi forces beating people between the exiles and Iraqi police left 11 Iranians dead, and 36 were taken into custody by Iraqi forces.

Americans troops had guarded the camp since 2003, but recently handed over responsibility to Iraqi forces. Baghdad promised that the exiles would be protected.

There is no authoritative version of events, but it does not look as if that promise is being kept. The Iraqi government claims the exiles threw stones and Molotov cocktails when Iraqi forces entered the camp, ostensibly to establish a police post. The exiles have video showing Iraqi forces beating people with clubs and charging them with vehicles. The administration’s response has been weak. Officials say they will press Iraq to fulfill its promises but can only do so much now that Iraq is in charge.

The camp’s residents are members of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK), which is committed to overthrowing Tehran’s government. Saddam Hussein welcomed them to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and they have lived at the camp ever since.

Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government now has good relations with Iran and little enthusiasm for the MEK. The Americans are at best ambivalent. The group, which some consider a cult, is on the American terrorism list for attacks against the United States (in the distant past) and more recently against Iran. In 2004, the United States — seeking to stabilize Iraq — recognized the camp’s residents as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, after they signed statements renouncing terrorism and gave up their weapons.

Residents say that Washington has now betrayed that commitment. They have a legitimate complaint. But the MEK has also made no effort to reduce tensions with the Iraqis.

The United States should not retake control of Camp Ashraf. But it must warn Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that it will more closely monitor how the exiles are treated. Iraq’s government must formally charge those arrested, give them a fair trial and take steps to avoid a repeat of last month’s bloodshed. If Iraq is determined to close the camp, Washington, Baghdad and the United Nations should develop a process.

Residents are barred from resettling in many third countries because of the group’s terrorist designation. Finding a solution will not be easy, but none of the exiles should be forcibly returned to Iran.

August 23, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts