Hot Topics

America’s own terror group Mojahedin Khalq

Huffington Post publishes, and then deletes, a post by a MeK spokesman. What does this tell us about Terrorism?

Yesterday morning, The Huffington Post published a post by Hossein Abedini, who was identified in the byline as a “Member of Parliament in exile of Iranian Resistance.” His extended HuffPost bio says that he “belongs to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI). The NCRI is the political arm of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, (MeK), the Iranian dissident group (and longtime Saddam ally) that has been formally designated by the U.S. State Department since 1997 as a Terrorist organization, yet has been paying large sums of money to a bipartisan cast of former U.S. officials to advocate on its behalf (the in-hiding President of the NCRI, Massoud Rajavi, is, along with his wife Maryam Rajavi, MeK’s leader). Abedini, the HuffPost poster, has been identified as a MeK spokesman in news reports, and has identified himself the same way when, for instance, writing letters to NBC News objecting to negative reports about the group.

Yesterday’s HuffPost piece by Abedini touted a recent rally, held on June 23 in Paris, which, he claimed, was attended by “over 100,000 Iranian exiles and supporters of the Iranian resistance from five continents.” The news report cited by Abedini actually says that “tens of thousands” of Iranians participated, and — reflecting what seems to be MeK’s bizarrely unlimited budget — they were transported by “more than a thousand buses . . . from all over Europe.” Abedini boasted that the rally’s keynote speaker was MeK leader Rajavi (whom he calls “the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance”) — it was a MeK rally — and quotes her at length demanding the removal of MeK from the list of Terror organizations

As usual for a MeK event, Abedini was able to tout more than a dozen former high-level U.S. political officials from both parties who spoke to the rally, many of whom (if not all) have been repeatedly paid large sums of money for their MeK speeches. According to Abedini, this latest rally included many of the usual MeK shills: former GOP New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, former Democratic New Mexico Governor and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, former GOP U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former GOP Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Democratic State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, and several retired U.S. Generals.

Shortly after the HuffPost piece appeared, several people on Twitter, the first of which (I believe) was the Iranian journalist Hooman Majd, noted that The Huffington Post had published a propaganda piece from a designated Terror group and wondered whether they would do so for all such Terror groups such as Al Qaeda. After several others, including The New York Times‘ Robert Mackey and myself, noted the oddity that HuffPost was publishing pieces from a designated Terrorist group, HuffPost deleted the piece. If one goes now to the URL where the post first appeared, one finds this: “Editor’s Note: This post is no longer available on the Huffington Post” (the post can still be read in its cached version). No explanation is given for the deletion, but a HuffPost spokesperson, Rhoades Alderson, last night responded to my inquiry about it as follows:

It was published by mistake. By policy, we don’t publish blog posts by people affiliated with designated terrorist organizations. The blog editor who published it was unaware that NCRI is MEK’s political arm. When the mistake was discovered the post was removed.

Despite this “policy,” the same post by Abedini remains on the HuffPost’s UK site. Moreover, HuffPost has previously published numerous pieces from Abedini including one linking the Syrian and Iranian “resistance” and demanding Western support for both, another branding Iran the “epicenter of terrorism,” and other posts spouting the MeK line. All of those posts by Abedini remain on the HuffPost site.

To be clear, I don’t find HuffPost’s conduct — either in publishing posts from MeK spokespeople or removing them — to be objectionable. That’s not the point here. I personally believe it’s better to hear from all groups and to have all viewpoints aired rather than trying with inevitable futility to suppress them, but if HuffPost really does have a policy against publication of “people affliated with designated terrorist organizations,” then — just like laws criminalizing the providing of “material support to Terrorist organizations” — it should apply equally to MeK and those who work with it (including MeK’s list of paid D.C. political celebrities).

[In the wake of 9/11, the U.S. Government instructed American media outlets not to broadcast any statements from Osama bin Laden on the ground that he might embed in his statements coded signals to his followers to activate sleeper cells on American soil — perhaps he would use the nose wiggle employed by Bewitched’s Samantha Stevens to unleash her magic powers — and many American media outlets (needless to say) dutifully complied. It seems clear that the real reason for suppression of those Al Qaeda statements was to ensure that Americans, who were understandably asking "Why Do They Hate Us"? in the wake of 9/11, would be prevented from hearing Al Qaeda’s actual grievances about U.S. aggression so that they could instead be told that They Hate Us for Our Freedom; George Bush on September 21, 2001: "Americans are asking ‘Why do they hate us?’ . . . They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other". It’s far preferable, in my view, to allow all views to be aired, but a ban on Terror groups and their supporters should be equally applied.]

What makes this HuffPost event notable is that it is inconceivable that they would publish posts from spokespeople or paid advocates for other designated Terrorist groups which do not command widespread support among Washington’s elites — such as, say, Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Hezbollah. MeK is treated differently because they are Our Terrorists. NBC News reported that “deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group [MeK] that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service,” while The New Yorker‘s Seymour Hersh detailed in April that the U.S. has provided extensive training to MeK operatives, on U.S. soil. This entire MeK controversy has, as vividly as any event in a long time, illustrated the core truth of Terrorism and the laws against it: the entire concept has no purpose in American political discourse and law other than to delegitimize and criminalize support for groups which use violence in opposition to American violence and aggression, while sanctioning and enabling those groups which use such violence to advance America’s interests.

MeK used to work in close cooperation with Saddam (during the time Saddam was America’s decreed Enemy, rather than Ally), so they were therefore Bad: Terrorists. Indeed, in 2003, when the Bush administration was advocating an attack on Iraq, one of the prime reasons it cited was “Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism,” and it circulated a document purporting to prove that assertion, in which one of the first specific accusations listed was this:

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

So just nine years ago, Saddam’s links to MeK were cited by the U.S. Government as proof that he sheltered Terrorist groups. Now, the MeK works for the interests of (and in cooperation with) Israel and the U.S., so suddenly, they are now Good, and the most Serious Beltway officials are free to openly take money from and advocate for this Terror group (as a result, the MeK is, predictably, highly likely to be rewarded by being removed by the Obama administration from the Terrorist list). They are basically the Ahmad Chalabis of Iran: despite being widely despised in Iran for their support for Iraq in its war against Iran, they are being deceitfully held out as the True Pro-American, Pro-Israel, Pro-Western-Intervention Voice of the Iranian People (paid MeK shill Howard Dean actually argued that the U.S. should recognize MeK’s leader as the legitimate President of Iran).

That HuffPost responded to yesterday’s pressure by removing the MeK post and citing its policy against publishing those “affliated with designated terrorist organizations” is valuable in the sense that it highlights the absurd travesty of “Terrorism” in U.S. politics. For legal purposes, at least, MeK is every bit the Terrorist organization that Al Qaeda is, yet they are now Our Terrorists, and are thus heralded and rewarded rather than scorned.

* * * * *

It was recently revealed that Clarence Page, the long-time Chicago Tribune columnist, was paid $20,000 to speak at this same MeK rally in Paris, along with travel expenses; once that was revealed, The Chicago Tribune reprimanded him and he announced that he would return the fee. It’s just extraordinary how much cash is flying around and ending up in the pockets of prominent and influential Americans in order to shill for this Terror group.

On a different note, The Guardian’s Iranian columnist, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, today details how sanctions against Iran are severely harming ordinary Iranians while doing little to undermine the government or its nuclear research program. The foreign policy analyst Reza H. Akbari points out the same thing here.

Finally, a new Pentagon report to Congress stresses, as the Federation of American Scientists put it, that “that while developing offensive capabilities, Iran’s military posture is essentially defensive in character” – specifically, “Iran’s military doctrine remains designed to slow an invasion; target its adversaries’ economic, political, and military interests; and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities while avoiding any concessions that challenge its core interests.” Let’s repeat that: quite understandably, “Iran’s military posture is essentially defensive in character.”

By Glenn Greenwald,

July 12, 2012 0 comments

The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Kobler-Maliki agree to move MKO

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Representative of the Secretary-General of the United

Kobler-Maliki agree to move Mojahedin Khalq organisation in accordance with deadlines

Nations in Iraq Martin Kobler agreed to close the file on the Mojahedin Khalq organisation and move them in accordance with established deadlines.

A statement issued on Tuesday by the office of the Prime Minister said, "Prime Minister al-Maliki met with the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in Iraq Martin Kobler in his office today.

During the meeting, the importance of cooperation and coordination between the Iraqi government and UN representative in helping each other to perform the tasks entrusted to them were emphasized" pointing out that "issues of common interest were also discussed during the meeting."

Translated by Iran Interlink

July 11, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MEK Advocate Tried To Get State Dept. Meeting Under ‘False Pretenses’

During a call with reporters on Friday, State Department officials spoke about issues related to the MEK, the exiled Iranian opposition group currently pushing hard to get off the United States’ list of foreign terrorist organizations. MEK Advocate Tried To Get State Dept. Meeting Under ‘False Pretenses’

The MEK is engaged in a multifaceted effort to get off the list, and, as part of its strategy, supporters of the group have recruited prominent former lawmakers and government officials from both parties to appear at pro-MEK events in both the U.S. and Europe. Some of these advocates have received tens of thousands of dollars for their appearances.

On Friday, State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Daniel Benjamin and Special Advisor to the Secretary on Camp Ashraf Ambassador Daniel Fried covered the situation at Camp Ashraf, the MEK’s base in Iraq, and how that situation relates to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s pending decision on whether or not to keep the MEK on the terror list. Among the pieces of information: a foreign national once got into Benjamin’s office under “false pretenses” in an attempt to lobby for the MEK.

“I would like to go back to the issue that was asked before regarding lobbying, and I do just want to underscore that when it comes to the [terrorist organization] designation itself, we have not met with any lobbyists or others,” Benjamin said, after Fried confirmed that department officials had met with former U.S. government officials, European lawmakers, and other “advocates” in regard to the situation at Ashraf. “There was, in fact, one gentleman who came into my office under false pretenses from a foreign country to lobby for the MEK, and he was promptly thrown out. But other than that, I’ve had no conversations on this issue.”

The Iraqi government has set a July 20th deadline by which it wants the MEK to leave Ashraf. The MEK set up camp at Ashraf under Saddam Hussein, and several thousand group members remained there after the U.S. invasion. The Iraqi government essentially considers the MEK to be in the country illegally and, in recent years, MEK members at Ashraf have been killed during clashes with Iraqi troops. Benjamin said the MEK’s relocation to Camp Hurriya, a “temporary transit facility,” has hit an impasse.

“The Iraqi Government and the United Nations continue to encourage the secure, humane relocation of residents to Hurriya for refugee status determinations by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees,” Benjamin said. “Almost 2,000 individuals have already relocated, but the remaining 1,200 to 1,300 are holding at Ashraf until various MEK demands are met by the Iraqi Government. The last convoy of individuals, about 400 people, was on May 5th. And the patience of the Iraqi Government is wearing thin.”

Benjamin said the MEK “seems” to have misinterpreted a recent court ruling in the United States, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Secretary Clinton had to make a decision one way or another on the MEK’s terrorist designation before October 1. Benjamin said that “[t]his is the MEK’s moment to show that it has taken on a fundamentally different character.”

“The MEK’s relocation will assist the Secretary in determining whether the organization remains invested in its violent past or is committed to leaving that past behind,” he said. “And that really is going to be a very important illustration – or demonstration, I should say – of what the MEK’s orientation in the future will be.”

That said, Benjamin said that any decision about delisting would be made “on the merits.”

Asked about the MEK’s demands that have contributed to the impasse, Fried said that he considered some of the requests legitimate, but not all of them.

“Some of the MEK demands are reasonable. For example, given the hot weather in Iraq, they’ve requested more air conditioners. The Iraqi Government has agreed to provide them, that is agreed to allow a special shipment of air conditioners from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty, and this is being arranged as we speak,” Fried said. “But it has been frustrating to deal with constantly shifting demands, many demands. We find that U.S. Embassy and State Department and the UN will work to resolve problems and, a la whack-a-mole, you find that new ones – you’re constantly presented with new ones.”

By Eric Lach

July 10, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Lobbyists for listed Iranian terror group face new scrutiny

Retired US politicians, generals, and officials have been lobbying on behalf of the Iranian group MEK, listed as a terrorist group by the State Department.

Some of the biggest names in American politics and foreign policy have been accepting money from a State Department designated terrorist organization in recent years and lobbying the US government to bring the group in from the cold. Lobbyists for listed Iranian terror group face new scrutiny

A scandal? Hardly. That famous generals, politicians, and other retired officials have supported the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has been public knowledge for some time. But their freedom to act on behalf of a group that has murdered Americans, and sought to create an amalgam of Islam and Marxism to take over Iran after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, has nevertheless been striking. The internet is filled with their speeches, many of which were paid for with hefty fees, praising the group’s Maryam Rajavi, the self-styled "president" of Iran.

A list of notables as long as your arm are on the MEK bandwagon: Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; ex-Homeland Security boss Tom Ridge; Newt Gingrich; former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean; former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell; former head of the 9/11 commission Lee Hamilton; former Obama National Security Adviser James Jones; ex-CIA Director James Woolsey; and retired generals Wesley Clark and Peter Pace.

That’s just a brief sampling (the Monitor’s Scott Peterson did an extensive investigation into the MEK’s American supporters last year). US citizens aren’t supposed to be helping out groups designated as terrorists by the government, but that’s not how it works in this case.

Consider by contrast the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation. The group was prosecuted in 2007 for funneling money to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that is also on the State Department’s terror list. The charity sought to defend itself by saying that it was only providing humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, which is governed by Hamas. The prosecution and the jury didn’t see it that way, however, and five members of Holy Land were convicted, with two of the officials given 65-year jail terms.

While ex-US officials are receiving money from the MEK, rather than providing it, the tolerance of the close work with the group has been a Washington oddity for some time. There’s some "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic around this (the MEK hates the current Iranian regime), and some of its advocates view it is a government in waiting for Iran (much as they viewed Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress a decade ago). But the group has limited support inside Iran, and the Green Movement views the MEK with as much suspicion as the Iranian government does.

Now, a growing number of questions are being asked about the activism for the MEK.

A Washington Post article last week wonders if the officials could be prosecuted based on the Foreign Agent’s Registration Act (FARA), which requires US citizens lobbying for foreign powers in the US to disclose their roles and officially register with the government. The article quotes David Cole, a scholar of constitutional law at Georgetown, as saying FARA should probably apply to the friends of the MEK. And continues:

Federal lobbying law defines a foreign “agent” as someone who acts “at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal, or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in part by a foreign principal.” It covers activities that include acting as a publicity agency or political consultant or representing the interests of the foreign group “before any agency or official of the government of the United States.”

“The only defense would be if you can claim that you’re doing it on your own, unpaid,” said a retired senior U.S. official and expert on lobbying law, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss hypothetical cases covered by the statute. “But if you’re getting money from the same group to make speeches, it’s pretty hard to make the case.”

There have been just the slightest stirrings of legal action recently. In June, NBC News cited unnamed sources alleging that "speaking firms representing ex-FBI Director Louis Freeh and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton have received federal subpoenas as part of an expanding investigation into the source of payments to former top government officials who have publicly advocated removing" the MEK from the State terrorist list. "The investigation, being conducted by the Treasury Department, is focused on whether the former officials may have received funding, directly or indirectly, from the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, thereby violating longstanding federal law barring financial dealings with terrorist groups."
The article cited an "Obama administration official" (unnamed, of course) as confirming the probe.

Will any of this lead anywhere? Probably not. It’s hardly news that US law is applied unevenly when it comes to lobbying and connected retired officials. As for the MEK coming off the terrorist list? They remain there today as much as anything to avoid complicating negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, with many US officials concerned that a positive gesture to the group would do more harm than good to US interests. The status quo seems likely to prevail, at least under this administration.

Former presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich is one of the MEK and Ms. Rajavi’s greatest admirers, and made the case for her group at its annual conference in France this June, which was attended by a passel of former US officials.

Mr. Gingrich referred to the MEK leader as "President" Rajavi, and told her enthusiastic supporters he was wowed by one of her recent speeches.

He said he hoped "that some people in the State Department might see the reality that this is a massive, worldwide movement for liberty in Iran and not anything like the State Department’s descriptions and I think what you did yesterday was historic and extraordinary and needs to be driven home so that everybody that makes foreign policy decisions in the United States understands just how big this movement is getting … and how bipartisan the American support for it is."

It’s been a very long time since the MEK has carried out a terrorist attack, and it hasn’t murdered a US citizen since the mid-1970s, when they killed two US officers attached to the US embassy in Tehran and four American contractors working in Iran. But the group worked closely with Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran in the 1980s, and was involved in the crackdown against his Kurdish and other domestic political opponents.

It retains an unsavory, cult-like reputation in many circles. Camp Ashraf in Iraq, its base of operations when the MEK was in business under Saddam Hussein, was for many years controlled entirely by the group. Former members have complained of being ordered to dissolve their marriages (because they distracted them from supporting Rajavi and her husband), to give up their personal property to the group, and of being physically prevented from leaving the organization by her loyalists.

Newt Gingrich’s bow to Rajavi was more than a little ironic. While the gesture, as it generally is, was gracious, he hasn’t been shy about making politics over other people’s body posture in the pass. When he was still running for president in March, Gingrich released an ad attacking Obama for bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia.

By Dan Murphy

July 10, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Forever in Exile: The Iranian Mujahideen-e Khalq

The Mujahideen-e Khalq will never have the necessary popular grassroots to carry the banner of a future revolution against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

With the failure of yet another round of nuclear talks and the Islamic Republic of Iran remaining ever more defiant, sentiments in the West may once again shift to regime change and positioning opposition groups as alternatives to the current leadership. The Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian Islamic-leftist terrorist organization, is one of the major such opposition groups to the current regime in Iran.

Espousing a controversial blend of Islamic-Marxism and claimed secular outlook, the MEK originated from anti-Shah university students. It later adapted into the cultish militant group of the Forever in Exile: The Iranian Mujahideen-e Khalq 1990s and eventually into the self-described liberal-Islamic alternative to the regime that exists in Tehran today.

Continuing an apparent metamorphosis, the MEK and its associates claim to have shirked their original anti-Western roots and now seek recognition by the international system in their struggle to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran and to establish an apparent democratic society with secular ideals. From their current base of operations in Iraq and around the world, the MEK continue to fight a battle for legitimacy and identity through a well-funded lobbying campaign to gain the favor of the West and facilitate opposition to the Islamic Republic. Still, the MEK’s violent history and Iran’s long cultural memory do not bode well for its prospects of acceptance by Iranians as an alternative to the authoritarian state. Thus, while it will continue to expediently transform, it is unlikely that the MEK can effectively rebrand its image to suit the Iranian people. This can be attributed to its violent history, cultish overtones, and cooperation with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war.

Enemy of the State

The MEK’s ideology has been developing since the group emerged in 1963. Initially, the organization sought to antagonize what it perceived as a US–Shah dependent relationship. Violent undercurrents were evident in their efforts as some members underwent combat training with fighters from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). By 1972 two failed attacks on the regime brought reprisals as the SAVAK — the Shah’s secret police — imprisoned half their members. The militant trend continued as the MEK’s terrorist attacks and street fighting, with Westerners also in the crosshairs, contributed to the overthrow of the Shah. In the consolidation of power after the Shah fell, the MEK positioned itself as ideologically antithetical to the proponents of an Islamic republic, and thus suffered additional retaliations.

The group eventually dissolved and its remaining leadership fled from the hostility of the Islamic regime. In 1981, the leaders escaped to Paris and completed the transition of the MEK from a grassroots peoples’ movement to a cultish organization focusing on an armed attrition. From their base of operations, the MEK fought a “tit for tat” with Hezbollah, engaging Iranian targets across the world.

From Terrorists to Traitors

While the MEK has an extensive public history of violence in Iran, the pinnacle of its repugnance in the eyes of many Iranians came during its cooperation with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Chased out of Iran, the MEK settled under the wing of the Ba’athist regime in the 1980s. From Iraq, the National Liberation Army (NLA), the paramilitary wing of the group, carried out military excursions and over the horizon attacks on Iran. Directly fighting against their countrymen while guests of Saddam, the MEK reached a new low for Iranians as it became allies with one of Iran’s most hated enemies in one of her bloodiest wars.

After the Iran-Iraq War, the counterstrike between Iran and the MEK continued well into the 1990s. Military incursions into Iran were met with an MEK base falling victim to Iranian airpower. In response, 13 Iranian embassies were targeted by the MEK. Other attacks inside Iran, such as bombings and assassinations, continued throughout the decade.

In 2002, the MEK released corroborated intelligence that Iran was covertly enriching uranium, seeking to gain the favor of the West and to undermine Tehran. Today, the MEK remains on the US State Department’s terrorism list, and its personnel in Iraq at Camp Ashraf remain in a dangerous state of flux while their fate is debated in a newly hostile Iraq. Despite the publically uneasy relations with Western governments, the MEK reportedly maintains a partnership with international intelligence agencies in a covert sabotage and espionage effort against Iran’s nuclear program.

As the MEK continues to weather hostility from the Iraqi government, it also fights a different kind of battle for legitimacy from the West. The MEK’s old hostility towards the West has been supplanted by a professional and well-funded public relations campaign to convince Western policy elites of a reformation from a violent past and of the MEK’s new status as a viable democratic opposition group to the Islamic Republic.

Regardless of whether these claims of rebirth are true, the MEK faces huge obstacles in its struggle for legitimacy in the hearts and minds of the Iranian people. Its violent history of political resistance and its treasonous relationship with Saddam has left a stubborn sense of loathing for the organization within Iranian consciousness. The animosity and mistrust for the MEK will be persistent as history shows that the proud Persian culture does not take such interference and hostility lightly.

For Iranians, past “insults” persist within their cultural memory; the Arab invasion of the Sassanid Empire in the 7th century is still lamented to this day in Iranian culture as a grand affront against Persian heritage. In modern times, Iranian’s have felt their sovereignty was being infringed upon due to the great game in Iran being played by Russia, Britain and the US. Indeed, this has not been forgotten either.

Perhaps most salient is the American led coup d’état of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953, which resulted in a still seething animosity and blowback, which helped trigger the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Furthermore, Iranians are very nationalistic, and in dire straits, such as during the Iran-Iraq War, they have supported their country despite reservations towards the new Islamic Republic. It is thus unlikely that the proud Iranian public will forget the MEK’s violent, cultish and treasonous past.

Although clouded by the intense propaganda from both the Islamic Republic and the MEK, there appears to be very little love or sympathy for the MEK from Iranians. These sentiments are practical corroborators of the theoretical possibility that, despite its resistance to the hated Iranian regime, the MEK will continue to receive its share of animosity from Iranians.

If not mass popular appeal, the MEK does have impressive funding and apparent support from entities not well disposed to the Iranian regime. However, without a grassroots momentum, the MEK can never become the viable superstructure of an opposition movement that some in the West, who ignore the MEK’s failings for the potential prize of overthrowing the Islamic Republic, hope for.

In fact, it need not be.[..]
That is not to say that MEK has no role in Iran’s future. In the past, revolutionary scale resistance movements in Iran have been populist amalgamations of varied and diverse groups from both the right and the left. If the cauldron of popular dissent once more reaches a critical point in Iran, the MEK cannot hope to completely — ideologically and fundamentally — encompass what will surely be a larger and more diverse enterprise. Nonetheless, that reality does not preclude it from some role in fighting with their fellow Iranians, as they have in the past, for a free future.

Ari Katz, Fairobserver

July 9, 2012 0 comments

The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Iraqi Deputy FM: Baghdad Resolved to Expel MKO

Iraq’s Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abawi underlined that presence of the anti-Iran terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO, also known as MEK, PMOI and NCR) in Iraq is illegal, raq's Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abawi reiterating that Baghdad is determined to expel the terrorist group.

Abawi said in a statement that MKO’s presence in Iraq does not meet the description of asylum, and stressed that Baghdad is determined to close the terrorist group’s main training base, Camp Ashraf, and drive MKO elements to another country.

He reiterated that MKO’s presence in Iraq has not justification, saying, "The elements of the MKO are illegal . They came to Iraq and were used by the former regime for military purposes, they are not refugees because according to the Iraqi law they don’t qualify for asylum."

The MKO, whose main stronghold is in Iraq, is blacklisted by much of the international community, including the United States.

Before an overture by the EU, the MKO was on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations subject to an EU-wide assets freeze. Yet, the MKO puppet leader, Maryam Rajavi, who has residency in France, regularly visited Brussels and despite the ban enjoyed full freedom in Europe.

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.

The group, founded in the 1960s, blended elements of Islamism and Stalinism and participated in the overthrow of the US-backed Shah of Iran in 1979. Ahead of the revolution, the MKO conducted attacks and assassinations against both Iranian and Western targets.

The group started assassination of the citizens and officials after the revolution 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 the 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.

Since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the group, which now adheres to a pro-free-market philosophy, has been strongly backed by neo-conservatives in the United States, who also argue for the MKO to be taken off the US terror list.

July 8, 2012 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

The democracy Rajavi believes in

Democracy is a word frequently used by politicians around the world. People are constantly told The democracy Rajavi believes in that they’d better live in a democracy. Most states claim that their political system is “democratic”. Most opposition groups claim that they are struggling for democracy.

A democracy is a government by people; it is rule of the majority. Tolerance is one of the features of a democracy. Tolerance is the capacity for, or the practice of, recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. But, is anyone who chants slogans of democracy,a democrat?

The June 23 gathering of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization was allegedly called a “pro-democracy” event. The organizer of the rally said it was held “for democratic change in Iran”!
As the organizers of the event, national Council of Resistance of Iran is the propaganda arm of the MKO. Self assigned president of the NCRI, Maryam Rajavi is now running the group – which is widely known as a cult- in the absence of his disappeared husband Massoud Rajavi. Massoud went in to hiding in 2003 after the US invasion to Iraq and the fall of Iraqi dictator and also following the arrest of Maryam by French Police in June 2003. As Elizabeth Rubin of the NYTimes asserts the MKO "is something more like a husband-and wife-led cult ".[1]

On July13, 2003, Rubin published a comprehensive article on the cult-like devotion of members to the group leaders. Interviewing both advocates and opponents of the group she concludes, "It seems dangerously myopic that the US is even considering resurrecting the Rajavis and their army of Stepford wives." She writes of Iranians view on the MKO, ”those who knew and remembered the group laughed at the notion of it spearheading a democracy movement.”[2]

To clarify the type of democracy the MKO speaks of an example of their so-called pro- democracy acts should be noticed: Prior to the June23 gathering, several former members of the group staged a rally in Saint-Mitchell square in the southern suburb of Paris on Friday, June22 to voice their resentment at the terrorist activities of the MKO ,reported PressTV. The defectors rally was confronted by a number of MKO members wielding knives, snap-off blade cutters, chains and baseball bats. [3]

This undemocratic act of intolerance by MKO members was not unexpected. On June17, 2007, over 50 MKO members attacked a public meeting in Paris at which several people were injured. PressTV reported that it was later revealed that the assault had been orchestrated by top MKO leaders. [4]

This is the democracy the MKO leaders believe in. Neither respect, nor tolerance is included in their “type of democracy”.

Those Western politicians who were invited and paid by “the Organizing Committee for Convention for Democracy in Iran”(!), should watch their behavior. They badly risk their reputation by advocating for an officially terrorist designated group- under the name of democracy!

By Mazda Parsi

References:
[1] Rubin,Elizabeth, the Cult of Rajavi, New York Times, July13,2003
[2]ibid
[3] PressTV, French security forces arrest 16 MKO terrorists, June24, 2012
[4]ibid

July 8, 2012 0 comments

USA

“Plainly wrong” to conclude US must remove MEK from terror list

American diplomats firmly pushed back Friday on reports suggesting that the U.S. must remove a controversial Iranian anti-regime group, the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (MEK), from a U.S. list of US diplomats: “Plainly wrong” to conclude US must remove MEK from terror list designated terrorist organizations.

“MEK leaders appear to believe that the Secretary has no choice now but to delist them,” the State Department’s counter-terrorism coordinator Daniel Benjamin said in a call with reporters Friday. “That conclusion is quite plainly wrong.”

“In short, the court did not order the Secretary of State to revoke the MEK designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization,” Benjamin continued. “The court has told the State Department that it must act by October 1, but it did not mandate a particular result. I think that’s very important to underscore. The Secretary thus retains the discretion to either maintain or revoke the designation in accordance with the law.

The State Department call was prompted by an impasse in efforts by the United States and United Nations to persuade members of the cultish group to leave their former paramilitary base in Iraq, Camp Ashraf.

To date, about 2,000 MEK members have been persuaded to leave Ashraf for the former U.S. Camp Liberty military base in Iraq, where they can be interviewed for possible relocation to third countries. But the last relocation convoy occurred in early May, and some 1,200-1,300 MEK members remain in Ashraf, and are apparently issuing new demands, emboldened by the perception the group’s terror designation may soon be revoked.

American officials have sought to encourage the relocation from Ashraf by indicating that cooperation in doing so will be a key factor in determining whether the group remains on the U.S. terror list. But a US court decision last month has interfered with that message.

In June, the US court of appeals ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to issue a determination by October whether the MEK should be taken off the US terror list or its terror designation should be reissued.

Meantime, the Iraqi government is threatening to forcibly close the camp, and the United States is concerned about possible violence and a potential humanitarian disaster should relocation efforts continue to stall.

Despite the group’s terrorist designation, several prominent former senior American officials have taken large speaking fees to lobby for delisting the MEK. Among them, former FBI director Louis Freeh, former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, former DHS chief Tom Ridge, former UN ambassador and top Mitt Romney foreign policy adviser John Bolton, former UN ambassador Bill Richardson, and former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani. The Treasury Department issued subpoenas this past spring to determine who is paying for the massive lobbying effort on behalf of a designated terrorist group, and whether US criminal laws have been violated.

But American diplomats said Friday such lobbying will not impact the Secretary’s decision on the MEK’s designation.

“I do just want to underscore that when it comes to the designation itself, we have not met with any lobbyists or others,” Benjamin told reporters. “There was, in fact, one gentleman who came into my office under false pretenses from a foreign country to lobby for the MEK, and he was promptly thrown out.”

“Again, to underscore, we’re just looking at the merits of the particular case,” Benjamin added.

July 7, 2012 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

The MEK Designation and the Current Situation at Camp Ashraf

Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Daniel Benjamin and Special Advisor to the Secretary on Camp Ashraf Ambassador Daniel Fried on the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) Designation and the Current Situation at Camp Ashraf

Special Briefing The MEK Designation and the Current Situation at Camp Ashraf
Office of the Spokesperson
Via Teleconference

July 6, 2012
——————————————————————————–

MR. VENTRELL: Hey. Good afternoon, everybody, and thanks for joining us. Today, we’ve got an on-the-record conference call with Ambassador Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator for Counterterrorism, and Ambassador Daniel Fried, our Special Advisor on Camp Ashraf.

And so we’re going to go ahead and start this on-the-record call. I believe Ambassador Benjamin will make some remarks at the top, and then we’ll turn it over to both of our speakers for questions. So let’s go ahead and start.

Ambassador Benjamin.

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Yes. Thank you very much. I wanted to talk today a bit about the situation in Iraq, where there is an impasse between the Iraqi Government and the Mujahedin-e Khalq, the MEK, over the relocation of residents from the group’s paramilitary Camp Ashraf to the temporary transit facility at Camp Hurriya. The Iraqi Government and the United Nations continue to encourage the secure, humane relocation of residents to Hurriya for refugee status determinations by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Almost 2,000 individuals have already relocated, but the remaining 1,200 to 1,300 are holding at Ashraf until various MEK demands are met by the Iraqi Government. The last convoy of individuals, about 400 people, was on May 5th. And the patience of the Iraqi Government is wearing thin.

The MEK seems to have misinterpreted the June 1 order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. MEK leaders appear to believe that the Secretary has no choice now but to delist them. That conclusion is quite plainly wrong. In short, the court did not order the Secretary of State to revoke the MEK designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. As the Secretary has made clear, the MEK’s cooperation in the successful and peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf will be a key factor in her decision regarding the MEK’s FTO status. The court has told the State Department that it must act by October 1, but it did not mandate a particular result. I think that’s very important to underscore. The Secretary thus retains the discretion to either maintain or revoke the designation in accordance with the law. It is past time for the MEK to recognize that Ashraf is not going to remain an MEK base in Iraq. The Iraqi Government is committed to closing it, and any plan to wait out the government in the hope that something will change is irresponsible and dangerous.

The MEK is a group whose violent history against the United States includes the bombing of U.S. companies in Iran, the assassination of seven U.S. citizens, and the provision of support for the attack, occupation, and hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The MEK is also one of the few foreign groups to attempt an attack on U.S. soil when, in 1992, it launched near simultaneous attacks in 13 countries, including against the Iranian mission to the UN in New York. Even the MEK itself has admitted to continuing violent attacks until 2001.

With such a history, cooperating fully with the UN’s efforts in Iraq would be a tangible demonstration that the MEK has left its violent past behind and that it no longer retains the capability and intent to engage in acts of terrorism. This is the MEK’s moment to show that it has taken on a fundamentally different character. It should act quickly and complete the relocation and close Camp Ashraf.

And with that, I’ll be happy to take your questions.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, if we can go ahead and get the first question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone telephone. You will be prompted to record your name in order to be introduced. Once again, press * and 1. One moment.

Our first question comes from Bahman Kalbasi from BBC Persian. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions for the ambassadors. You talked about tangible change in their behavior. If the criteria for removing them from the FTO is to not have the capability and the intent, how does changing the location from Ashraf, as the Secretary has indicated, gets them closer to that removal? U.S. Government has said to NBC, for instance, that as late as February, that they were involved with the assassination of scientists in Iran.

And my second question really is that if you end up removing them, mindful of the unprecedented lobbying that is going on, are you worried that this will politicize the FTO? It will show that at the end of the day, politics trumps everything else?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Let me take the second question first. The – any decision, one way or the other will be taken entirely on the merits, and we’re committed to doing it that way and no other way. And that’s our requirement under the law.

On the other point, I can assure you that I have never said that they were involved in current assassinations in Iran. That was a story that ran, and I have no information to confirm that, so I certainly wouldn’t have said it. What I have given you is the established record, and nothing more and nothing less.

QUESTION: But how does it – removing them from Ashraf change the issue of intent?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Right. Well, the history and the use of Ashraf is that of an MEK paramilitary base. It’s where the MEK had its heavy weaponry and from which it carried out a number of military operations during the reign of Saddam Hussein. The MEK’s relocation will assist the Secretary in determining whether the organization remains invested in its violent past or is committed to leaving that past behind. And that really is going to be a very important illustration – or demonstration, I should say – of what the MEK’s orientation in the future will be.

So I do want to say that it is an absolutely essential move and we hope that they will get – move forward with it.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, can we get the next question?

OPERATOR: Our next question will come from Robert Burns – your line is open – from the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Regarding your encouragement for them to complete the relocation, if they don’t complete the move by October, is it the case that they won’t be de-listed?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: I’m not going to prejudge the Secretary’s action on this, but she has made it extremely clear how important this step is. And she is sticking by that and this is the message everyone involved needs to understand.

OPERATOR: Our next question will come from Mehrnoush Pourziaiee from BBC. Your line is open.

QUESTION: My question is regarding the dates that Iraqi Government has given, which is 20th of July for the closure of Camp Ashraf. And has there been any communication with U.S. Ambassador in Iraq and Iraqi Government on the Iraqi side plans in case the relocation is not complete by that time?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: This is Daniel Fried speaking. Our charge in Baghdad, Steve Beecroft, has been in contact with the Iraqi Government at senior levels on more than one occasion recently about the situation with respect to Camp Ashraf. Specific to your question, you are right that July 20th is a date set by the Iraqi Government by which they want Camp Ashraf to be emptied.

Now, in the past, the Iraqi Government has extended deadlines when there has been significant progress in moving people out of Camp Ashraf, and it is our hope – though only a hope – that if there is significant progress in the next two weeks, that deadline could be extended. However, that puts – that date should put everyone on notice and the MEK on notice that it needs to proceed with the next convoy of people out of Camp Ashraf. There have been five convoys. All have been successful; that is, they went from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya peacefully, without roadside bombs or attacks. And this process needs to resume.

QUESTION: And in the previous briefing, the officials of State Department mentioned that there has been no communication from MEK with UN officials or Iraqi Government, and they have stopped all the communication. Have you tried different channels to get this message to them, or what are you doing to make sure that they get the seriousness of this issue?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I’m happy to tell you that after a lot of work, communications have resumed. It took a frustratingly long period of time to arrange it. But Ambassador Kobler, the head of the UN Mission in Iraq, is back in contact with the MEK, has allowed this contact to resume. So these messages have been sent.

It is – we are all – that is, the U.S. Embassy – we at the State Department and the UN are all working hard to address as many legitimate concerns of the residents of Camp Hurriya and Camp Ashraf as we can in order that conditions be met for convoys to resume. And we do think that the Government of Iraq could and should do more to address these legitimate humanitarian concerns and show generosity to the residents. And there has been some progress in that regard. We hope that this progress – in fact, it’s imperative this progress be made swiftly and that the convoys of residents resume.

QUESTION: And Ambassador Fried, I have a question regarding Camp Ashraf itself. We have various accounts of people who have been a member of MEK before talking about the horrible situation in the organization and relations which is in Camp Ashraf and the relation between the members and how the human conditions of the Camp and the situation they live in because of the setup from the MEK. Can you elaborate on living condition in Camp Ashraf a little and tell us if all these stories are true or there’s no truth into them?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I am familiar, as you are, with all sorts of stories about life in Camp Ashraf. I can’t confirm or deny any of them. We just don’t know, but I’m familiar with them. Our purpose is humanitarian, however. Our purpose is neither to advance the interests of the organization – hardly – nor is it to fight the organization. Our interest is in saving the lives of the people that are there as individuals and helping them find – helping them get out of Ashraf safely to Camp Hurriya, and then out of Camp Hurriya to a life outside of Iraq. That is our purpose; it is humanitarian.

QUESTION: And The Washington Post report yesterday about the meeting between MEK advocates with senior Administration officials, can anyone elaborate on this and tell us if this is true and where and with whom the meetings has taken place and what is the nature of them?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I can certainly confirm that we have responded to inquiries and communicated with all kinds of private parties, including former U.S. Government officials, members of the European parliaments, and other advocates. We have made clear in all of these communications that the only viable option to resolving the issue of Camp Ashraf is a peaceful solution. We have offered our perspective on what is necessary for that to be achieved, and we offer that perspective knowing full well that these persons had a preexisting dialogue with the MEK, and we believe that they have conveyed our views to their MEK interlocutors. Now, they’re not representing the U.S. Government as they do so, but we believe they have passed these messages back. So I’m certainly not going to deny the fact of these contacts. I’m not going to get into the details either.

OPERATOR: Our next question will come from Jill Dougherty from CNN. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I just wanted to find out, legally, what can the Iraqi Government do if that date of July 20th comes? Can they physically remove the people? What legally are they entitled to do?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well – this is Dan Fried. I’m not a lawyer at all, much less an expert on Iraqi law. As I understand it, the Iraqi Government views them as in Iraq illegally. That’s their official position. They do not regard the invitation extended by Saddam Hussein to the MEK as valid, especially given the history of the MEK in Iraq. That said, the Iraqi Government has confirmed repeatedly and publicly that it also seeks a peaceful, humane solution to this problem. They have confirmed that bilaterally to us. We welcome this confirmation, and we intend to work with the Iraqi Government so that only a peaceful solution is followed.

QUESTION: So then I’m presuming that that is the – if you are giving any advice to the government or advising them in any way, that that is what you’re saying, it has to be peaceful?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Absolutely right. That has been our message front and center. We have worked with the Iraqi Government. Given Iraqi conditions, I’m more impressed by the progress that has been made than concerned by the problems that remain. This is Iraq. Things often do not go well in Iraq. Given that spectrum, we’re doing all right so far, but the situation remains precarious, and it is up to everyone to work to see that Camp Ashraf is emptied soon and peacefully.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our question will come from Jonathan Broder, Congressional Quarterly. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes, I’d just like to ask: Why is this Administration so concerned about humanitarian issues involving a terrorist group?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: We’re interested in humanitarian issues full-stop. And I think it’s important to underscore that many of the people in this camp are not likely to have participated directly in terrorist attacks, although we don’t know on a case-by-case basis. And in any case, we would seek to protect any such group that was essentially holed up in a camp if they were threatened with violence. So this is in keeping with our values.

I should also underscore that we also are interested in whether or not any particular group is involved in terrorist activities, whether it’s directly aimed at us or at others. This is – these are the lights we steer by. So I don’t see any problem with that.

I would like to go back to the issue that was asked before regarding lobbying, and I do just want to underscore that when it comes to the designation itself, we have not met with any lobbyists or others. There was, in fact, one gentleman who came into my office under false pretenses from a foreign country to lobby for the MEK, and he was promptly thrown out. But other than that, I’ve had no conversations on this issue. And again, to underscore, we’re just looking at the merits of the particular case.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, we’ve got time for just one more question.

OPERATOR: Our next question will come from Christina Wilkie from Huffington Post. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Could you please give us a better sense of the types of demands that the MEK is making of the Iraqi Government and the stipulations the Iraqi Government is placing? Are they – are the MEK’s demands generally realistic? Is it your position that they’re actually intended – that they – that they’re realistic to get, or are they – do you think this is being set up so that there’s an inevitable conflict?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: That’s a very good question, and I’ve asked myself that as well. Some of the MEK demands are reasonable. For example, given the hot weather in Iraq, they’ve requested more air conditioners. The Iraqi Government has agreed to provide them, that is agreed to allow a special shipment of air conditioners from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty, and this is being arranged as we speak. Some of the other demands strike me as not central – for instance, private cars. Well, that’s not an issue critical to basic humanitarian needs.

You’ve asked a question about the MEK’s intentions. I can’t answer that with full knowledge. They, of course, say that all they want are their basic humanitarian needs to be met. But it has been frustrating to deal with constantly shifting demands, many demands. We find that U.S. Embassy and State Department and the UN will work to resolve problems and, a la whack-a-mole, you find that new ones – you’re constantly presented with new ones. But hopefully, the next couple of weeks – in fact, it’s critical that the next couple of weeks will be a period in which some of these issues are resolved, enough so the MEK will allow convoys to resume. That’s absolutely critical.

MR. VENTRELL: Okay. Thank you all for joining today’s call. Any other last remarks from either of the ambassadors?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Yes. Again – Daniel Benjamin here – I really just wanted to emphasize again one point that I made at the outset. The Secretary of State can – is within her rights in either listing – re-listing or de-listing. And that really is the bottom line here, and no one should be unclear about that in any way. And that’s really all I have to say.

MR. VENTRELL: All right. Thank you all. Have a good afternoon.

July 7, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

The MEK Still Has Not Changed

Nicole Gibson notices that the columnist Clarence Page also spoke at the recent MEK gathering in Paris. Page’s defense is worth quoting again:

“I thought they were simply a group of Iranian exiles who were opposed to the regime in Tehran,” Page said. “I later found out they can be construed as a MEK front group, and I don’t think it’s worth it to my reputation to be perceived as a paid spokesman for any political cause.”

I love that “they can be construed as a MEK front group” line. That’s rather like saying that Sinn Fein could be “construed” as the IRA’s political wing, as if it were something up for debate or interpretation. It could be “construed” that way because that was the truth. Just look at the website of the organizing group. “Delist MEK” and “Camp Ashraf” are two tabs prominently displayed on the site. Who else would be so focused on these issues other than a front group for the MEK? How does someone agree to speak at an event sponsored by this group and not know that? Page deserves some credit for deciding to return the group’s money right away, but what was he doing at the event in the first place?

One of Page’s defenders isn’t helping him by highlighting what Page said in Paris. According to Achy Obejas, Page said the following:

* “Thanks for inviting me to speak up for values I believe we share: Freedom, democracy and respect for human rights for men and women across racial, ethnic and religious lines.
* “I believe we share a desire for regime change in Iran to a more fair and democratic society.
* “The historical record shows – and a variety of experts have told me – how the MEK has been America’s ally in our war against terrorists [bold mine-DL], but as former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has said, the State Department appears to have been left behind with outdated information. Now a federal court has said the State Department should check its relevance.
* “You have allies to whom you should reach out in common cause as long as you advocate the values all decent human beings share. As long as you work for freedom, equality, human rights and democracy, you are not working alone.”

It is obvious from these remarks that Page was badly misinformed. Whoever offered him the “expertise” he cites here did him a disservice. These views are “pretty mainstream” in the sense that a lot of prominent former officials and politicians have made similar claims. One small problem with these views is that they are based on misinformation.

The MEK has been trying to reinvent itself over the last decade by claiming that it has embraced all of the principles Page mentions, but the reality is that the group’s beliefs are antithetical to liberal and democratic principles. The MEK’s reinvention as a “democratic” opposition group is a classic example of a revolutionary organization adopting the rhetoric of its would-be Western patron. Suffice it to say that a group that relied on the patronage and protection of Saddam Hussein for over two decades is not one interested in creating a “fair and democratic society.” The MEK has not been an “ally” in a war against terrorists, and any “experts” that told Page this were not telling him the truth.

Ray Takeyh testified about the MEK’s ideology last year:

As the organization has lost its Iraqi patron and finds itself without any reliable allies, it has somehow modulated its language and sought to moderate its anti-American tone. Such convenient posturing should not distract attention from its well-honed ideological animus to the United States.

Terror has always been a hallmark of MEK’s strategy for assuming power. Through much of its past, the party exulted violence as a heroic expression of legitimate dissent. One of the central precepts of the party is that a highly-dedicated group of militants could spark a mass revolution by bravely confronting superior power of the state and assaulting its authority. Once, the masses observe that the state is vulnerable to violence, than they will shed their inhibitions and join the protest, thus sparking the larger revolution. Thus, the most suitable means of affecting political change is necessarily violence. Although in its advocacy in Western capitals, the MEK emphasizes its commitment to democracy and free expression, in neither deed nor word has it forsworn it violent pedigree.

P.S. The point here isn’t that Page’s remarks are unusual, but rather that they are unfortunately entirely too “mainstream” nowadays. This episode reflects how extensive the pro-MEK lobbying effort has become, and it underscores the need to show that the lobbying effort is based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.

By Daniel Larison

July 7, 2012 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts