Mujahedin Khalq Terror group

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Pols take paid speaking engagements in support of Iranian terror group

An Iranian political group designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization is offering large payments to orators willing to speak at events on their behalf. Among those with connections to the organization, Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), are Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s chief foreign policy adviser and liberal politician Howard Dean.

MEK and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, were discovered by Salon to be soliciting speakers for an event in Geneva.

The State Department summary of MEK’s activities claims that the group "uses propaganda and terrorism to achieve its objectives" against the Iranian government, with a worldwide membership between 5,000 and 10,000 and a decades-long history of attempted coups, bombings and terrorist attacks.

Because the MEK holds official designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, it is illegal to provide "material support" to it, such as by contributing directly or by speaking on its behalf. Pennsylvania’s 21st Century Speakers Inc. would be breaking the law with the $10,000 speaking engagement on the MEK’s behalf it is currently floating to its clients.

"This is clearly an invitation to provide a service to a designated group. This would be a clear violation of the law," Georgetown Law School professor David Cole told Salon. He added that the director of the speaker’s bureau, Lourdes Swarts, was already breaking the law by merely attempting to arrange a speaker.

The September 22 event focuses on the MEK members in Iraq’s Camp Ashraf and is scheduled to coincide with the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting.

Both Dean and the Romney adviser, Washington College President Mitchell Reiss, have been paid to give speeches as part of the effort to strip the MEK of its terrorist designation.

Dean told Politico that he gave the speech because he sympathized with the underdog and believed that the MEK had helped the U.S. in Iraq.

"I said to myself, ‘These are obviously not terrorists," Dean said. "The former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff will obviously not be consorting with terrorists."

By Kase Wickman

September 10, 2011 0 comments

USA

Why the US State Department doesn’t trust the MEK

A clearer picture of what US leaders really think of the MEK can be found in earlier assessments of the group by the US government—at a time when MEK’s connections in Western governments weren’t as extensively developed. Today the MEK propaganda efforts mentioned in this report are showing their effects.

Excerpts from 1992 report by Congressional Research Service addressed to Lee H. Hammilton, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives (1993–1995). (Note: in this report NCR=PMOI=MKO=MEK=…)

1. We want to be clear that our conclusions about the Mojahedin do not in any way imply support for the behavior of the current regime in Iran.

2. Despite Mojahedin assertions that the group has abandoned its revolutionary ideology and now favors a liberal democracy, there is no written or public record of discussion or debate about the dramatic reversals in the Mojahedin’s stated positions. Moreover, the Mojahedin’s…record of behavior does not substantiate its capability or intention to be democratic.

3. The intellectual contradictions between Shi’a Islam and Marxism… caused the Mojahedin to split in 1975. The organization broke drown into Marxist and Muslim factions. But the religious disagreement between the secular and Islamic factions of the MKO did not undermine their fundamental agreement on the issue of imperialism, nor their strategy of armed struggle against …American interests in Iran.

4. Like their dedication to armed struggle, the Mojahedin’s emphasis on propaganda reflects the influence of other revolutionaries, who sought both adherents and supporters through indoctrination, since its inception, the group has made drafting and disseminating propaganda a priority.

5. … it [MEK 1979 manifesto] recommended that Iran cancel all agreements with "racist" state of Israel.

6. The Mojahedin are known to have assassinated the following Americans in Iran during the 1970s:
Lt. Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins Killed: June 2, 1973
Air Force Colonel Paul Schaeffer Killed: May 21, 1975
Air Force Lt. Colonel Jack Turner Killed: May 21, 1975
Donald G. Smith, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976
Robert R. Krongrad, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976
William C. Cottrell, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976.
7. The very day that 400 university students overtook the U.S. embassy, the Mojahedin issued a proclamation headlined, "After the Shah, it’s America’s turn."

8. [After release of US embassy hostages] the next issue of "Mojahed" [MEK publication] reminded readers that "the Mojahedin-e Khalq were the first force who rose unequivocally to the support of the occupation of the American spy center," and further noted that Mojahedin members spent "days and weeks," "in heat and cold," in front of the embassy in an effort to ensure that the occupied embassy was "an active and zealous anti-imperialist center." It described the release of the nostages as a "retreat" and "surrender" and warned that resumption of diplomatic relations with the United States would be "treason to the people and to the blood of our martyrs."

9. …in radio broadcasts of the "Voice of Mojahed," [circa 1990s] which are transmitted into Iran from Mojahedin bases in Iraq, the MKO has claimed responsibility for internal violence throughout Iran…A number of these self-described operations included attacks against clearly civilian targets, such as automobiles, highways, government buildings open to the public, businesses.

10. After the flight of the Mojahedin leadership from Iran in 1981, the group internationalized its propaganda to gain new adherents and attract Western supporters…Rajavi commenced a campaign of public relations that developed into the formidable Mojahedin outreach program currently operating.

11. The NCR also solicits the support of prominent public figures, and practices a determined lobbying effort among Western parliamentarians.

12. To conduct its propaganda campaign, the group has established offices throughout Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and the Middle East. These offices are responsible for coordinating the public relations effort and through their activities have established the Mojahedin as the best organized Iranian opposition group. They sponsor public demonstrations and marches. Other types of publicity measures include television programming and musical concerts that feature prominent Iranian musicians. The Mojahedin claim the audiences for these performances are indicative of MKO support.

13. The organization also transmits unsolicited faxes and mail of its publications to various U.S. government offices, including the State Department, on a regular basis.

14. The Mojahedin focus their public relations efforts on the objectionable activities of the Iranian government…After the war, the Mojahedin stepped up its campaign to publicize the Iranian regime’s dismal record on human rights.

15. Another common practice of the group is to collect statements issued by prominent individuals. Western governments, the E.U and the U.N condemning Iranian government abuses and to reissue them as a package under the Mojahedin name — although the Mojahedin are not a factor in the Western condemnations. Likewise, the Mojahedin collect Western press reports that describe objectionable behavior by the Iranian government and re-publish them in Mojahedin documents.

16. Mojahedin publications tend to mirror concurrent Western public diplomacy…Through such efforts, the Mojahedin attempt to transform Western opprobrium For the government of Iran into expressions of support for themselves.

17. "By keeping on good terms with enough journalists, they hope to transform their public image in America from terrorists to Freedom fighters." The major objective of the MKO’s public relations campaign is to posit the Mojahedin as the alternative to the current Iranian government, or in their words, the "face of Iran to be," and in so doing gain both new adherents and Western political and financial support. To achieve these objectives, they must ensure their organization and its espoused principles appeal to Western audiences and Iranian expatriates.

18. Current Mojahedin publications assert the group’s advocacy of specific guidelines for a future provisional government, including: "democracy," "peace," "love, friendship, and unity," "separation of church and state," and "recognition of private ownership and a market economy…"

19. [but] These claims present a revolutionary departure from the substantial written record of Mojahedin ideology. Examples of such reversals include the switch from revolutionary Islam to separation of church and state and from nationalization to private ownership. Yet the changes in MKO ideology occurred without any public debate, and there is no public record of discussion or review of Mojahedin principles. It is also unclear when each change in policy occurred, and what internal factors motivated each shift. The absence of dialogue about this critical issue of ideology contrasts markedly with the group’s earlier history of discourse.

20. Nor are these new claims substantiated by the record of the Mojahedin’s activities throughout… Mojahedin organizations do not follow the principles outlined in their revised propaganda. In particular, the Mojahedin have never practiced democracy within their own organization…

21. The Mojahedin’s own publications further suggest the insincerity of their ideological alteration…the Mojahedin have begun to appropriate Iranian national symbols for use in their publications. One…journal is named "The Lion and the Sun" in reference to two symbols used by the monarchy throughout Iranian history. Yet the Mojahedin worked to overthrow the Shah’s monarchy and today refuse to work with monarchist oppositionists…. Similarly, the Mojahedin have abandoned their original flag, whose symbols include a Quranic verse, sickle, and Kalashnikov, in favor of the royal flag used during the Sah’s rule.

22. The Mojahedin have also begun incorporating the "Mossadeq" name into their publications. "The Lion and Sun" journal, for example, contains report on "The Rising that Restored Mossadeq." In fact, the Mojahedin rejects the nonviolent, constitutional opposition exemplified by Mossadeq. The political party that was the heir to Mossadeq’s policies, the National Front, refused in 1981 to work with the NCR because of the Mojahedin’s revolutionary Islamic ideology. These cosmetic modifications appear to be aimed at expatriate Iranian audiences, among whom these symbols would resonate.

23. the Mojahedin’s credibility is also undermined by the fact that they deny or distort sections of their history… It is difficult to accept at face value promises of future conduct when an organization fails to acknowledge its past.

by Ari Siletz

September 6, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Gambling with MKO terrorism

Some in U.S paving ground for another round of violence

If the ultimate goal of delisting the MEK is to create a political entity with military capacity that could come into play when push comes to shove with Iran, then we’re in for yet another foreign policy disaster.

If anything, the whole 9/11 ordeal revealed in a spectacular way that enhancing an extremist organization and tactically allying with it in order to gain strategic advantage over a bigger foe is not necessarily the best long-term policy. Terrorist groups and indoctrinated cults (regardless of how they’re designated) don’t make loyal friends. That’s now a historically proven fact. You could use them for short-term gains –just as you did with Afghanistan’s Mujahidin in early 1980s against the Soviet Union – but once they grow strong, they’ll go by their own twisted agenda.

Certainly, an unethical dogmatic cult like the MEK – which has the capacity of instructing its own members to self-immolate in support of their leaders – a cult that went as far as fighting alongside the troops of Saddam Hussein when he invaded its own country’s territorial integrity – is much less principled and predictable than some hawkish American politicians wish it to be. You may see a potential ally in the fiery group for the time being, but it’s utterly naïve to think that an ideological political formation that took up arms against its own people at a time of war would stay loyal to anyone or to any noble principle it pledges to uphold.

The truth is that enhancing the MEK from a ghostly Marxist-Islamist terrorist organization on the verge of dissolution to a dangerously consequential actor in the inflammable region of the Middle East would most likely be a risky decision that future U.S governments, along with moderate political and ideological forces in the region, will wholeheartedly regret. If left alone, the MEK would probably gradually fade away in the maze of history and spare future generations the hassle of combating yet another fanatical force. If boosted and unleashed however, there would be no guarantee that anyone – including the U.S – would be able to exercise any sort of moderating influence on it. The risk is for Hilary Clinton to take. She could play it safe, call the terrorist group what it is and contain it until it’s dissolved. Or she could boost it up, let it loose and watch it in action.

The Secretary of State should bear in mind though that in its present miserable form, the MEK is one of the staunchest forces against peace and non-violent resistance among all other Iranian political groups. Not yet delisted, the MEK is perhaps devoting as much time and resource combating and weakening the voices of non-violence within the Iranian opposition. It suffices to take a quick look at the MEK’s online media, TV programs and propaganda machine to see the level of hatred and resentment that this group spurs toward the very notion of “non-violence” and civility in political struggle (although the English version of its media productions aimed at a Western audience are much more “peaceful” than its Farsi ones).

So there should be no doubt in her mind that if the MEK’s capabilities and credibility are enhanced through recognition by the State Department, it would not hesitate to unleash all its newly gained impetus to suffocate all voices of rationality and plant the seeds of a new form of extremism that future generations of Iranians, Middle Easterns and Americans would have to deal with.

It is a pity to see that at a time where the Arab spring is promising a new era of rationality and prosperity in the tormented region of the Middle East, some forces within the U.S are yet again paving the ground for another round of violence to emerge.

By Reza Nasri

September 5, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Facts vs. Fiction and the MEK’s PR Campaign

In 1994, the U.S. Department of State produced a comprehensive report exposing the Mujahideen-e-khalq (MEK) for what it is — an exiled Iranian fringe group with a record of terrorism, violence, political opportunism and the abuse of its own members.

It states

…our mutual distaste for the behavior of the regime in Tehran should not influence our analysis of the Mojahedin.

and that

Shunned by most Iranians and fundamentally undemocratic, the Mojahedin-e Khalq are not a viable alternative to the current government of Iran.

But that was years ago and any day now the MEK could be delisted from the U.S foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) list. Virtually unchecked, its well-funded lobbying blitz in Europe resulted in its delisting from the U.K. and E.U. terror lists. This has enabled it to create a larger support base there than it has in North America. It particularly enjoys a significant audience among past and present British parliamentarians such as Lord Corbett of Castle Vale (Robin Corbett). Corbett is the chairman of the “British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom,” the main British MEK lobby group. In addition to the U.S. heavy-weights with high national security officials that the MEK has paid to appear at its European rallies are Iranians and non-Iranians like the people pictured here and here.

After its successful test run in Europe, the MEK set its sights on the world’s most wanted ally and now its crazed leader Maryam Rajavi (her husband’s whereabouts are unknown) is knocking on Washington’s door saying things about the “Mullahs in Iran” while using key buzz words like “democratic”.

Over the years the FBI, Human Rights Watch, the Rand Corporation and several U.S. mainstream news outlets have produced in-depth investigations detailing the group’s past and present, some revealing the absurdly high “speaking fees” it provides to prominent figures who have appeared at its events. But even with a steady flow of damning information available, it is still spreading non-factual claims through its lobbying representatives. One way it does this is by issuing regular press releases through PR Newswire (a well-known online marketing tool) which are then reproduced as articles on news websites (see here and here for one example). Its lobbyists regularly talk to the press which is forced to quote them and MEK representatives have also been given full editorial slots in major U.S. newspapers.

The MEK’s ongoing delisting campaign is guided by the belief that the American public and the U.S. government are ignorant enough to believe its statements no matter how many times they’re proven false. The breathless claims of seeming support made by former U.S. officials are marketed by the MEK as a testament to its legitimacy, especially when these people conflate the human rights issue at the MEK’s base in Camp Ashraf near the Iran-Iraq border with its FTO delisting campaign as if they go hand in hand. But they don’t. Writing about Mitt Romney adviser Michael Reiss’s advocacy for the MEK the American Conservative’s Daniel Larison states (emphasis is mine):

Like many other pro-MEK advocates, Reiss has confused the issues of the treatment of the population of Camp Ashraf with the question of whether the MEK should remain on the FTO list. The people at Ashraf should be relocated outside Iraq, and they should not be sent to Iran against their will, but this has nothing to do with the MEK’s designation by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. It ought to be possible to address what is properly a political refugee problem left over from the Iraq war without legitimizing a terrorist group.

Dokhi Fassihian and Trita Parsi have also written about how the “international community” rather than just the U.S. can help the people of Camp Ashraf.

Some of my colleagues have called the MEK delisting campaign an “Iranian debate” but this couldn’t be further from the truth. The majority of Iranians don’t support the MEK in Iran or outside of it. Most Iranians aren’t debating the MEK’s merits, they’re either loudly speaking out against it, or consider it an annoying distraction from the widely recognized opposition in Iran. That’s because the MEK killed Iranians through organized terror bombings and assassinations during and after the revolution and because it fought against its own people during the Iran-Iraq war. The war took hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. It is ingrained in Iranian memory as nearly a decade of suffering imposed on them by the U.S.-backed regime of Saddam Hussein who even used chemical weapons on young Iranian soldiers. Which nation’s people would forgive such an act of treason?[..]

Those who think Iranians would support the MEK simply because of its number one goal of bringing down the Islamic Republic are seriously mistaken. Every anti-IRI Iranian I have interviewed has said something to the tune of: “They are bad, but the MEK is worse.” Those who think the MEK should be supported simply because it detests the Iranian government as much as they do (see Patrick Kennedy) are also misguided. The chances of the MEK being installed in Tehran are very low; the Iranian population wouldn’t allow it.

The only Iranians who support the MEK are family members of those who were persecuted by the regime and those whose understandable hatred of the current government has driven them to blind desperation. At best, its support base among Iranians is under 30,000 and perhaps significantly less, and Iran is a country of over 70 million. If the MEK has such a large support base as it claims, why was its recent rally outside the Washington Department of State attended by “hundreds” rather than thousands or hundreds of thousands? Why did organizers feel the need to bus and fly people to the rally for free from other cities? As with many of its other events, some attendees admitted to not being familiar with the group or its objectives. Others admitted to being paid to attend.

Some may wonder why I am writing all this if the MEK is so obviously illegitimate. That’s because their delisting campaign has been well-organized and somewhat effective. They have, after all, successfully convinced the U.S. government to reconsider their FTO designation. Their campaign is also currently in full swing and should be addressed as such.

But delisting the MEK is unlikely to result in the group being accepted by Iranians, or the fall of the Iranian government. It may not even impact the status of the 3,000+ people who are trapped in Camp Ashraf, all under real threat by the Iraqi government and many held against their will. But delisting it will result in the leadership being able to raise money easier in the U.S. which they can then use to sway Mideast policy by lobbying congress.[..]

A decision to delist will strike yet another blow to the possibility of peaceful U.S.-Iran relations since it will be interpreted by the Iranians as an act of U.S. aggression, adding more fuel to the ongoing Cold War between the two countries. It will also reinforce a well-known stereotype about the U.S. as a country led by people who are indeed gullible enough to believe anything — even the claims of a well-funded terror group that has killed U.S. nationals.

The leadership cannot escape its bloody past. Among Rajavi’s militaristic quotes are: “Take the Kurds under your tanks and save your bullets for the Islamic Guard.” It also cannot erase the abundant information that journalists and other neutral non-state actors have made available about them. The MEK can only counter negative press with fabrications (as it is doing with its cyber army of defamers and lobbyists) and hope that the Obama administration is weak and naive enough to submit to the pressure it has been working furiously to impose upon it.

But as argued by Elizabeth Rubin of the New York Times who visited Camp Ashraf in 2003 and experienced the group’s inner-workings first-hand:

Mrs. Clinton should ignore their P.R. campaign. Mujahedeen Khalq is not only irrelevant to the cause of Iran’s democratic activists, but a totalitarian cult that will come back to haunt us.

We can only hope that Mrs. Clinton is listening.

lobelog – By Jasmin Ramsey

September 3, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

The Mujahedeen e-Khalq’s Controversial Existence

Elizabeth Rubin writes in the New York Times on the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) and their controversial claims as Iran’s main opposition group. According to Rubin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “should ignore their [MEK] P.R. campaign. Mujahedeen Khalq is not only irrelevant to the cause of Iran’s democratic activists, but a totalitarian cult that will come back to haunt us.” Rubin argues that what is “most disturbing” about the MEK is the way the leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi treats its members that reside in Iraq’s Camp Ashraf. Rubin visited Camp Ashraf in 2003 and after her visit, spoke with many men and women who had escaped MEK. According to her interviews with the former MEK members, ”many had to be deprogrammed. They recounted how people were locked up if they disagreed with the leadership or tried to escape; some were even killed.” Additionally, residents of Camp Ashraf are forbidden to engage in friendships and any other type of emotional relationships. Boys and girls are banned from speaking with one another and residents are also required to report their dreams and thoughts. Rubin also writes that members are forced to divorce and “take a vow of lifelong celibacy to ensure that all their neergy and love would be directed toward Maryam and Massoud.”

Trita Parsi and Dokhi Fassihian list steps in an article published in Tehran Bureau that the U.S., international community and MEK can take to resolve the situation at Camp Ashraf. Parsi and Fassihian recommend that Camp Ashraf should be dismantled from the supervision of the United Nations, the International Red Cross and the U.S. military. Additionally, the rights of the MEK members should be upheld. Residents should also “be offered resettlement in third countries and reunification with their families if they meet the requirement of the United Nations to renounce violence.” Most importantly, Parsi and Fassihian emphasize that the National Council for Iranian Resistance (NCRI)- MEK as a whole, should renounce violence in an official proclamation published in Farsi and English before being considered for FTO delisting.[..]

Project on middle East Democracy

August 29, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Delist Terrorists as ‘Provocative’ Action Against Iran

Retired US General: Delist Terrorists as ‘Provocative’ Action Against Iran
Praises MEK as ‘Overt Military Counterforce to the Iranian Regime’

In comments that further underscore the depth of the support the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has generated with its massive pay-for-speech campaign, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney praised the MEK and called for their delisting as part of a campaign of “provocative actions” against the Iranian government.

“We need a very active tit for tat policy, so every time they kill Americans they have an accident in Iran,” declared McInerney at the pro-MEK conference in Washington DC. It wasn’t too long before he made it clear that the MEK would be arranging these “accidents,” declaring the group a “credible overt political-military counterforce to the Iranian regime.”

Such comments would seemingly go against the MEK’s repeated claims to have transitioned from Islamo-Marxist cult into the non-violent champion of the free market it now styles itself as, but didn’t seem to phase anyone, including the conference’s organizer Ray Tanter, who insisted the attacks the MEK has conducted inside Iran were simply “military activities” and didn’t count as terrorism.

The MEK was a founding member of the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and conducted numerous attacks against US targets before the Iranian revolution, transitioning into a key Saddam Hussein ally afterwards and eventually into a darling of US hawks who are keen to use them as a proxy force to attack Iran.

by Jason Ditz

August 28, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Why are U.S. political and diplomatic figures endorsing a terror group?

In recent weeks, a number of national U.S. news outlets have documented a strange phenomenon. Dozens of retired U.S. government officials, spanning the liberal-to-conservative political spectrum and some paid tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees, have joined a well-orchestrated lobbying campaign to remove a controversial Iranian exile group from the list of terrorist organizations maintained by the U.S. State Department.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to make a decision on the group’s status within weeks. She should take a close look at the history of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) before making a decision.

The MEK is a cult-like organization run by Iranian exiles Maryam Rajavi and her husband Massoud. Ms. Rajavi lives in Paris and leads the National Council of Resistance in Iran, a group that claims exile-government status. According to the FBI, it is a front group for the Mujahedeen-e Khalq.

Also known as the Warriors of God, MEK has a history of anti-American rhetoric and unsavory associations over the past four decades under the leadership of the Rajavis. It was initially aligned with the leaders of the Iranian Islamic revolution and later with Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein after the group was expelled from Iran. It is accused of dozens of assassinations and bombings, including one which killed six American advisers in Iran, and murdering Kurdish refugees in Iraq at Hussein’s behest. It is currently based at a camp in Iraq protected by the U.S. military but facing expulsion by the Iraqi government. A clash between Iraqi forces and camp members resulted in 34 deaths in April.

Despite the MEK’s ugly history, a power-packed roster of speakers has appeared at forums in the U.S. and Europe to endorse its drive to get off the terrorist list. Among the luminaries are former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former Energy Secretary and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former FBI director Louis Freeh. Some of the high-profile speakers admit they knew little about the group beyond their briefing by MEK advocates.

According to a study by the Rand Corporation in 2009, the MEK has deceptively retooled its image to that of a democratic, nonviolent organization dedicated to bringing down the Iranian government. As such, the group is cultivating prominent Americans looking for a plausible alternative to Iran’s current leadership.

The MEK doesn’t seem to fit that bill. The Rand study reported that up to 70 percent of the 3,500 people at MEK’s Iraqi camp were deceptively recruited and are held against their will. Even prodemocracy groups inside Iran have denounced the MEK as a totalitarian cult group dedicated to the Rajavis.

An investigation by the Christian Science Monitor reported that millions of dollars provided by MEK have paid those high-profile speakers’ fees and hotel costs for the events. Although U.S. law prohibits Americans from providing direct assistance to or taking payments from terrorist groups, the connection is disguised by running the funds through third parties, usually Iranian exile groups in the U.S.

Prominent Americans should not be accepting payments and supporting a group that has shed American blood in the past and has no viable support inside Iran. We urge Secretary Clinton to keep the MEK on the terrorist roster.

Chron.com

August 27, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Supporters of Iranian resistance group rally at State Department

Hundreds of supporters of the Iranian resistance group Mujahedin-e Khalq rallied in front of the U.S. State Department in Washington Friday, demanding the United States remove the group from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. In a sophisticated display of its public relations ability, the demonstration featured scores of young supporters wearing matching yellow T-shirts and straw hats chanting slogans, live big-screen broadcasts of the speakers, appearances by well-know U.S. politicians and the release of white doves that flew up toward the State Department’s enormous navy-blue flag as a storm of yellow and blue confetti filled the air.

The protest took place as the State Department prepares to decide whether to remove the organization from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. The MEK denies that it supports terrorism.

The department placed the MEK on the list in 1997. The group initially supported the 1979 Iranian Revolution, but later turned against the ayatollahs and, until 2003, carried out bombings and killings of Iranian officials.

The State Department also cites eyewitness accounts and MEK documents that it says demonstrate that MEK members participated in and supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and, in the 1970s, carried out terrorist attacks against U.S. interests in Iran as well as assassinations of Americans.

In the 1980s, because of the group’s anti-Iran actions, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein provided it with financial support and military training. During the Iran-Iraq War, the State Department says, Baghdad "armed the MEK with heavy military equipment and deployed thousands of MEK fighters in suicidal, mass wave attacks against Iranian forces."

The MEK surrendered its heavy arms to the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq and, in 2003, said it was renouncing violence. Since then, roughly 3,400 M.E.K. members have been living at a refugee camp called Camp Ashraf on the Iran/Iraq border.

But the new Iraqi government, which is more sympathetic to the Iranian regime, wants to move the MEK out of Iraq. The camp has been violently attacked several times by Iraqi security forces. In one attack this spring, at least 30 of the camp’s residents died.

At Friday’s rally at the State Department, girls wearing yellow tiaras on their heads with the word "Ashraf" led the audience in cheers.

Onstage, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy addressed the crowd, urging support for its cause. The MEK, which is based in France, has spent millions of dollars to win backing in Washington.

The State Department, in its 2010 Country Reports on Terrorism, noted, "The MEK’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has a global support network with active lobbying and propaganda efforts in major Western capitals. NCRI also has a well-developed media communications strategy."

Some Iranians in the United States have been critical of the MEK. In a press release Friday, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said delisting the group "would be disastrous for Iran’s nonviolent democratic opposition ."

Calling the MEK "a cult that abuses its own members," Parsi said it has "no support among the Iranian people." The MEK, he said, has been paying U.S. politicians to get it off the list of foreign terrorist organizations.

"If the MEK campaign is successful," he said, "it means that America’s national security is officially on sale to the highest bidder, and terror groups are free to set U.S. policies if the price is right."

By Jill Dougherty, CNN Foreign Correspondent

August 27, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Delisting MEK would be a disaster

Washington, DC – The Mujahadeen-e Khalq (MEK), a cult-like Iranian terrorist organization with a history of violence and no support among the Iranian people, has been paying U.S. politicians to help them get off the State Department’s terrorist list. They are rallying in front of the State Department today to take the group of the terror list. Today, NIAC President Trita Parsi released the following statement in regards to the MEK campaign:

“If the MEK campaign is successful, it means that America’s national security is officially on sale to the highest bidder, and terror groups are free to set U.S. policies if the price is right.

Delisting the MEK has little to do with humanitarian concern or support for a democratic Iran, and everything to do with putting the military option at the center of our Iran policy. The group’s biggest supporters in Washington have suggested using the MEK in a ‘tit for tat’ campaign of attacks against Iran that could quickly escalate into war.

Despite the MEK’s claims, delisting the group would be disastrous for Iran’s nonviolent democratic opposition [..]

The MEK operates as a cult that abuses its own members, and delisting it would only worsen humanitarian concerns in Camp Ashraf by empowering the group’s leadership. MEK leaders have exploited the suffering of the people in Ashraf and obstructed serious humanitarian proposals in order to advance their agenda of gaining U.S. support.

If the MEK leadership truly cares about the people in Camp Ashraf, they would not threaten to order them to commit mass-suicide to U.S. diplomats if the MEK isn’t delisted.

This group’s history of fraudulent claims casts serious doubt that we can simply take them at their word that they are no longer engaged in terrorism. They claim to have changed their ways, but the MEK refuses to acknowledge that their attacks that killed Iranian and American civilians are terrorism. This begs the question: how does the MEK expect us to believe it has changed its ways if the organization doesn’t even acknowledge it was a terrorist group in the first place?”

August 27, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Hundreds demonstrate in DC for Mojahedin Khalq

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of people are demonstrating in Washington to demand that an Iranian opposition group formerly allied with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq be removed from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy were among those speaking in support of the Mujahedin-e Khalq. The midday crowd filled a street outside the State Department for a rally with confetti and doves released into the air.

The U.S. declared the group a terrorist body in 1997. But a court last year ordered the State Department to reconsider the designation.

The MEK carried out a series of bombings and assassinations in Iran in the 1980s, and fought alongside Saddam’s forces in the Iran-Iraq war. The group says it renounced violence in 2001.

August 27, 2011 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts