Now that you have decided that the Mojahedin-e Khalq”random mortar launchers”are not a terrorist group, please would the European Council put me and my family on their terrorism list so that the system will be completed.
Yours sincerely,
Abdul Nabi Beit Salem
Ahvaz, Iran
Edalat Association (families of victims of Mojahedin Khalq Terrorism), March 11 2009
Europe vs. MKO: West controversial act in war on terror
Foreign Ministers of EU voted for the removal of MKO from terror list. An act that shows west’s contradictory behavior in its war on terror. 
Protection of human rights is going to the opposite way in the West, although MKO is still designated as a terrorist organization by many countries.
EU couldn’t declare a group’s being or not being terrorist by itself, rather a just court should announce such a ruling and determine terrorist designation. In fact, terrorism is an international crime that according to international laws and an international fair court is the only competent tribune for terrorism designation.
It seems that EU didn’t obey Vienna Convention (which is binding for all individuals) and removed the group from terror list in a political act.
MKO has committed numerous crimes worldwide especially in Iran and Iraq and its terrorist designation is perfectly documented based in true facts.
Terrorism evidences in a legal view:
In various concepts of human science and specially politics the determination of a standard is neither possible nor acceptable. Therefore, lack of a standard for terrorism definition, makes it mixed with political or sometimes beneficial interests.
According to the International law commission the below-mentioned issues are considered as terrorist acts:
(i) Any act causing death or grievous bodily harm or loss of liberty to a Head of State, persons exercising the prerogatives of the Head of State, their hereditary or designated successors, the spouse of such persons, or persons charged with public functions or holding public positions when the act is directed against them in their public capacity (A large number of Iranian politic men were assassinated by MKO after the Islamic Revolution)
(ii) Acts calculated to destroy or damage public property or property devoted to a public purpose (So many governmental or non-governmental buildings, buses, cars have been bombed by MKO or damaged in MKO mortar attacks)
(iii) Any act likely to imperil human lives through the creation of a public danger, in particular the seizure of aircraft, the taking of hostages and any form of violence directed against persons who enjoy international protection or diplomatic immunity ( MKO’s violent acts include a large range of attacks, such as their simultaneous attacks to 13 Iranian Embassies all over the world in 1992)
(iv) The manufacture, obtaining, possession or supplying of arms, ammunition, explosives or harmful substances with a view to the commission of a terrorist act.( MKO has formally declared its armed struggle to overthrow the Islamic Republic)
A lot of international conventions, acts, treaties and agreements on the terrorism phenomenon, have been signed. There are numerous international bodies involving in fighting terrorism, having various plans to control such inhumane, immoral acts.
Indeed, the most important motive to cause terrorism is political but the efforts to control terrorism have just had legal aspects.
One can claim that the international laws in this case are only a cover for the political interests of the states to whether support or condemn a terrorist incident.
It should be noted that the war on terror is caught between various paradoxes which gives the superpowers and their agents an opportunity to abuse the current atmosphere.
Evaluation
The EU’s move is violation of the international laws and implies their political benefits.
The EU’s position regarding MKO’s case will bring about heavy damages. It might become a new approach to deal with other terrorist groups.
Values like human rights and freedom are nowadays a tool for implementing political pressure by those who claim to call for freedom.
However, the West does take no position against Israelis who massacre civilians in Gaza, the EU removes MKO from the black list. The file of various crimes committed by MKO against Iranians is achieved on the so-called human rights’ table of the West.
The dual standards of the West considering terrorism and human rights is viewed as funny by the international community.
War on Terror will never be successful unless the superpowers put away their ambitions or reckless political interests. Terrorist acts of evil MKO group might continue in the safe haven of the West.
Islam Abad-Ahmad Farahani – Translated by Nejat Society
Iran: Boroujerdi warns EU of downplaying MKO and Pejak terror threats
The Chairman of the Foreign Policy and National Security Commission of Majlis Alaeddin Boroujerdi warned the European Union of downplaying the terror threat of group like MKO and Pejak.
Meeting with Klaus-Dieter Fritsche, the top intelligence coordinator of the German chancellery in Berlin on Thursday, Boroujerdi said Germany and the EU had to have a realistic approach towards terrorist groups like MKO and Pejak.
Although the EU has removed the name of MKO from its terror list, the notorious MKO terror group is still being monitored by Germany’s domestic Verfassungsschutz intelligence agency, a high-level German government official, requesting anonymity told IRNA recently in Berlin.
“Just because the EU has lifted the ban, it does not mean that we don’t have our own national security considerations,”the official said.
“For instance, parts of the German Left party are being subjected to surveillance by the Verfassungsschutz although they are not blacklisted by the EU,”he added.
The official made clear that Germany’s federal secret service and its state branches will continue the MKO observation.
Each German state has also its own Verfassungsschutz intelligence apparatus.
The MKO has been involved in the mass murders of thousands of innocent Iranians over the past 30 years.
Furthermore, the Israeli-backed MKO terror group has also collaborated with the former Saddam regime, in brutally massacring tens of thousands of Iraq Kurds and Shias.
The People’s Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI), more commonly known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (“people’s mujahideen”; MEK), is one of the most organized and controversial Iranian opposition groups. Although it maintains an armed wing—known as the National Liberation Army (NLA)—and numerous front organizations, it derives its greatest strength from the slick lobbying and propaganda machine it operates in the United States and Europe. The MEK also 
boasts extensive support within U.S. government and policy circles, including many of the most vocal advocates of a U.S. invasion of Iran [1].
The MEK remains on the list of banned terrorist organizations in the United States and European Union (EU). Both parties have indicated no intention of reconsidering their positions. The May 7 decision by the United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal to overrule the British government’s inclusion of the MEK on its list of banned terrorist organizations, however, may pave the way for both the United States and EU to reassess their positions regarding the MEK down the line. Given the MEK’s history of violence and its willingness to act as a proxy force against Iran, such a move would represent a major escalation in hostilities between the United States and Iran, with consequences in Iraq and beyond.
Ideology
The MEK is an obscure organization with a long history of violence and opposition activities. It emerged in the 1960s, composed of college students and leftist intellectuals loyal to Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq; the popular leftist nationalist prime minister was deposed by a U.S.- and U.K.-backed coup in 1953 that restored Mohammad Reza Shah to power. Its revolutionary zeal combined aspects of Marxist and Islamist ideologies in pursuit of its goal to overthrow the U.S.-backed shah through armed resistance and terrorism. Its primary targets in the 1970s included ranking officials and symbols of the shah’s regime, both within and outside of Iran. The regime responded in kind with brutal repression through SAVAK, the shah’s notorious domestic intelligence apparatus. Thousands of members and associates of MEK were killed, tortured and jailed during this period. Consequently, like many Iranians at the time, the MEK viewed the Islamist opposition as a positive force for change. The MEK supported the revolutionary forces and the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy and subsequent hostage crisis led by student activists in Tehran. The group’s unique brand of Marxism and Islamism, however, would bring it into conflict with the rigid Shiite Islamism espoused by the post-revolutionary government. The failure of a June 1981 coup attempt intended to oust Ayatollah Khomeini elicited a massive crackdown by the regime against the MEK, forcing the group’s leaders and thousands of members into exile in Europe. When France ousted operational elements of the group in 1986, many made their way to Iraq, where they joined Saddam Hussein’s war effort against Iran and enjoyed a safe haven [2].
Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, a charismatic husband and wife team that fled into exile in Europe, lead the MEK. From her base in France, Maryam Rajavi currently holds the position of “President-Elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)” after her husband’s disappearance sometime in 2003. He is presumed to be in hiding [3]. The Rajavis enjoy a fanatical cult-like following among MEK members and supporters [4]. The group’s cult-like character was displayed when 16 followers of the Rajavis staged dramatic public acts of self-immolation over a period of three days in June 2003 across major European and Canadian cities. The protests followed the arrest of Maryam Rajavi and 160 of her followers after a French court ruled that the MEK and its numerous front groups constituted a terrorist organization. According to former members of the group, the MEK’s “human torches” are a testament to the stranglehold the Rajavis have over their followers and the extent to which members are brainwashed and manipulated psychologically into blindly following them. The MEK is reported to maintain a list of volunteers ready and willing to perform acts of self-immolation on the orders of the leadership [5]. Like other cults, MEK members are often separated from their children and families and discouraged from maintaining contact with individuals outside of the group. Former members who defected from the MEK describe the Rajavis as autocrats who demand unquestioned loyalty from their followers (pars-iran.com, January 30, 2006).
Women make up a significant contingent of the MEK’s ranks, especially in its armed wing. In addition to its Marxist and Islamist pedigrees, the rise of the Rajavis to the group’s leadership led to the introduction of feminist ideologies into the group’s discourse. This aspect of the MEK’s ideology indicates their attempt to tap into local grievances and international sympathy regarding the position of women in the Islamic Republic [6]. In this regard, the MEK presents itself as a liberal and democratic alternative to the rigid brand of Islamism espoused by the ruling clerics, an image it has cultivated in U.S. and Western policy circles to great effect [7]. The U.K. court based its ruling on the premise that the MEK has renounced violence and terrorism, and that it currently maintains no operational capability to execute future acts of violence.
Violence and Terrorism
The MEK’s long history of violence and terrorism includes the abduction and assassination of ranking Iranian political and military officials under the shah in the 1970s, as well as attacks against the clerical establishment throughout the 1980s. Foreign-based MEK operatives also targeted Iranian embassies abroad in a series of attacks. MEK militants struck diplomatic officials and foreign business interests in Iran under both the shah and the Islamists in an effort to undermine investor confidence and regime stability. Furthermore, the MEK targeted and killed Americans living and working in Iran in the 1970s, namely U.S. military and civilian contractors working on defense-related projects in Tehran (mkowatch.com). The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties.
In addition, the MEK’s repertoire of operations includes suicide bombings, airline hijackings, ambushes, cross-border raids, RPG attacks, and artillery and tank barrages. Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 [8]. MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule.
Despite its history of high-profile attacks, the MEK never posed a serious threat to the Iranian regime. The group never enjoyed popular domestic support, despite its claims to the contrary. Many Iranians actively oppose the clerical regime and sympathize with segments of the opposition. At the same time, most Iranians also regard the MEK as traitorous for joining the Iraqi war effort against Iran and resent its use of violence and terrorism against Iranians at home and abroad (mkowatch.com).
Approximately 3,500 members of the MEK remain in Camp Ashraf. Following an agreement with U.S.-led Coalition forces, MEK units allowed Coalition forces to disarm the group. Decommissioned MEK units are currently under surveillance in Camp Ashraf. Their future status, however, remains a point of controversy. Despite their demobilization, Iran believes that the United States is holding on to the group as leverage in any future confrontation with the Islamic Republic (see Terrorism Monitor, February 9, 2006).
Political Activism
Although it has been disarmed, the MEK retains the capacity to remobilize, especially if it gains a state sponsor. Nevertheless, it is the MEK’s lobbying and propaganda machine in the United States and Europe that enables it to remain a relevant force in Middle East politics and a key factor in U.S.-Iranian tensions. The MEK’s political activism falls under the auspices of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)—an MEK political front organization that also serves as an umbrella movement representing various Iranian dissident groups. These efforts persist despite the fact that U.S. authorities ordered NCRI offices in Washington to shut down in 2003 (New York Observer, June 5, 2007).
From Iran’s perspective, the U.S. position on MEK is both ambiguous and at times hypocritical. On the one hand, the MEK remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of banned terrorist organizations, yet the group remains on Iraqi soil, albeit disarmed and under surveillance by Coalition forces. The MEK has cultivated a loyal following among an outspoken network of U.S. politicians, former and active government officials, members of the defense establishment, journalists and academics advocating violent regime change in Tehran. The MEK is even credited in some of these circles for disclosing aspects of the Iranian nuclear program [9]. At the same time, it is accused of fabricating intelligence information to boost its profile in the United States (Asia Times, March 4). With their call for regime change in Iran and pleas for international support, media-savvy MEK representatives based in the United States appear regularly on the cable news show circuit and other forums in Washington, DC in a campaign reminiscent of the one led by Ahmed Chalabi and the network of Iraqi exiles who mustered American support for the Iraq war [10]. The MEK has also gained legitimacy as a liberal and democratic force for positive change in Iran, despite evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
The MEK will continue to capitalize on the ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran by enlisting the support of elements in Washington seeking a bargaining chip against Tehran. It is important, however, to see this bizarre organization for what it is; that is, to see through the façade of liberalism, democracy and human rights that it purports to represent through its propaganda. The well-documented experiences of scores of former MEK members are reason enough to consider this group and any of its claims with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Notes
1. See “U.S. Policy Options for Iran,” prepared by the Iran Policy Committee (IPC), February 10, 2005 at www.nci.org/05nci/02/IranPolicyCommittee.pdf.
2. For a historical narrative of the MEK’s formative years, see Ervand Abrahamian, The Iranian Mojahidin, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992). For an insider’s perspective on the history of the MEK from a former member, see the website of Massoud Khodabandeh at www.khodabandeh.org/.
3. See “Cult of the Chameleon,” an al-Jazeera documentary on the MEK (broadcast October 17, 2007) at www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=3384. For an insider’s perspective on the cult-like character of the MEK, see the website of the Dissociated Members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran at pars-iran.com.
4. For an overview of the events of 2003, including graphic photographs of the acts of self-immolation, see “MKO Human Torches” at www.mojahedin.ws/art_pdfs/MKO-HUMAN-TORCHES.pdf.
5. For an overview of the MEK’s position on women, see Shahin Torabi, “Women in the Cult of Mojahdin,” March 5, 2003 at mojahedin.ws/article/show_en.php?id=653 and Sattar Orangi, “The Strives [sic] for the Freedom of Women,” March 13, 2008 at mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=1601.
6. A. Afshar, “The Positive Force of Terrorism,” October 10, 2006 at mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=842.
7. See “MKO and Massacre of Kurd and Turkmen Iraqis,” April 19, 2006 at pars-iran.com/en/?mod=view&id=664.
By: Chris Zambelis
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4950
The first sentence of Masoud Rajavi’s message in December, 27th on MKO’s removal from the EU terrorist list referred to his ecstasy of delight for excluding the possibility of Mojahedin’s expulsion from Iraq. He resorted to the point that 
since the EU has removed MKO from its terrorist list, terrorist accusations of MKO are no longer of any effect and Iraqi government cannot prevent their presence in Iraq due to their terrorist charges. Surprisingly enough, from among all possible positive consequences of the decision made by the EU, this aspect is a priority and of utmost significance for Rajavi. Making a comparison between Rajavi’s new position taking and previous claims on considering MKO’s inclusion in terrorist list as their main barrier to overthrow the Iranian government and also their democratic claims and rejecting the policy of armed struggle reveals an apparent paradox.
Now, the newly made messages of Rajavi suffice to prove their false claims of stopping armed struggle since it is ambiguous that after their removal from terrorist list and their opportunity to pursue their political activities in the west, as repeatedly petitioned by Rajavi when MKO was blacklisted, why Mojahedin insist on staying in Iraq? Is the answer anything other than the fact that Rajavi seeks to misuse the tensions inside Iraq to follow his past strategy of armed struggle to fulfill his never achieved promise of overthrowing the Iranian government? This is a question to be answered by MKO’s western advocators who dared to remove the name of a notorious terrorist group from the EU blacklist.
Rajavi further expounds on his other demands like making all traffics to and from Camp Ashraf smooth and limitless. He has also warned Iraqi government of the point that any measure taken by Iraqi officials in putting bans and limits on MKO as well as their expulsion or relocation may trigger Mojahedin’s severe reaction even up to their sacrifice. His message implies that removing MKO from the EU terrorist list has solved their problems in Iraq as well as the west. However, the fact is that it has nothing to do with the decision made by Iraqi government on their expulsion since part of the blame placed on Mojahedin on the part of Iraqi government is its terrorist nature and activities during the reign of Saddam in Iraq. Evidently, the stance of the EU toward MKO in itself suffices not to recognize the legitimacy of MKO’s remaining in Iraq acquitting them of all terrorist charges.
Furthermore, it has to be noted that despite the EU’s removing MKO from its terrorist list, the US state department issued a statement in an immediate reaction on the terrorist nature of Mojahedin and asserted that there are no evidence or sign of a shift in the policy and position taking of Mojahedin. Obviously, the viewpoint and decision of the US that is present in Iraq and is considered one of the parties involved in the settlement of tensions therein is more authentic than that of the EU. Also many European countries like France, England, Italy, Czech… acknowledge the terrorist nature of MKO despite the decision of the EU and some regard it a hasty decision to be reconsidered. Therefore, the illusion of Rajavi on a shift in the policy taken by Iraq toward MKO has no rationale and is more like a kind of psychological and propaganda war initiated by him and now followed strongly in Mojahedin media.
As it was mentioned, the rationale behind the Iraqi government’s decision on expelling Mojahedin from Iraq is not limited to the terrorist accusations of MKO rather according to Iraqi officials there are many evidences on crimes and cooperative activities of MKO with Saddam against Iraqi people and also their present efforts to misuse the unstable conditions of Iraq to intensify sectarian conflicts and make contacts to Iraqi problematic groups to commit terrorist activities against Iraqi people and neighboring countries. Therefore, Rajavi’s resorting to the vote of the EU is unlikely to solve his problems and Iraqi government recognizes the obligatory settlement of Mojahedin in Iraqi soil contrary to asylum rights and conventions. In addition, whenever a country consent to offer asylum to Mojahedin, their insistence on remaining in Iraq would be of no effect.
Before, it seemed that removing MKO from blacklist would makes the ground for their transferring to a western country to pursue their political activities in security therein yet as it is evident, Rajavi prefers an unquiet and war-torn country to European countries for MKO’s settlement. In addition, according to common sense, if Mojahedin are to force a country to provide them with asylum it should be one of the members of the EU that dared to remove MKO’s terrorist label whereas Rajavi refrains to express the least inclination to do so and ever-increasingly insists on keeping Mojahedin in Iraq. The reason is clear. Rajavi has two major factors in Iraq without which the survival of MKO is unlikely. First, Camp Ashraf as the ideological container of Mojahedin and second, the Iraqi soil as a strategic lever in the hands of Rajavi to follow his struggle of armed struggle against Iran therein. The main challenge posed on Iraqi government as a result of the settlement of Mojahedin in Camp Ashraf is security considerations and the danger posed by Mojahedin for national interests and stabilization of peace and security in Iraq. Mojahedin have also warned Iraqi government that they would resort to group self-immolations in case if Iraqi government consents not to satisfy their demands. In fact, they are threatening Iraqi officials to enforce them to let Mojahedin reside in Camp Ashraf.
The Iraqi government is to be aware that even its least tolerance toward Mojahedin in the present conditions may result in the stabilization of MKO status in its soil and freedom of action therein. Iraq should engage those countries removing MKO from the EU terrorist list in this challenge and ask them to provide asylum for MKO if they have been convinced of the termination of terrorist activities of MKO rather than advocating their residence in a place too far from their soil and people where Mojahedin can pose no danger for their national interests and security considerations.
BAGHDAD, Xinhua – Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Monday that Iraq wanted to expel the Iranian rebel Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO) that
opposes the Islamic regime.
Talabani made the remarks in a joint news conference with Iran’s former president and current Expediency Council head Ali Akbar Hashemi who arrived here earlier in the day for a visit.
Speaking to the reporters, Talabani accused the MKO, also known as the PMOI (People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran) of supporting former Saddam Hussein regime and 
committing crimes against Iraqis.
"We here in Iraq, our constitution prohibit the presence of any foreign armed group in Iraq and the Iraqi people know that this organization is terrorist one," said the Iraqi president, adding "the Iraqi people want them out from Iraq."
MKO, a main militant group which was founded in 1981 with an aim to establish "a democratic and secular government" in Iran, bases in Iraq’s Diyala province in a camp named Camp Ashraf, which contains more than 3,000 Iranians opponents and their families.
The Shiite-dominated Iraqi government repeatedly demands MKO members to be removed from the country.
After the U.S.-led invasion, the U.S. troops disarmed the MKO fighters and since then, the camp became under the U.S. military police protection for five years before the Iraqi government partially took over security responsibility in the camp.
This is Rafsanjani’s first visit to Iraq since Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979.
Talabani met with the former Iranian president in his residence at the edge of the heavily fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad that houses the Iraqi government offices and some foreign embassies, including the U.S. one.
Rafsanjani is also expected to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and other top Iraqi officials before touring holy cities in Iraq.
At the news conference, Rafsanjani said that his country "is entirely ready to support and cooperate with the Iraqi brotherly people."
Iraq and Iran fought a bloody eight-year war in 1980s, resulting in the loss of one million lives. The relation, however, has been picking up since the Saddam Hussein regime was toppled in2003 and the Shiite came into power.
Editor: Mu Xuequan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/03/content_10930887.htm
Pressure is growing on Iran’s main opposition group to leave Iraqi territory after living under US military protection in a camp north of Baghdad since 2003. Some 3,400 militants of the Mujahideen- e Khalq (known by the acronyms MKO
or MEK) face eviction by the government of Iraq, which has tired of a group that once fielded its own army under the tutelage of Saddam Hussein and remains on Washington’s list of terrorist groups. On Saturday, Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, encouraged Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to follow through with Baghdad’s longstanding desire to disband Camp Ashraf, which came under Iraqi control on Jan. 1. "We await the implementation of our agreement regarding the expulsion of the hypocrites," Ayatollah Khamenei told Iraq’s visiting president, referring to the MKO by the term often used by the Islamic Republic. Mr. Talabani was quoted as saying that the MKO "have committed many crimes against the Iraqis, and the Iraqi government is determined to expel them and will go forward with its decision." His words echo those of Iraq’s national security adviser, Muwafaq al-Rubaie. "The only choices open to members of this group are to return to Iran or to choose another country," Mr. Rubaie said in Tehran last January. "Over 3,000 inhabitants of Camp Ashraf have to leave Iraq, and the camp will be part of history within two months," said Rubaie, adding that more than 900 are dual nationals and that he would be holding talks with officials of 12 countries. Those options are limited for the controversial cultlike group, whose armed wing came under Pentagon control after the fall of Mr. Hussein. Despised in Iran for bomb attacks and the killing of government officials and civilians in the first years after the 1979 Islamic revolution – and later for fighting alongside Iraqi troops against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s -the MKO was disarmed in 2003 but kept intact as a possible tool for use by the US against Tehran.
Terrorist list status
In January, the group toasted its removal from the European Union terrorist list. But it was delisted for legal reasons – using its removal from the British terrorism list in 2008 as part of its case. The decision has been appealed by France, and the group remains on the terror lists of some individual member states. The delisting, though, may enable some militants to be accepted in Europe. Many fear returning to Iran, though more than 300 "quitters" – as the MKO calls those who leave the organization – have gone home with little incident. "This is the end of the terrorist label," says Alireza Jafarzadeh, the group’s spokesman in Washington until 2003, when the MKO, with its several arms and variety of names, was closed down in the US. Removal from the EU list is a "major victory for the MEK and the resistance movement overall," he says. Mr. Jafarzadeh says the EU decision "strengthens" those at Camp Ashraf who refuse either to return to Iran or to leave the camp for Europe. "Any justification to expel them [from Iraq], which has been always coming from Tehran, is now gone," he says.
Still, Baghdad announced that it planned to close the camp last December, the same month the US reaffirmed the MKO’s "terrorist" status. Last year, the State Department’s global terrorism report noted the group had "planned and executed terrorist operations against the Iranian regime for nearly three decades;" had killed several Americans in Iran in the 1970s; and "displayed cultlike characteristics," such as vows of "eternal divorce" [to avoid competing loyalties] and weekly "ideological cleansings." For years, Tehran has offered amnesty to members who voluntarily return to Iran, facilitated by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Returns have almost stopped in the past year, as Iran now wants Iraq to first screen potential returnees. "For those who wish to come back to Iran, we hope the Iranian government would give again this green light," says Peter Stocker, the head of the ICRC delegation in Tehran. Concerns in Camp Ashraf that returnees could be mistreated in Iran have not proved true in cases the ICRC has handled. "It is important to know that if anything happened to them, I don’t think it could remain hidden," says Mr. Stocker. US officials say Iran wants to prosecute 50 top MKO leaders, and has provided a list, but that perhaps only 20 are at Camp Ashraf. Returning to Iran is "absolutely not" an option, says Jafarzadeh, now an Iran commentator for Fox, contacted in Washington. "These people who are staying at Camp Ashraf are the people who are determined to oppose the Iranian regime."
Lenient treatment for returnee
Still, at least one high-ranking MKO member forced back to Iran received prison time but relatively lenient treatment. Ebrahim Khodabandeh, a British passport holder, was arrested by Syria while facilitating the exit of MKO leaders to Europe from Iraq after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The Syrians told him he was being taken to London, but then flew him to Tehran. If he had had a cyanide pill, he says today, he would have committed suicide. "The first time I was in Evin prison, I told them: ‘My bones, my blood, my flesh is all made with the name Rajavi, so the best you can do is execute me,’" says Mr. Khodabandeh, referring to the surname of the husband and wife leaders of the MKO. "It took me two years to come to the point of realizing the MKO was a cult and I had been manipulated." He was driven around Tehran by his case officers, who wanted to show him how the capital had changed in the decades he had been away – and to show how different it was from the world described by the MKO.. Khodabandeh says Iranian intelligence understands the need to avoid the death or abuse of MKO members who return, to avoid creating martyrs. "This was very much to the benefit of the Islamic Republic," he says, now free in Tehran. "If I were executed, I would be a martyr and have my picture in the newspapers. The problem for the organization is they haven’t had a martyr for many years."
Scott Peterson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
This is what Maryam Rajavi – head of the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran (PMOI, or MEK, or MKO) stated in Brussels on January 27, 2009 while standing in front of 
her many supporters, right after the decision of the ECJ (European Court of Justice) to put her movement off the list of terrorist groups:
"My fellow compatriots, Friends of the Resistance,
The obstacle of the terrorist allegation has crumbled. The spell has at last been broken. With perseverance and determination, you courageously rose above the flames of injustice and rendered law and justice victorious…This marks a decisive turning point on the course of democratic change in Iran."
Although, the US State Department’s report on terrorist organizations states the following:
"The MEK advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970’s. MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond.
The MEK emerged in the 1960s as one of the more violent political movements opposed to the Pahlavi dynasty and its close relationship with the United States. MEK ideology has gone through several iterations and blends elements of Marxism, Islam, and feminism".
Funny, cause if you head your browser toward the official website of Maryam Rajavi, each time you’ll read a sentence like this one: "Our aim is not to attain power at all costs. Our aim is to guarantee freedom and democracy at all costs, even at the cost of sacrificing our own existence." It all sounds much more like a Ghandi’s statement that the one of a terrorist inspired by Marxism, Islamism and Feminism.
Who’s right?
The MEK is still on the list of terrorist groups of the United States, because its fundamental values are anti-western and violent. The group took part in the 1979 revolution against Reza Palahvi’s the pro-western government, helping the present Iranian government to take power in Iran. Although, once the main target has been hit (French revolution anyone?), the winning coalition starts an internal power struggle, with which the real leader will be chosen. This is what happened to MEK, at odds with Islamic Republic. The leadership of the PMOI attempted to overthrow the newly formed IRP (Islamic Republic of Iran) but failed. Ayatollah Khomeini, in response, started a crackdown on the MEK militia and the group was forced to move to France.
In "The Persian Puzzle", Kenneth Pollack describes these events as following:
"…the MEK had made itself a primary target of the IRP. It decided that the best defense was a good offensive and tried to decapitate the IRP leadership in the hope of either toppling the regime or forcing a compromise. On June 28, 1981, a massive explosion inside the IRP headquarters succeeded in killing much of the party’s top leadership. …
…Two days later, a bomb narrowly missed killing Hojjat-ol Islam ‘Ali Khamene’i as he delivered the Friday sermon in Tehran. Sensing that this was their last chance to survive (let alone take power), the Feda’iyan-e Khalq, the Communists, and other leftist groups also joined in the bloody campaign. Thereafter, the MEK and its leftist allies launched a sustained terror campaign that assassinated roughly two hundred government officials by the end of August. Then, on August 30, the MEK pulled off another dramatic coup, smuggling a bomb into the prime minister’s offices and killing President Raja’i (who had succeeded Bani Sadr in blatantly rigged elections), Prime Minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar (who had in turn taken Raja’i’s old office), and three other senior officials. 23 Naturally, the regime reacted with concomitant ferocity. …"
Are we talking about holy water or the devil itself? The Council on Foreign Relations has a detailed description of the MEK:
"…Experts say that MEK has increasingly come to resemble a cult that is devoted to Massoud Rajavi’s secular interpretation of the Koran and is prone to sudden, dramatic ideological shifts."
The MEK, in fact, also has a political arm, called The National Council of Resistance of Iran headed by Maryam Rajavi’s husband, Massoud. No one really knows where Massoud Rajavi is living now, but an interview to a former MEK member appeared (briefly) online on February 2, 2009. If you google for the words "mek" + cult the interview will come out.
Only, if you click on it, you’ll be redirected to some other piece of news not related to the subject. The only thing you can read is the title of the article – Ex-member says MEK, ‘is like a cult’ – and a few other words.
Of course, the fact that the EU removed the MEK from the list of terrorist organizations sparked the reaction of Tehran’s government: "The European Union must realize that a political approach to terrorism, which threatens the lives and security of people around the world, is totally unacceptable for the global public opinion." Iran’s permanent envoy to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazaei, wrote to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
"The EU’s politically motivated decision will not change the terrorist nature of the group. It will not ‘turn the page’ of history on the cult’s terrorist activities and massacre of innocent civilians, nor will it cleanse the terrorist group of its criminal past," he added.
It sounds like a power struggle between the EU and the IRP (of course there’s also a war going on between Teheran and the MEK itself). And it seems as if the MEK is being used as a leverage tool here. But this is just a superficial analysis. The truth is far from being exposed, and this could easily be a question of money. Several well informed sources claimed that the MEK leadership has been paying some major politicians and judges to get the sentence they wanted: their group out of that European black list as soon as possible. Of course this is just an assumption and there is no legal evidence to support the thesis of corruption.
On the contrary, it seems unlikely that the European Union could be so easily corrupted, even though they say that the MEK has a lot of money to spend. The fact that Saddam handed over the money he got from the "Oil for food" program to the PMOI, for example, is common knowledge.
Anyhow, the People Mujaheddin of Iran (this is the extended version of the name) may not be considered a terrorist group in the EU but it is still considered a terrorist organization in the US, should it stay there? According to Paulo Casaca, no: "I think this issue has several angles – he told us – all of them quite important. First: it raises the question of the rules, principles, methods and proceedings of terrorist lists. This is a very important question that I addressed in conferences and books; Second: it shows that only after four strong sentences the Council decided to act ‘better late than never’, but the lack of respect of the Court by the Council is scaring for all of those who believe in a "State of Law"; Third: the EU, as the US, are fully engaged in an appeasement policy that did not and will not work, .."
Casaca is a member of the European Parliament for Portugal’s Socialist Party and a supporter of the MEK. A very well informed journalist (anti-MEK), who has researched and written on the matter, told us that she cannot confirm allegations of corruption that have been made in the media. In her opinion, though, the real problem now is the MKO’s Ashraf camp in Iraq. The camp must be closed in two-three months from now.
"The Iraqi government has every right to send these people [the MKO members that are in the camp Ashraf] out, now the question is, where are they going? It will be easier to return to their country in Europe, now that the ECJ ruled them out from the list of the terrorist groups. They are more or less 2.000 brainwashed people, it will be a humanitarian crisis!"
The Iraqi National Security advisor, Muwafaq al-Rubaie, told the press that "the only choices open to members of this group are to return to Iran or to choose another country… Some of the MKO members have expressed interest to return to Iran and we are making the arrangements for this….We are acting under international humanitarian regulations and international laws. These people will themselves choose where they want to go."
So, someone thinks that the MEK (or MKO or PMOI) is a blood-thirsty terrorist cult that only wants to put its paws on Iran, whatever it takes. Someone else thinks that this group is the only democratic and legal alternative to the radical anti-western and corrupted Islamic Republic of Iran. It is very hard to give an answer here, but there are some good questions at least: what will the Obama administration do about the Ashraf camp and the MEK? Will the US State Department remove the group from the black list? Is the MEK going to play a role in the future of Iran?
hudsonny.org By Andrea Loquenzi – Italian Journalist and Research Fellow, The Magna Charta Foundation
We are the former members of PMOI( people’s MOJUAHEDIN organization of IRAN) , whom recently could manage to leave Iraq and safely reached to European countries. We had lots of obstacles and hurdles on our path to the free world such as possibility of being arrested and extradited to IRAN and dreadful dangers which exist in IRAQ daily because of sectarian conflicts, but successfully solved all the problems and after putting behind all those hurdles , fortunately we could reach to EUROPE safe and sound.
Now , we are in PARIS and we want to have a normal life in free and democratic countries such as FRANCE, and also we would like to notify all the human rights’ organizations as well as the governments and politicians about the dangers of this inhumane cult(RAJAVI’S CULT) and its representatives and operatives who are propagandizing and plotting in the favor of their terrorist cult and its destructive cultic ideology, in EUROPEAN countries as well as in USA by their agents ,right now. They have concealed themselves behind democracy and freedom to hide their dreadful past to prevent others knowing of the terrible crimes that they have done during these years.
This inhumane cult, which has assassinated American colonels and generals during the SHAH’S time(THE KING ) and had a very robust and powerful cooperation with the late dictator of Iraq(SADDAM HOSSEIN) in suppressing and repressing IRAQI people specially the KORDS, during the national uprising against SADDAM HOSSEIN and his government as well as oppressing its own members and dissidents inside the cult which many of them were vanished or killed by the operatives of this cult during past twenty years. We were all suppressed and oppressed every now and then by the operatives and commanders of this cult in different cultic gatherings and sessions such as CURRENT OPERATION(AMALIYATE JARI ),DIG ,DIGCHEH,GHOSLE HAFTAGHI, and etc. These gatherings and sessions were all suppressive tools to demoralize and punish the dissidents and members.
We are ready to testify against the crimes that PMOI have done . We are all victims of this cult whom have been tortured physically and psychologically by the cultic criminals in this notorious cult. PMOI is a terrorist organization and should face the consequences of killing innocent people of IRAQ as well as mistreatment , misbehavior , torture and killing of the dissidents who were against RAJAVI’s cultic terrorist ideology inside the cult. We are witnesses of killing and murdering of many members inside the cult such as killing of MR.GHORBANALI TORABI and MR. FARHAD TAHMASEBI in 1994 and many others under sever torture As well as committing suicide of MR. AHMAD REZAPOUR as a result of too much physical and psychological torture in this cult.
We are ready to reveal the crimes which have been perpetrated and carried out by PMOI operatives and its leaders MASSOUD and MARYAM RAJAVI. We are ready to reveal the killing of many dissidents such as MR.SAEED KIYANI ,who was drowned by the operatives and torturers of this inhumane cult just because he wanted to separate and secede from this cult to go to his normal life, and many others. We are ready to testify about committing suicide of desperate people in PMOI who were under sever physical and psychological torture by operatives of this cult. We know them by names and we are ready to testify in any court of law.
We have lots of information which substantiate and prove that this organization is a criminal and terrorist cult and the operatives and the leaders of this cult should be put on trial in the court of law. We, the victims of this cult, are ready to participate in the court of law to testify about the crimes which have been implemented and carried out by this cult.
We urge all the humanitarian organizations, UNITED NATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, ICRC, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, and the government of FRANCE to help us to put those criminals on trial. They are very dangerous and their cultic ideology is suppressive and destructive.
We want to inform and notify all the governments and countries specially EUROPEAN and NORDIC countries to be aware of the presence of the RAJAVI’s cult agents and operatives on their land because, these agents and operatives are taking advantage of these countries’ democracy and freedom to propagandize their terrorist cultic ideology in there. Actually the operatives and the agents of this cult are recruiting IRANIANS who are living in free and democratic countries, by deceiving and inciting them to go to IRAQ or work for them in European and Nordic countries to propagandize the cultic ideology of this terrorist and suppressive cult (RAJAVI’s cult) in these countries under direct control and supervision of MARYAM RAJAVI one of the leaders of this cult, in their main headquarter in PARIS.
We want to see the justice to be done for the inhumane crimes which have been implemented by the RAJAVI’s cultic criminals, against people of IRAQ and the dissidents and members of this cult whom we are part of those dissidents. For that reason we are ready to participate in any court of law to testify about our terrible observations of crimes which were perpetrated by the operatives and leaders of this cult. We have lost everything in our life as a result of being kept forcibly in this cult. we are the real victims ,both PMOI and ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN destroyed and ruined every valuable things we could have them in our life today. we are deserved to see the justice to be implemented . BEST REGARDS
TRANSCRIPTS
1. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
2. UNHCR
3. ICRC
Iran Payvand,
——————————————————————————-
Also Read:
For French diplomacy: PMOI remains a terrorist group
Bernard Kouchner, French Foreign Minister, replied on December 10 at the French Senate in a matter of a senator and has declared that”France is indeed in favor of retaining the Mujahedin (PMOI/MKO) on the European list of terrorist organizations. He added that”this movement, mainly based in Iraq, poses a number of problems.”French diplomacy, as a large part of European diplomacy, seems not to be deceived by the charming champagne of PMOI / NCRI (the two covering names of terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization).
All this falls very badly for the terrorist Mujahedin organization, including the latest members of its military organization, will soon be expelled from Iraq where Saddam Hussein had hosted them as performers of its dirty crimes.
Geostratos – 12 January 2009
Washington may court moderates within Iran rather than outside opposition
The change in tone from Washington toward Tehran is complicated not only by historic acrimony but also by a complex relationship with Iranian opposition
movements.
U.S. officials have made it clear that the Obama administration represents a possible opening for Iran.
"With respect to Iran, there is a clear opportunity for the Iranians … to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community," in the words of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
This is in stark contrast to the previous administration and its policy of isolation. Gary Sick, a top White House aide on Iran during the Iranian hostage
crisis and now senior research scholar at Columbia University, says though the administration of George W. Bush had hoped for a better relationship with Iran in the wake of the conflict in Afghanistan, that policy was largely abandoned when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
Ali Safavi, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran — a Paris -based group calling itself the Iranian Parliament in exile — said the approach to the Iranian regime, as well as its opposition, would be a litmus test for the Obama administration.
"There has been no shortage of goodwill gestures from the Americans toward Iran with the goal of moderation, but so far this course has failed," he said.
The NCRI, which includes members of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, a dissident group based in Iraq’s Diyala province, has lobbied the international community to back a 16-point plan for regime change in Iran. It led a successful campaign in January to remove the PMOI from the terrorist list adopted by the European Union.
Maryam Rajavi, the controversial leader of the NCRI, hailed the decision as a victory for the Iranian resistance, saying the move paved the way for democratic change in Iran.
But the group’s image as a cult with a storied history of terrorist activity, both in Iran and across the globe, makes courting the opposition as a viable avenue for regime change in Iran tenuous at best.
The PMOI and the NCRI are both listed by the United States as terrorist organizations for their links to violent opposition to the Iranian regime.
President Bill Clinton in 1997 included the PMOI on the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations following the election of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. Sick says that effort was part of a broader policy of appeasement toward the moderate Khatami, adding the State FTO list is a reflection of who Washington likes as much as who it doesn’t.
The PMOI arrived on the scene in the 1960s as a movement opposing the Western-backed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran, and supporting the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. The ideology of the PMOI, centered on Marxism, was in contradiction to the Revolution, however, and the group was exiled to Paris in 1981.
With France recognizing the Iranian regime in 1986, however, the group established itself in various camps throughout Iraq from which it ran a campaign of violence against Tehran. Though largely targeting Iranian government officials, its killing of American contractors in Tehran in the 1970s, participation alongside Saddam Hussein’s forces in suppressing Kurdish and Shiite rebellions in Iraq in 1991 and its later attacks on Iranian embassies in 1992 earned it a spot on the terrorist lists of several nations.
Its reputation for militancy, however, was not supported by recognition as a major fighting force. The PMOI surrendered its tanks and heavy artillery to U.S. forces following the 2003 invasion. Its members are now considered protected persons in Iraq under the Fourth Geneva Convention and claim to have abandoned their militant agenda in favor of peaceful opposition.
The PMOI, and its representatives in the NCRI, claim to hold valuable intelligence on Iranian operations, including Iran’s controversial nuclear program. The group often touts its unveiling of the nuclear program at the Natanz weapons facility in Iran, though several analysts note developments at Natanz were all but flaunted by the Iranian regime.
Massoud Khodabandeh, a former member of the PMOI, said those claims, and the intelligence value of reports from the NCRI/PMOI in general, are at best questionable, at worst useless.
"It is widely believed that intelligence given out by the PMOI about Iran’s nuclear facilities was given to them by Western intelligence contacts," he said.
Meanwhile, allegations have mounted that the U.S. intelligence community has funneled money to the PMOI for operations against the Iranian regime. An article in The New Yorker magazine in 2008 suggested the Bush administration had set aside some $400 million for covert operations against Iran, with a portion going to the PMOI.
The NCRI’s Safavi, however, called those allegations "completely bogus," and U.S. intelligence officers contacted for this story said there was no evidence to support those claims, though the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he "wouldn’t be surprised if the allegation turned out to be true."
Meanwhile, with Iraq emerging from U.S. occupation with a shaky democracy, the relationship between Baghdad and the PMOI remains tense.
With the PMOI widely reviled in Iraq for supporting the violent suppression of the Shiite and Kurdish rebellions, and in Iran for its historic assassination policy, the group has few friends outside its groups of supporters in Europe and the United States.
Though Iraq does not have an extradition treaty with Iran, several top Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, have said the group is no longer welcome in Iraq.
Both the NCRI and PMOI, through persuasive and astute campaigns aimed at generating sympathy both in the media and among world leaders, including those in the United States, have pushed for a delisting campaign with an effort to sever its ties to its terrorist past.
International lawyers in Washington, D.C., representing the PMOI filed a petition in July with the U.S. State Department seeking removal from the FTO list there, but U.S. officials say the FTO designation is appropriate.
Speaking to reporters following the Jan. 26 EU delisting, State Department deputy spokesman Robert A. Wood said "nothing has changed from our standpoint" concerning either group.
Meanwhile, the outcome of the January provincial elections in Iraq may indicate a subtle shift in Iraqi relations with Iran as the pro-Tehran Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council was trounced in the elections, largely by Maliki’s more secular State of Law slate.
Former Iranian President Khatami — widely seen as a moderate — has announced plans to run for president again in June, and though an appeal in the PMOI FTO listing case is expected to reach the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit this summer, with U.S. policy currently leaning toward courting moderates within Iran, rather than outside opposition groups, little seems likely to change in the future.
By DANIEL GRAEBER, UPI Correspondent,
http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2009/02/20/
Washington_may_court_moderates_within_Iran_rather_
than_outside_opposition/UPI-42961235157864/
