EU human rights and civil foundations despite Zionist lobby’s efforts aimed at removal of MKO’s name from international terror organs, stress need for maintaining grouplet’s name in that list. Political and media circles within the European Union reflected those foundations’ demand during the Tuesday session of the European Parliament at that body’s EU-IRI Parliamentary Relations Commission. Among the other issues addressed at the session, there were discussions on a recent visit by an EU parliamentary delegation to the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the session which was held in the presence of the members of Iran-EU Parliamentary Relations Commission, EC representatives, EP members, and the head of the MKO, one more time the terrorist nature of that anti-Iranian organization was stressed. The head of MKO had attended the session on an invitation sent to her by a pro-Zionist EP member, but was seriously humiliated due to the heavy anti-MKO atmosphere of the meeting.
Mujahedin Khalq Terror group
Failure in overthrowing the regime
The short-term plan to overthrow the Iranian regime announced by Rajavi at the peak of MKO’s wave of internal terrorist actions, such as the explosions in the central office of the Islamic Republican Party and the Prime Ministry Building, constituted the most controversial issue that challenged the Mojahedin’s leadership. Believing that these bloody terrorist deeds would lead to destabilization of the regime, Rajavi declared that it ultimately took six months to finalize the collapse.
The prime aftermath of the declared phases of armed warfare following Khordad 30th (20 June 1981) was that Rajavi’s promise proved to be a chimera. Although insignificant at the beginning, after a while and following the military failures and stalemates, the challenge turned into serious crises within MKO.
Again and again Rajavi, overconfident of terrorist actions that he referred to as ‘great operations’, predicted a short time overthrow in his press interviews. He even classified the definite time of overthrow into three periods: short, mid, and long and finally fixed the exact date in a 5 year span. A review of Rajavi’s position taking reveals the fact that after 20 June, he began to evade determining an exact date for the overthrow. Finally he postponed his promise until the death of the leader of Islamic Republic.
From the phase of 20 June on, followed by the formation of NCR, Rajavi promoted himself atop of both MKO and NCRI as the egocentric decision-maker. Although everybody was aware that he was the one to say the last word, later on, and in the course of ideological revolution, Mehdi Abrishamchi referred to the decisive role of Rajavi in critical decisions such as that which initiated the armed phase. Even the Western media were interested in his hegemonic leadership atop of the organization in those years. Many of them asserted that he cleverly dodged the reporters’question and in one case, Jean Gueyras tells the story of Rajavi and his misuse of power for his personal ambitions:
Hidden away in his country bunker in Auvers-sur-Oise, Mr. Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) has mastered the art of allying the useful with the pleasurable. He sugar coats his decisions, even those about his private life, with politico-ideological statements of considerable grandiloquence. Thus, in October 1982, to justify his marriage to Firouzeh Bani Sadr, daughter of the former President of the Islamic Republic only eight months after the tragic death of his first wife, Ashraf Rab’i (killed on 8 February 1982 by the Pasdaran); he published a joint bulletin of the PMOI’s Politburo and Central Committee in which his marriage was presented as ‘one of the most important revolutionary decisions ever taken by the Mojahedin’ and as an initiative which would help consolidate the unity of the Iranian nation’. (1)
Antoine Gessler’s Autopsy of an Ideological Drift well explains that Rajavi and his organization are badly in need of being at the center of the world’s attention and are very afraid of being sunk into oblivion. Rajavi’s promises of victory to motivate his forces have never come true:
It involves an organization in permanent panic of being forgotten, a threat that grows day by day, and must, therefore, motivate its militants who have never witnessed the victory announced thousands of times in the past (2).
Such evidences prove the fact that even years before the ideological revolution and his promotion as the ideological leader, Rajavi had succeeded to maintain his unbeatable authority over the organization. After a while, the internal crises were well controlled but unsolved question of overthrow, in spite of the heavy responsibility of rampant terrorist operations, remained as an internal challenge that negatively affected Mojahedin’s relations. Then the circumstances lead to a condition in which Mojahedin were forced to deny the possibility of short- and mid-term overthrow. The critical situation of Mojahedin on the one hand and Iran’s prevailing over internal crises on the other hand corroborated fallacy of MKO’s promise of short-term overthrow. Although the leadership never acknowledged the fact openly, the analysis of the ideological development confirmed it. Niyabati’s outspoken fashion leaves no doubt that the leadership was convinced of the fact that the organization was structurally no match to cause regime’s downfall:
A summary of the political, military, organizational, and ideological aspects in fall 1984 made one point clear to Mojahedin, that was, the short-term overthrow of the regime was impossible due to the ideological-organizational structure on the one hand and outer-organizational political relations with various political trends active inside and outside of the country. (3)
According to Niyabati, such a particular phase was in fact the turning point of internal challenges Mojahedin had encountered. He refers to two years earlier when Mojahedin took the wrong path of the so-called phase of armed struggle that founded the background to such challenges. He further elaborates on two strategic solutions of Mojahedin in this regard and writes:
The year 1984 was a determining phase to reach a final settlement in political, military, strategic, and ideological scenes. The political and military impasse of armed resistance as well as the failure in short-term overthrow of the regime that came to light at the end of 1982 and became a proven fact at the beginning of 1983, led Mojahedin into a dilemma. (4)
Mehdi Khanbaba-Tehrani, an NCRI ex-member, in his review of the phase refers to failures and their aftermath within MKO and NCRI and concludes that the ideological revolution worked as the decisive solution to the desperate question of overthrow that was pressing hard on Rajavi and NCRI:
In my opinion, MKO has met serious crises due to the failure of the short-term plan of overthrow and its aftermath that has gravely questioned the organization’s leadership. Actually, the ideological revolution was the manifestation of such internal conflicts. To keep the integrity and life of the organization, Mojahedin’s leadership arrived at a compromise that resulted in pluralizing the leadership by means of adding a woman atop who had to change her name and get married to Rajavi. (5)
Hadi Shams-Haeri, another former member, considers the strategic stalemates and failures of MKO to be a result of Rajavi’s ineptitude, having no realistic appraisal of the situation inside Iran, and finally continuation of keeping the insiders in dark about the realities and insisting on the futile tactic of overthrow:
Of the Rajavi’s betrayals was advertising the overthrow of the Islamic republic as a possibly easy and quick task. In this regard, Rajavi never referred to the real problems and shortcomings that would be encountered on the route. (6)
Haeri also has the opinion that Rajavi is the sole responsible for the wrong decision of overthrow and the move on 20 June. He writes:
In fact, the armed warfare that initially aimed at overthrowing the regime in short-term and assuming the political power lasted not more than 1.5 years and ended in a complete strategic failure. The pioneer forces not only lost the ground but were strangled due to adverse circumstances. It happened as a result of inadequate and incorrect appraisal of forces’capacity on 20 June. (7)
As such, the issue of overthrow which acted as a motivator for winning the support of opposition groups, as well as some states standing in shadow, gradually turned into a factor arousing opposing reactions within MKO and NCRI.
References:
1. Gessler, Antoine; Autopsy of an Ideological Drift, Chapter 22.
2. ibid, chapter 19.
3. Niyabati, B. A different look at the ideological revolution within MKO. Khavaran publication, p.16.
4. ibid, p.16.
5. An inside look at left movements in Iran, some interviews with Mehdi Khanbaba-Tehrani, the interview 17.
6. Shams-Haeri, H. The swamp, Khavaran publication, p.35.
7. ibid.
Bahar Irani,Mojahedin.ws,December 6, 2007
Americans bizarre approach in arming proscribe terrorist organisations like Mojahedin Khalq Full report: Solana, Al-Baradi’i and China good for Iran’s active diplomacy Ali Larijani said that Iran, Javier Solana and International Atomic Energy Agency are the three angles of a triangle that has brought fruitful results for the Islamic Republic’s diplomacy while stressing the importance of using China as a potentially important card to play for future diplomatic engagements. At 1913 gmt the Iranian television started broadcasting a live interview with Ali Larijani, the former head of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. Reacting to the National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran’s nuclear policy Larijani said:”This is in effect a triangle one of the angles of which is Iran, another which is Solana and the third is Al-Baradi’i… The Chinese have significant economic ties with us, while at he same time we have common interests. In other words, if a certain problem arises and becomes complex then the principle country within the group of 5+1 to be affected by this will be the Chinese”
The presenter, Morteza Heydari, asked for the overall reaction of Ali Larijani who said that ”this is a great fiasco for the Americans. The Americans must be impeached for this”. He added that although there are many ifs and buts in the report the main contention of the report is that the basis of all allegations against Iran is false. He pointed to the fact that the report says that ”we can say with great confidence that Iran does not have a military programme in its nuclear project”.
Larijani added: they do leave the door open with certain ambiguities in their report to allow US adventurism.
He went on to add that three issues come out in the overall analysis: Firstly that Iran has no nuclear arms. Secondly, that between 2003 and 2007 it has not pursued a military programme in its nuclear project and finally that it will not be able to do that until 2015.
He stressed that the report makes some erroneous statements notably that Iran has been pressurised into its cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency. He dismissed these saying that they have misunderstood Iran’s confidence building and good will measures.
Presenter asked him why is it that out of the 150 page report they have only published 9 pages of it. Is it because the Americans are saying that Iran has stopped its military programmes when pressures increased on Iran or is it that the Democrats have put pressure on the Bush Administration to publish these nine pages.
Larijani said that this is no accidental leak or due to Democratic pressure. He continued that the Americans are facing a ”crisis of honesty”.
The former Supreme National Security General-Secretary and present advisor to the leader added that Bush had, also, said that it is due to the reforms of the intelligence apparatus that these sorts of reports come out. He dismissed it as disingenuous and dishonest.
He conjectured another possibility on the so called ”Zionist lobby”. 1930
The National Security advisor to the leader added: The other possibility is that they may try to manipulate some members of the 5+1 saying that although we accept that there may be no military aspect to Iran’s nuclear programme it nevertheless shows that pressures on Iran have worked which is why no military pursuit of the nuclear programme has been detected.
Larijani, also, paid tribute to the Iranian nation’s resolute stance against ”bullying” by USA and this is what has caused the report to be leaked.
Presenter asked why is it that the ”Zionists” have firmly rejected the report despite the fact that many of the European countries have reserved judgment.
Larijani said that ”Zionist” leaders have been shocked by this report. He said that he doubts that the ”Zionists” will be able to make great capital out of this.
Larijani added that the Chinese are playing a more active role which is positive and must be welcome.
Larijani said that there is no guarantee that the Americans will come to their senses and stop their policies against Iran. They have to understand that through putting pressures on Iran they can not dissuade Iranian people from their nuclear policies.
He added that as Iran is a democratic country then Iran must be engaged diplomatically:”If there is a country with a sustainable democracy in the region it is Iran. The influential aspect of Iran is important in the region. It is obvious that they can have a proper engagement with this country. It is in the interests of the 5+1 countries. When I spoke to some leaders of Europe they used to tell me that they want to use Iran’s potential to create security in the region and for extending economic relations. You can use this potential. It will be in your own interests. And, naturally you will achieve more in the realm of regional interests and energy security and comprehensive economic relations with Iran. This is our suggestions.”
Asked about President Bush’s statement that ”Iran is a danger” Larijani said that ever since September 11, 2001, there is an air of savagery in American attitudes.
Presenter asked that one of the reasons cited for the subsiding of tensions in Iraq is due to Iran meddling less in Iraq affairs, how true is this?
Larijani said that talks were held three times with Iran. Iran has presented a coherent programme to help Iraq but the Americans are conducting certain bizarre approaches such as arming non-military groups some 70,000 in number. He drew parallels between this policy and arming the Mojahedin Khalq fighters and Pezhak in Kordestan. He called this serious. He said that this tactic will not change the realities of Iraq.
He went on to say that Iran has always helped the Iraqi government while knowing its own obligations and duties.
He dismissed the war-peace dichotomy of some of the discourses in the West adding that these are for internal consumption and they are false, no one wants to see war and things must not be seen in such black and white terms.
Presenter asked him what the realistic scenario for Iran’s dossier to be closed in the Security Council?
Larijani said that by rights Iran’s dossier must be closed. He added, however, that what is right is not necessarily what will happen in reality.
Larijani added:”We have to pursue an active and smart diplomacy in order to block their adventurism. It is obvious that the Americans are pursuing a policy of creating nuisance. This particular avenue [The nuclear dossier] has been blocked now but they will pursue another agenda. It is clear what this new agenda is going to be. It is not very complex. I believe that if Iran pursues a several-pronged approach – which at any rate it is doing already – it can be quite effective. One of these is cooperation with the Agency. We have said that we will follow this line up. Mr Al-Baradi’i’s report was a good one. Of course I have made criticisms of it saying that it had to be written in a more precise way. Some of its statements are not the sort which is at the level of the Agency’s function. It suffers the same problems as this present report [The Intelligence Estimate] saying, for example, that Iran’s cooperation has been reactive. This has no technical or legal characteristic but can turn into a pretext for trouble-making entities.”
He also emphasised the negotiations with Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief saying:”The talks with Mr Solana are quite helpful. Please pay attention to the fact that the Modality approach was the fruit of the debates that we had with Mr Solana. In reality we made an agreement in Lisbon on the basis of which the modality of cooperation with Mr Al-Baradi’i was formulated and an agreement was reached with him. This is in effect a triangle one of the angles of which is Iran, another which is Solana and the third is Al-Baradi’i. This will really help.”
He further pointed to cooperation with the Chinese saying:”I believe that the Chinese constitute a good potential in this too. And my understanding that there are countries who are interested in China playing a useful role. The Chinese have significant economic ties with us, while at he same time we have common interests. In other words, if a certain problem arises and becomes complex then the principle country within the group of 5+1 to be affected by this will be the Chinese… I see that the future is generally bright but we need to pursue a smart diplomacy.” BBC Monitoring Middle East, December 07, 2007 Source: Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 2, Tehran, in Persian 1900 gmt 4 Dec 07
The ideological revolution within Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) that led the whole organization onto the precipice of being labeled as a notorious cult of personality was not the result of an abrupt and overnight decision. A look at a multitude of the crises the organization ran into following its declare of armed warfare after the initiation of the Islamic Republic in Iran well explain that the organization’s resort to ideological shift was the last option to surmount crises and guarantee the organization’s survival. However, the key role of Massoud Rajavi in the process of deviation is of great significance.
Majority of the organization’s theoreticians are unanimous that the ideological revolution was the byproduct of a strategic dilemma but none of them attempts to dig out the truth about the roots of successive defeats and crises. An investigation into the history of the organization since 1975 and following the great schism within it discloses indisputably critical role of Rajavi since his assuming the lead. His decisions, regardless of their grave impact on strategic, political and ideological deviation, were inventions of a deviant mind spoiled by power ambitions. That is true that power corrupts but his later ideological revolution to gain full hegemony over the organization is a proof that the absolute power corrupts absolutely; no better destiny could be destined for the organization with Rajavi atop but a cult of personality.
The intention here is to examine the roots of the ideological revolution and the causes behind its start with Rajavi behind the steer. The following is an outline of the factors to be studied in detail.
The failed strategy of armed warfare and the aftermath crises
Failure in overthrowing the regime
Gradual dwindling of MKO’s social prestige
Possible occurrence of schism within the organization
serious deterioration of NCRI
political bankruptcy and loss of external backing
The statements and accounts by other opposition groups, active members of the organization as well as the separated members are the best presented evidences throughout the study. Bijan Niyabaty’s A Different Look at the Ideological Revolution within MKO, since it is a source composed by an active left sympathizer of the organization, can give detailed accounts on the process.
The failed strategy of armed warfare and the aftermath crises
The failed strategy of overthrowing the newly established ruling system in Iran is rooted in the irrationally adopted tactic of armed warfare following the organization’s first mass movement on 20 June in 1981. The turning point that was broadly being propagated at the time an which was supposed to speed up the inevitable collapse of the regime could no more stand the heavy squash of defeats and crises. As a result, the tone of Rajavi changed in justifying his unreasonably taken decision saying that his decision abided by no political, ideological and organizational logic but was a move following the example of Ashura. [1]
Being a fallacy or anything else, his reasoning worked well in wining over a multitude of insiders who supposedly had to challenge him and his ineffectiveness. Publicized passionate speeches and writings could easily convince and hush up whoever presumed to criticize:
Khordad 30th (20 June 1981) is our ‘Ashura”. On that day we had to stand up and resist Khomeini’s bloodthirsty and reactionary regime, even if it meant sacrificing our lives and the whole of our organization. We had to take this road to Karbala to keep alive our tawhidi ideology, follow the example set by Imam Hosayn, fulfill our historic mission to the Iranian people, and fight the most bloodthirsty, most reactionary, and most savage regime in world history. [2]
It took at least two decades to be admitted by a left analyzer of the organization that what MKO anticipated being a supposed mass movement turned to be nothing but failed militia warfare:
The strategy of a widespread and national-wide armed struggle was nothing more than declining a massive public uprising into the level of a limited militia struggle with no prospect. [3]
Rajavi’s strategy of urban militia warfare expanded into much sophisticated tactics of resistance cells, suicidal and armed operations following the June 20 uprising. Niyabati assumes that even long before, Mojahedin had lost their hope in the utility of the so called ‘esistance cells’ and Mojahedin’s strategic tactic had proved to be nothing but a great failure:
Now after five years, the armed warfare is still immobilized in the first stage of preparing a mass uprising. Mojahedin have so far tried all the possible approaches, from the urban militia warfare to the formation of resistance cells and from the suicidal operations to guerrilla warfare launched in the mountains and woods. [4]
In his analysis of Mojahedin’s received heavy blow on 8 February 1982, the raid of Iranian police forces into a MKO’s safe-house in Tehran that resulted in the killing of 20 members of Mojahedin including Musa Khyabani, MKO commander inside Iran after Rajavi’s escape to France, and Ashraf Rabiee, Rajavi’s first wife, Niyabati once more questions the accuracy of Mojahedin’s strategy of armed struggle:
The strategic blow on 8 February 1982 was an end to the accuracy of the urban guerilla warfare. [5]
The consequent doubts and uncertainty raised among a portion of the rational minds though remained covered up, but in the eyes of the leaders were undeniable facts that could possibly intensify internal crises. A large number of separated members admit that it created the best opportunity to persuade an internal reconsideration of the organizational strategies, but instead, unfounded justification and excuses gave way to a rapid grow of internal challenges. The seriousness of the challenge even worsens when one comes across the fact that before facing the crises, unquestionable faith in armed struggle was an essential prerequisite for the recruits of the organization. It was a taboo nobody was permitted to touch upon and any criticism of the approach was absolutely illegitimate even if convincing explanation and facts were adduced beforehand:
Any criticism of the widespread strategy of armed warfare adopted by Mojahedin in the military phase, if made to disapprove the essentiality of the armed resistance, is definitely illegitimate. [6]
Rajavi’s frequent shift to adopt various unsound tactics more than anything indicates a telling indecisiveness in Mojahedin’s leadership. Not only it deepens the already existing crises but also makes the organization vulnerable to further crushing crises that can hardly be curbed. Depicting a much realistic view, an ex-member has said:
What can be done? Does it mean that we should again resort to urban militia warfare? This vicious circle is the work of Rajavi; from the urban militia to terror teams, then to war in fronts, then to an army, and then to cross the border operation teams to launch mortar attacks. It seems he cannot, or does not want, decide on any tactic but associated with arms. [7]
Rajavi’s egocentric decision making has exposed him to the criticism of the insiders to the core. Although he never desists from rejecting allegations of leading the organization to total decadence, his critics believe he lacked the needed political acumen and experience as well as mental aptitude to surmount the crises:
Of course, this guy [Rajavi] suffers a lack of mental aptitude, political experience and insight. If he were experienced and his studies were not restricted to those of Marxist texts or was not hampered by organizational enterprise, that is much a pseudo-security and clandestine activity than political, actually the 20 June incident would never happen. [8]
Notes:
[1]. A historical incident when the third Shiit imam, Imam Hosayn, rose against the tyrant of the time and was martyred along with his 72 followers in Karbala in Iraq on 10 Moharram 61 A.H., publically called Ashura. Mojahedin from the very beginning argued that they were exemplifying the model of his uprising to justify their misdeeds. Mehdi Rezai, a member of Mojahedin, tried and executed by Pahlavi’s regime, in his court testimonies declared ‘each day should be turned into Ashura and each place into Karbala arguing that ‘history had taught the organization one clear lesson: that the only path to liberation is the armed struggle. (The court testimony of martyred mojahed Mehdi Rezai) (1973), pp. 90-3.
[2]. Mojahed, 129-31 (2-16 December 1982).
[3]. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at the Ideological Revolution within MKO, Khavaran Publication, p. 14.
[4]. Ibid, 69.
[5]. Ibid, 14.
[6]. The statute of the National Council of Resistance
[7]. Soliloquies in solitude, a collection; interview with an ex-member of MKO.
[8]. Ibid.
Adm Gregory Smith: US military does not support terrorist Mojahedin Khalq (MKO) Interview with MEHR News, November 25, 2007 BBC Monitoring Middle East Text of report by Iranian conservative news agency Mehr
Tehran, 25 Nov: Rear Adm Gregory Smith, Communication Division Chief for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, who has repeatedly – and without proof – accused the Islamic Republic of Iran of engaging in negative activities in Iraq responded to questions form Mehr news agency concerning US military support to the Monafeghin terrorist group [pejorative meaning hypocrites used by the Iranian government to refer to the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MKO)]. The group has been placed on the list of terrorist groups. He claimed that the US military does not support any terrorist group including the MKO. He admitted: The American government considers the MKO group to be a terrorist group and once again claimed that the US military was not supporting them. Responding to a question from Mehr asking if the US government and the American military would assist the Iraqi government should it expel these individuals – or at the very not interfere with the expulsions, he answered in generalities, saying: We don’t respond to questions that are based on conjecture. This question is speculative, we don’t work on speculations.
Gregory Smith said he had no knowledge of plans for a new round of Iran-US talks on Iraq, saying: Issues relating to these talks are handled by the US embassy in Iraq.
The official spokesperson for the American forces in Iraq commented on the fate of Iranian diplomats who have been held captive by the occupiers since they were taken in Dey last year [Iranian month starts on 22 December], saying: As far as US officials are concerned these individuals are not diplomats. They shall remain in detention for as long as US official believe them to be a threat to Iraq.
Smith went on to say: A committee made up of representatives form the coalition [forces] and the Iraqi government is reviewing this issue.
Iraqi MP Ali al-Adib contradicts claims by this American military official that his country does not support the MKO group, saying: Even though the Iraqi constitution has banned the activities of opposition groups and organization form neighbouring countries, the US military supports the presence of mko terrorist group
In a recent interview with Mehr, Iraq’s Prosecutor General Ja’far al-Musavi confirmed that the file of the mojahedin terrorist group was under review and would not rule out the possibility of an agreement between Tehran and Baghdad that would include provisions for the extradition of the criminals.
He said that members of the mko terrorist group were guilty of participating in the massacre of innocent Iraqis, adding: The judicial process for the prosecution of these this group has started.
During the early days of the revolution, the mojahedin terrorist group acted to the great determent of our nation. They based themselves in camp Ashraf in the Iraqi province of Diala east of Bagdad. The former Ba’th government under the leadership of the executed dictator Saddam cooperated with this group during the imposed war against Iran in the early eighties [Iran-Iraq war 1980-88] and supported them extensively.
The current elected government of Iraq is attempting to remove traces of this terrorist group from its territorial borders because of their role in the massacre of Iraqi dissidents and the genocide against the shi’i uprising in 1991.
Claims made by this American official about Iranian diplomats that were abducted in Arbil this past Dey are being made while the Iraqi government and officials of the Kurdish Regional Government stress that these individuals were engaged in legal activities the Iranian consulate in Arbil. The Americans have only released two of the diplomats.
On Monday, October 1, 2007, Maryam Rajavi, the self appointed next president of Iran and the leader of the terrorist religious cult of mohahedin-e khalq of Iran was invited by the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) Parliamentary Group to speak at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.
This marked a dark day for the legitimacy and credibility of the EU. Indeed, inviting Maryam Rajavi goes against the very core principles of democracy and its practice. Mrs. Maryam rajavi and her organization which she represents have never stood by any of her claim of a believer in democracy and human rights. She simply speaks what she believes people want to hear without ever backing those words with actions.
She, along with her organization is responsible for the killings of hundreds of innocent Iranians in the years 1982 to as recent as 2003. One of the key reasons for today’s brutal conditions in Iran is in part thanks to the mohajedin and their role in supporting a violent means to an end and legitimizing crackdown by the Iranian regime.
They have for two decades been the long arm of Saddam Hussein in his terror against his own people as well his neighbors. They acted as the 5th division of Saddam Hussein’s army in waging war against Iran (1980-1988) and the repression and killing of kurds and shias in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
This organization has a long history in repressing and killing of their own members as evidenced in human right report (NO EXIT: Human Rights Abuses inside MKO Camps) as well as sworn testimonies by former members.
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0505
http://www.iranpeyvand.com/2007/03/09/mko-terrorist-operations
As an effect, the invitation of such an individual is stains the EU parliament and its member who approved of this meeting and therefore must answer of their true intentions.
To use the mojahedin as some sort of a triumph card against the Iranian regime shows the lack of understanding of the Iranian psyche and the role that mojahedin plays in this part. It is a proven fact that the mojahedin hold no real support amongst the Iranian people and is seen as a traitorous group who in the past has allied with Iran’s enemy and now deliberately and behind the scene calls for attack on Iran by US forces. The regime in Iran has long since stopped looking at Mojahedin as a threat and only use them as a mean to legitimate their continued oppression of dissident voices amongst the populace.
Let’s not forget that the mojahedin continue to be listed as a terrorist organization by most of the western government and is listed in Interpol wanted list.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm
The only way EU and the world at large can help the Iranian people is to support and speak out in favor the true democratic voices within Iran and their struggle for a democratic Iran.
Karim Haggi Moni – Iranpeyvand – Oct 8, 2007
Jordan has inexplicably decided to give the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) leaders asylum and permission to conduct political activities in the country.
Jordan’s King Abdullah II popularized the deceptive expression Shia Crescent and made accusations against Iran a few months after Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime collapsed.
Saddam and the late King Hussein had historic and longstanding relations, and Jordan’s open support for Iraq during the 1980-1988 war against Iran is part of the historical record.
In its most important assistance, Jordan even gave Iraq access to the strategic port of Aqaba throughout the war.
Official reports from the eight-year war also reveal that thousands of Jordanian soldiers fought on the Iraqi side.
After Saddam’s fall in March 2003, Jordan started a new game. It signaled its agreement with the United States Greater Middle East Initiative but also started providing overt and covert support for Salafi terrorism in Iraq.
The West has turned a blind eye to the fact that Jordan has allowed Baathist remnants and Salafi terrorists to enter Iraq through its borders.
In addition, since the downfall of the Baath regime, Saddam’s family has been living in Jordan as the guests of King Abdullah II, despite the fact that many Middle East experts say Saddam’s family is one of the sources of terrorism in Iraq.
After Saddam was executed, with the support of the Jordanian government, his family was allowed to hold a magnificent semi-official ceremony in honor of the former dictator.
Meanwhile, Interpol recently decided to issue an arrest warrant for Saddam’s daughter Raghad for supporting terrorism in Iraq.
The latest anti-Iranian move by the Jordanian king, i.e. the decision to give asylum to MKO members, is much more serious than the previous actions.
Since the Mojahedin Khalq Organization carried out terrorist acts during the years Saddam gave them asylum in Iraq, U.S. forces restricted them to camps after taking control of the country.
When the pieces of the puzzle are put together, it is clear that the West is encouraging Jordan to take the role Saddam’s Iraq once played in confronting and attempting to contain Iran.
Yet, Jordan’s government has been facing a serious wave of social unrest since the final days of King Hussein, particularly in 1999 and 2000, which proves that Jordan is too weak to become a regional player able to contain Iran.
It would be wise for the Jordanians to reflect on the fate of Saddam, who once cooperated with the West in confronting Iran but later was found to be no longer useful.
There is no doubt that the establishment of a new anti-Iranian pole in the Middle East can seriously alter current political equations. However, the implementation of such an out-of-date formula meant to limit Iran’s regional influence will only increase tension and undermine the West’s regional interests.
Sept. 15 Tehran Times Opinion
A careful and close scrutiny of al-Qaeda and MKO’s organizational infrastructures reveals surprising similarities in their theorizing of terrorist operations. That is much because the two nearly show great interest in the same ideological teachings of terrorism theoreticians. It should be pointed out that these outdated and despised teachings attracts no attention today, but at least in two or three past decades they worked as applicable revolutionary approaches especially for the third world revolutionaries. Following the same line, Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization from its very formation in four decades ago adopted militia warfare as the doctrine of its struggle. MKO’s knack to survive out of dire and serious conditions singles it out as a complex terrorist organization that readily adapts itself to global relations because of its ideologically based interest-seeking and pragmatist visions. Thus, it proves to be much harder a task to confront terrorists like MKO compared with al-Qaeda.
The prime problem lies in the fact that MKO cannot be easily compared to and considered as soldiers of fortune, anarchists, or psychopaths who under some melancholic influences engage in violent practices. Mojahedin cannot even be equals to the rebels and insurgents who rise to confront cultural, social, economic, and ethnic discriminations. The problem is that the organization deems it a duty and responsibility when perpetrating atrocious, terrorist operations, and indeed Mojahedin believe in what they do. Here is the proof when they demarcate a rebel from a revolutionary:
A rebel conducts blind insurgency against the ruling regime while a revolutionary element knows well whereto conduct the insurgency. [1]
The main feature that distinguishes MKO from other similar groups is its remarkable potentiality in practice of ideologically justified activities. The revolutionary ideology of the group enables it to develop a revolutionized philosophical world outlook. In an attempt to rationalize the group’s revolutionary ideology, Rajavi in an ideological handbook that represents the main ideological teachings of MKO stated:
Without a revolutionary ideology, it is impossible to have a revolutionary movement, organization and man because ideology works as our source of light and guide to lead us on. I have to assert that ideology is one of the most outstanding manifestations of man’s life. That is to say, man is the only creature that lives with ideology; his life and death relay on a belief and ideology that he is bond to it in all conditions and communes with it. [2]
Forging such a mentality, Mojahedin can not only control their suppressed primitive feelings but also organize them and put them into practice quantitatively and qualitatively whenever and wherever they will. They are ideological terrorists who deliberately parlay democratic approaches to aggravate the tensions and mount obstacles amidst any non-violent dialogue. In theorizing their relation with the world, they divide it into a two-dimensional sphere of black and white, the foes and friends, and develop no comprehension beyond that. Both al-Qaeda and MKO have the opinion that these are inevitable approaches to solve the encountered would-be disputes.
The difference between the two is that al-Qaeda perpetrates its terrorist operations based on the impact of its ostensible ideological inclinations while Mojahedin-e Khalq justify them based on deep interpretation of their ideology. MKO’s methodology before relying on ideology originates from its scientific look at the world. Mojahedin develop the idea that struggle is not necessarily a man-willed drive but is more the result of knowing the laws and evolutionary advance of the history:
To further a successful social revolution one must develop a more optimistic comprehension of the laws governing the general move of the world, society and man which can simply be defined as ideology. [3]
The view point induces that unpredicted parameters and catalysts work as aspects of influential material laws and thus, it is required to advance according to these laws. The practical and fundamental difference between al-Qaeda and Mojahedi-e Khalq is exactly the same difference between a rebel and a revolutionary, that is, to best control, organize and conduct terrorist operations. Parallel to these precepts, Mojahedin, in regulation of their relations with the members, strive to infuse them with ideological teachings rather than engaging them in practical orders. Accordingly, it might be a rightly made claim by Mojahedin that the organization never enforced orders on the members to commit self-immolations in June 2003 following the arrest of Maryam Rajavi in France and they were deliberate actions.
The people who commit these loathsome acts are no doubt the byproducts of MKO’s adopted ideology. Explicitly putting in the words, they are slaves of a deeply imbued ideology that can be put into practice even in the absence of the leaders. As stated by Rajavi when drawing the organization’s ideological principles:
Everybody has to be a legist and interpreter of the given principal cues of principles. [4]
Also asserted in Nechayev’s The Revolutionary Catechism, revolutionary ideology draws the border-line between a rebel and a revolutionary:
The revolutionary is a dedicated man. He has no interests of his own, no affairs, no feelings, no attachments, no belongings, not even a name. Everything in him is absorbed by a single exclusive interest, a single thought, a single passion – the revolution… Hard towards himself, he must be hard towards others also. All the tender and effeminate emotions of kinship, friendship, love, gratitude and even honor must be stifled in him by a cold and single-minded passion for the revolutionary cause. There exists for him only one delight, one consolation, one reward and one gratification – the success of the revolution. Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim – merciless destruction. In cold-blooded and tireless pursuit of this aim, he must be prepared both to die himself and to destroy with his own hands everything that stands in the way of its achievement.[5]
As indicated by Rajavi, al-Qaeda has a formalistic understanding of ideology. Mojahedin believe that although al-Qaeda is on the front line of launching daring operations, but fails to have a good understanding of their impacts and the aftermath essential calculations. Structural similarities between al-Qaeda and MKO regardless of minor differences well expose the global threat of Mojahedin-e Khalq far beyond the potentialities of al-Qaeda. If there are still optimistic people who foster hope that Mojahedin would undergo a radically ideological and structural change, they are under the spell of some ignorance they have to break before it is too late.
Sources:
Lectures of Mahdi Abrishamchi on the Ideological Revolution in MKO. (1985). Taleghani Publication.
Explining the world -the rules and the concept of evolution: the ideological teachings of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, vol. II, 5.
Lectures of Mahdi Abrishamchi on the Ideological Revolution in MKO. (1985). Taleghani Publication.
Explining the world -the rules and the concept of evolution: the ideological teachings of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, vol. II, pp.5-7.
Nechayev; The Revolutionary Catechism
http://spectrum332034.tripod.com/Texte/1.htm
In recent months, the U.S. government has initiated a series of provocative policies directed at the Islamic Republic of Iran with the intention of drawing the country into the vortex of political and economic isolation.
George W. Bush has frequently threatened Iran, but everyone knows that his bark is worse than his bite.
It seems that Bush believes the policy of threats and intimidation is the only one that is effective. Now that he has realized that such threats cannot influence Iran’s policy in the least, he has resorted to economic levers, which can affect only the Iranian people. U.S. officials have defined the U.S. policy toward Iran as a cold war front through which they are attempting to exert pressure on the Iranian people in the vain hope that they may let out a cry of protest.
As in all cold wars, it is the average citizen who suffers the most.
In this context, “We are confronting Iranian behavior across a variety of different fronts, on a number of different, quote and unquote, battlefields, if you will,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington recently.
McCormack’s choice of the word ‘battlefields’ shows his mind-set. Washington’s hawks believe they must start a war against Iran, either militarily or psychologically. This is their mission: to confront a government that that sees no reason to capitulate to their demands or become their lackey.
However, the first option failed so now the U.S. is resorting to the second option, a psyops campaign.
“I was trying to illustrate that you don’t just confront Iran with guns and soldiers; sometimes you do it with lawyers and accountants and diplomats,” McCormack said.
These are odd words issuing from the mouth of a man who seems to only know the language of threats and confrontation.
The strategy envisaged by the U.S. government includes sanctions prohibiting foreign investment in Iran and barring foreign companies from conducting business with Iranian companies in order to decrease the country’s capital inflows.
Along the same lines, the U.S. Treasury Department has prevented Iranian banks and other institutions from dealing with the U.S. financial system. Many banks in Europe and other parts of the world have stopped their transactions with Iran. Over 40 major international banks and institutions have either cut off or cut back business with the Iranian government and/or private sector.
Iranian families are facing enormous problems in remitting money to their loved ones abroad. The remitted money is either confiscated or gets “lost” in the Byzantine labyrinth of modern finance. Iranian students living abroad find that they are unable to pay their rent and tuition simply because there is no way they can receive money from their parents.
The Iranian economy is also having some difficulties, partly due to Washington’s pressure.
In the latest step, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are considering designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization. The IRGC is a popular army that fought bravely during the eight-year war of aggression that Iraq imposed on Iran. The State Department is trying to sully the reputation of an Iranian military organization whose members made supreme sacrifices in defending their homeland.
Bush and his aides say Iran has made few contributions to efforts to improve the security situation in Afghanistan. Well, it seems that the White house needs a reality check since Afghan President Hamid Karzai praised Iran for its constructive role in Afghanistan during a recent meeting with his Iranian counterpart Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Even in his meeting with George W. Bush, Karzai described Iran’s’ role in Afghanistan as positive.
“So far, Iran has been a helper,” Karzai said in an interview with CNN.
However, Bush sounded a far harsher tone.
“From my perspective, the burden of proof is on the Iranian government to show us that they’re a positive force,” Bush said.
Furthermore, he threatened to continue efforts to isolate the country “because they’re not a force for good, as far as we can see.”
Washington also accuses Iran of providing the militias in Iraq with weapons in order to create chaos and insecurity in the war-ravaged country. The absurdity of such an allegation becomes apparent when one considers the fact that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani recently thanked Iran for its herculean efforts to help establish security in the volatile country.
In late July, Rice and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled to the Middle East and offered billions in weapons sales packages to Arab nations and a $30-billion, 10-year military aid package to Israel, which is actually the source of insecurity in the Middle East. The rationale: to reduce Iran’s influence in the region.
In addition, Washington is currently supporting the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization. The MKO is arguably the most controversial and perplexing topic in terrorism. Created in 1965, the organization is now protected by the U.S. government. U.S. officials are backing a terrorist organization only because they think the MKO can be employed as a useful tool against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thus, terrorism is being sponsored by a government that claims to be waging a campaign against the phenomenon.
Words lose their meaning in an Orwellian haze, and hardly a soul seems to have noticed.
Apparently, to George W. Bush, a terrorist in need is a friend indeed.
(Sept. 5 Tehran Times Opinion Column, by Ismail Salami)
The democratically-elected government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is constantly being undermined by widespread and unwarranted US meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs. There is vast body of evidence to prove this accusation.
Maliki, who is seen by Washington as an obstacle in the way of its plans in the oil rich-country, has come under pressure for his remarks about various issues, for example the criticism of a US plan for the construction of separation walls around Baghdad neighborhoods and the issue of US troops withdrawal from Iraq.
Washington, which has long been eyeing Iraq’s oil reserves– the second largest in the world–, has been exerting pressures on the Iraqi government and parliament to pass a controversial oil draft law that safeguards the interests of foreign oil companies rather than of the Iraqi nation.
The US has been pushing on with the law, claiming that it will guarantee a more equitable distribution of oil revenues among Iraqis. Yet another baseless claim aimed at disguising the real motivation of the Bush Administration.
Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi consultant to the American Friends Service Committee in an interview with Press TV says that”Both the government and the parliament have been resisting the bill because they see it as contrary to the interests of the nation.”
There has also been a chorus of disapproval on the part of Iraqi experts who argue that the draft law does not have anything to do with revenue sharing. They say that the law would have disastrous consequences for the Iraqi nation as it would decentralize the process of decision-making for signing oil contracts and in this way it would threaten the country’s political integrity.
The negative impacts of the law will become more evident if we notice what prominent American scholar Noam Chomsky quotes from US vice President Dick Cheney in his website, that control over oil pipelines is a”tool of intimidation and blackmail”. Other US
policymakers have pointed out that if the United States controls the natural resources of the Middle East, it will have veto power over its industrial rivals.
Another point related to the main question of the article is the issue of insurgency in Iraq. The fact is that insurgency and insecurity are problems that can easily be misused to justify US presence in Iraq.
However, the Bush administration claims it is trying to curb violence in the country by scarifying the lives of US youth.
If the Bush administration is sincerely trying to do so, why does not it prevent its regional allies from undermining the Iraqi government by financing insurgents and helping them infiltrate into the Iraqi territory?
While the White House goes to great length to accuse Iran and Syria of supporting insurgency in Iraq, the Los Angeles Times quotes a US official as saying that almost half of foreign militants targeting US troops, Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia.
The most interesting point about these insurgents and suicide bombers is that they are entering the Iraqi territory through its western borders which are surprisingly controlled by US forces.
On the other hand, Iraq’s National Security Counselor Fazel al-Shavili has disclosed that Saudi Arabian princes provide financial support to an anti-Iran terrorist group in Iraq.
He has said the Iraqi government has found concrete documents showing that Saudi princes pay a monthly sum of $30 million to the armed terrorist group, Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO).
The MKO, known in Iran as Monafeqin meaning hypocrites, was a close ally of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and contributed to the suppression of the Iraqi people under the Baath regime. The group’s members also have carried out many terrorist attacks against Iraqi and Iranian civilians.
In mid July, the Iraqi daily Al-Bayyinah al-Jadidah wrote that the Saudi prince Bandar bin Sultan has donated $750,000 to the MKO providing that the terrorist group contributes to the debilitating of the Iraqi government.
Prince Bandar, who served for 20 years as Saudi ambassador to the US, maintains close ties with US Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush who ‘affectionately’ gave him the nickname ‘Bandar Bush’.
Another scenario which is simultaneously being followed is a planned coup against Maliki. Two weeks ago, news outlets unveiled that Cheney has been planning to topple Malki’s government by proposing a no-confidence vote against him.
Certain Iraqi politicians threw their weight behind the plot against the democratically elected Premier.
Those politicians, one of whom is known for masterminding a previous coup plot against Maliki, have been enjoying widespread support from Washington.
Recent remarks by Iyad Allawi, who had been appointed by the White House as Iraq’s Prime Minister in the interim government, can be interpreted as being in line with Cheney’s plan.
Allawi has recently said Maliki’s government is ‘built on the philosophy of sectarianism’ and will never be able to promote the ‘process of reconciliation.’
To solve the problem, he has further called for the intervention of the UN and Arab League which has been involved in futile efforts to settle different political crises in the region.
The all-too-clear fact which apparently must be reminded to Mr. Allawi is that no one can solve Iraq’s problems better than the Iraqis themselves. But the question which remains unanswered with regard to Mr. Allawi’s remark is: why should he try to involve other regional or international bodies particularly when the Iraqi nation has proven that it can prudently make decisions concerning the future of their country?
The latest move in the Iraqi political arena, which can be considered as being in line with Cheney’s scheme in impeding Maliki’s government, is the resignation of the ministers of the main Sunni Arab bloc, National Concord Front.
The front accuses the Maliki government of the arbitrary arrest and detention of Sunni citizens; accusations that the government has repeatedly dismissed.
Last month, the Front had threatened that its six ministers would suspend participation in the government to protest the attempted arrest of Culture Minister Asaad Kamal al-Hashemi.
Hashemi has been accused by an Iraqi court of orchestrating the attempted assassination of a fellow Sunni MP, Mithal al-Alussi, in an ambush that left two of Alussi’s sons dead. Al-Hashemi made his escape into the US Embassy where he took shelter in order to escape justice.
As it appears every problem in Iraq is in one way or another related to the Americans who are shouting loudly through their media that they are doing their best to protect the interests of the Iraqi nation and their elected government.
DT/HGH/RE Thu, 02 Aug 2007 By Davood Taabbodi, Press TV, Tehran