The Third View on Mujahedin Khalq

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

MEK Terrorist Group Lobbies Congress for De-Listing

Maryam Rajavi, leader of the MEK The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian Marxist-Islamist group opposed to the government there, is lobbying the Obama administration to have its name removed from a list of foreign terrorist organizations.

MEK has been on the State Department’s terrorist list since 1997, although even prior to that it was accused of killing Americans in Iran in the 1970s and supporting the regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

One of Washington’s top lobbying firms, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, has been hired by MEK supporters (the Iranian American Community of Northern California) to remove the organization from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. Lobbyists working on behalf of MEK include former congressman Vic Fazio (D-California) and Hal Shapiro, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, whose State Department originally put MEK on the list.

MEK has also garnered support from the political odd couple of Howard Dean and John Bolton, along with former Republican Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Democratic ex-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.

Supporters claim MEK should no longer be designated a terrorist group because it renounced the use of violence in 2001. The European Union did remove the MEK from its terrorism list in 2009.

Opponents of the de-listing point out that an FBI report from 2004 showed the group continued to plan terrorist acts at least three years after it renounced terrorism.

allgov.com

July 3, 2011 0 comments

USA

Mujahedin-E Khalq criminal investigation by FBI

FBI recently disclosed report reveals MKO continued terror campaign years after they claimed to renounce terrorism

A recently disclosed FBI report from 2004 reveals Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) continued to plan terrorist acts years after they claimed to renounce terrorism. The State Department has documented the MEK’s disturbing record: killing Americans and Iranians in terrorist attacks; fighting for Saddam Hussein against Iran and assisting Saddam’s brutal campaign against Iraq’s Kurds and Shia; its”cult-like”behavior; the abuses and even torture it commits against its own members; and its support for the U.S. embassy takeover and calls for executing the hostages …

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) criminal investigation by FBI

The following is a detailed summary of information learned during criminal investigations of the Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK), aka Mojahedin Khalq Organization(MKO), aka Peoples Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) aka National Council of Resistance (NCR), a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO). … to View the Report click here
Download Mujahedin-E Khalq criminal investigation by FBI

July 3, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MEK, Washington’s Favorite Terrorists

In the 10 years that I have lived in Washington, I have never seen lobbyists for al-Qaeda parade through the halls of Congress. I have not seen any events on Capitol Hill organized by Hamas. And I have not seen any American politicians take campaign contributions from the Islamic Jihad.

But the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an organization with the blood of Americans and Iranians alike on its hands, freely does all of these things, despite being a designated foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

And in a matter of weeks, this terrorist group may succeed in getting removed from the terrorist list — not as a result of any change of heart — but as a result of an unprecedented mutli-million dollar media and lobbying blitz.

If al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization were holding fundraisers in DC, lobbying Congress, or holding press conferences at the National Press Club, the FBI, Homeland Security, and local law enforcement would be all over it.

Not so with the MEK. There, law enforcement seems nowhere to be found. In fact, a prominent spokesperson for the MEK terrorist group was hired by Fox News in the mid-2000s to serve as their on-air terrorist analyst. Go figure.

Since early January 2011, the MEK has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists, PR agents and communications firms to build up pressure on Secretary Hillary Clinton to take the group off of the terrorist list. Their argument is that the MEK rejected violence and terrorism in 2001 and as a result should be de-listed.

But this is not true, according to the FBI. A recently disclosed FBI report from 2004 reveals that the group continued to plan terrorist acts at least three years after they claimed to renounce terrorism.

No one should be surprised — not even DC’s "unwitting members of Congress" — as the FBI calls the group’s supporters on Capitol Hill. The State Department has documented the MEK’s disturbing record: killing Americans and Iranians in terrorist attacks; fighting for Saddam Hussein against Iran and assisting Saddam’s brutal campaign against Iraq’s Kurds and Shia; its "cult-like" behavior; the abuses and even torture it commits against its own members; and its support for the U.S. embassy takeover and calls for executing the hostages.

And let’s not forget, the MEK suppresses and holds captive its own members – more than 70 percent of the MEK members in Camp Ashraf in Iraq are held there against their own wishes, according to a RAND Corporation study.

But even if the MEK could be believed, the reality is that they are currently on the terrorist list and, as a result, they must be subject to U.S. terrorism laws. Simply put, the laws must be enforced — without exception.

The State Department’s review of their terrorism status, which is due to be completed by August of this year, must be conducted without the essentially illegal pressure tactics the MEK currently is employing through lobbyists, lawmakers and hired former officials.

If the group is taken off the list, not as a result of an objective review, but by virtue of their lobbying prowess, several repercussions can be envisioned.

First, the desire to de-list them in Washington seems partially driven by gravitation towards covert military action against Iran. Neither sanctions nor diplomacy have yielded the desired results on the nuclear issue, and some in Washington are advocating using the MEK to conduct assassination and sabotage campaigns inside Iran.

As one former State Department official put it, the "paradox is that we may take them off the terror list in order for them to do more terror."

Much like Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, the permanent leader of the MEK, Maryam Rajavi, seeks to return from decades of exile as the anointed President of Iran. And freed of the terrorist designation, there is little reason to believe the MEK won’t turn its lobbying apparatus — which puts Chalabi’s to shame — to obtain U.S. funding and to promote war with Iran. In fact, some members of Congress already refer to the MEK as the "real Green movement." Even more shocking is that top former U.S. officials have called on the U.S. to recognize Rajavi as the rightful President of Iran.

Second, de-listing the MEK would spell disaster for the Iranian pro-democracy movement. ..

Third, de-listing will put the rising Iranian-American community in a state of shock. In the last decade, an impressive civic awakening has occurred in this successful but previously politically silent community, with dozens of new groups being formed with the aim of contributing to the American democracy and providing the Iranian Americans in the U.S. with a voice. A U.S. funded and supported MEK will ensure a return to the pre-1997 era. Back then, in the eyes of most U.S. lawmakers, the voice of Maryam Rajavi was the voice of the entire Iranian-American community.

Now, by buying off officials to pry open the floodgates of U.S. financial and political support, Rajavi and her small but vocal minority threaten to simultaneously drown out the voices of the rest of the Iranian-American community, and carry the U.S. down the path of war yet again.

Trita Parsi

July 2, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Four more hostages have escaped from Camp Ashraf

Iraq to help Iranians who fled from exiles’ camp

An Iraqi official claimed Thursday that 58 people have fled from an Iranian exiles’ camp northeast of Baghdad and promised the government would help them immigrate into another country.

The claim by Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammed al-Askari is the latest in the saga of several thousand Iranian exiles living in Camp Ashraf, where an April 8 raid by the Iraqi army killed dozens or residents.

The camp is run by the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, a resistance group to Tehran’s regime that has been a harsh critic of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The group is considered a terrorist organization by the United States.

The Ashraf residents were allowed to settle in Iraq by former dictator Saddam Hussein to spite his Iranian foes. But they have since been a political thorn for al-Maliki, who is trying to ease relations with Tehran, the only other Shiite-dominated government in the Middle East. The residents have lived in Ashraf for more than 30 years.

But after the April raid, the Iraqi government insisted it would close Ashraf within a year. The camp’s residents are refusing to leave, raising concerns of another violent showdown.

Al-Askari, flanked by four Iranians who he said had escaped from Camp Ashraf, told reporters at a press conference in Baghdad that they had been held hostage inside the camp. He said Iraq would give them necessary documents to leave the country.

"We have information from inside the camp that many residents do not want to stay, but remain there under coercion and threats from leaders of the group," said al-Askari.

The desert camp, located 60 miles (95 kilometers) northeast of Baghdad, was overrun by Iraqi soldiers in an April 8 assault that left up to 35 residents dead. Iraq’s government denies it killed the residents, but U.N. observers during a tour of the camp after the raid witnessed bodies of 28 shooting victims and three who had been run over.

Since the raid, reporters have not been allowed inside the camp, and a U.S. congressman also was blocked from entering by Iraqi authorities in June.

In response to al-Askari’s claims, Ashraf leaders issued a statement deriding the four escapees as agents working for Tehran’s ministry of intelligence. They have said camp residents are there by their own volition.

The statement said the four were "brought to a press show to slander Ashraf and pin the blame" for the April attack on the camp.
BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press

July 2, 2011 0 comments

Iraq

Talibani: Iraqi government’s patience with the MeK worn thin

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, while in Tehran, voiced his support for Iran’s call to shut a military camp in central Iraq that has served as a base for an Iranian insurgent group, the Mujahedin e-Khalq, or MeK. Talibani: Iraqi government's patience with the MeK had worn thin

Washington, while designating the MeK as an international terrorist organization, has pressured Iraq to continue to provide sanctuary to some 3,400 MeK fighters over fears they would be persecuted if they returned to Iran.

The MeK was aligned with the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and carried out a string of terrorist attacks inside Iran over the past three decades, including one that seriously injured Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Mr. Talabani said in a speech to the terrorism conference Saturday that his government’s patience with the MeK had worn thin. The MeK camp "will be shut down by the end of the year," Mr. Talabani said. "We intend to prevent any kind of invasion to be launched against any of our neighboring countries."

Read the full article :

Iran Woos U.S. Allies as Troops Withdraw
TEHRAN—Iran is moving to cement ties with the leaders of three key American allies—Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq—highlighting Tehran’s efforts to take a greater role in the region as the U.S. military pulls out troops.
The Afghan and Pakistani presidents, visiting Tehran, discussed with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "many issues…that might come up after the NATO military force goes out of Afghanistan," Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in an interview here Sunday.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai met with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran on Saturday.
."The three presidents were very forthcoming in carrying out the cooperation and contacts so as to make sure things will go as smoothly as it could," he said.
That was a jab at Washington, which is increasingly in competition with Tehran for influence in the region, particularly as popular rebellions have surged across the Middle East and North Africa since January.
The overtures by U.S. nemesis Iran come amid tensions between Washington and three governments that have each received billions of dollars in U.S. aid. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, before traveling to Tehran, welcomed President Barack Obama’s announcement on Wednesday that the U.S. would withdraw 33,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan over 15 months.
The U.S. is also committed to withdrawing all of its remaining 45,000 troops from Iraq by year-end; some U.S. military officials want some troops to stay to serve as a check on Iran, but Iraqi hostility to the U.S. presence has been an obstacle.
In Pakistan, military and civilian leaders are under domestic pressure to curb U.S. ties, in a wave of anti-Americanism fueled by the U.S. raid in May that killed Osama bin Laden at his home in Pakistan.
Tehran has been pressing Afghanistan—Iran’s neighbor to the east—and Pakistan to end their military alliances with Washington.
Officials at the White House and State Department declined to comment on Sunday on the Tehran meetings.
U.S. and European officials have said they believe Iran’s regional ambitions are hampered by a stagnant economy and growing political infighting in Tehran that could cost Mr. Ahmadinejad his job.
There are also historical tensions between neighbors—and in some cases, current conflicts. Afghan President Hamid Karzai told Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari that Pakistan must stop lobbing rockets into his country, according to a statement from Mr. Karzai’s office. Mr. Zardari denied Pakistan’s military was firing the rockets.
But Iran’s government took every opportunity to play up its international ties during a weekend that also included a conference in Tehran attended by representatives from around 60 countries.
The Obama administration and European nations had lobbied countries against attending what Iran called an "International Conference on the Global Fight against Terrorism." The U.S. characterizes Tehran as the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.
The event was also attended by diplomats from U.S.-friendly countries such as Mongolia, Oman and Indonesia. The United Nations and Organization of the Islamic Conference both sent representatives.
"Pakistan and Iran share an historic bond," Mr. Zardari told the conference on Saturday, when his late wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, was honored by Iran’s government.
For its part, the U.S. charges Tehran with fomenting instability by providing arms and training to insurgent groups, including the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Kata’ib Hezbollah militia in Iraq, that battle American forces. Tehran denies the charge.
For the most part, the conference followed a pattern many U.S. and European officials anticipated. Iranian, Cuban and Palestinian representatives—mixing with North Korean, Zimbabwean and Myanmar diplomats—branded Israel the world’s largest terrorism threat.
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes, addressed the conference and said the definition of terrorism is abused internationally. "We should prevent the use of terrorism for political reasons," he said.
On the grounds of the conference hall, the Iranian hosts assembled displays documenting what they alleged were Israeli and American-backed plots against the Islamic Republic.
On Friday, after a three-way meeting between the Iranian, Afghan and Pakistani presidents, the three leaders pledged to intensify their joint efforts to fight militant groups and combat narcotics trafficking, while "rejecting foreign interference" in their countries, according to a statement. The three also agreed to meet next year in Islamabad.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, while in Tehran, voiced his support for Iran’s call to shut a military camp in central Iraq that has served as a base for an Iranian insurgent group, the Mujahedin e-Khalq, or MeK.
Washington, while designating the MeK as an international terrorist organization, has pressured Iraq to continue to provide sanctuary to some 3,400 MeK fighters over fears they would be persecuted if they returned to Iran.
The MeK was aligned with the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and carried out a string of terrorist attacks inside Iran over the past three decades, including one that seriously injured Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Mr. Talabani said in a speech to the terrorism conference Saturday that his government’s patience with the MeK had worn thin. The MeK camp "will be shut down by the end of the year," Mr. Talabani said. "We intend to prevent any kind of invasion to be launched against any of our neighboring countries."

—Maria Abi-Habib in Kabul and Maya Jackson Randall in Washington contributed to this article.
By JAY SOLOMON

June 28, 2011 0 comments

USA

US State Department: No popular support for MKO among Iranians

A U.S. State Department document released in May 2011 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act says the MEK has no popular support inside Iran and “to the extent Iranians know about this group they are far more likely to oppose it than support it.” It added, “Any U.S. support for MEK would extremely damage its reputation amongst Iranians and would increase anti-American sentiments in Iran.” The State Department cables quoted defectors as describing MEK as a cult that punishes former members. The cables said the MEK leadership ordered the execution of all attempted defectors.
—
UNCLASSIFIED
IRANIAN POPULAR ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE MEK

Summary
Showing a unanimity rare among Iranians, anecdotal information gleaned from both ordinary Iranians living inside Iran and abroad and from Iran analysts strongly indicates that the ‘Mujahedin-e Khalq’ (MEK) opposition group has not significant popular support inside Iran. To the extent that Iranian respondents are familiar with the MEK they express severe dislike for this group, primarily due to its alliance with Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. All Iranians queried tended to disbelieve the MEK’s expressed allegiance to the ideals of human rights and democracy, with even hardened Iranian oppositionists and persecuted religious minorities such as the Iranian Baha’i saying they would prefer the current Iranian government to an MEK-affiliated one. Many Iranian respondents believe that any indication of USG support for the MEK would seriously harm USG popularity among ordinary Iranians, even among those Iranians who oppose the current Iranian government, would fuel anti-American sentiment, and would likely empower Iranian hardliners. END

SUMMARY
Body
UNCLAS RPO DUBAI 000048
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 13526; N/A
TAGS; PREL, PGOV, IR, PTER

******* THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ******
SUBJECT: IRANIAN POPULAR ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE MEK
1. (SBU) NOTE: The following cable is based on input from State Department Iran-watchers and consular interviewing officers in the main posts that interact with Iranians on a regular basis, i.e. ANKARA, BAKU, BERLIN, DUBAI AND ISTANBUL. END NOTE.
2. (SBU)
SUMMARY: Showing a unanimity rare among Iranians, anecdotal information gleaned from both ordinary Iranians living inside Iran and abroad and from Iran analysts strongly indicates that the ‘Mujahedin-e Khalq’ (MEK) opposition group has no significant popular support inside Iran. To the extent that Iranian respondents are familiar with the MEK they express severe dislike for the group, primarily due to its alliance with Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. All Iranians queried tended to disbelieve the MEK’s expressed allegiance to the ideals of human rights and democracy, with even hardened Iranian oppositionists and persecuted religious minorities such as the Iranian Baha’i saying they would prefer the current Iranian government to an MEK-affiliated one. Many Iranian respondents believe that any indication of USG support for the MEK would seriously harm USG popularity among ordinary Iranians, even among those Iranians who oppose the current Iranian government, would fuel anti-American sentiment, and would likely empower Iranian hardliners.
END SUMMARY.
3. (SBU) MEK – BACKGROUND (see Appendix): Originally a 1960s Islamic-Marxist group dedicated to violent overthrow of the Pahlavi regime, the ‘Mujahedin-e Khalq’ (MEK- a.k.a. ‘The People’s Warriors’) was one of the main popular organizations to emerge in the early days of the 1979 Revolution. The increasing ascendancy by clerical elements supporting Ayatollah Khomeini after the revolution let to this group’s gradual elimination from the ruling coalition and its eventual flight from Iran in the early 1980s. Using Iraq as its base, the MEK mounted attacks against Iranian military during the latter stages of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, then after the 1988 Iran-Iraq cease-fire it continued attacks against Iranian leadership until it was forced to stand down its Iraq-based operations as a result of ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ in 2003. Currently, MEK supporters claim the group has renounced violence as a tool and seeks a secular, democratic Iran, while its detractors claim it is more a cult of personality centred on a leadership unchanged since 1979 than a popular-based political movement. Its membership in its ‘Camp Ashraf’ base in Iraq consists of a few thousand rank-and-file members, mostly either older original ‘first generation’ members from the 1970s or younger Iranians from poorer ethnic minorities such as Iranian Baluch.
Since deprived of Iraq government funding since 2003 the MEK has increasingly relied on fundraising in Europe under various front organizations that use popular antipathy towards the Islamic Republic to solicit money. END BACKGROUND.
4. (SBU) In January and February 2011 State Department Iran-watchers and consular offices in the main posts that interact with Iranians on a regular basis (Ankara, Baku, Berlin, Dubai and Istanbul) asked Iranian contacts and visa applicants their opinions on the MEK.
POPULAR FEEDBACK
5. (SBU) In speaking to hundreds of Iranians both in the preceding two months and before, ordinary Iranians were almost uniformly dismissive of the MEK, reacting with either disdain or apathy, their responses strongly indicating a lack of any significant popular support for the MEK among Iranians living in Iran. Among older Iranians this lack of support was largely due to MEK support of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Among younger Iranians (i.e. most of the population) this lack of support was derived from both the MEK’s ‘treasonous acts’ in supporting Iraq during the war and also from a near–total lack of information due to the absence of any MEK influence inside Iran.
6. (SBU) The following direct quotes reflect what was heard from ordinary Iranians both inside Iran and abroad:
— “The MEK are detested among the young and old in Iran, although many young Iranians don’t know much about them, and to the extent they do it is in relation to their pro-Iraqi activities during the Iran-Iraq war. Many young Iranians familiar with the MEK’s lack of any support inside Iran wonder why this group is so well-supported abroad and in international organizations.”
— “They are hated among Iranians, since their hands are stained with the blood of their fellow countrymen.”
— “I’m an Iranian Bahai (i.e. the most persecuted religious minority in Iran) and I can tell you that even Bahais in Iran would much prefer the current Iranian government to any MEK government.”
— “We are scared of them because we think they want power. They are like Fidel Castro in Cuba. They will turn Iran into a North Korea or Cuba. It’s not correct to call them a terrorist group THOUGH: THEY JUST WANT POWER. THEY DO NOT HAve the support of the majority of people. They are not democratic just because they appointed a lady as ‘President of Iran’.”
—“They were supported and loved during the Revolution, especially among young people. We loved them. They were beautiful people. But their Marxist-Islamic ideology has passed away. The group’s ideology is far away from the people now.”
—“Aside from their cooperation with Saddam against Iran, their leadership is immoral – Massoud Rajavi has forced himself on many women, with Maryam’s awareness, and in their camp in Iraq they separate children from their parents. I had a distant relative who joined the MEK and once he did so the rest of the family disowned him.”
—“Nobody likes them.”

—“They have no support in Iran.”
—“The group is not popular. People hate them, and they are terrorists. They killed many people.”
—“Once they fought for what they believed in and they had some support but now we don’t really know who they are and what they do.”
—“They are a terrorist organization.”
—“The MEK is a joke.”
—“They are a bunch of #@$*!” [From a young Iranian male]
—“They MEK under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi and President Maryam Rajavi are meaningless in the domestic Iranian political spectrum and totally marginalized. They try however, with great effort, to create the impression that they are the most significant Iranian exiled opposition group.”
ANALYSTS ON MEK
7. (SBU) The above-cited characterization of the MEK by ordinary Iranians was replicated in feedback from political analysts focused on contemporary Iran, all of whom were Iranian by birth. Without exception these analysts said that the MEK lacked any significant popular support inside Iran, with Iranian popular reactions to the MEK varying from rank ignorance (mostly among the young) to extreme aversion (to those more familiar with their history).
8. (SBU) The following direct quotes from prominent analysts of contemporary Iran, all of whom are Iranian by birth, reflect the feedback received:
—“Right after the 1979 revolution the MEK had considerable support in Iran, especially among the youth. Even after the MEK began its campaign of assassination of official figures in June 1981 and the regime responded by executing MEK supporters, there was still sympathy. But then MEK leadership left Iran and went first to France and then Iraq, began collaborating with Saddam Hussein’s regime, and acting as its spies. This turned the tide against the MEK, and the Iranian people began despising MEK for its support of Saddam, for its revealing information about Iran, and for still continuing its campaign of assassination while the nation was involved in a long war.
That has not changed, and in fact it has become stronger, since all sorts of horror stories have been told to the public by former MEK members who had become disillusioned with the leadership and wanted to leave Iraq and Camp Ashraf but were tortured and then delivered to Saddams intelligence as Iranian spies. It was also revealed that the MEK had a direct role in putting down the Shiites uprising in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprising in northern Iraq right after the first Persian Gulf War. The fact that MEK revealed some information about Iran’s nuclear program also angered a lot of people, because they consider it treason.
The net result is that, with losing thousands of its members to executions and consistent opposition to the IRIG, the MEK has no significant base of support in Iran. Given that 70 percent of the population is under 35, they do not even know who the MEK are.
Iranians who know about the MEK consider it nothing but a religio-political cult. …
—“The trick used by MEK is to approach the “simple man on the street” or politicians with little expertise on Iran and convince them that they are collecting signatures or money to protest human rights violations in Iran. These signatures are then used by the organization as proof of support for the organization’s broader political agenda. The organization works under a number of PSEUDONYMS. THE RECENT PROTEST MOVEMent in Iran that followed the 2009 elections showed quite clearly that the MEK has no noticeable support inside Iran and is isolated amongst exiled Iranians as well.”
—“Generally speaking I encountered two things concerning the MEK from living in Iran. The older generations’ has a disdain for the MEK because of their belief that MEK contributed mightily to the radicalism and violence of the early years of the revolution and for its siding with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. This disdain was not merely based on the fact that the government held MEK responsible for the bombings of the early revolutionary years. The younger generation’s views on the MEK are characterized by apathy and lack of basic knowledge about the group, its leadership, and its political positions. I have not found any evidence that MEK has been able to fire the imagination of a single university or high school student in Iran. Believe it or not, the few students who express interest in radical politics, instead of reform, were much more interested in Marxism than MEK”.
— “The MEK is a dead political group in Iran, even if its specter is not anymore haunting the Iranian people. The MEK has no considerable support in the country, either among the elites or among the ordinary people, whether in the capital Tehran or in the PROVINCES. WHILE IRANIANS FOLLOW ON A DAILY BASIS different opposition websites, the MEK website is one of the poorest regarding the amount of its viewers (this fact is easily provable by checking the traffic the website has comparing to others). The truth is the MEK is one of the most hated political groups in Iran. If Iranians would be asked to choose between MEK and IRGC – Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – they would definitely go for the latter. The MEK is mostly known as a terrorist group in Iran; people are afraid of the group’s obsolete ideology, its aggressive and vengeful rhetoric and its authoritarian leadership.
The Iranian regime is aware how notorious the MEK is and takes advantage of this in certain political situations. ….
Any U.S. support for MEK would extremely damage its reputation amongst Iranians and would increase anti-American sentiments in Iran. People would regard such an act not as animosity towards the regime but towards the nation. They would assume that the U.S. intentions are not to promote freedom and democracy in Iran, but simply to spoil the country. The Iranian regime would definitely take advantage of such a situation, showing it as a proof of its claims of calling Americans as the enemy of the nation.”
—“The MEK are an Islamist-Socialist cult whose membership numbers in the thousands. Their popular support in Iran is negligible. Over a four year period living in and travelling to Iran I never met anyone who expressed any affinity for them. On the contrary they are widely perceived as brainwashed traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. government should stay as far away from them as possible. Even (former NSC head) general Jones recent interactions with them have spurred concerned rumors among Iranian democracy activists that Washington may be flirting with the MEK.”
9. (SBU) COMMENT: The results of this admittedly unscientific polling of contacts and ordinary Iranians concerning the MEK confirms what those familiar with Iran already assumed to be the case: regardless of whether the USG deems it a terrorist organization, the MEK lacks any significant popular support in Iran, and to the extent Iranians know about this group they are far more likely to oppose it than support it. The pro-human rights and democratic ideals which the MEK now claims to espouse are ones which the USG also emphasizes in our own Iran policy. But one does not need to support the MEK to promote these goals, and indeed it seems to be the case that any increased show of USG support for this group will not help the cause of freedom and democracy in Iran, but will only adversely impact popular perceptions of the USG among ordinary Iranians, and could also strengthen support for Ahmadinejad and other hardliners.
END COMMENT

APPENDIX: MEK HISTORY
1965: MEK Founded on Islamic-Marxist ideology by former members of Iran’s nationalist “Freedom Movement of Iran”.
1970s: MEK engaged in ideological work combined with armed struggle against the Pahlavi regime, to include terrorist killings of US military and civilian personnel in Iran.
1975: MEK splits in to two groups, Marxist and Islamist, with the Marxist group changing its name to “Paykar”.
1979: Massoud Rajavi assumes MEK leadership, and MEK becomes one of the main political groups active during the 1979 Islamic Revolution. MEK supports US Embassy takeover in November 1979.
1979-81: Like Iranian nationalists and leftists elements, MEK influence in government slowly eliminated by the clerical elements supporting Ayatollah Khomeini.
Early 1980: As IRIG moves against MEK, MEK elements inside Iran mount massive assassination campaigns against the IRIG leadership, killing approximately 70 high-ranking IRIG officials in one June 1981 bombing, with another MEK bombing two months later killing the IRIG President and Prime Minister. Hundreds of MEK supporters and members either arrested or killed. Massoud Rajavi forced to flee Iran in 1981, and majority of MEK relocates in France.
1981-1986: Using France as base of operations, MEK continues campaign of violence against Iranian government figures.
1986-1988: In 1986 due to improved Iran-France relations MEK relocates headquarters to Iraq, relaying on Iraq for basing, financial support, and training. During Iran-Iraq war its “NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY” UNDER CONTROL OF THE IRAQI MILITary mounts attacks against the Iranian military, causing it to lose massive support among the Iranian people.

1988: Execution of MEK prisoners inside Iran by IRIG.
1989-2003: MEK continues assassination attacks against IRIG officials, receiving major financial support from Saddam Hussein, to include:
–1992 (April): MEK conducts near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries.
— 1999 (April): MEK assassinates key Iranian military officers, to include deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff, Brigadier General Ali Sayyaad Shirazi.
— 2000 (February): MEK launches series of attacks against Iran, to include a mortar attack against a major Iranian leadership complex in Tehran.
–2000-01: MEK conducts regular mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids against Iranian military and law enforcement personnel, as well as government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border.
1991: MEK assists Iraqi Republican Guards in crackdown on anti-Saddam Iraqi Shia and Kurds.
2001: FBI arrested seven Iranians in the United States who funneled $400,000 to an MEK-affiliated organization in the UAE which used the funds to purchase weapons.
2003: At start of Operation Iraqi Freedom MEK leadership negotiated a cease-fire with Coalition Forces and voluntarily surrenders their heavy-arms to Coalition control.
2003: French authorities arrest 160 MEK members at operational bases they believed the MEK was using to coordinate financing and planning for terrorist attacks.
Post -2003: High level MEK leave MEK’s “Camp Ashraf” in Iraq, relocating in various European capitals.

BT
#4594
7002
UNCLASIFIED

June 25, 2011 0 comments

Iraq

Iraq: Ashraf Camp will be closed, West should take MKO back home

Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Hoshiar Zibary, has said during his current visit for Tehran, that Ashraf Camp, in northeast Iraq, inhabited by the anti-Tehran Mojahedin E-Khalq Organization, must close by the end of the current year.

“The Iraqi government’s position towards the ‘terrorist’ Mojahedin E-Khalq Organization is very clear, and the Ashraf Camp, used by that group as its headquarters must close by the end of the current year, 2011,” Zibary told a joint news conference with his Iranian Counterpart, Ali Akbar Salehy, in Tehran, carried by the Iranian Fars News Agency on Wednesday, adding that “Baghdad had called on International Organizations to help it in this issue.”

Zibary said that during his talks with his Iranian Counterpart in this respect: “We have proposed the formation of a special committee, to comprise representatives of the Iranian and Iraqi sides, along with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the Committee is scheduled to convene in the nearest possible time.”

The Iranian Al-Aalam Satellite TV Station had quoted Zibary as saying that “the Western states must present help in this respect, including the acceptance of persons, belonging to the said ‘clique,’ wishing to move to their countries, as well as preparing the suitable platform for the return of those of them, wishing to return to Iran.”

Answering a question about the dossier of the Iranians, detained in Iraq, he said: “The Iraqi government had released hundreds of Iranians, who were detained in Iraq due to the end of their official residence or ignoring Iraqi laws,” confirming that the Iraqi government was striving to release the remaining Iranians in the near future.

Regarding Iraq’s position towards the developments in Bahrain, Minister Zibary said: “We respect the sovereignty of Bahrain and believe that the Bahraini people must appoint their government and system, and define their fate by themselves,” reiterating Iraq’s rejection of atrocities against Bahraini demonstrators, “because today’s world does not allow such measures against demonstrators, demanding their rights.”

As regards to the future of the foreign forces in Iraq, the Iraqi Foreign Minister said that “the political forces in Iraq were coordinating their attitudes, in order to define a final position towards the future of the American forces in the country.”

Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Hoshiar Zibary, had began a visit for the Islamic Republic of Iran, leading a high-level delegation, representing his Ministry’s leading officials in the bilateral, legal and consular affairs, to carry out talks with the Iranian side and discuss Iraq’s relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

June 25, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

A British MP who presumes to know better than most Iranians what is best for Iran

Sheda Vasseghi of World Tribune criticizes an MKO supporter, British MP for Northampton South

Brian Binley and Mojahedin Khalq

for his passionate support for the Terrorist destructive cult of Mujahedin Khalq and his impudence to choose for Iranians’ future:

It is curious when non-Iranian politicians such as a British Member of Parliament, who are naturally working for the interests of their own country, suggest that those of Iranian descent and experts in Iranian history are wrong about Iran’s affairs.
It is unclear whether Mr. Brian Binley is actually ignorant of the facts, in denial, or simply trapped in the British colonial mentality in rejecting that times have changed!

Recently, Mr. Binley wrote an article entitled “Binley: Obama must support Iranian democracy movement,” published in the Washington Times in support of the Islamo-Marxist cult the People’s Mojahedin (PMOI) as a viable alternative for the Iranian people.
The PMOI is a cult that is still listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department. It has been enjoying the millions of dollars that Saddam Hussein poured into their bank accounts during the 1980’s as he planned his bloody invasion of Iran. My recent article entitled “The People’s Mojahedin of Iran is not who the Iranian people have been waiting for” included documentation for the assessment PMOI is a terrorist organization and reasons why the majority of Iranians reject PMOI’s attempts to portray itself as a legitimate opposition to the Islamic Republic.

In response to my subsequent objections to Mr. Binley’s Washington Times article sent by email to his office, Mr. Binley stated that the PMOI has “vowed to work for a democratic and free Iran.” Mr. Binley rejects the “claim that the group is anti-democratic,” and further does not think that my exposing the PMOI as terrorists is “helping the situation in Iran by perpetuating lies.”

Here, I will offer an official response to Mr. Binley and thereby attempt to further awaken my fellow Iranians and Americans as to the very dangerous situation to which some of the Western politicians are subjecting the global community:
The 21st century Iran is no longer the backwards country of the early 1900’s under the incompetent and ignorant Qajar dynasty readily influenced by the British and Russian powers.

Vasseghi asserts that as a terrorist designated cult-like group, MKO is never considered democratic:
Further, in the Age of Information and Internet, regular folks from around the world have access to facts, information, and documents, and are very well-versed in technology and literacy. They are perfectly capable of identifying a rotten egg as a rotten egg!

In your email response in defense of the terrorist PMOI group, you wrote: “First of all, I recognise that the PMOI does have a history of terrorist activity, but I equally recognise that the British High Court has stated that they ceased to be a terrorist organisation in 2002 when they vowed to work for a democratic and free Iran.”

As fully discussed in my earlier article regarding PMOI mentioned above, the U.S. still lists PMOI as a terrorist group based on its militant culture, past terrorist activities and political mission statement. Further, a cult based on theocracy (Islamic, in this case) is the complete opposite of a “democracy” as they categorically and by name exclude those who do not believe in their core values. A cult that has already elected from among its members a future ”president” for the Iranian people has clearly excluded the concept of democracy and freedom.

The author also disputes Binely’s comparing MKO with Irish Republican army that could reach a peaceful agreement with Britain. Ms. Vasseghi asserts:

In your second point in defense of promoting a terrorist group, you wrote: “I would point out that we in this country have a record of terrorism in Northern Ireland but we actually talk to those people and came to a more peaceful conclusion than what would otherwise have been the case had we not done so.”

Mr. Binley, please, you are comparing apples and oranges. Your comment only proves that some British politicians are willing to work with terrorists at the expense of the general public to further short-term political agenda and interests.
…..
To respond Binely’s claim based on Vasseghi’s being “a liar and a danger to Iran’s struggle for freedom and democracy”, she writes:

Iranians are not concerned with terrorist activities of other governments in other countries. It is irrelevant to their current struggle and national interest. Overall, in response to my objection to your Washington Times article which included documentation on my part, you provided no evidence for calling me a liar and a danger to Iran’s struggle for freedom and democracy.

Mr. Binley, your baseless and ridiculous comments for standing by the PMOI as a democratic-loving group only proves that either you do not know the definition of a democracy and the conditions needed for providing it, or assume that the general public is ignorant of such matters. ..

In your concluding remarks, Mr. Binley, you state, “I personally don’t think you are helping the situation in Iran by perpetuating lies, many of which have been promoted by the [Islamic Republic] regime themselves.”

Given that your response contains no evidence countering my objections to PMOI’s terrorist status, it only highlights the terrifying situation the people of the Free World are facing. Either politicians such as you are ignorant of the facts…

Your attempts to legitimize PMOI and your personal reasons for doing so are irrelevant to Iranians at this time. … Regardless of some non-Iranian politicians’ unwillingness to accept reality or believing they could continue their misguided and manipulative ways, times have changed!

June 23, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Lobbying for MKO terrorists

Daniella Pletka of the Enterprise Blog wrote an article on MKO’s lobby in the United States and its lobbying efforts to get support for its removal from FTO list of US Department of State. Her illuminating post on MKO terrorists’ lobby in her country, as usual encountered with a deluge of Ad hominem attacks by MKO agents.

In her post Ms. Pletka offers evidences on MKO cult-like nature and dictatorial system:

The Hill reported on Sunday that the U.S.-designated terrorist group the Mujahedin e Khalq (aka the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, aka the National Council of Resistance) has acquired lobbying help from Democratic powerhouse Akin Gump to support its removal from the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list.
To be fair to Akin Gump, plenty of GOPers have taken up cudgels for the MEK, though the direct cash payoff to them is less clear.
The MEK has for years lobbied aggressively via a myriad of front groups to be taken off the terrorism list. Shrewd lobbyists, they have moved well beyond their street corner and airports campaign (“support Iran’s starving children”) to “grassroots” organizations and hired guns. And I get why they don’t want to be on the terrorism list; it comes with a spate of sanctions and restrictions that are odious to most groups no matter their intentions. But what of their partisans? Do they know the MEK? If not, check out Michael Rubin’s piece on the MEK or this FBI report from 2004, the list of murdered Americans, the money laundering, the cult-like behavior, the … terrorism. Is it all a lie? Has the MEK seen the light? Or is this a way of trying to oust the foul regime in Tehran?

She ends the post by posing some controversial questions:
And here’s another question: Where’s the FBI and the Justice Department? A terrorist group is lobbying in the United States. It’s paying top political fixers to make its case. It’s paying speaking fees to former government officials. Where’s the money from? How’s it being transferred? And would it be okay for Hezbollah to do this? Al Qaeda?

Following the fallacious attacks by sympathizers of the cult of Rajavi, Danielle Pletka posts another piece to respond on June 16. She confirms her arguments by addressing the commenters individually:

Yesterday, I wrote a post on the Mojahedin E Khalq, a U.S. designated terrorist group that has, through supporters, hired a big Dem lobbying firm to help them get off the State Department’s terrorism list. And as expected, I got a deluge of comments to the post. Here are some highlights: Apparently, according to commenter CNGS, some “intelligent folks” get that the MEK, a “group with a shinning [sic] record of close t[o] a half century of struggle against the Sheik and the Shah, having irrigated the tree of liberty with the blood of more than 120,000 martyrs,” is the best alternative to the mullahs now ruling Iran. After all, according to AH, the “MEK was put on terrorist list because of some lobbyist in Washington.”
… as for the lobbying that got the MEK on the list, all I can say is that they should have been on the list years before. Killing Americans in terrorist attacks merits a listing. Read the FBI report. I linked to it yesterday, here it is again. READ IT.

Then there were some other comments, in Alexgeorge1’s vein: He thinks that we “neocons better answer for the debacle you created in Iraq, handing that country to the terrorist mullahs of Iran on a silver platter.” Apparently, I also do wrong to reference my colleague Michael Rubin, whom Shahab accuses of writing “yellow journalism at best.” A few just helpfully offered “shame” on me.

Some comments in response; take them in the vein of helpful hints to the policy and etiquette impaired:

—Calling me names isn’t going to win me (or anyone) over to your cause.

—Organizations that used to be headquartered in Baghdad taking money from Saddam Hussein should probably shy away from the topic of Iraq. It might appear you miss dear old Saddam.

—Suggestions that the MEK was put on the terrorism list to appease Iran are well placed, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be on the terrorism list.

—Just because well-known people have taken up the cudgels for the MEK doesn’t whitewash the stain of American blood nor address the question of the group’s own record of Islamism, cult-like behavior, murder, terrorism, or money-laundering. I note that no one denied those points in my original piece.

June 19, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Blind support for MEK terrorists damages American diplomacy

There is something fundamentally wrong about the way the United States views the rest of the world and interacts with it. I would cite two incidents from the past week: In a Tuesday press conference at the White House with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Obama fielded a series of questions on the US economy’s impending “double dip recession” and other domestic issues, leaving Merkel standing by and looking completely useless. I have never quite understood why the American President somehow believes that a press conference to introduce a visiting head of state is an appropriate forum for questions totally unrelated to the bilateral relationship or the visitor. It smacks of an arrogance that is completely unrestrained by either common sense or civility.

On Friday Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California led a delegation from the House Foreign Affairs Committee in a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. During an hour and 40 minute meeting, Rohrabacher informed al Maliki that his committee is investigating the killing by Iraqi troops of 35 Iranian dissidents in April. Rohrabacher called it a likely crime against humanity. Rohrabacher also asked Iraq to repay some of the costs of the 2003 US invasion and the subsequent occupation. An Iraqi government spokesman responded that Iraq would pay not “a cent” and the Foreign Ministry then demanded that the delegation leave Iraq. The Iranians in question are members of the Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that found shelter in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It has been listed as a terrorist organization by the US government for the past ten years and has been implicated in the killing of Americans.

It seems that Rohrabacher and some fellow wingnuts to include Ileana Ros Lehtinen, the committee chairman, have a soft spot in their hearts for MEK because it is an enemy of the regime in Tehran. They have tried a number of times to get it delisted as a terrorist organization. Not coincidentally, the congressmen who are fond of MEK are also passionate supporters of Israel. My enemy’s enemy…

The point is that Rohrabacher and Obama fail to be guided by the Bobby Burns dictum to see ourselves as others see us. What Iraqis, whose country was invaded and in large part destroyed by the US, see is an arrogant and ignorant moron wrapped in congressional hubris who has done grave damage to them and is now asking that they should pay for it and even be indicted for war crimes when so many American crimes went unpunished. Germans watching the Obama-Merkel performance will understand that the US President was speaking to a media crowd that is so poorly informed and self-absorbed that they could not even come up with any decent questions for a respected and important visitor.

Philip Giraldi, American Conservative

June 18, 2011 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts