The Third View on Mujahedin Khalq

Britain says MKO in Camp Ashraf subject to Iraqi law

Britain says MKO in Camp Ashraf subject to Iraqi law – protected persons status not applicable

Iraq: Iran Britain says MKO in Camp Ashraf subject to Iraqi law - protected persons status not applicable

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Written answers and statements, 25 November 2009
Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department’s assessment is of the status in international law of the residents of Camp Ashraf, Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis (Minister of State (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Bury South, Labour)

Camp Ashraf is in a sovereign and democratic Iraq and the camp residents subject to its laws.

The UK is of the view that the residents of Camp Ashraf, as with all people in Iraq, enjoy rights and protections under the Iraqi constitution and applicable international obligations to which Iraq is a signatory. We do not consider that they have ‘protected persons’ status.

We do not feel a ministerial statement is necessary at this time.

House of Lords, London

November 30, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Iran, Iraq and People’s Mojahedin of Iran

PMOI or MEK, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran, military and sectarian organization protected by Saddam Hussein, had been unarmed after the fall of the dictator but kept warm by the troops of

The rear-Advanced base of People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), was besieged by Iraqi governmental forces.

the Anglo-Saxon occupation until July 28 2009, when the camp was taken over by Iraqi forces under the security agreement signed between Washington and Baghdad in November 2008.

In spring 2003, about 2,400 fighters trained and highly disciplined Mujahedeen had yet material offensive heavy artillery and tanks, providing a response force capable of operating independently to penetrate the Iranian territory as was the case during the offensive "Eternal Light" in summer 1988 launched just after the cease-fire
between Baghdad and Tehran.

Although it is designated as a terrorist organization, PMOI has openly, now more than ever, strong political support in European capitals.

Just like in Washington where remarkably organized and active lobbyists as the NCRI, the National Council of Resistance, serves as a showcase honorable organization for campaigns launched against the Islamic Republic. Their unofficial spokesman occupies an important place on the air Voice of America, whose broadcasts to Iran manage to escape, apparently, the classical interference.

Since even before the Revolution of 1979, when Zbgniew Brzezinski convinced President Carter to abandon Reza Shah, when it would betray an inclination to re-nationalization of oil, the U.S. had begun to support, even encourage terrorist activities of mujahideen-e Khalq in the prospect of establishing a "Republic of Iran oriented to federalism." A choice "federal" clearly preserved in the founding charter of the movement and whose implicit logic is that a collapse of the Iranian nation in autonomous provinces.

Regarding the apparent failure of U.S. policy over the last thirty years, in Iran and the region (a flop which also insist no further action), however, did not influence the U.S. administration for its objectives, or to waive or modify a project that somehow continues its cheerful way, making it gained new momentum with the opening of the nuclear weapons issue in 2004 through the PMOI / NCRI which is probably not a simple coincidence.

However, it seems that this is not purely humanitarian considerations which have prevailed only in the maintenance of troops, although unarmed,of PMOI in Iraqi Kurdistan, that until July 28, 2009 in the context of a "reorientation" U.S. policy towards Iran, while the Iraqi Parliament had voted for the evacuation of this basis since June 2007. The fact remains that the maintenance by the previous U.S. administration, an intervention force seasoned, albeit unarmed, but may be reactivated, is an aspect of the case that should be borne in mind. A supplementary force trained and disciplined, being able to remain operational by shorter delay, could, if necessary, participate in an attack on Iranian soil as was the case in 1989 shortly after the cease-fire between Iran and Iraq, although then the operation ended in a crushing defeat!

There is no reason that such an attempt might one day be repeated at a major military or political crisis or in case of conflict, similar to actions of PEJAK supported by the PPK, in order to open a diversion front on the west side of the security apparatus in Iran. This hypothesis is not absurd if one considers that other fastening operations could be triggered simultaneously, in the South, Khuzestan and in the East, Balochistan.

Besides, from Camp Ashraf, PMOI has long provided an important work of listening telecommunications Iranian (military and policies) for the Pentagon to continue the mission of intelligence made before 2003 in favor of the Baathist regime. PMOI also, through its networks and relays in the Western political class, possesses the ability to inject into the international media channels, information obtained through parallel channels such as NSA or the Shin Beth, allowing original sources, thereby, to remain in the shadows. A role of strategic intelligence collector, but, equally important, activity broadcaster, relay and echo chamber, which is essential in the context of indirect strategies implemented to create conditions for regime change and make evolve the Iranian nation towards federalism market.

Asked about its sources PMOI said to involve the private sector provider of strategic information, including free market in satellite images. Thus, the first revelations about Iran’s nuclear program, on August 14, 2002, were published by the channel of Ali Reza Jafarzadeh, an analyst assigned to the Fox News Channel and a member of the People’s Mujahedeen. Similarly Ali Safavi, also a member of the People’s Mujahedeen, who created, the Near East Policy Research, in London in 2003 and whose programs are focused on "human rights, regional threats such as terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the spread of religious extremism, the construction of democracy and economic challenges,” said in August 2002 in Vienna, at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),where shots on satellite images relating Iranian facilities has given the kickoff of the campaign against Iran since that date to today. International Campaign on the Iranian nuclear program, all constituting a potentially explosive could lead to "war" according to the French Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Dr. Kouchner, in September 2007!

Still, since December 3, 2007 and the NIE report, it is permissible to assume that these revelations about the offensive nature of Iran’s nuclear program could have been an element of manipulation among other active measures, initiated as part of an ambitious plan to destabilize the Islamic Republic. As previously mentioned, in the hypotheses of regime change in Iran, PMOI could be called to occupy a certain place – at least in the transition phase – the construction of a federal Iran, one organic ideas of the "Constitution" internal movement.

As a military organization (behind the scene of the political showcase more familiar for European officials), and like the PKK, PMOI remains clearly one of the assets available to the U.S. in their hidden war for the destabilizing of Iranian power. It is obviously not a mere academic speculation, but a geopolitical trend recorded in the long term contemporary and we see here and now effects, with evidence of the remarkable efficiency with which the U.S. Administration demonstrated in the case of the Balkans: in fact it only took fifteen years to complete, with the independence of Kosovo in February 2008, the dismantling of the Yugoslav Federation, a regional power and former purveyor of weapons of ‘Baathist Iraq.

PMOI, though deprived of its rear-advanced base in Iraqi territory, nonetheless an asset, an important card provided because of its organization and its penetration to the establishment Western European and North American ( regardless of the Ashraf camp wound properly, that is to say, in a timely manner according to the agenda of the Department of State) because it is expected to play a role similar to that of the Iraqi National Congress that Washington was instrumented in order to justify its invasion of Iraq in 2003. Irrespective of the fact that the May 7, 2009, one hundred and three MEPs from 24 Member States of the EU had sent a message to President Obama to ask him to imitate the European example by removing People’s Mujahedeen of Iran from the list of terrorist organizations.

Alterinfo.net – Translated by Nejat Society

November 29, 2009 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Saddamist lobby’s lies exposed in U.K. parliament

[Iran-Interlink – The MKO do not have Protected Persons status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The group has no legal status in Iraq. The U.N. has refused to give them refugee status in Iraq.

The Government of Iraq has stated that the relocation of the 3,400 MKO members in Camp Ashraf to a place distant from Iran’s borders is necessary for their safety. The MKO has violently resisted any attempts to enforce Iraqi law inside the camp.]

Iraq: Camp Ashraf — Question

All Lords debates on 23 Nov 2009

Saddamist lobby’s lies exposed in U.K. parliament
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale (Labour)
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Iraq about their threat to use force to relocate 3,400 Iranian dissident refugees at Camp Ashraf to elsewhere in Iraq.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, we encourage the Iraqi authorities and the Camp Ashraf leadership to find a lasting and acceptable solution for the future of the residents. We have relayed this message to the Iraqi Government at the highest levels, including to the Iraqi Prime Minister. Camp Ashraf is in a sovereign and democratic Iraq and, ultimately, decisions on the future location of the camp are for the Iraqi Government to resolve.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale (Labour)
Will my noble friend confirm that the United Kingdom supports the views of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the ICRC and the UNHCR that it would further breach international humanitarian law if Iraq carried out its threat to again use violent force against defenceless Iranian refugees at Ashraf, so adding to the toll of 11 dead and hundreds injured in its July assault? Will the Government join efforts to persuade Iraq to accept a UN monitoring force at Ashraf to help talks between Iraq and the residents on their future to continue in a calm atmosphere?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, in light of the tragic deaths of 11 people and many others injured at Camp Ashraf on 20 July, the Government have raised the issue with the Iraqi Government seeking a review of the event. We also raised the question of a UN presence in the camp.

That was acceded to in discussions between the PMOI and the Government of Iraq and is now established, with a mission that is monitoring human rights and the humanitarian situation at Camp Ashraf, liaising with American and Iraqi counterparts as well as with the PMOI, regularly reporting on the situation to the SRSG and the OHCHR in Geneva, and assessing the possibilities and the presence of enabling conditions by the GoI-the Government of Iraq-for a later deployment of UNHCR staff and other actions as required.

Lord Waddington (Conservative)
Perhaps the noble Lord can help on this. Did Her Majesty’s Government make representations to the Iraqi authorities about the blockade of Ashraf, subsequent to the attack in July, and about the outrageous situation in which the authorities prevented even doctors from entering the camp to look after people who had been injured in the attack, or are Her Majesty’s Government washing their hands of the whole matter and saying that they no longer have any real responsibility for the people of Ashraf as protected persons under the Geneva conventions? If it is the view of Her Majesty’s Government that they have no responsibility in that regard, how did they come to that conclusion?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
I refer the noble Lord to an answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, when I dealt with the whole question of the immunities that people believe exist but which do not exist in relation to Camp Ashraf. It is in sovereign Iraqi territory-a democratic state.

On the other hand, we do not resile at all from trying to ensure that humanitarian conditions exist and that assurances are kept that no one will be transferred from that camp to a country in which their lives are in danger. In that sense, we are clear about the issue. We are less clear about accusations, for which we have no independent authoritative evidence from the UN or anywhere else, that people are being prevented from having medicines and other things. If there is any hard evidence, I would be more than delighted to refer it to my Foreign Office colleagues for investigation.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Liberal Democrat)
Why is no European nation, or North America, willing to accept any of the residents of Camp Ashraf? May it have something to do with their previous activities? Is the Minister absolutely determined either to prove that the Camp Ashraf residents cannot return to the Islamic Republic of Iran or to press European nations to bring them out? What responsibility do the Iraqi Government have to keep these former enemies of the Iraqi people?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The noble Baroness raises a question that has undoubtedly been the subject of considerable discussion in Iraq. People in the camp probably find no favour in the country from which they came and little favour in the country of their adoption, given their previous adherence to the regime that has now been removed. The short answer is that no one outside the country seems to show any great enthusiasm for bringing in people in Camp Ashraf. Many of them may be innocent, but there are people in that camp with a clear history of attacks in Iran-attacks which they may have now abandoned-that makes them unpopular in that country and of support for a dictator that makes them equally unpopular in Iraq.

Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour)
My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that these people have protected person status under United Nations law? That being so, would it not be possible to persuade EU countries to provide these people with refuge? These are genuine refugees who deserve protection.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
Alas, it is not the case that people in Camp Ashraf have protected person status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. That has ceased to apply. That view is shared by the United Nations, the Government of Iraq, the United States and us. It is a mistake to believe that there is international protection for these individuals. However, that does not mean that we should abandon them to be subject to inhuman treatment or to be transferred to regimes in countries where their lives would be in danger.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I appreciate the clarification provided by the Minister regarding the status of these people in Camp Ashraf. However, in light of the Iraqi Government’s pledge that these people will not be forcibly repatriated to Iran, have Her Majesty’s Government been in any discussions with the Iraqi Government as to whether they might be given political asylum in this country?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
As I said, the UK Government have no locus in Iraq in relation to these people. The discussions have been held internationally through the United States, which had control prior to the ending of the Geneva Convention status. That status was given in the first place only because the Americans chose to accept and adopt it, rather than because there was any international obligation. It is clear that there is no nation-alas, it might be said-for these individuals outside the country that they are in, albeit that they are very reluctantly accepted; no other country is prepared to give residence status to them.

Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, following the violence that was perpetrated on residents of Camp Ashraf, Members of the House of Lords met the Minister, Ivan Lewis, who promised to make representations when he visited Iraq and to convey our concern. The Minister has given the answer in relation to making representations, but what was the response of the Iraqi Government?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The Iraqi Government agreed to put in place an inquiry, the results of which we do not know. My ministerial colleague Ivan Lewis will visit Iraq in December and will no doubt keep the promise that he made to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and colleagues to raise this issue at the highest level.

Lord Elton (Conservative)
My Lords, there are many settlements around the world of people who are unwelcome in the country from which they have fled and unwelcome in the country to which they have fled. The United Nations does a considerable job in getting them settled in third countries. What steps are we taking to assist that effort in this case?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The United Nations is seeking a solution to the problem but, as I hope I have explained, it is not easy when the country of origin sees the individuals as people who attack them and the country that they are in sees them as people who attack them. In that sense, we are protecting the humanitarian support for these individuals where they are and trying to ensure that they are humanely treated and not transported to other countries. But we have a very limited locus in this matter.

House of Lords, London

November 25, 2009 0 comments

Iraq

Maliki: No place for the Mojahedin Khalq in Iraq

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said he "no place for the MKO in Iraq."

According to a statement issued by Maliki’s office: "The Prime Minister today received the new President of the International Red Cross mission in Iraq McKenna Bart."

The statement quoted Maliki as saying:

"Our demand is fair, we do not force them to return to Iran and do not allow them to stay permanently in Camp Ashraf. There is no place for them in Iraq after the crimes they have committed against the Iraqi people by exercising their terrorism and because of their cooperation with the Baathists and their interference in Iraq’s domestic affairs."

On the issue of missing Kuwaitis, Maliki said: "The issue of missing Kuwaitis is humanitarian and not political, and we are fully prepared to cooperate with our brothers in Kuwait."

He continued: "We confirmed our commitment to cooperate on missing Kuwaiti property and money in letters previously to the United Nations and the Government of Kuwait, and seek to end this humanitarian issue, and seek to protect the integrity of the remains of any missing Kuwaitis."
He added: "Iraq has overcome many difficulties during the past two years, and [we see] the development and improvement on what the security situation was before."

For his part, according to the statement, the head of the Red Cross praised the developments witnessed by Iraq and Iraq’s commitment to resolving the issue of missing Kuwaitis, referring to the adoption of the International Committee of Red Cross’ joint efforts with the Iraqi government and its cooperation in this respect.

November 24, 2009 0 comments

Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

Maysan Council refuses to take PMOI base in the province

President of the Maysan province said on Thursday, the local government refuses to take the PMOI base in the province, that its presence on Iraqi territory is illegal.

Abdul Hussain Abdul Rida Saadi told a news conference, attended by an Aswat al-Iraq reporter, Mujahedin Khalq organization had a major role in suppressing the popular uprising that began in some areas of Iraq, including the province of Maysan that the local government in Maysan "rejects any presence of the PMOI on its territory due to the fact that its presence in Iraq is illegitimate," adding that the decision "taken by the Council, after receiving information that that the province of Maysan is a candidate among the three areas in Iraq to embrace the organization."

He pointed out that "the organization had a major role in suppressing the popular uprising that began in some areas of Iraq, including the province of Maysan," adding that "they had killed many people of the province during the popular uprising."

Moreover, a member of the security committee of the Board of Maysan, Maytham, told Aswat al-Iraq that "the presence of the MKO on the territory of Iraq is a violation of the constitution as a terrorist organization," indicating that the group "had a role in putting down the popular uprising in 1991 and killing of large number of rebels who were expressing their rejection of the policies of the former regime."

He pointed out that "There are documents and documentary tapes which stress that the organization carried out terrorist acts against people of the province and in coordination with the previous security which was aimed at the elimination of rebellion."

He stressed, "We as a local government, call for the expulsion of the organization from all Iraqi territory due to the fact that their presence is illegal and therefore contact with foreign countries should facilitate the deportation process."

The town of Amara, Maysan province, 390 kilometers south of Baghdad.

translated by Iran-Interlink

November 22, 2009 0 comments

Members of the MEK

Who Is Hassan Daioleslam?

In my last post, I noted that Hassan Daioleslam — the man at the center of the ongoing NIAC controversy — has been “said by multiple sources to be affiliated with the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK, or MKO) — a terrorist group (classified as such by the State Department) with close ties to the Saddam Hussein regime.” Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin is skeptical, accusing me of participating in a “Leftist smear-fest”. While I find her general tone rather overwrought, I do think that her request to provide more details to back up the claim is reasonable, so I’ve compiled a few statements (including two by former MEK members) concerning Daioleslam’s role in the group. I believe these statements show that suspicions about Daioleslam’s MEK ties are well-founded.

Massoud Khodabandeh, former MEK member who is now a leading expert on and critic of the group: “I can say without doubt that Hassan Daioleslam is a member of what I call for accuracy ‘the Rajavi cult’ [referring to MEK leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi]. In this respect he is obedient to the Rajavi leadership and would not act in a way inconsistent with their requirements and certainly not without their knowledge or consent (if not to say actual order). The term ‘membership’ describes his relationship to the Rajavis. The MKO, just like Al Qaida, does not have ‘membership cards’. But I doubt very much the MKO would deny that he is a member, just as they never have denied that Alireza Jafarzadeh is a member. Daioleslam’s writing is on the MKO websites. They do not publish just anyone’s writing. Only those obeying organisational constraints.”

Mohammad Hussein Sobhani, former high-ranking MEK member who the group held in solitary confinement for over eight years and then turned over to Saddam Hussein’s security forces for his dissent from offical MEK policies: “Hassan Daioleslam, who is also considered as a member of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (Rajavi Cult) had been under harsh criticism for a long time by the cult leader Massoud Rajavi because he would not leave the USA and join the cult under the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

But now, in the new circumstances in which the remnants of the Rajavi cult after the fall of Saddam Hussein find themselves in western countries, Hassan’s social position and his ability to speak English has grabbed the attention of Rajavi. He seems to be next in line to be consumed [for the group’s interests].” (Taken from a 2007 article by Sobhani; read the whole thing for a fuller description of the Daioleslam family’s deep involvement with the MEK. Daioleslam’s brother Hossein and sister Fatemeh are both leading MEK members.)

Mehdi Noorbaksh, professor of international affairs at Harrisburg University: “I know Daioleslam very closely and personally. He is not a journalist but a perfume merchant. He was a former member of MKO who was critical of the organization for many years. He was living in Europe for several years until he moved to the United States in Phoenix, Arizona. He was re-bought by MKO one more time and he is now active in selling and defending the positions of this terrorist organization. Those who know him know well that his commitment to MKO is opportunistic.”

Other knowledgeable parties have also spoken privately to me about Daioleslam’s MEK ties; anyone with further information they would like to share publicly should feel free to contact me.

For more background on the MKO, see the State Department’s description of the group on its terrorism page. Human Rights Watch also released a report in 2005 detailing the group’s record of subjecting dissident members to torture and solitary confinement.

Founded as a militant group with an ideology combining aspects of Islam and Marxism, the group is frequently described today as “cult-like,” built around a personality cult centered on leader Maryam Rajavi. The State Department notes that members are “required to undertake a vow of ‘eternal divorce’ and participate in weekly ‘ideological cleansings,’” and that “children are reportedly separated from parents at a young age.” After Rajavi was arrested in France in 2003 on suspicions of plotting terrorism, MKO members throughout Europe protested by setting themselves on fire; two of them died.

The group’s hatred of the Islamic Republic led it to ally with Saddam Hussein, and it fought on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Following the Gulf War, “the group reportedly assisted in the Iraqi Republican Guard’s bloody crackdown on Iraqi Shia and Kurds who rose up against Saddam Hussein’s regime; press reports cite MEK leader Maryam Rajavi encouraging MEK members to ‘take the Kurds under your tanks,’” according to the State Department. The group’s alliance with Saddam made it widely despised among the Iranian community at large, as it remains to this day.

However, its militant anti-Iranian stance has made it a favorite of hawks in Washington. Several of them — most notably Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) — participated in a 2005 Washington conference in support of the group. The same year also saw the founding of the pro-MEK Iran Policy Committee, headed by Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). The MEK’s neoconservative supporters continue to push for it to be taken off the State Department terror list, which it has been on since 1997. One of the many ironies about the MEK is that, for all the groundless allegations that hawks made about Saddam Hussein’s connections to terrorist groups during the runup to the Iraq war, the terrorist group with perhaps the closest links to Saddam was one that the hawks themselves supported.

So it seems that the neoconservatives who have gotten in bed with Daioleslam may have some explaining to do. If he is indeed an MEK operative, as the evidence strongly suggests, then he is, to say the least, a rather unlikely standard-bearer for the cause of democracy and human rights in Iran.

By Daniel Luban – Cross-posted on The Faster Times

November 21, 2009 0 comments

Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

Muthanna provincial council refused the transfer of Camp Ashraf to Samawah

Muthanna provincial council refused a government request for the transfer of Camp Ashraf to Samawah

Samawah: The Muthanna provincial council has refused a government request to transfer [the Muthanna provincial council refused a government request for the transfer of Camp Ashraf to Samawah residents of] Camp Ashraf to the province of Muthanna, noting that they are known as the "hypocrites organisation" who have committed crimes against the Iraqi people and that they will disturb the security of the province.

A source in the provincial council, told our news reporter that "a request from a government committee came to the province for the transportation of Camp Ashraf to the province." Adding that, "the unequivocal request was turned down by the Department to maintain compliance with its Council and the Mayor when he told the President of the Council that "the hypocrites organisation" committed crimes against the Iraqi people and contributed actively to and were substantially involved in the suppression of the popular uprisings of 1991 in the south and north."

The source, who declined to be named, said: "The rejection of the Commission’s request matched the view that the" hypocrites organisation" will be a heavy burden on the people of this province which is peaceful and quiet." He added that "the existence of Camp Ashraf, especially in the countryside of Samawah would present major threats to its security and destabilize the province".

Akhbar News, Iraq

November 18, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

France-Iran: the people’s Mujahedin in a vise

Alongside the nuclear issue, the presence of the MEK, Marxist-inspired movement opposed to the Iranian regime, in France, poisoned relations between Paris and Tehran.

Sheltered by France, opponents of the regime in Tehran are seeking to benefit from the strength of Nicolas Sarkozy against Iran on the nuclear issue to distract their terrorist past. Driven from their country shortly after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, three to four thousand members of the Organization of the People’s Mujahedeen (PMOI/MEK/MKO), a movement of Marxist and Islamic, took refuge in Auvers-sur-Oise, near Paris. From there they continue to work for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. "How France Can pretend to fight against terrorism, while it hosts a movement that it considers terrorist, and who stands for nothing among the opposition to our government?" offended a diplomat at the Iranian Embassy in Paris.

Hard to believe that the Mujahideen can shake the Revolutionary Guards off from their humble headquarters in Auvers, with its two suburban houses and ten prefabricated buildings, hidden behind a green fence along the Oise. Protected and monitored by police, forty activists are employed full time. The morning of our visit, two women wearing khaki head scarves, made the day on the Internet. On the corner, a filmmaker was reporting propaganda from images broadcasted from London by their TV (Iran National TV) that the Iranians secretly watch on cable.

Since she had to renounce the armed attacks on Iranian soil in 2001, the MEK has decided on information war against Tehran. Before the visitor, old ladies tell tearful memories of their son, brothers or husbands, killed by the Iranian security services. At lunchtime, the small community is reflected in the canteen around a chello kebab (grilled lamb with rice), which recalls the homeland. " I have supported these terrorists For thirty years!" Smiles Jean-Pierre Guillou, a neighboring retired.

But let there be no mistake: behind the seeming modesty of its facilities, the MEK is a movement still rich. Especially well-organized. From their offices in London, Berlin or Washington, riding the wrong image of the Iranian regime, the Mujahideen seek to rebuild their virginity. And the results are significiant. Earlier this year, thanks to intense lobbying of MEPs, the MEK has got to be removed from the list of terrorist organizations of the European Union. In France, his support network is impressive: former head of the DST (Yves Bonnet), the widow of a former President of the Republic (Danielle Mitterrand), a former Prime Minister (Édith Cresson) and a host of deputies and senators, signed numerous petitions addressed the press.

While the street go up in flames in Tehran, the Mujahideen are dreaming to harvest a share of the firmness displayed by Nicolas Sarkozy against the Iranian government. He is the former Minister of Interior, which launched in 2003, the vast police operation against their headquarters in Auvers. "We welcome today Nicolas Sarkozy, there is no other option facing a dictatorship," says Mohammad Mohandessine, one of the leaders. "But if he was rational with himself, the president should release the pressure on us.

Unfortunately, the hostility of France towards us has not changed, "laments that also. Officially, the Mujahideen are a dangerous cult, able to use the sacrifices, as in 2003 near DST’s headquarters in Paris. The influence of their leader, Maryam Rajavi, its supporters said then frightened police, who were placed in custody. "She threatened us, claiming she was more a mother to them, it was enough to lift a finger for them to sacrifice themselves by fire, said a police officer. When, at our request, ordered her troops to stop their protests, she made them pass a coded message, which was immediately acted upon. It is not income."

Human Torches

Between France and the Mujahideen, the dispute remains heavy. From Auvers, the MEK sent its fighters with GPS to infiltrate into Iran from their home base at Ashraf in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was protecting them, while using them as his tools. Opponents also claim for France since the anti-Iranian operations in the United States that still regards the group as a terrorist organization. Worse, during the police operation in 2003, DST put his finger on their war treasury: communication equipments, encrypted documents, but also a part of their archives, with descriptions of their equipments, and – icing on the cake – the details of their participation in anti-Kurdish repression conducted by the regime of Saddam Hussein in spring 1991. Documents placed on file with the judge on terrorism crimes Marc Trévidic was welcomed at the highest point by the Iranian authorities, whose discrete offers of cooperation have been rebuffed by the French courts. Lastly found: nine million dollars in cash, some freshly cut out of the Central Bank of Iraq, their main sponsor at the time.

And today? Tehran accuses the Mujahideen have created fictitious computer companies for money laundering and engaged in a real racket through NGOs. But it is only in France that their funds are blocked. Some Gulf Arab countries hostile to Iran, could still finance them. The movement’s leaders deny these "accusations of terrorism and terrorist financing." A cult? "We must defend ourselves properly. Iranian agents are trying to infiltrate." The money? "It comes from the Iranians themselves, and it is quite legitimate for an opposition movement in exile." The sacrifices by fire? "They were the work of individuals, who responded to the disproportionate use of force by the French police."

Iran and its enemies are at least agree on one point: why six years after the police operation in Auvers, and the indictment of 17 leaders of the Mujahideen, the French Justice Has not yet delivered his trial? "If the French do not want trial, they speak at least one non-place," insists Afshin Alavi, another of their leaders, for whom the investigation file is empty. "Unfortunately, the shadow of politics hangs over this matter," says, for his part, the Iranian diplomat cited.

For twenty years, the Mujahideen are a card in the hands of French authorities. In 1987, to curry favor with Iran pulling the strings of the hostage situation in Lebanon, the government of Jacques Chirac expelled their leader, Massoud Rajavi, to Ashraf. Fifteen years later, in 2003 exactly, again to appease Tehran, before a major tour devoted to nuclear power, the Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin called for "shutdown" of Auvers. Now that France is engaged in a standoff with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, not about to discard, without consideration of this map. But in case of abandonment, it is due to fear of seeing human torches in the streets of Paris again. In the immediate future, citing reasons of security, France has said no to U.S. demands to host Mujahideen, which Iraq does not want to stay in Ashraf. Galvanized by the Iranian revolt, the MEK swear that the "big night" is near. "Our men are on the march to protest against the rigged election of Ahmadinejad as President of the Republic," says Afshin Alavi.

Network of supporters

If the Mujahideen have no operational capability within Iran, they have preserved, however, a network of supporters, whose recruitment has been facilitated through the opening under the presidency of reformist Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005). "unhappy people are easier to enlist," says Mohammad Mohandessine. The MEK had its heyday August 14, 2002, when it revealed the existence of the plant to enrich uranium at Natanz, 200 km south of Tehran.

A scoop relayed by Ali Reza Jafarzadeh, an analyst assigned to the American channel Fox News, and member of the Mujahideen. A real scoop or information delivered by a Western service to enhance the credibility of opponents of the mullahs? Doubt persists. One thing is certain: Iran sees red at the mere declaration on the Mujahideen. "Why such a fixation on us if we do not represent any threat?" Wondered Afshin Alavi.

In the wake of the U.S. war in Iraq, the Iranian regime proposed the U.S. an exchange: "We deliver the members of al-Qaida that we recovered while fleeing Afghanistan after September 11, 2001; in exchange, you submit the 3 000 Mujahideen Ashraf."Washington turned a deaf ear, preferring to keep the MEK card for all practical purposes.

Georges Malbrunot

November 18, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

NIAC issues statement against MKO misinformation campaign

NIAC Stands by its Record of Pursuing Peace Through Diplomacy

The following statement was issued by NIAC in response to today’s article in the Washington Times:

Washington DC – NIAC is proud of its work to advance US national security through a smarter and more effective policy on Iran. NIAC rejects the insinuations made by Washington Times that its activities are in violation of tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws.

NIAC has provided tens of thousands of documents and all its financial records in order to prosecute a defamation case against Hassan Dai. Those documents prove the allegations made against NIAC are completely false. The judge denied Dai’s motion to dismiss the case on 18 out of 19 counts. Realizing this, the defendants have decided to maliciously leak those documents to a reporter at the Washington Times, Eli Lake, in an attempt to litigate the case in the media rather than in a court of law.

NIAC is a 501 (c)3 educational organization representing Americans of Iranian descent. It engages in educational, advocacy and limited lobbying activities in accordance with US laws and regulations. NIAC does not lobby on behalf of the Islamic Republic. NIAC advocates on behalf of the Iranian-American community, who overwhelmingly oppose the policies of the government of Iran.

Mr. Lake’s article does not present any evidence for any of its claims and stops short of making any direct accusations. Instead, it makes insinuations and engages in conspiratorial speculation, presumably with the aim of sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of the public about NIAC and fabricating a controversy around the organization.

This follows by now a familiar pattern in which neo-conservative activists have sought to smear and defame NIAC by making accusations, innuendos and speculation, without providing any evidence to back their claims.

In fact, evidence is to the contrary. Why would Ambassador John Limbert, a former hostage imprisoned for 444 days by the government in Iran, join the advisory board of an organization that supposedly represents the interests of the very same government that imprisoned him? This claim is illogical at best and ludicrous at worst.

Mr. Lake has selectively focused on emails and documents that fit with his pre-determined verdict against NIAC. Though the basis of Lake’s article is misinformation about NIAC provided by Hassan Dai, Lake did not ask a single question about our lawsuit, why it was filed, our understanding of Dai’s political motivations and Dai’s connections to the Iranian terrorist organization, the Mujahedin-e Khalq. NIAC encouraged Lake to investigate the evidence of Dai’s role in the Mujahedin-e Khalq. However, Lake declined to investigate his own sources.

It is clear that some neo-conservative elements wish to divide the Iranian Diaspora at a time when unity is needed more than ever for the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people to be achieved. While some prominent figures in the Iranian Diaspora have misunderstood NIAC’s activities, we are reaching out to them and we refuse to walk into this trap of pitting members of the community against each other.

NIAC has given the Iranian-American community a powerful voice in Washington DC that has effectively pushed for greater focus on human rights in Iran, opposed war between the US and Iran, opposed broad-based sanctions that hurt the Iranian people while strengthening its hard-line government, and supported diplomacy between the two countries to resolve their differences in a peaceful manner.

November 14, 2009 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Tensions in Iranian Exile Camp Ashraf in Iraq

CAMP ASHRAF, Iraq — There seems, as with many problems in Iraq, no good answer for Camp Ashraf, as tensions here rise and American soldiers get closer to leaving: what to do with the few thousand Iranian dissidents here trained in explosives and proficient with tanks and machine guns who have sworn to overthrow the government in Tehran?

(Giti Zardestian, with a portrait of her son, and Reza Nawrozi, right, both from Iran, said that they had been waiting nine days to see relatives at Camp Ashraf)

The group that lives here, the People’s Mujahedeen, has had a long and winding history. It killed Americans, supported the takeover of the United States Embassy in Iran during the 1970s and was given sanctuary in Iraq by Saddam Hussein. But after the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the group was protected by the United States after supplying information about Iran’s nuclear program. Still, the United States regards it as a terrorist organization.

The Iraqi government, allied with the group’s enemy, Iran, is now losing patience: In July, the Iraqi Army launched a raid on the camp with the purpose of establishing a police station there. Police officers and soldiers opened fire and ran over people with military vehicles, killing 11 and wounding more than 500. The government wants to throw the group out of Iraq.

“That’s our goal, to get them out of the country,” Ali al-Alak, an adviser to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, said in a recent interview. “We have enough to worry about.”

A standoff has been in place since the deaths in July, though both Iraqis and members of Camp Ashraf worry about a new round of violence if a solution is not found soon.

Among other complaints, members of the camp say that the Iraqi Army intermittently blocks fuel and food from reaching them and prevents them from coming and going.
Iraq has prohibited news organizations and most humanitarian groups from entering Camp Ashraf since the July raid, but the government allowed a reporter and photographer inside the camp last week to interview its members and their relatives.

During the visit, the tension between the group and Iraqi security forces was conspicuous. The Iraqi police and army units said they generally stayed in a police station set up after the raid and had little contact with the camp for fear of being attacked.

Large sections of the 14-square-mile camp were patrolled by unarmed camp members. United States soldiers were also seen at the camp.

While Ashraf’s residents said that Iraqi forces had been doing the bidding of Iran, Iraqi Army officers described the members of the People’s Mujahedeen as being in a cultlike thrall to their leaders, too frightened to leave or to speak to Iraqi police officers and soldiers.

“It is not a civil society,” said Col. Saadi Habib al-Duleimi, who oversees the camp. “It is a complex political-military system. Personal opinion is not important. Decisions are not up to the individual. If a leader at the camp tells you to die, you will die.”

The camp resembles a small military town — only neater. It has an artificial lake, sports fields, a shopping mall, a hospital and rows of poplars. Some structures, including a mosque, are replicas of buildings in Iran.

In one of Ashraf’s parks there is a set of large swings but not a child in sight. Camp leaders say the children were moved out years ago because of the military nature of the group, which in the past has launched attacks into Iran, has assassinated Iranian officials and has come under fire from Iranian rockets.

Since the raid, the camp has been in limbo.

The United Nations and Iraq have been seeking countries willing to accept Ashraf’s residents, but they have had a difficult time persuading governments. Most residents say being returned to Iran, where most of them have citizenship, is out of the question because they would be executed.

But residents also say that life at the camp since the raid has become intolerable.

“The situation has deteriorated; people are in a constant worry,” said Hossein Moradi, 46, an electrical engineer who has lived in the camp for 22 years. “We need a guarantee that Ashraf will not be attacked again.”

In a recent statement, the United Nations said that “efforts are now needed on all sides to reduce tension and look for solutions,” calling on “the international community to provide all possible assistance in this regard, including resettlement to third countries.”

During the visit to Ashraf, a group of families had been waiting for days outside the camp’s gates to see relatives. The Iraqi Army would not allow them, and the residents refused to go to the camp’s entrance.

The accounts of the family and of the camp members were remarkable in their dissimilarity: While the relatives said their loved ones had been kidnapped or tricked into joining, Ashraf residents said they were there willingly.

Nisreen Lufti Zada, 60, said she had been waiting at the camp for nine days to visit her daughter, Susan Banihashimi, 45. “She had nothing to do with politics or activities against the Iranian government,” Mrs. Zada said. “I have no idea why she came here.”

During a visit five years ago, she said, her daughter “had been afraid of everything — even the walls around her.”

But on this day, Ms. Banihashimi was a picture of poise. Some of her responses, as well as those of other Ashraf residents, sounded mechanical. “I voluntarily left Iran,” Ms. Banihashimi said. “I was on the verge of being executed because of my activities.”

Asked why she had refused to see her mother, Ms. Banihashimi said her mother had been compelled by the Iranian intelligence service to come so it would appear that Ms. Banihashimi was being held against her will.

“It is better I don’t see her, although I would love to see her, because then the Iranian regime would then put even more pressure on her,” she said.

Mrs. Zada had said that her daughter had been gang raped by Ashraf leaders and that similar acts happened to other women there. But Ms. Banihashimi said no such thing had happened.

“Their allegations are not new,” she said. “It is one of the dirty plots of the Iranian regime to try to break the will of women.”

Two days later, mother and daughter met, but Ms. Banihashimi said the reunion had been tense.

“Once she realized I wasn’t ready to come back, she insulted me and slapped me in the face,” she said. They did not decide on whether to meet again.

Reporting was contributed by Riyadh Mohammed and Mohammed Hussein from Baghdad, and Sa’ad Izzi and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Diyala Province.

TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

November 11, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts