The Third View on Mujahedin Khalq

CIA budget to supply and train MKO(Proscribed as a terrorist organisation in US!) in Iraq

The United States is clandestinely funding militant groups within Iran’s borders to destabilize the country, The Daily Telegraph says.

According to the daily, CIA officials are secretly funding militias among the numerous ethnic minorities clustered in Iran’s border regions in order to mount pressure on the country to give up its nuclear program.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA’s classified budget but is now”no great secret”, according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington speaking anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

“The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilize the Iranian regime,”said Fred Burton, a former US State Department counter-terrorism agent.

Some of the groups have resorted to terrorist methods. These include the notorious Mujahedin Khalq Organization [MKO] which has a long and bloody history of targeting Iranian civilians and government officials alike.

Another group claimed to be supported by the CIA is the Jundullah organization known for attacking high-profile Iranian targets, especially government and security officials.

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Tehran has long maintained that it has detected the hand of both US and Britain in guerrilla attacks on internal security forces.

Daily Telegraph, reported by Press TV, February 24, 2008 -http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=44463&sectionid=351020101

February 26, 2008 0 comments

USA

The Irony of ‘Appeasement’

Abetting Terrorism and Treason, Promoting Aggression on Iran

There is no irony in appeasement, according to major media who, on February 20 and 21, reported on a press conference held in Brussels by the National Council of Resistance of Iran. From an Associated Press account:

in exiled Iranian opposition group claimed Wednesday that Tehran was speeding up a program to develop nuclear weapons.”The Iran regime entered a new phase in its nuclear project,”said Mohammad Mohaddessin of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran.

The NCRI is the political wing of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, which advocates the overthrow of government in Tehran. The Mujahedeen has been designated a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union as well as Iran. [1]

The PMOI”a.k.a., the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MeK)”made the same claim in December 2002. The allegation then”that the Iranian regime was enriching uranium at weapons-grade level within secret facilities”turned out to be only partially (and irrelevantly) true: the facilities existed (not a violation in itself), but contrary to the group’s claims, were not weapons-production sites. Still, the information from the MeK”contrived in conjunction with Israeli entities”was used by U.S. hawks to pass sanctions against Iran. But their case has been so weak; the neocons have had to use blatant coercion to persuade UNSC nations to vote in favor.

The most notable and dangerous in all this is that the unproven MeK-Israeli, nuclear weapons claim is the basis for the main finding of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate: that Iran had”halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.”Iran never had a weapons program”at least not one that has been confirmed by U.S. intelligence, the IAEA, or anyone else but Iranian”dissidents”and Israelis and neocons, i.e., the ones who have been wrong all along.

Further deconstruction of the Iranian nukes fraud and the neocons’ nuclear shakedown of Iran:

Iran was late in reporting which is a Safeguard issue. . . . Tehran voluntarily stopped the process of enriched uranium; it also allowed the IAEA to carry out intrusive, spot inspections. No country has allowed as many inspection hours as Iran. [Tehran] proposed to operate Iran’s enrichment program as joint ventures with private and public sector firms from other countries; this would ensure that the program remained transparent and could not be secretly diverted for military purposes, at the same time it would maintain Iran’s sovereignty by having an indigenously enriched uranium cycle . . . Although this was rejected, Iran continued to cooperate.

Iran suspended its enrichment activities for two and half years, but each time under pressure from the U.S., the burden of proof was transferred to Iran knowing the negative could not be proved. [2]

‘Coverage’

All this occurs, when in fact no evidence has ever been verified that supports the weapons charge, as AP surprisingly points out (albeit in the last two sentences of the story and about a year late on the timeline). What media always fail to mention, however, is that the lack of damning proof of an Iranian weapons program, then and now, undercuts the misleading NIE conclusion and the nuclear leg of the neocons’ aggressive campaign.

by omitting such vital facts, major media are perpetuating the prevailing U.S.-Israeli-NCRI conjecture, asserting that Tehran had a viable nuclear weapons program at one time, has resumed it, and is now accelerating the manufacturing process.

In that regard, news media are lying and abetting terrorism and treason. Terrorism, because all individuals who harbor, fund, arm, train, feed, or employ terrorists are terrorists (George Bush’s words not mine). Treason, because the Mek and their handlers in and around the U.S. government are violating U.S. and international law and constantly lying to the people of the United States and the world in an effort to drum up support for further violent insurrection and aggressive war in the Middle East.

Nothing dubious here

Major news media conceal the U.S. government’s dubious relations with the MeK. It is of no consequence that the United States has been harboring, funding, training, and employing U.S.-designated terrorist groups in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East. [3] [4] [5]

Some news media provide extra”coverage”by inserting a misleading historical context in an effort to soften the image of the Iranian”opposition group.”From the EU Observer’s report on the NCRI press conference:

[T]he PMOI was persecuted by the Iranian government, with thousands of their members killed. They were subsequently sheltered by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. [6]

The insinuation that the”persecut[ion]”was unprovoked is absurd. Prosecuted is more like it, according to the U.S. State Department:

According to a 2003 report by the State Department,”During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran.¦ The MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials.¦ In 1991, it assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia and Kurdish uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north.”In other words, the MEK was a terrorist group”one that took its orders from Saddam Hussein. [7]

But to”mainstream”news media, it doesn’t matter that the same Iranian opposition group with a history of committing terrorism on U.S. and Iranian civilians is relied upon as the means to justify and accomplish the neocons and the Mek’s mutual ends of regime-change and resource procurement in Iran.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, spokesman for the MeK, has appeared intermittently over the past few years as a”Middle East Expert,”or”Terror Expert,”on CNN and Fox. Of course there’s never a hint as to his affiliation with the MeK, much less its terrorist designation. But hey, how can he be a terrorist when he heads his own D.C.-based think-tank!

Nothing illicit here

The most thoroughly unreported facts about U.S.-Iranian affairs are the most incriminating ones.

The Algiers Accords, signed by Iran and the United States on January 19, 1981, clearly states,”The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”[8 (.pdf)]

Yet, from the Iraq-Iran War, during which the United States funded Saddam Hussein and supplied him with WMDs which he then used against Iranâ€”to the current war build-up against Iran, whereby groups like the MeK and Jundallah are being harbored, funded, and employed”the laundry list of Algiers Accords violations by the United States is long and ugly. And every violation is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which states that such contracts are to be treated as law of the land.

Move along, folks

One of the most irony-deficient (and shamelessly self-effacing) examples of U.S.-Iran media coverage came in the Observer’s uncritical account of the NCRI’s use of fallacious war propaganda to emotionally blackmail and upbraid the EU into taking a more aggressive stance toward Iran:

Referring to the”huge trade”between Europe and Iran, Mr Mohaddessin said:”The EU is trying to achieve security through appeasing the Iranian regime. The EU is appeasing the Iranian regime and it is a disaster for the Iranian people. You remember what happened in the 1930s? They carried out exactly the same policy with Hitler that the EU is doing now with the Iranian regime.”[9]

This reality-inversion of a comparison is trumpeted almost exclusively by fringe pro-war elements within and around U.S. and Israeli governments and in”pro-western”think-tanks; the other 99.7% of the world laughs it off, knowing that the only Middle Eastern regime with a modern history of aggressive war and secret nuclear weapons production is the one in Israel.

In 1986, former Israeli nuclear facility worker, Mordechai Vanunu, revealed to a foreign news news reporter that Israel was developing nuclear weapons in secret facilitiesâ€”a confirmation of what the rest of the world had already hypothesized. He was kidnapped by Mossad agents in Italy, charged with treason, and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Unlike the MeK and others, he didn’t confide in or collaborate with a foreign government, and wasn’t revealing information that wasn’t already known outside of Israel. Nevertheless, he has been a political prisoner for the last 21 years. Even his 2004 release gave him little freedom: he is not allowed to leave the country and is under, among other restrictions, curfew and gag order, not allowed to talk to foreigners. [10]

Although Vanunu’s claims about Israel’s illicit nuclear weapons program were true and were made on moral and legal grounds”and the treatment he has received is unlawful and at times barbaric his story is still ignored by mainstream media.

the other hand, the NCRI-MeK is a U.S.-designated terror organization with a verified history of terrorism against Iranian and U.S. targets and treason against their people; yet they are treated by the U.S. government and major news media as trustworthy allies, and their flawed, Israeli-assisted intelligence is considered more credible than that of any U.S. intelligence agency.

And to top it all: By not giving in to U.S.-Israel-MeK demands for aggression toward Iran”the demands of U.S. and EU-branded terrorists”the EU is”appeasing the Iranian regime.”Such is the criminal hypocrisy of deceptive and aggressive war, and the irony of appeasement.

[1] Raf Casert (AP):”Group Claims Iran Speeding Up Nuke Plans”: Associated Press: February 20, 2008 http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080221/D8UUE8RG0.html

[2] Soraya Sepaphour-Ulrich:”Iran Intelligence Report: Another Psychological Warfare?”: CounterCurrents: December 5, 2007 http://www.countercurrents.org/ulrich051207.htm

[3] Rostam Pourzal:”Who Among Iranians Fears the NIE?”: ZNet: December 19, 2007

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14540Â§i..15

[4] Ardeshir Ommani:”U.S. Support for Terror in Iran”: CASMII: April 10, 2007

www.campaigniran.org

[5] Larisa Alexandrovna:”On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say”: The Raw Story: April 13, 2006

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_

intelligence_gathering_0413.html

[6] Leigh Phillips (euobserver.com):”Iran opposition group accuses EU of ‘appeasement'”: EU Observer: February 20, 2008 http://euobserver.com/9/25698

[7] Craig Unger:”From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq”: Vanity Fair: March 2007 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703?printable=trueÂ¤tPage=all

[8] Algiera, the United States & Iran:”The Algiers Accords”: Pars Times: Accessed on February 22, 2008 http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf

More on the 1981 Algiers Accords and the neocons:”US Wants to Have It Both Ways on Iranian Nonintervention Pact,”by Reese Erlich http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/29/5503/

[9] Phillips/EU Observer

[10] Eileen Fleming:”The Vanunu Saga: 2008″: We Are Wide Awake: February 2008

by Dan Alba, wearewideawake.org

February 26, 2008 0 comments

British Government fights to keep ban on main Iranian opposition group (MKO)

The government is to appeal today against a court ruling, won by 35 MPs and peers, that it should remove the People’s Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI), the main Iranian opposition organisation, from the list of banned terrorist organisations.

The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) ruled last November that the government’s decision to keep the PMOI on the list was "perverse", flawed and must be set aside.

The cross-party parliamentarians backing the delisting of the PMOI – an organisation dedicated to overthrowing Iran’s fundamentalist regime by democratic means – include a former law lord, Lord Slynn, two former solicitors general and a former home secretary, Lord Waddington.

The POAC, a body set up by the government to hear appeals from organisations on the UK blacklist, ruled that the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, acted illegally in refusing to take the PMOI off the list drawn up under the Terrorism Act 2000.

The commission, chaired by former high court judge Sir Harry Ognall and cleared to see secret material, said: "We recognise that a finding of perversity is uncommon." It added: "We believe, however, that this commission is in the (perhaps unusual) position of having before it all of the material that is relevant to this decision."

Three senior judges headed by the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, will hear the home secretary’s appeal. The POAC ruled that in deciding to maintain the ban the Home Office had misunderstood the law and ignored facts. The commission concluded that action by the PMOI against Iranian targets had ended in 2001, that the organisation maintained no military structure, that it had disarmed in 2003, and that it had not attempted to re-arm.

However, the government argues that it has only temporarily ceased terrorism for "pragmatic reasons". A Home Office spokesman said: "The PMOI was engaged in terrorism until 2001, and until 2003 kept an extensive arsenal at its base in Ashraf, Iraq. It is now seeking to establish itself as a non-violent democratic movement.

"However, our assessment is that the PMOI may not have genuinely renounced terrorism and that there may have been only a temporary cessation of terrorist acts for pragmatic reasons. We believe there is a risk of the PMOI returning to terrorism in the future that warrants its continuing proscription in this country."

The organisation, which campaigns for the replacement of the Iranian regime by a secular democracy, drew the world’s attention to Iran’s nuclear programme in 2002. Jack Straw stated in 2006 that he had put the PMOI on the terror list at the behest of the Iranian government.

The POAC’s ruling followed a decision in December 2006 by the European Court of First Instance that the PMOI should come off the EU terror blacklist. Despite that ruling, it remains on the EU list.

Masoud Zabeti, a solicitor at Mishcon de Reya and chairman of the Committee of Anglo-Iranian Lawyers, said: "The PMOI now has two legal authorities finding in its favour, but the group still remains on both the UK and EU lists.

"If terrorism legislation is to be respected and not brought into question, it is critical that the government honours the procedures that parliament has put into place to deal with such matters."

Clare Dyer, legal editor The Guardian, Monday February 18 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/18/iran.uksecurity

February 24, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Four Mojahedin-e Khalq combatants arrested in Iraq

BAGHDAD – Iraqi police arrested 31 Shiite activists Saturday in early morning raids south of Baghdad, and five American soldiers were killed in two roadside bombings, officials said. The U.S. troops were killed Friday – four in Baghdad and one in the northern Tamim province, the military said. At least 3,958 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. Saturday marked a third day of U.S. and Iraqi operations in an area that includes several Shiite holy cities – raising tension with some Shiite tribesmen and fighters who have pledged to halt attacks. Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered a six-month cease-fire for his Mahdi Army militia, but some members have broken away and violated the pledge, which expires later this month. U.S. and Iraqi forces say they are targeting rogue, criminal elements of his and other militias. But several Shiite imams, during Friday prayers, suggested Iraqi forces were taking advantage of the cease-fire to crack down on rival groups. Al-Sadr has threatened not to extend his cease-fire unless the government purges rival Shiite militiamen he alleges have infiltrated the security forces and are targeting his followers. Fifteen of Saturday’s arrests took place in Karbala, a Shiite holy city 50 miles south of Baghdad, where Shiite Islam’s two most revered saints are buried. Another 16 men were arrested in a Sadrist area of Nasiriyah, about 200 miles southeast of the capital, police said. Rahman Mshawi, spokesman for Karbala police, said four of the Karbala suspects are members of the Iraq-based People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, or Mujahedeen Khalq. The group was founded in the late 1960s and fled to Iraq in the early 1980s after it fell out with the clerical regime of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, the movement used Iraq as a base for operations against Iran’s government. Thousands of its members remain in Iraq, and both the U.S. and Iraq consider the Khalq a terrorist organization. In addition to the Khalq members, Mshawi said five others detained Saturday belong to a Shiite cult group. He did not elaborate or give details about the group. The remaining six suspects were "wanted men," Mshawi said. Meanwhile north of Baghdad, Iraqi police said a local al-Qaida in Iraq leader was killed in his home, and 12 decomposed bodies were discovered in a mass grave. Abu Omar al-Dori resisted police for about an hour before he was killed around 4 a.m. in his house in downtown Samarra, a police officer said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media. Samarra is a mostly Sunni town about 60 miles north of the Iraqi capital. According to Iraqi police, al-Dori had been assigned to lead al-Qaida in Iraq operations in Samarra just one week ago. It was unclear whether his predecessor was killed or captured. Farther east near Baqouba, a joint patrol of Iraqi police and soldiers found a mass grave with 12 bodies, including three of women, according to police and morgue officials. The bodies were found in the al-Ehaimer area on the outskirts of Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of the capital. The U.S. military had no immediate comment on either incident. Meanwhile, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani traveled Saturday to Najaf, another Shiite holy city south of Baghdad, to meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most prominent cleric. It was unclear whether the meeting was scheduled in light of the recent Shiite arrests. Talabani was expected to hold a news conference later Saturday By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, The Associated Press -2008-02-09

February 12, 2008 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO and Dwindling of Alien Support

It goes without saying that Rajavi resorted to armed struggle expecting the support of international and foreign powers. Rajavi’s visit to France in early 1981, where he was given a glad hand winning propaganda support and facilities for settlement, was followed with declaration of military phase. It is evident that all such activities on the part of France aimed at exploiting Mojahedin in order to make due political changes in Iran. According to some MKO ex-members (e.g. Lotfollah Meisami), Rajavi was well aware of global transitions and even before initiating the armed phase was willing to make use of leftist parties and USSR-oriented groups whenever necessary. In this regard, Meisami writes:

Rajavi knows that world is divided into the West and the East and for sure is aware of their reciprocal understanding due to his political awareness. When released from prison, he got a formula according to which he had to make the West and the East satisfied to assume power. On the one hand, he makes secret contacts with the Soviets Union to make them convinced to rely on Mojahedin rather than Tudeh party pretending to be the greatest opposition group in Iran, and on the other hand, invited Western-oriented groups and parties for dialogue and negotiation. In fact he had relations with both the U.S. and the USSR. (1)

As such, he tried to recruit some Liberal intelligentsia with capitalism tendency including Hedayatollah Matindaftari, Ali-Asqar Haj Seyyed Javadi, Manuchehr Hezarkhani, Abdolkarim Lahiji, Fereydun Gilani, and later on Jamshid Peyman, some SAVAK members and Moezzi, Shah’s private pilot. An interesting point is that after the annihilation of Socialism camp, Rajavi turned to Western-oriented liberals, some of whom are already in NCR, and Rajavi makes use of their international reputation for attracting the attention and gaining the legitimacy regarding his liberalist mottos. Another instance of such an opportunistic policy is the case of Sa’adatti and delivering the case of General Moqarrabi, former member of Tudeh party, to Russians which had great consequences on armed phase for the organization. In fact, all these actions might be justified under the pretext of the world being divided into two camps of capitalism and socialism with Mojahedin’s pretentious strategic tendency towards the latter at the time. As implicitly stated by Saeed Shahsavandi, MKO made efforts preferably in winning the supports of USSR to assume political power:

In fact the purpose of organization’s contact with the USSR is gaining facilities and being armed as an authorized group. (2)

However, these facts reveal the major policy of MKO regarding the strategic role of the either camps in achieving the political power. But soon after the fall of socialism, the organization made an immediate shift toward the opposite camp.

We are to emphasize the fact that Rajavi’s opportunistic orientation in winning the political power and support of influential figures in international relations as well as world powers has been one of his goals in which his success depended upon the political status of NCR, MKO and also Rajavi’s talent in convincing them of the possibility of overthrowing the Iranian regime with regard to the potentiality of Mojahedin. In fact, the organization recruited members from both leftist parties and liberals as a means for achieving its objectives in due time. The fact that West in general and Europeans in particular, in spite of being aware of the terrorist actions of Mojahedin, supported the organization implies their fostered hope in fulfillment of the promise by Mojahedin to overthrow the Iranian government.

The countries attitude, however, ceased once they realized that the second revolution was not at hand. For instance, the France government, as the main supporter of Mojahedin, changed its stance concerning Mojahedin. It has to be pointed out that Mojahedin’s freedom for political and propaganda activities in France exceeded the supposed rights of refugees in international conventions which resulted in quantitative and qualitative growth of the National Council of Resistance to posture as a liable main opposition. However, the NCR soon proved to be incapable of winning the slightest significant victory and its advocates resolved to look at it with a more realistic and cautious eye and began to withdraw their support. Referring to Mojahedin’s strategies and tactics in the Europe for winning propaganda support Antoine Gessler observes:

The People’s Mojahedin of Iran, as we have seen, are past masters in the manipulative arts. Like many far Left organisations, they know the gears that run the media. And they are very gifted at”smoke screening”reporters. (3)

Additionally, he refers to opportunistic, dualistic and pragmatist features of Mojahedin seeking legitimacy and attention of outsiders and writes:

In addition, the Mojahedin are superb lobbyists,”tracking”down political officials, deputies, senators, etc., to get a signature which is supposed to support the PMOI’s fight and provide recognition to it as the only legitimate opposition. (4)

Bijan Niyabati, a leftist member of NCR, illustrates such a condition affected by the illusionary promise of overthrow and says explicitly:

The strength of military strokes of Mojahedin against top Iranian officials spread the false picture of short-term overthrow of Iranian regime not only among Iranian political activists but also foreign parties. (5)

Therefore, the political supports given to Mojahedin and their militancy were replaced by a logical withdrawal and all those governments that had neglected illegal plots of Mojahedin in their countries, and in France in particular, in the hope of establishing relationship with the so-called alternative of the Iranian government had to limit the group’s freedom. Rajavi’s hopes dashed, he had to seek new approaches to strengthen inter-organizational constancy and adopt a defensive mechanism before reaching unavoidably consequent crises.

Niyabati acknowledges the fact that the pressure of foreign forces exerted on Mojahedin made them make some new decisions, change their external relations and internal structure. According to him, the main changes occurred in the geometrical form of internal structure of both MKO and NCR. Before the change, Mojahedin claimed to be the hegemonic lead of a united front of oppositions through a council leadership, but after being in disgrace with western supporters, they were forced to demonstrate their real anti-democratic nature which Rajavi and his sympathizers tried to conceal under a variety of theoretical justifications:

The sum of internal and international pressures and their political impacts on the National Council of Resistance, the strategic failure of armed struggle and its organizational impacts on MKO, the lack of public support in its real concept, and most important of all, an urging need to take advantage of the Iraqi soil followed by a shift from the strategy of micro to macro, which despite the Mojahedin’s claim to be promoting their previous strategy was an acknowledgement of the failure of their old strategy, necessitated MKO to turn into a full pyramidal organization that had to be absolutely ideological. (6)

As Niyabati justifies, the ideological revolution was, in some respect, an inevitable consequent of dwindled foreign supports and its impacts on MKO and NCR. France ventured to assist Mojahedin at a time when it had taken a hostile stance toward Iran and broadly contributed military and logistic aids to Saddam in his war against Iranian aiming at overthrowing the Iranian government. After a while and due to new circumstances, France had to make a revision in its policy toward Iran. Although Mojahedin had earlier made the grounds for moving to Iraq by inviting Tareq Aziz, then Vice Prime Minister to Saddam, but their destabilized conditions in France and the internal conflicts in NCR were the best justification for such a transfer. In a nutshell, their policy in moving to Iraq may be considered as a result of the loss of support of western governments and France in particular. Moreover, the initiation of the ideological revolution was a precautionary defensive measure aiming at controlling the forthcoming challenges.

References:

1. Meisami, L.; The moral decline of a Mojahed. Raah-e Mojahed journal, (32), 1985.

2. Saeed Shahsavandi interview with the voice of Iran. Part 50.

3. Antoine Gessler; Autopsy of an Ideological Drift, 163.

4. ibid.

5. Niyabati, B. A different look at the internal ideological revolution of Mojahedin. p.12.

6. ibid, p.20.

February 10, 2008 0 comments

USA

Key figures in the Israel lobbies support a terrorist group that has fired on US troops

I’m very excited and pleased to introduce today’s guest poster, Danny Postel, who comes to us with some absolutely chilling revelations about the bad faith of the neoconservatives’ supposed dedication to”freedom”(I know, I know: you’re shocked). Danny is the author of Reading “Legitimation Crisis” in Tehran: Iran and the Future of Liberalism and is co-coordinator of the Committee for Academic and Intellectual Freedom of the International Society for Iranian Studies. —Rick Perlstein By Danny Postel During the week of October 22-26, an official announcement effuses, “The nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever – Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses.” Ringmastered by David Horowitz, this circus will be performing under the tent of something called the”Terrorism Awareness Project.” The purpose of this ballyhoolooza, we are told, is to confront the “Big Lies” of the Left regarding terrorism and militant Islam. Worthy subjects, to be sure. Indeed I would like to help the sponsors of the “wake-up call” promote awareness of them. Toward this end, let’s consider the American Right’s “special relationship” with one group of terrorists. The U.S. State Department officially considers the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) a Foreign Terrorist Organization. While those honors date back to 1994, they’ve been renewed during the Bush years. Indeed in 2003 Foggy Bottom went further, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran — an MEK alias — under the terrorist designation. (The MEK is also known as the People’s Mujahedeen.) To make a long and bizarre story short, the MEK got its start in early 1960s Iran, helped overthrow the Shah in 1979, but quickly turned on the revolutionary government it helped bring to power. Employing an ideological blend of Stalinism and Islamism, the tactics of a paramilitary guerilla faction, and the organizational structure of a cult, the group went into exile, eventually making their home in Iraq in the mid-1980s. Not only did Saddam give the organization cover: he armed, funded, and utilized them for a variety of ends over two decades. The group’s wicked political brew was on spectacular display on the old MEK flag (see below; since abandoned) [editor, Iran-Interlink – this is still the official MEK logo], with its sickle and Kalashnikov positioned atop ofbeneath a Koranic verse. (Not — to state the obvious — that the mere presence of a Koranic verse in and of itself implies Islamist political commitments, but in this case the shoe very much fits.) Here you have virtually everything the Right claims to oppose all rolled into one: Islamism, Marxism, terrorism, and Saddam. Naturally, then, neoconservatives would utterly deplore the MEK and everything it stands for, right? The MEK would in fact make an ideal target for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week and Terrorism Awareness efforts, no? Well, no. At least one of the carnival’s acts, it turns out, is rather fond of the Islamo-Stalinist-terrorist cult group, and has repeatedly argued for the removal of the MEK from the State Department’s list of terrorist groups and indeed urged the U.S. government to embrace it. Daniel Pipes, who will be speaking at Tufts on October 24th as part of the Horowitz high jinks, has made the MEK a recurring theme in his writings going back several years. Pipes has also gone to bat for the MEK right in the pages of Horowitz’s house organ. But Pipes is far from alone on the Right in championing the MEK. He co-authored the first piece linked to above with Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Right-wing commentator Max Boot has argued not merely for the removal of the MEK from the terrorist list but for funding and unleashing it to do battle with Iranian forces — this while casually acknowledging that it is a “political cult.” (More on Boot’s disfigured views .) In some cases the MEK plays a stealth role in the media machinery of the American Right. What the FOX News Channel tells viewers about Alireza Jafarzadeh when he appears on its airwaves is that he is an “FNC Foreign Affairs Analyst.” What you have to go to the FOX News website to discover, however, is that Jafarzadeh served “for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.” But it is scarcely known that the sonorous-sounding National Council of Resistance of Iran is in fact a front name for the MEK. Now, it’s true that Jafarzadeh discontinued his post with the National Council of Resistance of Iran—but only when (and only because) its Washington office was forced to close in 2003 as a result of the State Department decision about it being a front for the MEK. It’s not like he had a change of heart. If you attend an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” event, you might want to ask the speakers about this terrorist cult and whether they condemn it. Some of them might — not all neoconservatives agree on the MEK. But the fact that several prominent American conservatives have cozied up to an Islamist-Stalinist cult that was on Saddam’s payroll and the State Department considers a terrorist organization — this raises serious questions (to put it mildly) about the Right’s bedfellows and the calculus that determines them. It suggests the need for a little more terrorism awareness. CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS –infowars.net

February 10, 2008 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Masud Khodabandeh replies and”Alseyassah”explains

Anne Khodabandeh, who is of British nationality and the wife of the Iranian Massoud Khodabandeh, replied to the article published by "Alseyassah" on the first of this month under the heading "Iraqi warnings from the agent of the Iranian regime by the name of Massoud Khodabandeh", in a letter sent to the cultural office at the embassy of the State of Kuwait in London, of which "Alseyassah" has received a copy. In the reply, Massoud says that "the article was slanderous and defamatory to my good name and unfortunately its anonymous writer did not try to contact me by email or by telephone or at my address in Britain, or at the Centre de Recherches sur le Terrorism in Paris where I work". He refers to the scurrilous accusation made by the remnants of the Baathist regime in Iraq which links his name and his wife’s name to the Iranian intelligence services – which is completely untrue and there is not a shred of evidence for the lies which appear in that article. Mr. Masud Khodabande He also gives the reason why it was published. Mr Khodabandeh explains that he lives in the United Kingdom and is currently visiting Iraq at the invitation of government officials, and was invited in order to attend various meeting on the issue of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq. He adds that "in the course of this work I have regular contact with the US army and relevant humanitarian bodies and I am seeking ways to rescue people from the hands of the Saddamists in Diyali province". He considers that "as all Kuwaiti citizens know all too well, the "Mojahedin-e Khalq" organisation acted as Saddam’s private army in Iraq and helped to crush the Kurdish uprising in 1991 at the end of the first Gulf war. The Iraqi Government is now determined to remove all remnants of the Baathist regime, including the Iranian foreign terrorist group "Mojahedin-e Khalq", from its territory". He adds "I have travelled to Iraq to help those people who want to leave the group to find refuge and return to their families and to normal life."

He concludes by saying that readers of the newspaper "Alseyassah" will understand now why the Saddamists have tried to blacken his name and he states that the paper’s editors have acted properly in giving him the right to reply.

In this connection, it is important for "Alseyassah" to explain to Mr and Mrs Khodabandeh and to our readers that what was published on the first of February was an announcement and not an article and it was not simply ascribed to anonymous sources but it made clear in it that it was an announcement issued by the "League of Iraqi Academics and Educationalists" and it is important to explain that the accusations made by the League that Mrs Ann and her husband are "working in the service of the Iranian security services in Iraq and that they are carrying out the tasks of the Iranian regime under false pretences" were accusations carried by "Alseyassah" but not espoused by it, as was stated in the announcement itself. Alseyassah, February07, 2008- http://alseyassah.com/news_details.asp?nid=3713&snapt=الدولية

February 10, 2008 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Symposium on Terrorism in Iraq

A round table discussion centred on the issue of terrorism in Iraq and possible solutions to this problem. The Symposium was divided in to 3 parts: – the general threat posed by terrorist groups and the ways they operate in Iraq – foreign terrorist organisations in Iraq – the creation of terrorist organisations in Iraq and the global supporters of these terrorist groups Participants of the Symposium ranged from university professors including, Dr. Aziz Jabar Shayal, Dr. Samir Alshweely and Dr. Rasheed Saleh, professors of Political Studies from the University of Baghdad. The Symposium was also attended by many governmental and non-governmental representatives from a wide range of ministries and NGOs, including representatives from Iraq’s Ministries of Defence, Human Rights and Security.

Massoud Khodabandeh from the Centre de recherches sur le terrorisme depuis le 11 septembre 2001 (Paris), who was in Baghdad for meetings concerning the fate of the remaining individuals following dismantlement of Camp Ashraf which houses the disarmed Iranian terrorist organisation Mojahedin Khalq Organisation, was invited to participate in the discussion.

Prominent among the participants was Mr. Bassam Alhassani, advisor to Prime Minister Noori Al Maleki.

The Symposium ended with a full report on the issues discussed and Dr. Aziz Jabar Shayal delivered the end resolution in which one paragraph emphasized the necessity for the dismantlement and deportation of the foreign terrorist Mojahedin Khalq organisation and encouragement and facilitation by the government and others to help the remaining individuals find a safe palace outside Iraq and return to normal life.

The symposium was covered by media representatives who reported from the meeting room.

Alaraghia television, Iraq’s main TV network, reported the Symposium and broadcast a brief interview with Massoud Khodabandeh.

In the interview, Massoud Khodabandeh emphasised above all the right of the Iraqi people to enjoy security and have justice served against the perpetrators of violent acts in their country, in particular the criminal heads of the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq organisation which was involved in the massacre of the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings against Saddam Hussein in March 1991. Mr Khodabandeh said that in his belief and according to all the studies of the Centre de Recherches sur le Terrorisme, the phenomenon of terrorism cannot have a single solution and needs inter governmental cooperation as well as the involvement of NGOs to protect the human rights of the who have been inveigled by terrorist leaders into this path, and to give them a second chance of integration back into their societies.

Thanking the organisers of the Symposium Mr Khodabandeh emphasised the cult culture of terrorist organisations and the methods they use to brainwash their followers. He also gave examples of foreign support by some influential groups and parties who facilitate the flow of finance for terrorism. Not the least the relationship between the remainders of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, London, Washington and other countries with the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation, and the way this relationship is becoming clear in the escalation of violence in Diyali province as well as the streets of London and other European countries.

The Symposium lasted for over two hours. Afterwards the participants formed smaller groups to further discuss the variety of issues raised by the Seminar.

A full report and media coverage will be published shortly. Thursday, 31st of January 2008.

Centre for International and Inter-governmental Studies of the University of Baghdad

February 3, 2008 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Javad Firuzmand interviewed by Mehrdad Farahmand

Former MKO seeking refuge in western countries The military coalition under the US commandment in Iraq confirmed that some MKO members have left this organisation and their base in Iraq. Confirmation of this news takes place after some reports were published indicating that in the past few weeks the efforts of dozens of former MKO to escape Iraq and seek refuge in western countries have failed and many of them are left hanging around in Iraq where they are in a very desperate situation.

In the past four years since Iraq was occupied by the US forces and its allies, some MKO members gradually left this organization and Camp Ashraf which is their base in Iraq.

The US army which is guarding Camp Ashraf during this period, kept the dissidents under its own protection in a camp near to this base. As the press office of coalition forces under the US command has informed the BBC, during the last four years 380 individuals of MKO have returned to Iran at their own request. But those dissidents who did not wish to return to Iran despite the efforts made by the United States did not gain the confirmation of any country for their application for refuge.

Meanwhile, reports indicate that within the last few weeks, dozens of them decided to leave the camp they were living in which was protected by the US forces and try to leave Iraq through different ways but this effort was unsuccessful for most of them and they returned to the camp protected by the US forces. Some were arrested after crossing the Turkish border and returned to Iraq, a few managed to remain in Turkey or go to Greece illegally.

The Society for Defending Immigrants and Iranians in France (ARIA) tries to help the MKO dissidents to leave Iraq and settle in another country. According to this society 208 MKO dissidents were staying in the US camp up to last month. The press office of the US forces today gives their number at 110. Javad Firuzmand, the spokesman of ARIA society who himself has left the MKO says that this number had reduced to 50 last week and the number 110 indicates that some of those who had left there have returned to the US camp.

Mr Firuzmand told the BBC that 70 of the dissidents tried to go to Turkey after Javad Firuzmand;former member of MKO they left the Americas with the aid of some smugglers, but the Turkish border police arrested them and after one month in prison and remaining in compulsory camp were handed over to the Iraqi Police. One of these people was shot and wounded by the border police and is in hospital now in the city of Arbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. The spokesman of ARIA society says that the autonomous government of Iraqi Kurdistan is keeping the people who were handed over by the Turkish police in a temporary camp in Arbil. But some of these people tried again to cross the Turkish border. Ten of them were arrested again by the Turkish police and handed over to Iraqi police and they are now in prison in Arbil. Amongst those who managed to cross the border ten were able to reach Greece with the aid of smugglers and 15 are living covertly in Istanbul and Ankara and Van in Turkey.

According to Javad Firuzmand, the MKO dissidents who are staying in Turkey could not approach the Human Rights and Turkish organizations since if they are revealed they would be arrested and returned to Iraq. The ten who stay in Greece are also in covert situation in that country. The ARIA society spokesman added that about 15 individuals approached Jordan and there is no information about the destiny of other 8.

The BBC’s effort to contact the UNHCR to obtain information about the destiny of these MKO dissidents did not reach anywhere but enquiries are still ongoing. The ARIA society which is a human rights establishment defending Iranians has demanded help for these people and the chance to live legally in European or other free countries. During the last four years some MKO dissidents have returned to Iran – the press office of forces under US command in Iraq gives their number at 380. Javad Firuzmand, the spokesman of ARIA society says that these individuals are living and working in several Iranian cities and are freely active in the society and he himself is in contact with some of them. According to him, inside Camp Ashraf which is still run by the MKO, some 200 individuals have left the MKO too. These people are not willing to move to the American’s camp and they are kept in a separate place inside Ashraf. Mr Firuzmand says that these people also seek refuge from western countries.

Camp Ashraf was established in 1986 after MKO leader [Massoud Rajavi] moved from France to Iraq and the members of this organisation launched an armed struggle against Iran benefiting from the military facilities given by Saddam Hussein’s regime. They participated in military operations against Iran during the Iran Iraq war. This base is situated in the district of Khalis in the province of Dyala in the east of Iraq and the coalition forces under US command have given the total number of individuals living there as 3360. The United States designated the MKO as a terrorist organisation but according to international regulations and Geneva Convention, they are kept under the entity of "protected persons".

The Iranian government demands that Camp Ashraf be dismantled and all MKO members be expelled from Iraq and accuses the Americans of protecting them in order to use them against Iran. January 26, 2008

February 3, 2008 0 comments

Britain accused of failing to outlaw banned terror groups

Some of Britain’s closest allies in the fight against terrorism have accused the Government of allowing banned terrorist organisations to operate openly in this country.

An investigation by The Times has revealed that at least six countries have complained about the failure of the Government to enforce the Terrorism Act 2000, which proscribes 46 foreign terrorist organisations.

The countries include Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Turkey. Iran has also voiced criticism. America, Britain’s closest ally, is known to have serious reservations about the Government’s commitment to enforcing the law.

The Terrorism Act 2000, which was introduced by Jack Straw, now the Justice Minister, was supposed to prevent London becoming an important terrorist hub, where groups were able to raise funds, distribute propaganda and plan terrorist operations.

From the start, however, the law has been difficult to apply. Many groups simply changed their names, others concealed their operations and some simply seem to have been ignored by the authorities.

One of the most blatant cases is the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a Kurdish separatist movement responsible for a recent spate of attacks in southern Turkey.

A Turkish official said that the group ran a multimillion-pound operation in North London, controlling businesses, running a political office and printing a newspaper.

“The British Government tolerates the PKK,” a Turkish official said. “if anything the group has increased its profile over the past decade.”

He said that where once the organisation extorted money from local businesses and ran human trafficking rings, now it owned supermarkets, jewellers, cafÃ©s and restaurants.

“We have complained so often about this to the British authorities that we are sick and tired of nothing being done,” he told The Times.

Pakistan, arguably Britain’s most important ally in fighting terrorism, also feels aggrieved. It has repeatedly helped the British authorities to track and apprehend terror suspects, yet it feels that its own problems have been ignored.

A Pakistani official said that Britain was “slow to respond” to the activities of the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), which is on the Home Office proscribed list. The Pakistanis are also frustrated that Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist Muslim group banned in Pakistan, has still not been proscribed in Britain despite promises from the Government.

Similar complaints have been made by the Sri Lankan High Commission over the activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, another banned group that continues to raise money and distribute propaganda in Britain among the expatriate Tamil community.

The Israeli Embassy in London has also had reason to complain over the activities of Hezbollah, the militant Shia Muslim group in Lebanon, and Hamas, the radical Palestinian group responsible for attacks against Israel.

“Hamas has been using the UK for the past few years as a major centre for publishing and distributing incitement-based material, whilst taking advantage of legal loopholes and lenient enforcement policy, an Israeli official said.

He added that a senior Hezbollah member, involved in the group’s al-Manar broadcasting service, was recently granted a visa to visit London. Al-Manar has been taken off the air in France and other countries for anti-Semitic programmes and glorifying terrorist attacks.

Saudi Arabia, another key partner in the anti-terror campaign, is also unhappy that Saudi exiles in Britain, some with connections to al-Qaeda, are able to operate openly.

“To be allowed to use Britain as a base to attack other governments and societies, to us this is puzzling,” Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi Ambassador to London, told The Times.

“We have no problem with people seeing Britain as a safe haven, but they should not use that generosity to attack other countries and to undermine relations between Britain and other countries,” he said. “And they should absolutely not use Britain as a platform from which they can preach an ideology of hatred and violence."

Part of the problem is the support that some groups enjoy from the British Establishment. Last week the banned Mujahidin-e-Khalq won a court appeal to have its name removed from the terrorist list, in a move supported by dozens of MPs.

The group, which currently operates under the name the National Council of Iranian Resistance, was armed and financed for years by Saddam Hussein and is responsible for attacks against targets in Iran.

Patrick Mercer MP, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, urged the Government to enforce its own laws.

“An organisation is either proscribed or it is not. If it is proscribed then it must be given the pariah status that it deserves,” he said. “If the Government will not enforce these proscriptions, what is the point in doing it?”

The Home Office insisted that the proscription was an effective way of preventing terrorist groups operating in Britain.

“It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to take action where there is evidence of an offence being committed,” a Home Office spokesman said.

“Clearly, it is easier for the Police and Crown Prosecution Service to take action where they have firm evidence of illegal activities taking place. Any evidence that funds are being directed to a proscribed organisation from within the UK should be passed to the police.”

The Time

Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times, and Zahid Hussain, December 8, 2007

January 16, 2008 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts