The Third View on Mujahedin Khalq

Albania: Toxic Waste, Cannabis and the Iranian Mojahedin Khalq are part of the same equation under the devilish Justice Reform

In October, City News published an article by Kastriot Myftaraj criticising Prime Minister Edi Rama’s Justice Reforms. The article outlines what Myftaraj calls a black market deal with Washington to bring thousands of Iranian members of the Mojahedin Khalq organisation to Albania. This is a large number in relation to Albania’s own population and its place amongst other NATO countries. What may have been profitable for some is very harmful for the country and its inhabitants.

Rama’s government is accused of covertly striking other harmful deals. First to transform the country into a large plantation of cannabis production. Second, to transform the country into a centre for processing trash and hazardous waste from Europe and beyond. Both deals earning multi-billion euros for a minority of people.

In order to push these deals, Myftaraj says Prime Minister Rama invented the idea of ‘Justice Reform’, but argues that it doesn’t take a genius to realise that ‘reformers’ of justice are not really interested in making the justice system functional or independent because if this were so, judges and prosecutors would reveal and punish the authors of the above three schemes.

An independent prosecutor would ascertain what agreement there was to allow the introduction of the Mojahedin Khalq organisation in Albania. According to Albania’s constitution, any such agreement should have been passed to Parliament for approval. An independent court, therefore, would prosecute the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior as criminals.

An independent prosecutor would only need to chart the chronology of events to understand the connection implicit in the title of the article. It is no coincidence that the bill for the arrival of garbage and hazardous waste before the Assembly came after the massive influx of Mojahedin.

The author of this equation – as expressed in the title of the analysis – is Soros, who lobbied Washington to support this scheme, aiming to provide income to finance the activities of his Foundation in the Balkans and beyond Europe.

In coming years, Albania will be known for the import of Mojahedin Khalq organisation, imported toxic waste and the mass cultivation of cannabis. Time will tell how the ‘reformed’ justice system will deal with this challenge. In conclusion, Myftaraj forecasts that Rama’s ‘Justice Reform’ will not affect the progress of this hellish business.

November 8, 2016 0 comments

Terrorist groups and the MEK

Human Shield, Useful tool for the MKO and ISIS

While the world-wide news media are focusing on the operation against ISIS in Mosul the propaganda websites of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) keeps on its deadly silence about any news on the battle of coalition forces against terrorists of Islamic State. As ISIS extremist terrorists have been already called as “Iraqi revolutionary tribes” by the MKO propaganda, meaningful ignorance of the group regarding the atrocities of ISIS confirms their sympathy for them.

The latest news on Mosul indicated huge aspects of atrocities of the ISIS radical Islamists. Islamic State fighters have taken “tens of thousands” of people hostage and are herding them towards the city of Mosul for use as human shields as the battle for the militant group’s last major Iraqi stronghold intensifies, the United Nations has told the Guardian.

Considering the massacre of Yemeni civilians, the same position is taken by the MKO. Yemeni children are forgotten in the MKO propaganda while children of Aleppo have become an icon in the group website. The former are victims of the enemy of Iran, Saudi Arabian forces and the later are said to be victims of the friends of Iran, Syrian and Russian forces.

A glance on the group’s propaganda media demonstrates its eagerness to be the voice of Saudi Arabia against Iran. Definitely, ISIS and Syrian rebels are considered friends of MKO as well. Actually, the long-life policy of the leaders of the MKO has always gotten in line with policies of enemies of the Iranian Government, regardless of ethics and moralities and justice. Double standard is the tool for hypocrites.

Moreover, atrocities of the ISIS terrorists might seem so natural to the MKO that they cannot take position against it. Victimizing people by using them as human shields is a very common tactic which has been used by the MKO leaders several times. The MKO-provoked clashes with Iraqi forces are significant examples of such deceitful tactic.

After the Iraqi Government took control of Camp Ashraf in 2008, the group leaders made efforts to create problems for Iraqi government to prevent them from performing its obligations. On July 29, 2009 there was a report of deadly clashes between hundreds of Iraqi police forces who wanted to settle a police station in Camp Ashraf and the residents of the camp. The clashes left 11 members dead and scores injured from both side. While the reasons for the clash was said to be unclear at first, it was then became clear that it was a pre-organized plan indoctrinated by group leaders. Devotees of Massoud Rajavi were converged to provoke Iraqi forces to trigger the clash by forming a human shield. That was well videotaped and broadcasted by the organization itself. While the Iraqi Police had the obligation to protect residents of the camp, the MKO leaders used the opportunity to fuel their propaganda machine.

There are a lot of individuals out there including ex-members of the MKO, Journalists and experts who have tried to tell the world of the concerns about the members not living but enslaved by MKO against their own will. They have always warned the international community to beware how the Cult-like ruling system of the MKO exploits insiders as human shields to safeguard its own entity.

Having been relocated in Albania hostages of the MKO are still being exploited by the Cult leaders. As Iran-Interlink reports, the organization is buying several fast food restaurants in the city in order to use them for its members to work there.

It is absolutely wrong to conclude that leaders of the group are thinking of entrepreneurship. The leaders of the group are the ones who benefit from this. The members are being abused. The absolute truth is that the Cult of Rajavi does not value the lives of its members but it wants to make the most profit out of them. “The businesses belong to the MEK and are not part of a rehabilitation scheme”, according to Iran-Interlink. “MEK members exist in a state of modern slavery and have never benefitted from pay or worker rights during their decades of membership of the cult.”

Living their luxurious life in Paris, leaders of the Cult of Rajavi do not have any regard for humanity. They have proved to care only for their own survival. They keep violating human rights continuously in the camp while they pretend they care for humanity. They only care for themselves and the members are served as playthings in the hands of their corrupt leaders.

Mazda Parsi

November 5, 2016 0 comments

Europe

Europe Capitalizes on the Iran Deal

As Washington think-tanks, with some notable exceptions, keep churning out papers advising the next American president to double down on containing Iran, the European Parliament adopted a report on October 25 that is strikingly different in tone and substance. Drafted by the UK Labour Party politician Richard Howitt , the motion received overwhelming support in the house: 459 votes in favor, with 174 against and 67 abstentions. It outlines a set of recommendations for the EU and its member states to fully capitalize on the opening provided by the historical nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1.

The report praises the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as a success of a multilateral diplomacy, which has already boosted economic and trade connections between Europe and Iran. The report calls on both the EU and Iran to build on this opening by expanding cooperation in counter-terrorism, environmental protection, academic and cultural exchanges, and aviation and maritime safety.

The report is notable also for the respectful and constructive tone it uses. Although by no means short on legitimate criticisms of Iran, it avoids the kind of bashing that can only provoke angry reactions and further alienation. For example, it recognizes the complexities of Iran’s internal politics and does not seek to take sides in Iran’s domestic political debates. It acknowledges the long history of relations between Iran and various European countries as a foundation to further expand ties. Instead of blasting the “repressive theocracy,” it states that “Iran’s revolutionary legacy and constitution as an Islamic Republic” should not be an obstacle to finding common ground on issues of democracy and human rights, where possible. These are novel formulations for an official position of an elected Western body on the Islamic Republic, and convey an intention to have a dialogue of equals.

Lingering Opposition

Despite the overwhelming support the house has given the report, a minority of MPs expressed vocal opposition. Some of the criticisms reflect what rapporteur Richard Howitt called “the lobbying interests” of forces opposed to the nuclear agreement with Iran in the first place: right-wing pro-Israeli organizations, Saudi Arabia, and the exiled Iranian dissident group Mojaheddin-e Khalk (MEK), which was on the EU terror list until 2009 and removed on technicality. The hawkish American Jewish Committee blasted the report for allegedly “giving Iran a free pass on human rights and support for Assad regime,” although it somewhat mitigated its criticisms when the EP adopted the last-minute amendment condemning Iran for its “calls for destruction of Israel and denial of Holocaust.” MEK, meanwhile, managed to convince enough MPs to consider an amendment calling to investigate the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran—a crime indeed, but one that Iranians themselves, and not foreign legislative bodies, are best placed to address. However, the house ultimately rejected this amendment.

A different kind of opposition emerged from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE), traditionally the third pillar of European politics, after Christian democrats and social democrats. Although ALDE does not oppose the nuclear agreement as such, it rejected the report on the basis that it was “weak” on human rights and “has not preconditioned” any improvement of relations with Iran on tangible progress in this area.

These criticisms do not hold water. The report has no fewer than 34 references to human rights in its 51 paragraphs. It contains very detailed, carefully crafted wording on the death penalty and on the rights of women and religious minorities. It also makes a clear appeal to Iran to release all political prisoners. In the process of drafting the report, the rapporteur and his team consulted extensively with credible human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

But pre-conditioning any cooperation on specific, unilaterally imposed benchmarks could have easily undermined any prospects for progress, for example, by leading the Iranians to cancel talks with the EU on human rights scheduled for November 9 in Brussels. Crucially, these talks involve the Iranian judiciary, the bastion of the conservatives and the main source of the human rights violations. As Howitt said during the debates on his report, “those who say they support human rights, but would jeopardize our leverage to influence them, should examine their own consciences.”

As to the regional situation, the report is careful not to take sides between Iran and its antagonists, such as Saudi Arabia. The critics would have liked to see a strong condemnation of Iran’s support for the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria and the removal of clauses that acknowledge the EU and Iran’s common interest in fighting the so-called Islamic State. Instead, the report acknowledges that by following the JCPOA the EU now has increased its leverage over Iran while maintaining ties with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other traditional Western allies in the region. The EU is thus in a unique position to play the role of an honest broker in the conflicts ravaging the region, from Syria to Yemen.

Indeed, it is disingenuous for the critics to claim that they support the nuclear agreement while at the same time putting so many conditions to any cooperation with Iran. The irony is that such an approach would not only squander an opportunity to build a new relationship with Iran but also undermine the nuclear deal itself. The JCPOA is not something once achieved and put in the freezer until the regime in Iran changes—which, one suspects, is the real agenda of many of the critics of the report. For the agreement to survive, all sides need incentives to comply, and that requires trust. This process would be so much more difficult to accomplish in the absence of a broader rapprochement.

Glimmers of Hope

There are signs that the pragmatic approach espoused by the report works. Contrary to the war of words that usually followed EP resolutions in the past, the Iranian foreign ministry welcomed the report as a positive indication that the EU seeks closer relations with Iran. Of course, the reactions of other factions within the regime are yet to be seen. As the string of totally unacceptable arrests and harassment of dual Western-Iranian nationals shows, influential forces that thrive on confrontation exist in Iran as well as in the West. But ultimately, this is how diplomacy works – by taking patient, reciprocal steps, that strengthen moderates on all sides and eventually lead to the demise of old enmities.

This most recent statement reflects a broader European approach to relations with Iran. Just as the EP was debating the Howitt report, the EU lifted sanctions on Bank Saderat, which, however, remains on the OFAC (US Treasure’s Office of Foreign Assets Control) black list. The EU Commissioner for humanitarian aid and crisis management Christos Stylianides, meanwhile, was in Tehran on the same day committing additional 6 million euros to help Afghan refugees in Iran, bringing the total EU humanitarian support to 12.5 million euros in 2016.

These steps by the EU executive and the parliament reinforce the upward trend in the EU-Iran relations. This rapprochement will enable both sides not only to pursue common interests but also to address problematic issues such as human rights and some aspects of Iran’s regional policies without derailing the relations. Given the investment the EU has already made in these relations, it won’t likely follow the new US president if he or she chooses to heed the advice of hawkish Washington-based think tanks and return to the policy of sanctions and isolation of Iran. And that’s another reason why the next American president would be wise to disregard such advice.

This article reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily the opinions of the European Parliament. Photo: Richard Howitt

By Eldar Mamedov,

November 3, 2016 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

America’s ironic two faced war on terror ignores US support for Mojahedin Khalq

America’s Ironic “Two-Faced” War on Terror

Rarely ever does hypocrisy align so succinctly as it does within the pages of American policy and media coverage. US policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, recently provided an extreme example of this in a paper titled, “A convenient terrorism threat,” penned by Daniel Byman.

The paper starts by claiming:

Not all countries that suffer from terrorism are innocent victims doing their best to fight back. Many governments, including several important U.S. allies, simultaneously fight and encourage the terrorist groups on their soil. President George W. Bush famously asked governments world-wide after 9/11 whether they were with us or with the terrorists; these rulers answer, “Yes.”

Some governments—including at times Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan among others—hope to have it both ways. They use the presence of terrorists to win sympathy abroad and discredit peaceful foes at home, even while fighting back vigorously enough to look plausible but not forcefully enough to solve the problem. This two-faced approach holds considerable appeal for some governments, but it hugely complicates U.S. counterterrorism efforts—and the U.S. shouldn’t just live with it.

Byman then begins labelling various nations; Somalia as a “basket-case,” Iran as a “straightforward state sponsors of terrorism” and attempts to frame Russia’s struggle against terrorism in Chechnya as somehow disingenuous or politically motivated.

Byman also attempts to claim Syrian President Bashar Al Assad intentionally released terrorists from prison to help escalate violence around the country and justify a violent crackdown, this despite reports from Western journalists as early as 2007 revealing US intentions to use these very terrorists to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran specifically, the New Yorker would reveal.

The US is as Much a Sponsor of Terrorism in Reality as Byman Claims Others are in Fiction

But worse than Byman’s intentional mischaracterisations and lies of omission regarding US allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel’s overt, global-spanning sponsorship of terrorism, is the fact that not only is the US itself engaged in sponsoring terrorism as it poses as fighting against it globally, the Brookings Institution and Byman have specifically and publicly called for the funding, training and arming of designated foreign terrorist groups in pursuit of self-serving geopolitical objectives.

Indeed, Daniel Byman is one of several signatories of the 2009 Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran.”

The report not only reveals the blueprints of using supposedly “peaceful” and “democratic” protests as cover for violent, US sponsored subversion (as was precisely done in Syria beginning in 2011), it specifically lists a US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organisation as a potential US proxy in violently rising up against, and eventually overthrowing the government in Tehran.

The report would explicitly state (our emphasis):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

The report then admits MEK’s status as a designated foreign terrorist organisation and that it has targeted and killed both American officers and civilians in the past (our emphasis):

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

The Brookings Institution also admits in its report that undoubtedly MEK continues to carry out undeniable terrorist activity against political and civilian targets within Iran, and notes that if MEK is to be successfully used as a US proxy against Iran, it would need to be delisted as a foreign terrorist organisation (our emphasis):

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.

And eventually, that is precisely what was done. MEK would be delisted by the US State Department in 2012, announced in a US State Department statement titled, “Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq,” which noted:

With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992.

The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members. The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.

MEK’s inability to conduct violence in the decade preceding the US State Department’s decision was not because of an ideological commitment to nonviolence, but a matter of strategic limitations placed on the terrorist organisation by Iraqi and Iranian security forces who were determined to liquidate it and who forcibly disarmed the group.

And even if the 2012 US State Department decision was based on an alleged decade of nonviolence, the policymakers at the Brookings Institution who signed their names to “Which Path to Persia?” including Daniel Byman, certainly did not apply the same criteria in suggesting its use as an armed proxy.

In all likelihood, had Iraq and Iran not successfully cornered and disarmed the group, it would be fighting America’s proxy war against Tehran on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border. MEK fighters would be carrying out US-backed armed violence against Iran and Iraq side-by-side other US-backed terrorist groups operating across the region as part of America’s current proxy war against Syria, Russia and Iran.

Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution’s latest paper even at face value is disingenuous, full of intentional mischaracterisations meant to direct attention away from the US and its closest allies’ own sponsorship of terrorism amid a very much feigned “War on Terror.” Understanding that Byman quite literally signed his name to a policy paper promoting the arming and backing of a US State Department designated foreign terrorist organisation makes his recent paper all that more outrageous.

What is also as troubling as it is ironic, is that Byman not only signed his name to calls for arming a listed terrorist organisation, he was also a staff member of the 9/11 Commission, according to his Georgetown University biography. A man involved in sorting out a terrorist attack who is also advocating closer cooperation with listed terrorist organisations is truly disturbing.

The political and ethical bankruptcy of American foreign policy can be traced back to its policy establishment, populated by unprincipled hypocrites like Byman and co-signatories of Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” The US certainly cannot convince other nations to abandon an alleged “two-faced” policy of promoting and fighting terrorism simultaneously when it stands as a global leader in this very practise.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Joseph Thomas, New Eastern Outlook,

October 29, 2016 0 comments

Albania

Albanian citizens fearful of radicalised Mojahedin Khalq neighbours deserve more information

When the MEK were finally expelled from Iraq in August 2016, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry voiced its “deep satisfaction” with the relocation of the MEK in Albania. International efforts to solve the crisis were met with “outstanding success,” a statement read.

Deep satisfaction’ is an understatement. Since 2003, the MEK – known asSaddam’s Private Army – has been linked to the insurrectionists which included former Saddamists and Al Qaida in Iraq and later Daesh whom the MEK called ‘revolutionary brothers’. In 2009 serious efforts began to expel the group. The MEK refused to cooperate, issuing credible mass suicide threats against any interference. In 2011, the government of Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UN to facilitate this effort. The MEK still refused to cooperate.

Neither was it straightforward to relocate an entire terrorist group. In 2013 Romania refused to take them. Instead, a $9m deal was struck by the US with the government of Albania to take an initial 210. In March 2013, the Obama Administration urged the MEK leadership to “accept the government of Albania’s humanitarian offer immediately, and urges the residents of Camp [Liberty] to resume participation in resettlement interviews to ensure that individuals avail themselves of safe and secure relocation opportunities outside Iraq”. The MEK rejected the offer. The transfer process slowed and often stalled over the next three years.

It was only over the summer of 2016 when it became clear that Daesh and the Saddamists would be flushed out of Mosul and Daesh’s dream of establishing its abhorrent Caliphate in Iraq had been crushed, that the MEK finally accepted to leave. By this time the MEK had sustained 200 deaths and even more injuries as their camp was repeatedly attacked by enemies. For sure the Iraqis had good reason to be glad to see the back of them.

Now in Albania many questions surround the arrival of the MEK. Since 2013, when the government announced publicly that 210 MEK would be accepted in the country, there has been no official communication with the citizenry about the numbers or the purpose of this influx, even though the government’s resettlement package has reached $20m. With upward of 2500 terrorists now located in Tirana, what does this mean for Albania and Albanians? What is the missing backstory and where lies a credible explanation for the MEK’s deviant behaviour?

The first thing we can state is that there is no programme in Albania to de-radicalisethese people. They were transferred as an intact group and there are no plans to disband them. Although international law forbids the UN from granting asylum to terrorists or even to a political group, this is what apparently has happened here.

Evidence that this group is not going to be de-radicalised is not difficult to obtain. Some members when interviewed have already said they only intend to stay in Albania “until the Iranian regime is toppled”. Journalists would only then need to ask why the members are denied any form of family life – marriage and children are banned in the MEK – to elicit the answer ‘so we can focus fully on our struggle’. It is an overt admission that they are not about to abandon their activities as a terrorist group. They are not willing to submit to de-radicalisation.

But how do we know they are radicalised at all? What threat, if any, do these people pose to Albanian society?

For the local citizens, mystery surrounds their arrival and their lifestyle. Should these secretive and covert neighbours be treated with suspicion or kindness? At a local level, the first thing neighbouring families need to be aware of is that among all MEK members, sexual relations have been banned for over 25 years. This means there are no marriages or children or young people in the organisation. More troubling are the obligatory confessional meetings in which members are required to admit any sexual thoughts or feelings and be punished for them. With this emphasis on sexual matters, it is not known how such people may react when they come in contact with ordinary people and their children.

Local people will notice that the behaviour, body language and appearance of the MEK are not normal. They will intuitively understand that there is something deviant in these people but will not, without further knowledge, have the means to explain it.

In short it is the result of radicalisation. This is a process of ongoing brainwashing which suppresses the authentic self and emotions and replaces them with the zealous ideological mindset of terrorists.

These people dress, walk and hold themselves differently. Their utilitarian, beggar-like clothes are easily identifiable as thinly disguised uniforms. They do not readily engage with outsiders. Most of them remain isolated behind closed doors and curtains. Those who do come outside are the trusted members who have been successfully re-charged with fresh ideological zeal. They come outside for specific missions such as buying mobile phones, not for enjoyment or leisure. More senior members, travelling covertly in vehicles, will be involved in other more secretive and troubling activities.

In public, the MEK may appear friendly and confident, condescending even, since they feel themselves superior to outsiders. However, because they are very much focused on their own self-preservation and that of their group, this means they cannot engage on a more personal level or talk about everyday issues and will become agitated if pressed beyond their capacity and knowledge.

As a result of radicalisation they have a black and white world view, operate with a very narrow range of emotions and are reluctant to question or be questioned. They display a phobic response to the outside world. Indeed, the MEK do not have an ‘outside’ to which they want to return. Their whole lives revolve around obedience to their group and its leaders.

Radicalisation makes them obedient to orders. The MEK know themselves as ‘living martyrs’ which means they accept death at any time if ordered by their leaders to kill or perform a suicide mission.

What the Albanian authorities are dealing with is not only radicalised combatants but combatants who have been fully trained in terrorism and security tactics by Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard and Mokhabarat (secret services). They may be old and some may be sick, but they remain programmed to obey orders and are prepared to die or kill for their beliefs. They are trained to dissemble. They can operate easily using two or three false identities. (Complicated by the fact many arrived in Albania using false identities.) They can set people up, obscure their tracks and hide in plain sight. Transferring these people from Iraq to Albania is the equivalent of moving terrorists from Syria to Europe. The challenges posed by these facts cannot be ignored or minimised.

So, if the MEK are not going to be disbanded and de-radicalised, what will they be doing in Albania?

The MEK has a long history of terrorist activity, and its belief system is rooted in violence, but the MEK’s modern role is not military. While in Iraq, the group fulfilled vital facilitating functions for Saddam Hussein, mostly in Europe, doing what he couldn’t do under international sanctions: selling oil under the UN oil-for-food programme; procuring weapons and military equipment; purchasing chemical components for WMDs; money laundry; people trafficking; intimidation and murder of opponents; and undertaking public relations work in the West, including corrupting politicians.

It is anticipated that the MEK will perform a similar facilitating function in Albania, but this time serving modern terrorist groups like Daesh and smaller groups. (The MEK is in part funded by Saudi Arabia.) Albania’s location and historic problems with organised crime and corruption still render the country vulnerable to exploitation by groups like the MEK. It is known that over the past three years, the MEK have already developed relations with criminal gangs and corrupt government officials.

The danger lies in the MEK’s sophisticated capacity to propagandise and deceive political and public opinion, while at the same time performing outrageously damaging activities for the host country. Not only are the MEK fully trained by Saddam’s Intelligence service, but radicalisation means they have no moral, social or religious boundaries whatsoever. For them, all criminal activity is justified by their ideological belief that they can and must do anything for their cause.

Just as the MEK hosted Al Qaida and other insurgents in Iraq, the group is now fully placed to act as a hideout and training provider for the jihadis and terrorists who currently threaten the security of the whole Middle East.

If Albania fails to de-radicalise these people, the consequences could be severe. It is up to the Albanian people to demand a satisfactory explanation from their government. Is this really the humanitarian mission that Albania signed up for?

By Anne and Massoud Khodabandeh

October 10, 2016 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Iran: Politics, Persian Gulf Security, and US Policy; Congressional Research Service

Iran: Politics, (Persian) Gulf Security, and U.S. Policy

Extract:

Opposition Group: People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK, PMOI)

The best-known exiled opposition group is the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK), also known as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI). Secular and left-leaning, it was formed in the 1960s to try to overthrow the Shah of Iran and has been characterized by U.S. reports as attempting to blend several ideologies, including Marxism, feminism, and Islam, although the organization denies that it ever advocated Marxism. It allied with pro-Khomeini forces during the Islamic revolution and, according to State Department reports, supported the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The group was driven into exile after it unsuccessfully rose up against the Khomeini regime in September 1981. It has been led for decades by spouses Maryam and Massoud Rajavi but in 2011 Ms. Zohreh Akhyani was elected as MEK Secretary-General. Maryam Rajavi is based in France but the whereabouts of Massoud Rajavi are unknown.

The State Department designated the PMOI as an FTO in October 1997—during the presidency of the relatively moderate Mohammad Khatemi. The NCR was named as an alias of the PMOI in October 1999, and in August 2003, the Department of the Treasury ordered the groups’ offices in the United States closed. State Department reports on international terrorism for the years until 2011 asserted that the members of the organization were responsible for: the alleged killing of seven American military personnel and contract advisers to the former Shah during 1973-1976; bombings at U.S. government facilities in Tehran in 1972 as a protest of the visit to Iran of then-President Richard Nixon; and bombings of U.S. corporate offices in Iran to protest the visit of then Secretary of State Kissinger.

The reports also listed as terrorism several attacks by the group against regime targets (including 1981 bombings that killed high ranking officials), attacks on Iranian government facilities, and attacks on Iranian security officials. However, the reports did not assert that any of these attacks purposely targeted civilians. The group’s alliance with Saddam Hussein’s regime in contributed to the designation, even though Saddam was a U.S. ally during 1980-90.

The PMOI challenged the FTO listing in the U.S. court system and, in June 2012, the Appeals Court gave the State Department until October 1, 2012, to decide on the FTO designation, without prescribing an outcome. On September 28, 2012, maintaining there had not been confirmed acts of PMOI terrorism for more than a decade and that it had cooperated on the Camp Ashraf issue (below), the group was removed from the FTO list as well as from the designation as a terrorism supporter under Executive Order 13224. However, State Department officials, in a background briefing that day, said “We do not see the [PMOI] as a viable or democratic opposition movement…. “

The NCR-I reopened its offices in Washington, DC, in April 2013. The State Department has been meeting with the MEK since its removal from the FTO list, including in Iraq.

Camp Ashraf Issue

The de-listing of the group has not resolved the situation of PMOI members in Iraq. U.S. forces attacked PMOI military installations in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom (March 2003) and negotiated a ceasefire with PMOI elements in Iraq, according to which the approximately 3,400 PMOI members consolidated at Camp Ashraf, near the border with Iran. Its weaponry was placed in storage, guarded first by U.S. and now by Iraqi personnel. In July 2004, the United States granted the Ashraf detainees “protected persons” status under the 4th Geneva Convention, although that designation lapsed when Iraq resumed full sovereignty in June 2004. The Iraqi government’s pledges to adhere to all international obligations with respect to the PMOI in Iraq has come into question on several occasions: on July 28, 2009, Iraq used force to overcome resident resistance to setting up a police post in the camp, killing 13 n residents of the camp. On April 8, 2011, Iraq Security Forces killed 36 Ashraf residents; the State Department issued a statement attributing the deaths to the actions of Iraq and its military.

In December 2011, the Iraqi government and the United Nations agreed to relocate Ashraf residents to the former U.S. military base Camp Liberty, near Baghdad’s main airport. The relocation was completed by September 17, 2012, leaving a residual group of 101 PMOI persons at Ashraf. The group asserted that conditions at Liberty are poor and the facility is unsafe. On February 9, 2013, the camp was attacked by rockets, killing eight PMOI members; the Shiite militia group Kata’ib Hezbollah (KAH) claimed responsibility. A rocket attack on the camp took place on June 15, 2013. On September 1, 2013, 52 of the residual Ashraf residents were killed by gunmen that appeared to have assistance from Iraqi forces. Seven went missing. All survivors of the attack were moved to Camp Liberty, and Ashraf has been taken over by Iran-backed Shiite militias. An October 29, 2015, rocket attack on the Camp killed 24 residents and a rocket attack on July 4, 2016, did not kill any residents, but wounded some. The FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 114-92) calls for “prompt and appropriate steps” to promote the protection of Camp residents.

Since 2011, the U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has sought to resettle PMOI members outside Iraq. About 600 have been resettled so far: 450 to Albania; 95 to Germany; 95 to Italy; 15 to Norway; and 2 to Finland. The United States reportedly might resettle 100 or more, but the U.S. requirement that those resettled disavow the group has apparently held up implementation of that program. About 200 have returned to Iran; a few of them reportedly have been imprisoned and/or mistreated.

[…]

Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
August 19, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32048

October 6, 2016 0 comments

Albania

Mojahedin khalq at war with each other, seek help from PM Edi Rama

Estranged families of Mojahedin Khalq members seek PM Rama’s help to meet loved ones

The arrival of the Mojahedin-e Khalq in our country has exposed the divisions between the members and their leaders, and now it seems their only hope is to find help from Albania’s Prime Minister Edi Rama.

Some family members of the members of the terrorist organization Mojahedin-e Khalq from the province of Ilam in western Iran have sent a letter to Prime Minister Rama. They have asked him to help them meet with their loved ones because the leaders of the MEK do not allow such meetings.

The text of the letter is as follows:

Dear Prime Minister, Mr Edi Rama

We are some families of Mojahedin-e Khalq members. We live in Ilam Province, Iran. The names of our loved ones are listed at the end of this letter. These are people who, some years ago, were deceived by the empty promises of MEK leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. Our loved ones were thus sent to Iraq and each of them have, for over 20 years, been separated from their families and placed under physical and mental captivity and are living under severely restrictive measures.

They are also deprived of any contact with their families by telephone or through correspondence. Many times we went to Iraq to make contact with our loved ones. We faced all the difficulties of travelling to Iraq and the dangerous situation in that country and have gone to the gates of MEK camps Ashraf and Liberty. We asked that our loved ones could meet with us. But, unfortunately we were faced with insults, curses and abuse on the part of the Mojahedin-e Khalq leaders. Each time we returned to our homes disappointed, without meeting with our loved ones.

Now we ask you, the honourable Prime Minister of Albania, to help us by creating opportunities to meet with our loved ones. We hope that this letter will be read personally by you, the Prime Minister of Albania and that you will enable us to rejoice with our children. It is in your power to help us and grant us our request.

We express our sincere appreciation.

Families:

Satar Khejri
Hamid Khejri
Ali Mahdavi
Akbar Çaraghi
Ali Asghar Barani
Nasiri Irexh
Jari Kuçeki
Morad Xhalilian
Zaher Gholamhuseini
Nemat Pirani

Impact newspaper, Tirana (Albania) , gazetaimpakt.com

Translated by Iran Interlink

October 1, 2016 0 comments

Albania

Iranian Opposition Ex-Fighters ‘Transferred to Albania’

Iranian media reported on Thursday that a plane has flown 155 members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (People’s Mujahedin of Iran), an exiled opposition movement that advocates the overthrow of the Islamic Republic in Iran, to Tirana.

The Fars news agency claimed that a total of 676 of the organisation’s members are scheduled to be transferred to Albania this month.

The Albanian Interior ministry didn’t deny the report, although it refused to specify the number of People’s Mujahedin of Iran members expected to be transferred to Albania during August.

“The Albanian government has an agreement signed in 2013 for the accommodation of the group so we are continuously expecting them to come to the country in accordance with it,” an interior ministry source.

The agreement is believed to have been signed with the US, and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran members are believed to have been transferred to Tirana from Camp Liberty in Iraq.

The interior ministry source said that it was not allowed under the agreement to give the numbers of those arriving as this was considered a sensitive information gave the risks involved.

In March 2013, former Prime Minister Sali Berisha disclosed part of the agreement in an official statement after meeting the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Barbara Leaf, and the UN envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler.

At the time, the government said it had offered asylum to 210 members of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran.

After that, no more information about the agreement or the opposition fighters’ arrival has been officially released.

Voice of America reported in February this year however that the number of People’s Mujahedin of Iran members coming to Albania might be as many as 3,000.

“In the last two years, Albania has accepted around 1,000 members of this group, and according to a high official of State Department, the country has promised that is going to accept also 2,000 others,” wrote journalist Pam Dockins in an article for Voice of America after she was part of the press entourage accompanying US Secretary of State John Kerry to Tirana on February 14.

Dockins’ article also said that during the visit, Kerry thanked the Albanian government for its effort in the taking the Iranians, although the issue was not publicly mentioned while he met the country’s political leaders.

The People’s Mujahedin of Iran is a controversial resistance group. Founded in 1965 as a left-leaning opposition to the Shah’s regime, it turned against the Islamic Republic following the 1979 Revolution.

The US listed it as a terrorist organisation in 1997 but it was removed from the blacklist in 2012 after it renounced violence.

Several thousand of its members left Iran for Iraq, where former dictator Saddam Hussein, used them as a tool against the Iranian regime.

After the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, alliance forces offered the Iranians protection. Since then, about 3,000 have lived at Camp Ashraf while others were sheltered at Camp Liberty near Baghdad.

Fatjona Mejdini, Balkan Insight, Tirana (Albania),

September 25, 2016 0 comments

Albania

How much does it cost to keep Iran’s enemies in Albania?

The Albanian page of Pars Today Website published a report by an Albanian periodical Parrena on the recent relocation of the Mujahedin-e Khalq members in Tirana, Albania. The report is titled “the result of receiving Mujahedin, Albania on the verge of war.”

Parrena criticizes the Albanian government for accepting the MKO in its territory. Like the Zionists who settled in the Palestinian territory in the last century, 3000 members of the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq were relocated in Albania, according to Parrena.

The following, extracted of the report, was translated to Persian by Pars Today:

“The problem is absolutely not the MKO as a group of people with different race, religion or ethnic traits. The basic problem is that the MKO is the enemy of the Islamic Republic government. They are not only ideological its enemies but also active fighters who are officially denounced by the Iranian government as its enemy.

Having accepted the MKO in Albania, the war battle between Iran and Europe is situated in Albania. The group will soon launch its propaganda and its activities inside the Albanian borders while it is protected by the Albanian government.

Does Albania need such a danger?

Of-course, everything has its own price. To accomplish the deal, the US Secretary of State John Kerry came to Albania. But it should be asked how much it costs Albania to locate the enemies of Iran in the heart of Albania? Such a deal would be justified only if it is done for the national interests of the Albanians just like the “Kosovo-Albania Unification”.

However, during the past month, no changes were seen in the Albanian cities, except the mobile stores haunted by large numbers of MKO members who seek to be equipped by the newest mobile or tablets.

Albanian public opinion is not able to realize what it means to bring war to your home. This is the dream of every Albanian politician: “Good relations with the United States. Nothing else matters.” […]

For the time being, the US is seeking to normalize the relations with Iran and the European Union is taking serious actions to improve the relations with Iran. But, we, “the hometown of the MKO”, what did we do and what did we obtain?

The MKO will continue the war it started decades ago now, in the “promised land”, in the Palestine it has found in the heart of Balkan.

Well, what will happen next? What will the media do? Do the media suffer the sever lack of information on the issue? No, it is impossible. With a slight google search, you can find out everything about the MKO and the threat they pose. Nevertheless, the media sound to have sold themselves with a very low price too.”

September 21, 2016 0 comments

USA

US Resettles Last MEK Members in Albania

On September 12, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the last 280 members of a controversial Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), had been transferred from Iraq to Albania. Founded in 1965 as an urban guerilla group, it opposed the monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The leftist group killed six Americans in Iran in the 1970s. The MEK participated in the 1979 Revolution but later broke with revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini over ideology and direction.

In 1981, the MEK went underground. Members fled to Iraq and supported Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 war with Iran. The MEK helped Hussein’s forces suppress Shiite and Kurdish uprisings after the 1991 Gulf War. It also attempted an attack against the Iranian mission to the United Nations in 1992 and was thought to be responsible for attacks on Iranian officials in the 1990s. The State Department designated it a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997. But the MEK renounced violence in 2001.

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. forces initially attacked MEK military targets. The group claimed neutrality though. As part of a cease-fire, members were disarmed and confined to their base at Camp Ashraf. The United States later designated them as civilian “protected persons.” More than 3,000 of the camp’s residents were moved to a former U.S. military base near Baghdad known as Camp Liberty in 2012 with the intention of resettling them elsewhere for their own safety. The State Department took the MEK off the terror list that same year, noting that it had not been positively linked to terrorist attacks for more than a decade. During the last few years, the United States has helped to resettle MEK members in several European countries, including Albania.

The following is the full text of Kerry’s remarks on the recent transfer.

Secretary of State John Kerry

John KerryOn Friday of last week, the last 280 members of the exiled Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin e-Khalq, or MEK, as they’re known, were moved out of Camp Liberty in Iraq. And their departure concludes a significant American diplomatic initiative that has assured the safety of more than 3,000 MEK members whose lives have been under threat. And as everybody remembers, the camp they were in had on many occasions been shelled. There were people killed and injured. And we have been trying to figure out the way forward.

Well, the last 10 years have been filled with reminders of this challenge. I first became involved in this effort when I was in the Senate, and that is why during my first year as Secretary I appointed Jonathan Winer, one of my longest-serving and most trusted advisers, as our emissary to find a way to help the MEK be able to leave Iraq.

After steady progress over a period of months, I visited Tirana earlier this year and I discussed with the Albanian Government how to assist in facilitating the transfer and the resettlement of the last group of MEK members from Camp Liberty. Albania has a proud tradition of protecting vulnerable communities, as it did during the Kosovo conflict and in sheltering large numbers of Jews during World War II. I am very grateful that in this case too Albania was willing to play an important humanitarian role. I also want to thank the governments of Germany, Norway, Italy, the U.K., Finland, and other EU countries for helping to save the lives of the MEK. And this is a major humanitarian achievement, and I’m very proud that the United States was able to play a pivotal role in helping to get this job done. —Sept. 12, 2016, during a press briefing

Iranprimer.usip.org

September 19, 2016 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts