Home » Iraq » Page 35

Iraq

Iraq

MKO on the Agenda of Troika

According to Buratha news, Iranian ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi, who headed the Iranian delegation in Iran-US talks on Iraq, answered questions of reporters in a press conference after meeting his American counterpart; in response to a question on MKO, he said: "We didn’t talk about this top in this session but it’s on our agenda for future meetings."

The report adds that Maliki has asked the two sides to continue the meetings.

On the other hand, Sotaliraq website quoted Member of Parliament "Alsaneed" saying: "Nuri Al-Maliki will discuss the issue of MKO and how to stop their activities in Iraq. The issue will be future discussed by the troika of the US, Iran and Iraq."

Irandidban –   2007/05/30

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

expert: Iran-U.S. dialogue should create direct communication link

Neocon impulses of Bush administration have largely evaporated

TEHRAN, May 25 (MNA) — Diplomats from Iran and the United States are scheduled to meet in Baghdad on May 28 to discuss the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. It is the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that officials from Iran and the U.S. will be meeting face to face.

Even though Iranian and U.S. officials have stated that the security situation in Iraq is the only topic on the agenda of the talks, some analysts say that the meeting provides a good opportunity to discuss other differences between the two countries, particularly the standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Bahram Rajaee, the director of international and external relations for the American Political Science Association, told the Mehr News Agency in an interview on Tuesday that he believes the most important goal of the planned talks between Iran and the U.S. should be to “establish a direct avenue of communication regarding regional affairs.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: What do you think of the planned Iran-U.S. negotiations on Iraq? Do you think the negotiations will only focus on Iraq or will the discussion be expanded to include other subjects as well?

Rajaee: Given that the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated markedly since 2003, I believe U.S.-Iran talks on Iraq are long overdue. The Bush administration is facing increasing domestic pressure to demonstrate it can demonstrate progress, and engaging Iraq’s neighbors such as Iran in a bid to tamp down the violence in Iraq is one way of doing so. From my perspective, it is highly likely that the talks will focus heavily on Iraq. Officials from both governments have already said that this will be their focus, and this is probably a good thing as dragging other issues into the process now may be premature and serve to undermine mutual confidence. I believe the most important goal, aside from working to reduce instability in Iraq, is for the U.S. and Iran to establish a direct avenue of communication regarding regional affairs.

Q: What points will be discussed in the negotiations?

Rajaee: Most likely, the immediate points of discussion will be Iran’s alleged support for various Shia militias, or alleged ties to other insurgent groups, and its intelligence/counterintelligence/military operations presence on the ground. In addition, Iran’s intentions regarding Iraq’s future government will also likely come into play. For its part, Iran will likely question the duration of the U.S. presence in its neighbor, allegations of U.S./Israeli cross-border operations into Iran, U.S. intentions regarding the Iraqi Shia, and the future of the MEK (the terrorist group Mojahedin Khalq).

Q: Some analysts argue that moderates in the Bush administration are winning over the dwindling ranks of neoconservatives. What is your view?

Rajaee: I agree that it is abundantly clear the “neoconservative” impulses of the Bush administration have largely evaporated under the costs of their own actions and heavy domestic political opposition. Even if this worldview were still in place, virtually the entire political universe around the president has shifted since 2003 in a way that makes acting on this perspective nearly impossible. Simply put, the American public and most American politicians have come to realize the very heavy costs the president’s ideology has imposed on them — with no end in sight. The case of Iran is one instance where this shift is gradually becoming apparent, but North Korea is another. In both cases, while there is still significant pressure to use greater force, the administration has opted for a diplomatic path for now. Again, this may well be more a belated recognition of their political inability to achieve their goals than a true shift in perspective, but nevertheless this is the political reality of Washington today.

Q: What do you think of the combined influence of Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the Iran-U.S. dialogue?

Rajaee: I think the roles of these individuals in the process of adopting a different approach to U.S. foreign policy is instrumental, but I would draw a clear distinction between Sec. Rice and Sec. Gates. Rice has been part of George W. Bush’s inner policy making circle since 1999/2000 and was intimately involved in the post-9/11 response as well as the planning and execution of the Iraq war. She also apparently shares the president’s predilection for viewing the world in black-white terms (“good vs. evil”) and even as she has chosen or been forced into being more of a diplomat recently, she will not be able to escape this past. However, I understand that she is increasingly relying on experienced senior advisors in the State Department (such as Nick Burns) who arguably favor diplomacy over the use of force regarding Iran — but tough diplomacy that aims to achieve U.S. objectives.

Robert Gates has a quite different background and arguably his entry into the administration — and the departure of Rumsfeld — was a huge turning point and major step in the erosion of the neoconservative hold on U.S. foreign policy. He is a well-known pragmatist and moderate. I think his ability to encourage more flexible approaches in both Bush and Rice will serve the U.S. well — both in these upcoming talks with Iran as well as larger deliberations on U.S. regional policy.

Mehr News, May 25, 2007

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=492100

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

Iraq Welcomes New Decisions on MKO

Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq had close ties with former regime’s security and military services because they had common goals, and therefore it was strongly involved in suppressing the uprising of people after 1991 invasion to Kuwait.

Following the ouster of Saddam regime, the elements of this group were protected by US soldiers; American’s put the MKO members in one of its camps in Diala province.

MKO was involved, along with the forces of former regime, in forcing the families in Diala to leave their homes. Coalition forces have not paid enough attention to the issue.

What seems to be important in the fate of this group, which has been listed as terrorist, is that it would on the agenda in the upcoming Iran-US talks.

Reliable intelligence received by Alqabas newspaper indicate that Iran would set forth particular issues like the presence of the group in Iraq and the necessity of cracking on it in the framework of a MOU that will be signed in Iraq.

This newspaper’s intelligence also show that the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, who had taken part in Sharm El-Sheikh conference, said Iran-US meeting depended on written request from Washington and the Iranian supreme leader Seyed ali Khamenei said in his speech a few days ago that such request had been delivered to Tehran. Therefore, we can conclude that Iranians will join the talks with US and that the US is ready to discuss the fate of MKO.

On the other hand, this organization has had security consequences for Iraqis and since it’s being protected by Americans, Iraqi government is not able to make final decision about the group, therefore they (Iraqis) would be satisfied to see the results of US-Iran decisions.

Nazar Hatam/Alqabas/Kuwait – 2007/05/21

Baghdad/May 2007, 2007

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

Mujahadeen-e-Khalq on agenda of Iran-U.S. talks

A radical Iranian opposition group will be one of the key discussion issues during talks between Iranian and U.S. officials in Iraq on May 28, an Iraqi newspaper reported Saturday.

Al-Sabah newspaper, a publication financed by the Shiite-led Iraqi government said the agenda of the talks would include four key issues – "the supplies of Iranian weapons to Iraqi militant groups, the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq organization, the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf region and the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq."

Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most extremist group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was founded in the 1960s by a group of college-educated Iranian leftists opposed to the country’s pro-Western ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  The group, which reportedly maintains bases in Iraq, was put on the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997 and on the European Union’s terrorist list in 2002 because its violent attacks often killed civilians. However, certain reports indicate that the group’s strong stand against Iran has won its support by some U.S. lawmakers and U.S. military command in Iraq.

Tehran demands that MEK members be expelled from Iraq or extradited to Iran.

The Baghdad talks, which come at the request of Iraqi leaders, had initially been scheduled for March of this year but were continuously postponed due to a U.S. propaganda campaign against Iran, in which the White House has accused of providing Shiite militia with weaponry and explosives.

Tehran, in turn, denies the accusations and blames Washington for the bloodshed and violence in Iraq that followed the U.S.-led military campaign in the country

Al-Sabah, Iraq, May 20, 2007

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

MKO, the Invisible Occupiers

MKO as well as its critics and its ex-members acknowledge the fact that Camp Ashraf, symbolizing MKO’s ideological capacity, is of a high strategic significance. The insistence of MKO on its stay in Iraq needs more time to be reflected upon. MKO does not submit to departure from Iraq for two main reasons:

 

1. Any change of location inevitably makes internal relation of the organization to be broken off. It is a fact that MKO can not bear its existing relations anywhere but in the city of Ashraf in Iraq now turned into an ideological and strategic fortress. Any circumstantial replacement on the part of the organization takes a considerable amount of time to establish a second Ashraf. Moreover, the prerequisite of their admission to other countries is the individual asylum of members so the organization can not preserve its cohesion by means of psychological levers anywhere but in Iraq. Camp Ashraf, considered similar to Alamout of Hassan Sabbah Assassins, is indeed a fortress.

2. Another reason is their strategic position on Iraqi soil. Maryam Rajavi has repeatedly drawn the attention of the Americans to the fact that they can take advantage of MKO’s so-called Liberation Army for any move against the Iranian soil is. MKO convince its members residing in Camp Ashraf that their stay in Iraq is the sole possible solution of overthrowing Iranian regime. They insist on saying that such a supposition is unlikely to come true unless they remain in Iraq.

Mojahedin have to make their destiny tied with their stay in Iraq. However, the insistence of Iraqi government to expel MKO for its interference in internal affairs and its link with questionable groups indicates that MKO’s present stay in Iraq is indebted to the Iraq’s instable situation. The comments of Shirvan al-Vaeli, Iraq’s security minister published in ‘Al-Hayat’ newspaper in London indicates that "Initial agreements have been reached between Iraqi government and the US” concerning the situating of MKO in Iraq. He urged once more for the expulsion of MKO from Iraq declaring that some European countries have announced preparedness to accept MKO members. Although MKO transfer from Iraq is costly, it gives members an opportunity to make their mind for their future far from any threat or enticing. The present position of MKO implies that they are not going to exit Iraq under any condition. They have even threatened Iraqi and the U.S. authorities that they would strongly resist against any decision of the kind.

Comments of Iraq’s security minister maintain Iraq’s decision to expel MKO. Now, the confrontation of Iraqi government and MKO has entered a critical phase. It seems that MKO would persistently resist the made decision and reject the facilities provided by the US for their settlement in another country. MKO’s offensive and even threatening position toward the EU and the others is a good example of its indifference to and disobedience of international statements and regulations. Likewise, their current position in Iraq confirms the fact that MKO is not a legally granted asylum in Iraq, rather it is an invisible occupier, disregarding the heavy costs it impose on Iraqi people.

Omid Pouya – Mojahedin.ws – May 13, 2007

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

MKO, Hated by Iraqis

With sectarian and racist motives, Baathist regime of Iraqi started forcing Arab Shiites and Kurds to leave their homelands and confiscated all their IDs and historical documents proving their Iraqi nationality.

The main reason was that Saddam wanted to change human structure of Iraq while Shiites and Kurds comprised more than 80 percent of Iraqi population.

After revolution in Iran and closure of US and Israeli embassies in Tehran, Americans thought of coup in Iran in order to compensate their failure. However, the coup effort with 18 American helicopters failed in a desert in Iran. So, they supported Saddam and his brutal ideas, and led him to attack Iran.

Arab and Eruopean countries supported him with money and financial and logistical aids. American media claimed that Imam Khomeini was to export Islamic revolution and that he didn’t consider Arabs as Muslims. The war started and the excuse was to return the second half of Arwand River (Shat al-Arab) to Iraq. It was amazing that Saddam Hussein had agreed earlier (1975) with the Shah of Iran to use this river equally, half by half. At that time, Saddam asked Iranian Shah to pressurized Kurds. However, it was Saddam who violated the agreement unilaterally.

Industrialized and colonialist governments as well as Egypt took advantage of the war, which left more than two millions and half dead, wounded and disabled. They soled and exported weapons to Iran and sometimes to Iran. Egyptian arms factories worked around the clock and even more than 1 million Egyptian workers went to Iraq. Meanwhile, Iraqis went to war fronts and what Iraqis received was war casualties.

After 8 years of war and bloodshed, the war stopped and Saddam agreed with the items of Algeria Agreement and the situation returned to normal.

Saddam granted Iraqi citizenship to appease his Egyptian partners. He even went further and allowed thousands of Iranian terrorists of Mojahedin-e Khalq to remain in Iraq. He provided them with weapons and tanks and trained them by his republican guards.

During the uprising of Shaabanieh in 1991 in northern, central and southern parts of Iraq, following the end of Kuwait occupation by Saddam, MKO members and elements of Republican Guards killed hundreds of Kurds and buried them in mass graves. After these attacks, compulsory immigrations of Shiites and Kurds, some Turkmens and others intensified.

Baathists insolently considered the MKO as the gusts of Iraq. According to our information, more than a million and half Iraqi men and women have lived in Iranian refugee camps since 25 years ago; most of these people are Fili Kurds and Arab Shiites. They have neither Iraqi identity nor Iranian one.

A Fili Kurd once told me that one of his relatives, a 25 year old boy, recently back from Iran, is unable to read or write. He has no identity no citizenship. I personally know Kurd families with the same problem, girls and boys who have grown up without any identity.

Iraqi government, in the first place, should have allowed Iraqi families to return and get back their identities and citizenship.

 

Al-Jeiran/Dr. Adnan Jawad Al-Temeh/Germany

2007/05/02

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

US Agrees with Iraqi Control over MKO

Iraqi security minister said the MKO was a source of unrest in Iraq.

Shirvan al-Vaeli, Iraq’s security minister, said in an interview with London-based Al-Hayat that "the MKO had created security crisis in Iraq."

"Initial agreements have been reached between Iraqi government and the US, which is responsible for protecting MKO members in Iraq, on the issue of how to protect these people," he added.

"Some European countries as well as Iran, which have pardoned some MKO members, are ready to accept them."

Quoting this report, IRNA said:

"National Security minister of Iraq said that around 4000 MKO members in Iraq would possibly be transferred to Europe in a near future.

According to Shirvan al-Vaeli, whose comments were published on Wednesday, some European countries have announced preparedness to accept MKO members.

In addition to these countries, Islamic Republic of Iran has also pardoned MKO members, this Iraqi official added.

He said the MKO was a source of insecurity in Dyala province in Iraq.

Currently, the US forces are protecting MKO members in Camp Ashraf in Dyala province.

Although the US has always claimed to be watching all activities of MKO, preventing them from conducting political and military operations, Iraqi government and Iraqi political figures say the MKO has created unrest in Dyala.

Camp Ashraf, MKO’s main base in Iraq, has been a place for political meetings with anti-Iranian Arab groups since the invasion to Iraq in 2003.

It should be noted that Iraqi Interim Government ordered the expulsion of MKO in 2003 but Americans have so far prevented the execution of this order.

 

A-Hayat, London, April 25, 2007

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

The Border Closed to Stop MKO

According to a report by institute for War & Peace Reporting the Iraqi government ordered the Munthiriya crossing point to be closed on February 15.

Although the closure of a major crossing point on the Iraq-Iran border is considered by some senior Kurdish figures as an attempt by the government to undermine the Iraqi-Kurdistan region, the Iraqi government insists that the closure of Munthiriya was a security measure to prevent the moves of MKO and other terrorist groups.

The Munthiriya was an international crossing-border and the Kurdish officials say its closure negatively influences the economy of Kurdistan and stops its development.

Abas al-Bayati, a member of the security and defense committee in the Iraqi government, reiterated that the closure of Munthiriya was due to security concerns along the border.

"There are movements of Mujahideen al-Khalq (an Iranian opposition group) and some other armed groups," he said, adding that Iraqi troops had been deployed along the Iranian border in Dyala province to combat these groups.

Mojahedin.ws  – 16/04/2007

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

Tangled Webs

Here’s a story that looks like something of a blockbuster: The Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iraqi-based Iranian opposition group, is considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Any American supporting the group can be charged with a crime. Yet the MEK “gets protection from the U.S. military despite Iraqi pressure to leave the country,” and “regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf.”

But you probably missed the story because (according to a reader who sent it to me) it was posted very briefly on CNN’s front page and then quickly disappeared. No other major outlet (and very few minor ones) seem to have picked it up. The CNN story quotes Shirwan al-Wa’eli, Iraq’s national security minister, as saying of the MEK, “We gave this organization a six-month deadline to leave Iraq, and we informed the Red Cross. And presumably, our friends the Americans will respect our decision and they will not stay on Iraqi land.”

The MEK has been on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups for a decade. And when reading that CNN story, mull over this excerpt from a recent State Department report:

During the 1970s, the MEK killed U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran… Near the end of the 1980-1988 war with Iran, Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces. In 1991, the MEK reportedly assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north.

 

Harper’s Magazine – BY Ken Silverstein – PUBLISHED April 9, 2007

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts