Lord Corbett ! In this interview which had been implemented and carried out by the Persian section of the BBC, without contemplating of the news broadcasting and journalism prestige, you as pmoi lobby had reversed and censored all the realities which are existing inside the pmoi organization . your interview reminds us of the interviews of some characters of the eastern part of the world.

You are saying in this interview that you do not have any desire to know anything about the internal structure and problems of pmoi! And the only thing which is important for you is that pmoi is trying its best to finish and terminate the breach of human rights which is happening in Iran! But you do not answer why is not important for you the internal problems and structure of such organization? And it is more interesting that you do not want to know or hear anything about their internal problems and structure consequently it is very questionable.
Lord Corbett , you should know that we are the people who had lived more than you inside this organization, and our question is ,do you know that what is waiting for the people who have a chance to escape and leave the pmoi organization after 10 or 20 years?

Is it important in your culture the life of the people? and how do they live?

Where have you read or heard as a supporter and advocate of the human rights that the condition for supporting of an organization or a government , is just by supporting their slogans? Is not true that the first condition for supporting an organization or a government or ……etc is to survey and scrutinize the internal relations of such organization or government? Because slogans can be fake and unreal!

While the families of the pmoi members have been waiting behind the gates of Ashraf garrison for more than a year to see their loved ones and their request has been rejected up to now by the pmoi operatives and instead they have been slandered and insulted by the pmoi operatives, how can the leaders of such organization claim the democracy and human rights in their slogans?

Lord Corbett , the essence of fact finding should be existing in any person who claims supporting and advocating for freedom ,the human rights and democracy . This essence of fact finding begets more responsibilities and double your responsibility as a member of House of Lords and House of Representatives and we believe that your first priority as a member of House of Lords should be the fact finding .

Lord Corbett , what are you going to lose if you decide to have a conversation and exchanging views with the separated members of pmoi preferably in front of media? But please listen to our request one more time which is saying that you have judged unilaterally in your interview, but we as the victims of such organization who have inherited many pains and miseries of this organization ,pmoi, and we would like to share all those experiences with you and at the end we would like to hear your respond and opinion ,as a defender of human rights and democracy ,for all those miseries and painful moments that each one of us had experienced in that organization.

According to your speech , you do not receive any money from this passer , consequently you respect to the fact finding , so if in your country and in your capital , London, is not possible to have such meeting with you ,our association , Iran Lantern( Iran Fanoos) is inviting you to have this meeting with the separated members of pmoi in Germany.
Any endeavors and transparency in advancing and deepening the democracy and the freedom slogan has its own impacts and effects.

There is no need to be worried , you are doing your best for freedom and democracy and you can continue your admirable and holy duties after all! But we should say and emphasize that in the world of communication the fact finding will come to the reality much faster and the facts will be revealed at last .

Respectfully

Iran Fanous, Germany

The post Iran Fanous open letter to Lord Robin Corbett appeared first on Nejat Society.

For centuries the colonizers exploited and dominated the third world. Today, one of the more subtle tools of imperialism is the use of value-laden language that seeks to define the Arab and Muslim world. With labels such as ‘terrorists’ and ‘Islamofascism’, they wish to establish an ‘Orientalist’ perspective of otherness denoting barbarism as set apart from Israel and the West which represents admirable qualities. It is imperative to reject this imperial imposition of characterization and for each state, individually and collectively, to self-rule, foremost through self-definition.

The case of Mojahedeen-e Khalg (MEK) showcases the ever present imperial influence of the West in defining the ‘other’ due to the ownership of language. The hypocrisy is stark given that the U.S. with the help of her ally the British waged a ‘war on terror’ which has resulted in the death of over a million people to date. Yet, a certain Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, a member of the House of Lords from Gordon Brown’s ruling Labor Party, has coauthored an opinion piece with Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA), both of whom promote the terrorist organization of the MEK. In their opinion, these two argue that engagement with Iran would risk, among other things, a “support for international terrorism”[i].

Lord Colbert does not do his title justice; to paraphrase Samuel Butler, a degenerate nobleman is like a turnip. There is nothing good of him but that which is under ground. Else how can he explain throwing in his lot with terrorists who are in the employ of Israel?”Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.RI. broadcasts from Paris into Iran” [ii]. Their servitude to the Israelis was after they had committed treason, murder, and terrorism while under the tutelage of Saddam Hossein – the man that the Americans and the British considered a threat to world peace, and whose demise and the invasion of Iraq has now caused a threat to world peace.

While innocent Iraqis were being killed en masse in the ‘war on terror’, the Commander in Chief gave ‘special persons status’ to Saddam’s pet terrorists in Camp Ashraf while an associate from the powerful Republican lobbying group of Barbour Griffith & Rogers invited Neil Livingstone, the C.E.O. of Global Options, an international risk-management firm, and Gregory Minjack, who was an executive at Public Strategies, a Washington-based crisis-management company” to remove the group from the FTO designation. The lobby group was not without help. Congressman Filner has been on the Hill promoting the group. But perhaps one of their most ardent admirers is Cuban-born Congresswoman Senator Ros-Lehtinen who is not new to the game.

In February 1988, Orlando Bosch had been arrested in Miami and implicated in the 1976 Cubana plot, a terrorist act which had resulted in the downing of flight 455 killing 73 passengers. Joe D. Whitley, associate United States Attorney General at the time, called Bosch “a terrorist, unfettered by laws or human decency, threatening and inflicting violence without regard to the identity of his victims”[iii], had the distinct advantage of having Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) Bosch’s release as one of the cornerstones of her 1989 congressional campaign. This murderer of 73 innocent lives had the more good luck. Ros-Lehtinen’s campaign manager was Jed Bush, the President’s son. In July 1989, a month after meeting his son Jed and Ros-Lehtinen to discuss the Bosch case, President Bush rejected his Justice Department’s recommendation and authorized Bosch’s release who became a resident of the United States two years later.[iv] In granting the MEK terrorists asylum in Iraq, George W. is following a family trend.

Bosch’s terrorist partner, Cuban-born, Luis Posada Carriles dedicated his life to the over throw of Fidel Castro and was a CIA recruit who participated in the calamitous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, “he was part of Operation Southern Front…and he worked for the Hammer [Oliver North]…From 1967 to 1986, Luis was a compensated agent of the CIA. And George Bush, the vice president, knew what he was doing.”[v] Yet for blowing up a plane and causing 73 people to be killed, he was arrested in 2005 on immigration charges and released in 2007[vi] . It is interesting to note that George H.W. Bush was director of the CIA when the Cubana airliner exploded. What makes the Cuban-born Ros-Lehtinen support the MEK terrorists, does she have a fatal attraction towards assassins and murderers? Or are she and the rest of Congress following the leader of nation that has waged ‘war on terror’?

Perhaps they believe that by imposing the colonial language of calling the ‘other’ ‘uncivilized’ and state sponsor of terrorists, their mass murder and moral annihilation will go unnoticed. “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” – J.F. Kennedy.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American studying at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She is a member of World Association of International Studies society, Stanford. Her research focus is U.S. foreign policy towards Iran, Iran’s nuclear program, and the influence of lobby groups. She is a peace activist, essayist, radio commentator and public speaker.

[i] http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-world-press/

dont-enable-irans-offenses.html

[ii] Connie Bruck, “A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran’s expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat”. The New Yorker, March 6, 2006

[iii] Quoted in Weiner, “Case of Cuban Exile Could Test the U.S. Definition of Terrorist,” p. A1.

[iv] Bardach, “Twilight of the Assassins.”

[v] Bardach, “Ibid

[vi] “The Good Terrorist: The United States and Cuba,” The Economist vol. 383, iss. 8526. 28 April 2007. p. 44.

 By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, Counter Currents, May 17, 2008

http://www.countercurrents.org/ulrich170508.htm

The post Lord Colbert does not do his title justice appeared first on Nejat Society.

For centuries the colonizers exploited and dominated the third world. Today, one of the more subtle tools of imperialism is the use of value-laden language that seeks to define the Arab and Muslim world. With labels such as ‘terrorists’ and ‘Islamofascism’, they wish to establish an ‘Orientalist’ perspective of otherness denoting barbarism as set apart from Israel and the West which represents admirable qualities. It is imperative to reject this imperial imposition of characterization and for each state, individually and collectively, to self-rule, foremost through self-definition.

The case of Mojahedeen-e Khalg (MEK) showcases the ever present imperial influence of the West in defining the ‘other’ due to the ownership of language. The hypocrisy is stark given that the U.S. with the help of her ally the British waged a ‘war on terror’ which has resulted in the death of over a million people to date. Yet, a certain Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, a member of the House of Lords from Gordon Brown’s ruling Labor Party, has coauthored an opinion piece with Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA), both of whom promote the terrorist organization of the MEK. In their opinion, these two argue that engagement with Iran would risk, among other things, a “support for international terrorism”[i].

Lord Colbert does not do his title justice; to paraphrase Samuel Butler, a degenerate nobleman is like a turnip. There is nothing good of him but that which is under ground. Else how can he explain throwing in his lot with terrorists who are in the employ of Israel? "Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.RI. broadcasts from Paris into Iran” [ii]. Their servitude to the Israelis was after they had committed treason, murder, and terrorism while under the tutelage of Saddam Hossein – the man that the Americans and the British considered a threat to world peace, and whose demise and the invasion of Iraq has now caused a threat to world peace.

While innocent Iraqis were being killed en masse in the ‘war on terror’, the Commander in Chief gave ‘special persons status’ to Saddam’s pet terrorists in Camp Ashraf while an associate from the powerful Republican lobbying group of Barbour Griffith & Rogers invited Neil Livingstone, the C.E.O. of Global Options, an international risk-management firm, and Gregory Minjack, who was an executive at Public Strategies, a Washington-based crisis-management company” to remove the group from the FTO designation. The lobby group was not without help. Congressman Filner has been on the Hill promoting the group. But perhaps one of their most ardent admirers is Cuban-born Congresswoman Senator Ros-Lehtinen who is not new to the game.

In February 1988, Orlando Bosch had been arrested in Miami and implicated in the 1976 Cubana plot, a terrorist act which had resulted in the downing of flight 455 killing 73 passengers. Joe D. Whitley, associate United States Attorney General at the time, called Bosch “a terrorist, unfettered by laws or human decency, threatening and inflicting violence without regard to the identity of his victims”[iii], had the distinct advantage of having Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) Bosch’s release as one of the cornerstones of her 1989 congressional campaign. This murderer of 73 innocent lives had the more good luck. Ros-Lehtinen’s campaign manager was Jed Bush, the President’s son. In July 1989, a month after meeting his son Jed and Ros-Lehtinen to discuss the Bosch case, President Bush rejected his Justice Department’s recommendation and authorized Bosch’s release who became a resident of the United States two years later.[iv] In granting the MEK terrorists asylum in Iraq, George W. is following a family trend.

Bosch’s terrorist partner, Cuban-born, Luis Posada Carriles dedicated his life to the over throw of Fidel Castro and was a CIA recruit who participated in the calamitous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, “he was part of Operation Southern Front…and he worked for the Hammer [Oliver North]…From 1967 to 1986, Luis was a compensated agent of the CIA. And George Bush, the vice president, knew what he was doing.”[v] Yet for blowing up a plane and causing 73 people to be killed, he was arrested in 2005 on immigration charges and released in 2007[vi] . It is interesting to note that George H.W. Bush was director of the CIA when the Cubana airliner exploded. What makes the Cuban-born Ros-Lehtinen support the MEK terrorists, does she have a fatal attraction towards assassins and murderers? Or are she and the rest of Congress following the leader of nation that has waged ‘war on terror’?

Perhaps they believe that by imposing the colonial language of calling the ‘other’ ‘uncivilized’ and state sponsor of terrorists, their mass murder and moral annihilation will go unnoticed. “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” – J.F. Kennedy.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American studying at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She is a member of World Association of International Studies society, Stanford. Her research focus is U.S. foreign policy towards Iran, Iran’s nuclear program, and the influence of lobby groups. She is a peace activist, essayist, radio commentator and public speaker.

[i].http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-world-press/dont-enable-irans-offenses.html

[ii] Connie Bruck, “A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran’s expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat”. The New Yorker, March 6, 2006

[iii] Quoted in Weiner, “Case of Cuban Exile Could Test the U.S. Definition of Terrorist,” p. A1.

[iv] Bardach, “Twilight of the Assassins.”

[v] Bardach, “Ibid

[vi] “The Good Terrorist: The United States and Cuba,” The Economist vol. 383, iss. 8526. 28 April 2007. p. 44.

Counter Currents

The post Terror Most Imperial appeared first on Nejat Society.

Joseph Joubert said: “Imagination is the eye of the soul”. It therefore comes as no surprise that with terrorists lending their imagination to Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, a member of the House of Lords from Gordon Brown’s ruling Labor Party, his soul is blinded. Lord Corbett would have us believe that millions of Iranians are eagerly waiting for the “freedoms offered by Iran’s parliament-in-exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.” Perhaps it is the inaccuracy of the number that troubles this writer.  , the only terrorists in Iraq, the MEK, were given ‘special persons status’; hardly a noteworthy credential for ‘self-acclaimed parliamentarians in exile’ who wants to offer freedom, unless the sort offered by the Bush-Blair coalition – complete destruction of Iran.   One must wonder what has prompted a distinguished British Lord to rise up in the defense of terrorists, and more importantly, to accept the highly visible position of chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom? To believe in a ‘good Samaritan’ state is fool-hardy. Empirical evidence supports the fact that Britain’s foreign policy has been in direct conflict with that of Iran’s national interest. Given that the MEK’s history has been fully explored and recorded by the Human Rights Watch organization and the United States State Department, one has to examine Lord Corbett’s risky undertaking in associating his distinguished title with this group.  Ronal Reagan once said: “Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first”. He was remarkably astute in his observation. In 1995, it became painfully clear to Lord Nolan that 30% of all MPs were being paid for consultancies (advice and lobbying) related to their parliamentary role. At the time of this revelation, the majority of Conservative backbenchers were ‘spoken for’ by one commercial lobby or another.  An influential lobby group called ‘Decision Makers’ had Dame Angela Rumbold, Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party as one of its directors. She resigned when Mohammed Al-Fayed, father of Princess Diana’s fiancé, Dodi Fayed, made allegations against senior party figures[iii]. Another ‘lobbying company’ was set up by lan Greer who began in politics working for Cabinet Minister Peter Walker. He remained a Conservative agent for thirteen years after which he has enjoyed close links with senior Conservative politicians. In 1969 he began lobbying as a business. Among Ian Greer Associates (IGA) was Prime Minister Bhutto.  Could it be that the MEK is using a lobby group to influence the likes of Lord Corbett? This group is not without influence. Indeed, they have many friends in the United States Congress. They are cunning and skillful in the art of deception. They have also had the world believe that the minority religious in Iran are being persecuted setting Iran in the ‘Orientalist’ perspective of the Muslim ‘otherness’ denoting barbarism. This will give the neocons who believe in a combination of force, ideas, and morality the ammunition to attack Iran. However, nothing is further from the truth. The minorities themselves have spoken to this fact:”Christians and Zoroastrians leave because of unemployment, the bad economy, but these problems affect all Iranians,”said Yonathan Betkolia, an Assyrian Christian leader and member of Iran’s parliament who holds the United States responsible for his community’s decline.”They give all those green cards to our people. Their only goal is to propagate the idea that Iran is mistreating its minorities.”  Who is providing this group with such logistical support? Heilbrunn, a former neoconservative who is now senior editor at the Nixon Center’s journal,”The National Interest”, asserts that neoconservatism”is in a decisive respect a Jewish phenomenon,”even if many adherents — albeit a minority — are not Jewish. Moreover, neoconservatives, both Jew and gentile, are bound by a”shared commitment to the largest, most important Jewish cause: the survival of Israel.”Let us hope, for the sake of the British people, and others, that the good Lord Corbett of Castle Vale will not be so easily misguided by unsavory groups in the future.  Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American who was educated in Iran, England and France. She is a member of World Association of International Studies – Stanford. Her research focus is US Foreign Policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program, and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy. She is a peace activist, essayist and public speaker.

Middle East Online, Opinion, March 4, 2008 http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=24624

The post Member of Parliament for Hire? appeared first on Nejat Society.

I have read all of your interviews and written statements that are to be seen on the website of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation with interest and concern. I am committed to human rights and am studying intensely the politics in and around Iran. Therefore it would be a pleasure for me to add to your information.

In your interviews, you have mentioned that the history of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation’s armed operations goes back to before 2001, and you have emphasised that they have preformed no terrorist or similar activities after this date. What I really want to know is whether the organisation has in fact ruled out armed struggle – once the core of its ideology, strategy and tactics. Or is it simply because the organisation is incapable of carrying out terror acts at this moment in time?

As I understand it, you are not supporting or sympathizing with the MKO or National Resistance Council (NRC). At least, you stated as such in your interview with the BBC:

“I do not support the MKO or the National Resistance Council. I do support the UK.” The reporter asks: “You are trying to impose the MKO on the Iranian People?” Your reply: “I am trying to pursue the benefits of the UK.”

In another interview, you have mentioned:

Israel has good relations within the U. S. and can arrange for the MKO being eliminated from the list of terrorist groups. Thus, the MKO will be enabled to initiate its struggle against Iran from Iraqi territory. We are sure that if the MKO should start its battle against Iran, it will be supported by the Iranian people. The Iranian government would quell the opponents and trigger an inner civil war. The National Liberation Army (NLA) would intervene in order to prevent bloodshed. The mullah’s regime would fall and the MKO would take over.“

In my opinion you are not a supporter of the MKO but a patriotic citizen of the UK. Therefore you want to use the MKO as a military tool in terms of the accomplishment of your objectives. But I want to advise you that your theory is wrong. I would like to draw your attention to my thirty years’ experience resulting from my former membership with the MKO.

If you are seriously interested in accomplishing the objectives of your home country, then why do you want to ride on a dead horse, the MKO? Do you really believe that the MKO has any support in Iran?

Please believe me, each and every political group or individual opposing the Islamic Republic, whether monarchist, republican or nationalist, all consider the MKO as remnants, the leftovers of the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Nothing else.

Do you know that this organisation is presenting itself with two different faces: one humanitarian, for the public and another one, military and sect-like to the inside.

The MKO is a terrorist organisation as well as a religious sect. The MKO has linked the ideology of Marx and Lenin with Islam and established a radical organisation.

Without the express approval of its religious leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, all marriage is prohibited. The future and destiny of their members depends on their decision only.

Those who wanted to decide for themselves about their private lives have been executed by the organisation. One of the victims was Alinaghi Hadady, whom I knew personally. At that time I was a member of the Central Committee and dared to protest against repression and violation within the organisation. Due to a direct order of the religious leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi I was given an extrajudicial sentence of imprisonment under solitary confinement, first at camp Ashraf and then in the prison of Abu Ghraib for a period of 9 years.

When Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq, the organisation was given the best opportunities, whether militarily, logistically or financially. They enjoyed full support from Saddam. And did it ever use one of the opportunities to make a step towards democracy in Iran?

Since 1981 the organisation tried to bring a so-called democracy to Iran by committing terrorist activities and assassination. But this led to a dead-end-street. Democracy will not be established by bringing violence to the people.

If what the MKO asserts is true, if there really is sympathy for them in Iran, then why do the leaders and their command live abroad and commit attacks inside Iran?

I wanted to write more to you about my experiences and with information about Iran and MKO, but I would prefer a personal meeting with you. Me and my colleagues would be pleased if you gave us the opportunity to speak to you personally.

Yours sincerely,

Mohammad Hossein Sobhani

08.12.2007

Postfach 90 06 63

51116 Köln“Deutschland

Phone: +49 (0)1639076911

Email:sobhani_m_h@hotmail.com

Mohammad Hussein Sobhani, December 08, 2007 –  http://www.iran-ghalam.de/2Haupt/2157.sobhani.8.12.07.HTM

The post Open letter to Lord Corbett by Mohammad Sobhani appeared first on Nejat Society.

With the greatest respect, I refer to my previous letter dated February 28, 2007 and many questions which were forwarded to you relating your interview with the BBC that remained unanswered. I was expecting you to clarify at least some of the queries I mentioned in my letter in your next interview.

Nevertheless, now I wish to refer to your recent interview with the Sky News television which was reflected in the website of the Mojahedin-é Khalq Organisation (MKO) called “hambastegimeli”. In this interview you called upon the west to move the obstacles on the way of the MKO who wants to topple the Iranian regime and you demanded the UK to adopt tougher stances against the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have also repeated your previous comments that enlisting the MKO as a proscribed terrorist group was done for political purposes due to appease the Islamic State.

 Initially I should emphasze that your comments in your interviews are the replicate of those of Mas’ud and Maryam Rajavi which are constantly repeated in their statements. You also – exactly like them – do not go into details and leave many unanswered questions behind. I do not object you to repeat the leaders of MKO as long as you are prepared to explain quarries.

 First of all I wish to know in details that how MKO was stopped to restore peace and freedom in Iran by simply being listed as a terrorist group? What political limitations are they experiencing in the western countries at this very moment? Do you expect the western security services to leave a destructive cult completely unwatched in their countries particularly after the terrorist incident of 11th of September? The MKO today is enjoying satellite broadcasting towards Iran from London; their weekly publication “Mojahed” is published in London and distributed round the world; they have access to parliamentarians and do get supportive press coverage; they have an open hand to raze money in the western countries and guide their activities inside Iran from Paris and other western capitals; they have no limitation on holding demonstrations, press conferences, and public meetings as well as travelling round the world and openly meeting people and they spend huge sums of money on this and have access to excessive funds. So I would be grateful if you could mention some facts relating to the limitations the MKO is enduring in the west to restore peace and democracy in Iran which has come from the direct result of being listed as a terrorist group.

 Secondly I would like to ask you that how come the organisation was listed in one instance for political reasons but now its name would not be removed from the list for similar political reasons. I do not believe that the deal – according to you – which was once held between the west and the Islamic Republic of Iran, still applies. On the contrary the relationship between the two sides has deteriorated day by day. I really want to know that what the entire American and European countries, particularly the US and the UK, are gaining politically by keeping the name of the organisation in the various international terrorist lists.

 I am anxiously waiting to get the answers of the two above mentioned questioned either from you or any person who is claiming the same as you do. I also do wish that the name of the organisation be removed from any terrorist list round the world and every supposedly limitations imposed on them be lifted as soon as possible in order to take any excuse from them.

 Yours faithfully,

 Ebrahim Khodabandeh

The post Khodabande open letter to Lord Corbett appeared first on Nejat Society.

With the greatest respect, I refer to your interview with the BBC Persian Service on February 23, 2007 (Link to the interview) which was published on the BBC’s website. May I first express my pleasure that you have entered into a free discussion about the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (MKO). As you know, there are many questions about the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation which remain unanswered.

You have mentioned in your interview that the reason behind the proscription of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation in Britain and other places is purely political and was made in relation to the interests of the Iranian Regime. This might be true, but what I would like to know is why the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation is still being kept on the lists of terrorist entities in almost every western country when these countries are engaged in a serious confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran? As you are well aware, Britain represents the toughest stance against Iran in Europe. At the same time Britain has been and is still leading the European Union against the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation. Doesn’t this reality disprove your claim that this matter is no more than politically motivated bargaining? I would like to know, if the Mojahedin was proscribed on the basis of a political decision, then why is it not de-proscribed now on the same basis? What could possibly be the political interest for the British government in insisting on keeping the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation on the list of proscribed terrorist organisations?

I think the reason for proscription of the Mojahedin Khalq as a terrorist organisation has never been a political decision. I think the decision has been purely security related. All the security services in the west categorise the MKO as a destructive cult in which violence has become part its infrastructure. Indeed, if anything, the point that the Mojahedin’s activities in western countries have not been confronted to the full could be interpreted as a politically motivated act due to the grievances between Iran and western countries. But no responsible security official would leave a cult like the MKO, which has theorised the use of violence, unchecked and unmonitored. The only way for the security services to be able to monitor and control the organisation is to keep it on the list of proscribed terrorist organisations. You are well aware yourself that the Mojahedin after the fall of the late dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, is no longer considered to pose a threat to Iran. But could the people responsible for the security of European countries confidently announce the same? Could they really announce that the Mojahedin is not a threat to European countries?

In your interview, you have mentioned that the history of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation’s armed operations goes back to before 2001, and you have emphasised that they have preformed no terrorist or similar activities after this date. What I really want to know is whether the organisation has in fact ruled out armed struggle – once the core of its ideology, strategy and tactics. Or is it simply because the organisation is incapable of carrying out terror acts at this moment of time?

You have also endorsed the Mojahedin’s assassination of the former head of Evin Prison. It has become a mystery for me. If the killing of all the people whom the Mojahedin have assassinated inside Iran is justified, then what about the thousands of similar people in Iran right now who have not been assassinated? Why is it that the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (with your endorsement) does not attempt to deal with them? Why has the organisation refrained from its prior activities and is not working towards assassinating these subjects and instead has put a stop to its armed struggle from 2001? And if they have really come to the conclusion that they should stop this armed struggle, then why do not announce it publicly and criticise their past activities and above all why do you still try to legitimise their violent history?

I do not know if you have any answers for my questions. But I would be most grateful if you could offer some explanations concerning the questions I have posed. From my heart I wish that the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation would return to logic and one day be among the important players in the Iranian political scene. I would like to propose that the best course of action that the MKO could take is to start reviewing its past and clearly denounce violence against anyone and at anytime. I am sure that in doing so the organisation would be acting in its own best interests.

With many thanks.

Yours faithfully,

Ebrahim Khodabandeh

The post Open letter to Lord Corbett of Castle Vale appeared first on Nejat Society.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom and the leading figure against the proscription of MKO, is more steadfast than Mojahedin in the fight. Published in the Birmingham Post, Nov. 17, Lord Corbett strongly contradicted Tony Blair’s recent saying that Iran- “in conjunction with Syria – may hold the key to a peaceful Middle East”. He adds that:

Western leaders are scratching their heads in desperate search for a new Middle East policy as the dire situation in Iraq worsens and tensions in Lebanon and Palestine rise.

It does not mean that Lord Corbett favors a permanent anarchy in the Middle East, no, heaven forbid, but that he conceives the West is unable to find the appropriate apparatus to solve the problem. Criticizing engagement of Iran to end the crisis, he states:

Those who favour ‘engagement’ of Iran’s Ayatollahs, sometimes described as appeasement, have taken this opportunity to call for ‘dialogue’ with Tehran as a means of resolving the various crises in the Middle East, including in Iraq.

Lord Corbett then suggests that the West must abandon the appeasement policy and exploit a force, beyond that of the US or Britain!, that the Iranian regime most fear:

Instead, as part of the present policy review, the West must ask itself what it is that the brutal oppressors of the Iranian people most fear. It is certainly not the US or Britain. What they fear is democracy and those that can bring it about – the 95 per cent of Iranians who despise this regime and the Iranian resistance, National Council of Resistance of Iran.

Thus, the problem is resolved. Mojahedin are a means of resolving the crises in the Middle East and as he states: “This is where the solution to the present crises in the Middle East rests”.

But what has barred such a potential force to solve so complicated a problem and to bring about peace and tranquility for the people of the Middle East? The blame is again on the US and those Western countries that have proscribed potential Mojahedin a terrorist group. By “removal of the unjust terror label from the PMOI.”, Lord Corbett believes the West can pave the way and take the first step towards building a stabilized Middle East.

“Should the West have the courage and the will to follow this course, we will soon see a very different Middle East”.

Once, on the pretext of war against terrorism, the US and the Western countries invaded Afghanistan and Iraq causing a destabilized region. Now comes another westerner who suggests utilizing a terrorist group to restore the equilibrium. I also congratulate Lord Corbett for proposing so lofty a suggestion; putting forth the terrorists that act as antidote to anarchy.

Sattar Orangi, November 21, 2006

The post A Funny Solution to the Middle East Crisis appeared first on Nejat Society.