Home » IranDidban » Page 17

IranDidban

Iran

MKO’s Death in US-Iran Talks

There are various comments on the issue of US-Iran Talks, including that of Al-Zaman newspaper, writing: "Joint fight against terrorism will be possibly a basis for the talks and Iran will ask for the extradition of MKO."

This issue is critical for Mojahedin and this extraordinary importance has upset the remnants of Rajavi.

It should be noted that the US, unable to run and manage Iraq affairs, has accepted Iran’s role in Islamic countries and particularly Shiite communities- the role it tried to deny; with dividing the opportunities, the US is seeking a way out of Iraq crisis.

Iran’s position among Iraqi Shiites, called by the MKO only as "hidden occupation of Iraq", is a historical, cultural, social and religious issue; an issue the MKO has always been dissatisfied of. They (Mojahedin-e Khalq leaders) say the only way to fight this hidden occupation is to follow the way of Saddam, namely ignoring and suppressing the right of more than 60 percent of Iraqis for living.

In an interview with Al-Arabia news channel, Egyptian president "Hosni Mobarak" stressed: "A significant part of Arab countries in the region is comprised of the Shiites who are mostly loyal to Iran rather than countries they live in."

In response to a question on Iran’s influence in Iraq, he said: "Iran has naturally influence on Iraqi Shiites who constitute 65 percent of that country’s population."*

What has bolstered Iran’s role not only in Iraq but also in the whole region is the lowering of US’s position and hatred toward the policies of this country among the people of the world. This feeling of hatred is particularly stronger in the Middle East and among Muslims due to US’s support for Israel.

In fact, the US is investing t improve its image among the people of the world and Muslims. In the meantime, its unilateral and warmongering policies block any improvement.

Negotiation with Iran with whatever topic and content, held in response to the request of US ambassador in Iraq and the mediation of Iraqi political figures, is a sing of the victory of nations and prove the role and power of Iran.

In contradiction with the current realities and in order to boost the morale of its forces, the MKO interprets the negotiations as a setback for Iran and by linking it to the nuclear case concludes that the pressure from the West and the US forced Iran to come to the table.

By this, they try to convince their members to stay with the group (even for a short time).

Regardless of reasons and causes of Iran-US negotiations, and with a look at the developments in the region, it should be reminded that US’s current policies are condemned to failure and hanging on such policies (by desperate groups like the cult of Rajavi) will bring nothing except total extermination.

——————————-

* Fars News Agency

Irandidban

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

MKO Supports Terror in Tasuki

Following the terrorist action in Tasuki (on the road from Zabol to Zahedan), in which 21 were killed and 7 others injured, Iranliberty website which belongs to the terrorist organization of Mojahedin-e Khalq and is run by Mansoor Ghadrkhah (member of MKO council), supported this terrorist act by releasing a statement and called "revolutionary forces" those who conducted it.

In their website, MKO members published Sattar Laghayee’s article, which read:

"Mullah’s governor as well as Basiji and secret agents have been revolutionary executed in atonement for the blood of thousands of Iranian youths. Heroes who can’t stand the situation anymore, after the killing of Iranian elites in the horrible prisons of Mullah’s Oligarchy, have rebelled against criminal mullahs. Mercenary news agencies called them "anti-revolutionary"? Don’t they really know the difference of "revolutionary" and "anti-revolutionary"?"

Terrorist organization of Mujahideen-e Khalq, supporting the acts of these terrorist separatist groups, threatens of spreading such terrorist operations in the next year and says:

"This year was a good year for Mullah’s Oligarchy but the worst remains to come in the next year…what has happened is only a small part of Mullah’s problems".

Earlier also, terrorist MKO approved the acts of murderers in Ahwaz and, by condemning their execution, tried to buy credit for itself in front of its masters.

Irandidban

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

“we are not giving any thought to taking them off the list”

Q "…you know, last month they were members of the MEK; today they’re the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, and they’re still raising money that is suspected of going to the MEK?"

MR. ERELI: Last question.

Q To follow up on the Steve’s question about unsavory characters and the MEK, there’s kind of this unusual situation with the MEK that it’s listed as a terrorist organization; you don’t do business with them. But there are groups that are under different aliases aligned with the MEK, raising money in this country, individuals that are holding press conferences, that used to be members of the MEK that now have another name that are talking about the nuclear issue. Could you kind of flesh that out? And is there any thought to taking MEK off the list? I’m not sure what their support is in Iran, but the diaspora around the world seems to have a very large following?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Elise, I don’t want to go beyond, you know, what our policy is which is that they’re on the terrorist list. We consider them a terrorist organization, and we are not giving any thought to taking them off the list at this point.

Q But how do you reconcile the fact that there are members that use — you know, last month they were members of the MEK; today they’re the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, and they’re still raising money that is suspected of going to the MEK?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: You know, we’re concerned about any activity that provides funds for terrorist organizations. And funds for the MEK would fall under that same rubric. Thanks.

Q And you’re vetting these groups you’re meeting? You’re vetting these groups you’re meeting with to make sure they don’t have these MEK connections?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yes. Absolutely. We’re vetting these groups to ensure that they don’t have any unsavory connections, and not just the groups we meet with, but groups that we’re going to be providing funds to.

MR. ERELI: Thanks very much. 

STATE DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND BRIEFING WITH TWO SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS (AS RELEASED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT)

February 15, 2006

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Hojat Zamani

Terrorist or Victim?!

With a little consideration, one can clearly see how happy is the terrorist MKO of possible execution of Hojjat Zamani, one of its members. At the current situation, MKO needed to introduce this as a sign for the importance of its espionage activities in the referral of Iran’s case to UN Security Council. However, the reality is that this event, which has been only reported by the MKO and its accuracy is doubted, has nothing to do with nuclear issues.

Hojjat Zamani and two of his brothers were among the people who were deployed to Iran- because of stupid plans of Rajavi to disrupt social order in Iran after the presidential elections in 1997, which led to the presidency of Seyed Mohammed Khatami- to conduct terrorist operations, attract the so-called global attention toward the MKO and overthrow the reformists, as Rajavi said.

After joining the MKO, Hojjat passed terrorist courses and in his first terrorist operation in the June of 1998, he detonated a strong bomb in Tehran’s Revolutionary Prosecution Office that killed 4 people including an Armenian Iranian (William Wigen); many others were injured in the event.

Terrorist MKO claimed responsibility for this terrorist act in a statement released on June 2, 1998:

"At around 2:00 pm Tehran time, Revolutionary Prosecution Office in downtown Tehran was destroyed by military teams of Mojahedin… ambulances could be heard in the region until hours after the explosion… before that, operational teams of the MKO left the place unhurt."

He was later in 2001 deployed to Tehran again to conduct mortaring operation, and he was arrested after his operations.

After he was arrested, there were wide range efforts to help him (by trying to get the consent of complainants) and the MKO has even pointed to this fact in its statement, released yesterday:

"In the summer of 2004, Hojjat had been sentenced to 4 times execution by the 6th chamber of unjustice reactionary court of so-called Islamic Revolution. Then, in early 2005, a chamber of Supreme Court, comprised of Mohseni Ezhei and Nabi Raji, sentenced him to two times execution and paying a full fine."

From legal point of view, this can happen only if the two complainants of the case agree to withdraw their complaints.

Anyway, the Mojahedin could make a criminal terrorist out of a rural teacher; a terrorist who didn’t care about the blood of people and the one the MKO took advantage of his blood. This is the brief fate for those trapped by the terrorist MKO; what should they be called, Terrorist or Victim?

Irandidban

 

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The End of Puppet’s Games

-Ehud Olmert, acting Israeli prime minister, welcomed IAEA’s decision to report Iran’s nuclear case to the UN Security Council and said: "IAEA’s decision was a result of multilateral complex efforts in which Israel played an important role".

– Maryam Rajavi, expressing her satisfaction over the move of the IAEA against Iran, said the resolution was a victory for her group; she said that decision was the result of efforts of the MKO, which announced top secret information on Iran’s nuclear sites.

***

The comments of Ehud Olmert are reminding of some facts behind the anti-Iranian activities of the Western countries in the IAEA.

1. Olmert believes that guaranteeing the safety of Israel was the main drive for IAEA’s move.

2. IAEA’s decision was the result of multilateral efforts of Israel.

These multilateral complex efforts, to which he points, are simple plans the evidence of which was revealed two years ago:

– Introducing Iran’s nuclear program as a military, that these activities have targeted Israel and that Iran’s case should be referred to the Security Council

– Opposing Europe’s policy of engagement with Iran.

– Pushing the US toward taking a touch stance (possibly, military action) against Iran.

At the first step, Israel received a big blow by trying to convince the world that Iran’s nuclear programs are for military purposes; official experts have not announced in their analyses that Iran’s nuclear programs are military-bound.

But on other issues, the US entered the game of Israel and took Europe and the IAEA- with threat and subornation- from temporary suspension policy to "permanent suspension of all nuclear research". This was totally in contradiction with the policies of the IAEA and was in itself a weakness for Israel’s complicated game.

However, what’s related to the terrorist MKO is the role it played with the direction of Israelis. MKO’s game started two years and half ago.

The first duty of the group was to hold so-called revelation meetings, according to the false and forged documents of Israelis; this was all done in order to prove that Iran’s nuclear activities are for military purposes.

For instance, the MKO never explained how it got aerial photos of Natanz and Arak nuclear sites!

The complexity of Israel’s plans can be explained in the way of directing and controlling the MKO, for giving false information to them and hide the real agenda. The US also tried to do the same; it paid attention to MKO’s scenarios in order to save its spies, but the show didn’t go on for a long time and the spies were arrested very soon in Iran.

After the MKO understood it was being played by Israel, went on with the game to get credit for itself. But the game had no benefits for the group, so that the leaders of MKO started complaining that why no one was listening to them in the IAEA and elsewhere! Instead, IAEA spokespersons said that MKO claims were baseless.

For the second time, Israelis used the MKO to make a nightmare of Iran’s nuclear activities for Europeans; they were ordered to repeat that Iran had long-rang missiles that could hit Europe if equipped with nuke warheads.

This was to weaken European’s policies of negotiations with Iran and the MKO, that had understood that these policies didn’t allow Israel’s plan to come true, opposed them openly and called it "policy of appeasement". They hurriedly put aside various claims and in an insolent move (particularly after the presidential elections in Iran) said that these policies were in contradiction with guaranteeing the safety of Israel and the peace of Middle East.

Having realized the importance of Israel for the US, purposes of warmongers, and with open interpretation of "the big Middle East" plan, Mojahedin put Israel’s policy in its own agenda: instigating the US to attack Iran. MKO tried all possible ways to push the US toward encountering Iran militarily (it should be noted that both Israel and MKO failed in this regard and part of US’s diplomatic efforts against Iran come of this failure).

Mojahedin desperately try to introduce this event to their members as a victory. But the history has proved that this will certainly lead to a big failure for the MKO. In Iraq’s war against Iran, MKO became Saddam’s toy and felt victory by serving him as fifth column; but those countries that helped Saddam at that time were the first to label the MKO as traitor; they were the first to bomb MKO bases and disarm them.

Recent events could be a victory for the MKO only if the Westerners paid attention to them; but the current situation indicates that the West has to stand against this group to prove its own credibility. In addition, the survival of the group- despite the claims of its leaders- requires getting out of terror list. Diplomatic encountering with Iran will keep this group in the list of terrorist organization.

Irandidban

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MKO, Part of Zionist Lobby

The scandal of infiltration of some people-affiliated with Zionist lobby- into the US government and spying for Israeli government, with the purpose of directing the United States towards a war on Iran, is a reality that shouldn’t be ignored.

FBI and US Justice Department have concluded in their investigations that some anti-Iran figures want to instigate neoconservaties against Iran.

“Larry Franklin”, who’s been sentenced to 12 years in prison, is a tough anti-Iran figure who transferred Pentagon and NSA’s intelligence on Iran to AIPAC officials and Israeli diplomats. He tried to transfer secret reports on Iran’s threat for Israel and US interests to Zionist AIPAC lobby, with the hope that AIPAC could press the US to take tougher stance towards Iran.

Larry Franklin has admitted having contacts with two senior officials of AIPAC: Steven Rosen former director of AIPAC, Wiseman and an Israeli diplomat in the United States.

According to a file presented by US Attorney General, Rosen and Wiseman tried since 1999 to penetrate US officials and get sensitive intelligence through contacts.

David Sutterfield, second American diplomat in Iraq, gave secret information to Rosen in 2002.

Larry Franklin, formerly deputy of Douglas Feith, had close relationship with some US neo-conservatives outside Bush administration. The case also includes the names of Richard Rhodes, head of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, and Michael Ledeen, an American Enterprise Institute scholar who arranged a meeting between Franklin and several Iran opposition figures. Iranian oppositions gave them some information on Iran’s threat for US forces in the region.

With a brief look at the type of propagandistic attacks by these people (who work to guarantee Israel’s interests -even if its costs Iran’s destruction- and consider Iran an obstacle in the way of killing innocent Palestinians) and considering the timing of MKO’s shows under the name of”revelations”, the roots of MKO’s propagandas (particularly in the US) could be well understood.

Douglas Feith is behind the scenario, the performance of part of which has been given to the terrorist MKO; in return for this cooperation, MKO would be protected in Iraq.

All their purposes can be summarized in”efforts for instigating Bush administration to attack Iran, before Iraq crisis could effect decisions of Bush administration”.

The presence of David Sutterfield in Iraq should also be considered a part of warmongers’ plans.

Since this policy has repeatedly been revealed (in Irandidban.com and elsewhere) and there are solid evidences on the issue, FBI officials should clarify the MKO’s dangerous role in spreading propaganda to instigate public opinion against Iran and prevent them from conducting illegal anarchical activities.

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MEK Fixed on US Terror List

Notorious Mojahedin-e khalq organization has been put on US permanent list of terrorist organizations. So, the MKO can no longer wait for a new list, two years from now but after this time it should try to convince US officials that the situation which led to the designation of the group have completely changed. Meanwhile, new list proves that all US officials, leaders, political figures and parties have consensus on the fact that the Mojahedin-e khalq is a terrorist organization.

It’ notable that according to State Department documents, MKO’s terrorist designation includes NLA, PMOI, NCRI, and Muslim Iranian Student’s Society (front organization used to garner financial support).

***

U.S. Department of State

October 11, 2005

Fact Sheet

Office of Counterterrorism

Washington, DC

October 11, 2005

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.

Identification

The Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the State Department (S/CT) continually monitors the activities of terrorist groups active around the world to identify potential targets for designation. When reviewing potential targets, S/CT looks not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts.

Designation

Once a target is identified, S/CT prepares a detailed "administrative record," which is a compilation of information, typically including both classified and open sources information, demonstrating that the statutory criteria for designation have been satisfied. If the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, decides to make the designation, Congress is notified of the Secretary’s intent to designate the organization and given seven days to review the designation, as the INA requires. Upon the expiration of the seven-day waiting period and in the absence of Congressional action to block the designation, notice of the designation is published in the Federal Register, at which point the designation takes effect. By law an organization designated as an FTO may seek judicial review of the designation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not later than 30 days after the designation is published in the Federal Register.

Until recently the INA provided that FTOs must be redesignated every two years or the designation would lapse. Under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), however, the redesignation requirement was replaced by certain review and revocation procedures. IRTPA provides that an FTO may file a petition for revocation 2 years after its designation date (or in the case of redesignated FTOs, its most recent redesignation date) or 2 years after the determination date on its most recent petition for revocation. In order to provide a basis for revocation, the petitioning FTO must provide evidence that the circumstances forming the basis for the designation are sufficiently different as to warrant revocation.If no such review has been conducted during a five year period with respect to a designation, then the Secretary of State is required to review the designation to determine whether revocation would be appropriate. In addition, the Secretary of State may at any time revoke a designation upon a finding that the circumstances forming the basis for the designation have changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation, or that the national security of the United States warrants a revocation. The same procedural requirements apply to revocations made by the Secretary of State as apply to designations. A designation may be revoked by an Act of Congress, or set aside by a Court order.

Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended

1. It must be a foreign organization.

2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. ? 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. ? 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.

3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

Legal Ramifications of Designation

1. It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. ? 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.? 18 U.S.C. ? 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes ?the term ?training? means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.? 18 U.S.C. ? 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ?expert advice or assistance? means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.??

2. Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. ?? 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).

3. Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Other Effects of Designation

1. Supports our efforts to curb terrorism financing and to encourage other nations to do the same.

2. Stigmatizes and isolates designated terrorist organizations internationally.

3. Deters donations or contributions to and economic transactions with named organizations.

4. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of terrorist organizations.

5. Signals to other governments our concern about named organizations.

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Consequences of Dirty Diplomacy

There have been significant changes on the issue of Iran in the international scene, the example of which was about Iran’s nuclear activities.

IAEA’s meeting in November, along with signs of change in US’s policies toward Iran, was indeed a defeat for all warmongers who thought of stoking the fire of war on Iran.

Earlier, US security theorists had advised the Washington to avoid any kind of military action against Tehran and instead try to preserve the ways of communication. They had warned of the dangerous consequences of wrong measures. *

“Since the WMD Commission report indicates that the US has not enough intelligence on Iran, it is better for the US and its international allies to take the opportunity for getting closer interaction with Iran in order to get assurance that its nuclear activities are only for peaceful purposes. That’s because Iran has the right to have peaceful nuclear activities. This close cooperation can also yield useful intelligence on Iranian nuclear programs and can serve the needs of US intelligence community,” security advisors suggested.

Iranian president’s proposal in the UN, for inviting foreign sides to take part in nuclear projects, was also based on the idea that the only way to guarantee the peacefulness of the Iranian nuke activities is to have interaction and cooperation.

Along with this, European countries asked for the resumption of talks with Iran and the US government authorized its ambassador to Iraq to engage Iranians in Iraq.

Of course, these events are all painful for those who wanted a war on Iran by false accusations.

"On the one hand, I think it’s a good idea to maintain back-channel contacts with adversaries," said Raymond Tanter, a former National Security Council staffer, whose Iran Policy Committee has called for Washington to deploy against Tehran the Iraq-based Mujahideen-e Khalq, which is listed as a terrorist group by the State Department. "On the other hand, when you go public after Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off the map, it seems to reward Iranian belligerence. I don’t know why it’s being done." **

During past two years, these people have played with the option of “either Iran or Israel” and have tried to impose the ideas of Israeli warmongers in the US. They want to convince the US to attack Iran by using Americans’ sensitivity on Israel.

The group they (Zionist lobby and arms dealers) support is the terrorist group of Mujahideen-e Khalq. The activities of this group in the past two years were focused on spreading rumors, demonizing Iran and convincing the US to attack Iran.

The analysis of the groups’ leader, for saving the group from the crisis after the fall of Saddam in Iraq, was to stoke the fire of war against Iran by taking advantage of tension in the Iranian nuclear case. “Only in that case, we would be lifted from terror list and the US would rearm us again,” he had said.

On the one hand, the leaders of the group asked the members to have influential political and propagandistic activities regarding Iranian nuclear activities. They even said to the members- who have no contact with the outer world- that the leaders of the group were leading an international battlefield against Iran and that the MKO has convinced Europe and the US that the time for war on Iran has come.

However, on the other hand, they came to the scene as an anarchist pressure group to promote the goals of warmongers.

They have even promised to recognize the Israeli government, guarantee the interests of oil and arms companies and … if they are supported in a joint victorious war against Iran in which they would play the role of Afghanistan’s North Alliance!

With such requests, that would receive no international response due to the situation of this dying organization, the Zionist lobby has accepted to support them.

Preserving the Camp Ashraf, as the cult’s main purpose in recent months, only serves MKO’s propagandistic goals; calling “an organization” the 3000 restricted disarmed forces in this camp comes from charlatanism of the MKO to show that they are being supported.

Now, with the failure of betrayal policies, MKO continues to resort to dirty diplomatic deals. Meanwhile, it evades giving comprehensive analysis on the failure to keep closed the eyes of their members.

Members in Camp Ashraf may not understand the stances of the organization, but those who relied on the promises of Rajavi’s remnants, in front of the IAEA and European Parliament, should be said that: “This is the consequence of dealing with dirtiest representatives of imperialists and the dirty diplomacy of MKO leader. You were used as the tools of this dirty diplomacy and you should ask Maryam Rajavi about the fate of “global battlefield’s leadership”.

———————————————————

* Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

** Jim Lobe/ Antiwar.com

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

Iraq Should Tackle Foreign Militants

In an interview with London’s Financial Times, Ahmed Chalabi, Iraqi deputy prime minister, said: “Iraq acknowledged Iran’s “legitimate concern” about the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an armed Iranian opposition group under US protection in Iraq under what he called “murky circumstances”.

“We should enforce the article in our constitution that Iraq should not be a transit point or base for destabilising neighbours,” he said.

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Raymond Tanter

Tanter’s Golden Dreams

A newly established group has asked the US government to lift the name of MKO from terror list.

Few members of “Iran Policy Committee” (IPC) are comprised of former officials of US government and retired CIA agents.

In order to understand its importance and influence, one should consider how far they are from the latest analysis of US government about the terrorist group they support. A terrorist group on US terror list, offices of which were shut down by the government of George Bush.

Part of Pentagon officials believe that MKO members should be used in espionage activities against Iranian regime and this constitutes the pillars of Raymond Tanter’s idea to support this terrorist group.

But Tanter is not aware of the unified approach of US officials toward this group. He doesn’t how Iranians hate this group and that’s why he call it a “resistance group”.

AP published recently a very funny and simple analysis on MKO by Raymond Tanter.

He said that his committee found strong opposition to MKO in different website and that , according to this, it can be concluded that Iranian government is worried about MKO and that this group has a high level of support!

Tanter and his partners in IPC (support of whom for MKO is very suspicious and, like many other examples, can be acquire by MKO in exchange for paying money) have based their analysis on the presence of a number of websites. This approach proves that they’re not familiar with Iran affairs. It also shows how they’ve copied MKO’s stances, since it’s only the MKO that claims “slogans in Friday prayers in Iran prove its position”!

Instead of citing websites, Tanter could have talked about popular actions and demonstrations in support of MKO; something that has never happened during past two decades and that’s why they have used the contents of a number of websites for their judgment.

Tanter refers to infeasibility of military attack against Iran and asks for the removal of MKO (as an alternative) from terror list; this also proves how far they are from official policies of the US government.

While one can barely relate the option of military strike against Iran to the removal of MKO from terror list (posing such claim is essentially senseless), what’s more lamentable is that Tanter and those who think like him (if there’s any thinking at all!) even don’t know that the unacceptable idea of using Mojahedin-e khalq was posed in the framework of military option. Even in that case, this terrorist group with shameful records of cooperating with Saddam Hussein and involvement in terrorist operations has little chance to accompany US soldiers.

The new US approach in foreign diplomacy, introduced recently by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes, is to cleanse US policies from contradictions and double standards. Regarding this new approach, will the US government officially support a group it categorized as terrorist?

Furthermore, Raymond Tanter and his partners have denied those records of the MKO that can’t be denied even by the spokespersons of the group itself!

How can they deny the issue of assassination of US citizens in Iran when its case is available in US State Department and CIA since before revolution in Iran?

The least IPC can do to get to its goals is to break the consensus in the White House and State Department against this group, clear terrorist records of this group and also ignore this fact that the cult of Rajavi has no popular support in Iran. It doesn’t seem they’re able to do so. 

0 comment
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts