Articles

The European Union released Friday its updated list of terrorist entities removing three groups and adding one.

The EU removed three Italian groups, Nuclei Territoriali Antimperialisti (Anti-Imperialist Territorial Units); Nuclei di Iniziativa Proletaria Rivoluzionaria (Unit for Revolutinonary Proletarian Initiative); Nuclei di Iniziativa Proletaria (Units for Proletarian Initiative) and added the Greek group Epanastatikos Agonas (Revolutionary Struggle).

58 persons and 48 groups are included in the new EU blacklist.

The Iranian terror group MKO remains on the updated list.

The European Court of Justice last December annulled the decision by the EU to put the MKO on the terror register in 2002.

Since then the group was trying to propagate that it will be removed from the EU terror list.

The court ruling, however, was related to procedural matters rather than the decision itself.

An EU statement said improvements have been agreed regarding the listing and de-listing procedures concerning those on the EU terrorist list, in the light of the court ruling in the MKO case.

"In particular, a statement of reasons is now provided for each person or entity subject to an asset freeze and the persons and entities concerned are informed of the possibility to submit a request , together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the list should be reconsidered."

"New procedures have also been agreed concerning notification, the handling of proposals for listing and of requests for de-listing, and the review of the list," it noted.

"A new working party will be charged with examining proposals for listings and de-listings and with preparing the regular review of the list by the Council."

The EU first adopted restrictive measures against persons and entities involved in terrorism in December 2001, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 11 September that year.

Since then the lists of those subject to the restrictive measures have been reviewed on a regular basis.

The parties concerned will be informed via a "letter of notification" of the specific information that forms the basis for the EU decision.

The parties concerned may challenge the Council’s decision before the EU Court of Justice, said the EU statement.

June 29, IRNA

July 3, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Supporting Terrorists

There are several defining events in the history of US-Iranian relations. These include the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossedegh, the US support of the oppressive regime of the Shah, the attack on the US embassy and the subsequent hostage crisis and US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. One can argue about the level of the US support for Iraq during the war, but this conflict which resulted in the deaths of 1mm Iranians shapes much of the Iranian worldview. Murals of the martyrs (heroes) of this war are everywhere in Tehran.

Another result of the memory of this conflict is that there is only one group more unpopular in Iran than the “Zionist regime” in Israel. This unpopular group is the Mujahedeen al-Khalq Organization (MKO) or People’s Mujahedeen, aka Mujahedeen e Khalq (MEK). This group, with its odd Islamist/Marxist ideology, shared the anti Shah viewpoint of other Iranian groups and participated in the 1979 Islamic revolution. They quickly fell out with the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini and after increasingly militant opposition were forced into exile in France and Iraq.

A military wing which advocated overthrow of the Islamic Republic by force was formed in Iraq and became supporters of Sadaam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. With strong contacts and relationships within Iran, the MKO was able to provide Sadaam with useful intelligence as well as Farsi speaking fighters. This participation in the deaths of so many Iranian young men has made the MKO a hated group both within the Iranian government and among the Iranian people on the street. This animosity has been heightened by MKO terrorist attacks on Iranian civilian targets.

The terrorist attacks resulted in the MKO being classified as a “terrorist organization” by the US State Department. The US, however, seemingly looking for another way to increase animosity between the US and Iran has decided to support its own “terrorist organization” in the region. Everybody else has one; why not us? (For this story, click here.) This unusual policy choice may have something to do with US domestic politics as the MKO has considerable support within the ex-pat Iranian community in the US. In the Middle East it sure is hard to figure out who the “good guys” are. Maybe there are no “good guys”.

July 3, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

The reasons of Rajavi’s Cult stay in FTO list

The State Department Office of Coordinator for Counterterrorism on April 30 released the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in which Muajhedin-e-Khalq Organization continues to occupy its previous status according to the documented reasons ,you will consider the main points as follow:

-MKO is a violent organization, responsible for the assassination of several American military personnel and civilians in the 1970’s (MKO terrorized American consultants in Tehran)

-The US confirms that MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada and beyond.

-MEK had been one of the most violent movements opposed to Pahlavi Dynasty and its close relationship to the United States (fighting America was along with their fight against Imperialism and appeasement of communism )

– The US considers MEK’s ideology has gone through several iterations and blends Marxism, Islam and Fenatism.

-The group has launched its world wide champagne against Iranian government leading its terror operations from Iraq and Europe.

-Activity in order to solicit financial and social aid in Europe (Money Laundering)

-MKO has terrorist capacity and cult-like characteristics.( the report has pointed to brainwashing, forced divorces, separating the parents from the children and weekly meetings)

-Maryam Rajavi has established a “Cult of Personality” she claims to be the “Iranian President in Exile”.

-MKO’s hostility against Iran under Saddam Hussein’s sponsorship.

-bombing against central office of Islamic Republic Party and Prime Minister’s office (1981)

-MEK continued to wage its terrorist champagne from its headquarters in Paris (1981-1986)

-MEK leaders turned to Saddam Hussein’s regime for basing, financial support, and training.(1986)

-Heavy suicidal, military, terrorist attack with Iraqi equipments against Iranian forces (1989-1988)

-Keeping their relationship with Iraqi Regime until 1990.

– Bloody crackdown on Iraqi Kurds and Shia uprisings. (1991)

– Terrorist campaign against 13 Iranian Embassies or installations in 13 countries (1992)

-Assassination of the Deputy Chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff, Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi.(1999)

Assassination of the commander of Nasr headquarters and a dozen attacks against Iran including a major Iranian leadership complex in Tehran.(2000)

– Regular mortar attacks against military and law enforcement personnel.(2000 and 2001)

– The FBI arrest of 7 Iranians in the US who funneled 400,000 its purchase weapons in UAE.(2001)

-installation of about 3400 MEK members in Camp Ashraf (2003)

-The arrest of 160 MKO members by French Police (2003)

– The MKO members engagement in Self-immolation due to the arrest of Maryam Rajavi by French counterterrorism Police.(2003)

– MEK received millions of dollars in Oil-For-Food program subsidies from Saddam Hussein (1999-2003)

-Evidences, documents and video on Saddam’s handing over suitcases of money to MKO leaders and video of MEK operatives receiving training from the Iraqi military.

There are a lot of evidences and documents on MKO terrorist nature. Considering all the reasons of MKO’s stay in FTO list one can realize the measure of pursuing MKO’s case and also its terrorist background since its foundation. Therefore, designating MKO as a terrorist organization is not to appease Iran and neither to treat MKO unjustly. The criterion is their black file of violating human right against Iranian and Iraqi people.

The Black File, June 15th, 2007

Translated by Nejat Society

July 1, 2007 0 comment

The Ideology of the MEK

The Leadership Hegemony after the Ideological Revolution (2)

In the first section of the article, it was discussed that in MKO’s ideological revolution, one of the basic principles of organization, council leadership or democratic centralism, was denied; hence many members of the organization got separated. Members’ detachment violated none of the organizational principles of MKO as in one of the instructional pamphlets of organization titled ‘A Survey of the Possibility of Deviation in Democratic Centralism or the Difference between Scientific and Non-scientific Suspicion in Organizational issues’ it had been asserted that members could willfully leave the organization and even establish a new organization or branch in case democratic centralism took a course of deviation:

The possibility of deviation of democratic centralism in future, as it happened in the past, is self-evident. However, the question is what we should do? Shall we withdraw and remain passive? [1]

As noted, the possibility of deviation of democratic centralism was a taken for granted issue and the separation of members did not necessarily led to a state of passivity and the cease of struggle, rather the separated members were obliged to continue the line of struggle and to unmask the deviants. Taking the possibility into consideration, the process of fighting against deviation of democratic centralism was thus phased:

If deviation or an act of revisionism is proven, that is, any principally adopted political and ideological components is neglected, the internal opposition takes the first step to initiate a non-aggressive confrontation against the move. [2]

The next step, in case the deviated leading cell failed to ameliorate, would inevitably be the separation, schism and even uncovering the instances of deviation:

Yet, in the next phase and in case our attempts yielded no results, the schism is the solution to an organization which is not likely to revise its position. The schism is requisite in such cases as there are precedents for many revolutionary parties. [3]

In respect to the necessity of the continuation of struggle following the schism we read:

Then we have to be engaged in a wide struggle in a new front against the new opportunist and revisionist move by taking advantage of appropriate modes of struggle. [4]

As such, separation and even act of disclosing are considered as democratic rights on the part of the members. In this regard, the separation of Parviz Ya’qubi, one of the high-ranking members of organization, and his initiation of a new organization called ‘the Followers of the Path of Mussa’ may be considered as exercising organizational and democratic rights of members far from unfounded claims made by Rajavi accusing Ya’qubi. After the declaration of the first phase of the ideological revolution in 1985, a great number of members criticized Rajavi for denouncing council leadership. Ali Akbar Rastgoo, one of the ex-members of MKO, refers to Rajavi’s egocentric moves as the main cause of disintegrating the organization [5]. Mojahedin denied democratic centralism and declared openly the formation of a new leadership led by Rajavi:

A full comprehension of such a great revolution… is in fact a deep grasp of the elevated combination of a belief in the new leadership of Massoud and Maryam and the ideological obedience to them [6].

In this regard, it has been pointed out that Mojahedin have denied the most important achievement of contemporary movements. Niybati describes such an achievement from a different angle:

It was the first time in the history of contemporary revolutions that an organization denied the principle of democratic centralism, a principle achieved after several hundred years of revolutionary struggle, and (correctly or incorrectly) handed over the overall authority to a leader who is accountable only to God. [7]

The ideological revolution was in itself a result of the organization’s failures during 1981-1985 and aimed at preventing separation of the members and disunity. However, in this process, Rajavi’s hegemony turned to be the major cause behind all deviations and failures of organization. In this regard, Massoud Jabani writes:

Most of the principles and regulations of organization are there but on the paper and have no practical function, like the council leadership, democratic centralism and internal criticism. Rajavi launched a coup d’etat under the pretext of probable coup d’etats made against him and the organization in order to subordinate members by means of brainwashing. [8]

Bijan Niyabati asserts that Mojahedin’s ideological revolution was at first the outcome of the strategic failures of the organization from 1981 to 1985 and then, an attempt to prevent disintegration of the organization:

To protect revolution against reactionary moves and practices of exploitation, the sole solution is to immune the organization and its leadership against splitting and disintegration. [9]

Taking the above-mentioned points into consideration, we may come to the following conclusions:

1. Based on the theoretical principles of organization, separation, schism and disclosure of any instance of deviation from ideological and political principles in general and the principle of council leadership (democratic centralism) in particular is regarded as the absolute and democratic right of members.

2. Mojahedin themselves acknowledge the ideological revolution and negation of democratic centralism and, thus, the separation from organization may be an inevitable and predictable reaction on the part of the members.

3. Ideological revolution occurred as a result of deviation and strategic failure of the organization; Rajavi’s hegemony was an attempt to confront probable schism and members’ detachment.

4. Mojahedin’s exposed accusations against the separated members is an unjustly adopted tactic to avoid further criticism and to wrestle with the internal crises.

References

1. A Survey of the Possibility of Deviation of Democratic Centralism or the Difference between Scientific and Non-Scientific Suspicion in Organizational Issues. (1979). Tehran: MKO publications. p.54.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid, 59.

4. Ibid.

5. Rastgoo, Ali-Akbar; Mojahedin in the Mirror of the History, 259.

6. Mojahed , No. 242.

7. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at Mojahedin’s Ideological Revolution, Khavaran Publication, 35.

8. Jabani, M; Psychology of Aggression and Terror, pp. 87-90.

9. Niyabati, Bijan; A Different Look at Mojahedin’s Ideological Revolution, Khavaran Publication, 21.

Mojahedin.ws – June 25, 2007

June 28, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Two Agendas: Why Iran, U.S. Stand Far Apart

Two Agendas: Why Iran, U.S. Stand Far Apart — Tehran Seeks End to Bid to Destabilize Regime; Washington Wants Insurgent Backing in Iraq to Stop

Washington — As the U.S. and Iran consider a second round of talks aimed at stabilizing Iraq, Tehran is calling for the U.S. to stop actions it claims are aimed at stirring trouble within Iran. Iran’s list of concerns underscores the deep divisions separating the two sides — and could stymie any hoped-for cooperation on Iraq.

For its part, Washington claims Iran is backing Iraqi insurgent groups that are attacking U.S. forces and wants it to stop. But the Iranians are countering with demands, both in public and through private channels, that the Bush administration break up an Iranian terrorist group, the Mujahedin e-Khalq, or MEK, that opposes the Iranian government and is being sheltered by U.S. forces in Iraq near the Iranian border, senior U.S. officials and academics said.

"The MEK has been a constant irritant to the Iranians, and they have brought [the group] up repeatedly, both directly and indirectly," said a senior U.S. official working on Iran.

Iran has listed other issues it wants addressed, as the U.S. pushes it to help tame sectarian violence and weapons proliferation in Iraq. These include an end to Washington’s alleged support of ethnic insurgent groups, which Tehran views as part of a broader destabilization campaign against the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tehran also wants the U.S. to return five Iranian officials detained in Iraq by the Pentagon in January and to set a firm timetable for a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

Iran’s demands, and particularly its fixation on the MEK, illustrate the increasingly tit-for-tat approach Tehran is employing in its growing contretemps with Washington and its Western allies over Iraq and over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear know-how. The demands also reflect a growing anxiety sweeping Mr. Ahmadinejad’s government about the perceived threat posed by the U.S. and its allies to Iran’s internal stability, U.S. officials and analysts said.

In recent months, Tehran has detained four Iranian-American academics on espionage charges, as well as 15 British marines and naval officers — since released — who it alleged had illegally entered Iranian waters.

The Iranian government is facing mounting public unrest at home amid signs that the economy is suffering. International financial sanctions pushed by the U.S. in response to Tehran’s nuclear activities could further damage the country’s economy and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s political standing.

Iran has emerged as an increasingly influential player in the Middle East, as Shiite Muslim political parties and militant groups bolster their presence across the region. In Iraq, the Bush administration believes Tehran is supplying weapons and training to Shiite militias fighting against Sunni Muslims and American forces, in a bid to undermine Washington’s Iraq mission. Iranians officials, who declined to comment for this article, have previously denied the country is training or arming militias in Iraq.

In the first direct talks between Washington and Tehran in decades, held on May 28 in Baghdad, the U.S. delegation, led by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, demanded that Iran move to stop its support of Iraqi militia groups. The Iranians raised some of their concerns in response, with Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Quomi, bringing up the MEK.

Now Iran is pushing for a second round, but U.S. officials said the White House hasn’t decided whether more talks would be useful at this moment. Mr. Crocker and other officials described the first session as a largely formal, four-hour presentation of each country’s views on Iraq, and what each thought the other could do to lessen the violence.

Washington’s position on the MEK has emerged as a litmus test in Tehran’s eyes of the Bush administration’s overall posture toward Iran, and could help determine the success of any future talks between the two countries.

Selig Harrison, a scholar based in Washington who recently met with Iranian officials in Tehran, said the Iranian government views the dismantling of the MEK "as a key barometer of the U.S.’s goodwill."

The issue may also be the only one among Iran’s demands on which the U.S. has some flexibility. U.S. officials said they are weighing ideas on how to remove the group from its U.S.-protected base in Iraq. But they conceded that any decision would have to overcome numerous legal and other obstacles, as well as heavy criticism on Capitol Hill.

The U.S. State Department considers the MEK a terrorist organization for its role in assassinating American and Iranian officials, and its military alliance with deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and ’90s.

Even so, the Pentagon continues to safeguard more than 3,000 MEK members and their families at an Iraqi military base near the Iranian border under an international covenant protecting displaced peoples. The U.S. command has allowed the group to use Camp Ashraf as a base to orchestrate anti-Iranian political and propaganda programs, though it has disarmed MEK fighters.

Members of the MEK and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, have emerged as a source of intelligence for Washington on Iran’s nuclear programs and paramilitary operations. And thanks to a healthy lobbying operation, the organization enjoys strong support in Congress, where some sympathetic lawmakers view it as a potential democratic counterweight to Tehran.

Mr. Harrison, who is based at the Center for International Policy and visited Tehran three weeks ago, said aides to Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told him that Washington’s partnership with the MEK was viewed as part of a broader U.S. campaign to use ethnic insurgent groups to challenge Tehran.

Iran has charged the U.S. with supporting ethnic militias in Iraqi Kurdistan and Pakistan’s Baluchistan province in a bid to strike Iranian military assets.

The Pentagon and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency have denied using these militias, or the MEK itself, as military tools against Iran.

Iranian officials have floated proposals at international events that would allow agencies such as the Red Cross to oversee the resettlement of MEK personnel out of Camp Ashraf either back to Iran or to third countries.

Other Iran analysts said the stalemate between Washington and Tehran over the MEK underscores the high distrust between the countries. In the late 1990s, the Clinton administration listed the MEK as a terrorist organization, partly in an effort to build bridges to reformist elements in Iran. Now, there appears to be no middle ground between the countries on the MEK and other issues.

"The MEK was always a small price to pay" for Washington to improve ties with Iran, said Vali Nasr, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "The problem is that Washington is not interested anymore in paying any price."

—

Fickle Friends

Washington’s history with the Mujahedin e-Khalq

— 1970s: MEK operatives, seeking to overthrow the Shah, kill American diplomats, contractors seen backing Iran’s regime

— 1979-86: MEK initially backs Islamists’ ouster of the Shah, but members flee after incurring mullahs’ mistrust and set up bases in neighboring Iraq

— 1997: Clinton administration, pursuing better ties with Iran, places MEK on State Department terrorist list

— 2002: MEK officials in Washington disclose intelligence on secret Iranian nuclear activities in city of Natanz

— April 2003: U.S. designates MEK political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a terrorist entity

— May 2003: U.S. launches raids on MEK camps in Iraq, cease-fire eventually signed by two sides

— June 2003: French antiterrorism officials, with support from U.S. intelligence, seize MEK property and personnel outside Paris

— 2004: Pentagon grants amnesty to roughly 3,500 MEK personnel in Iraq under Fourth Geneva Convention

— 2007: Iran, U.S. discuss dismantling MEK infrastructure in Iraq

By Jay Solomon and Neil King Jr.

The Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2007

June 28, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

MKO Spies on Iranian Immigrants

Ten days after MKO agents’ bludgeoning in Paris, NCRI’s Commission of Political Studies eventually released its report on the seminar of "Association for the Protection of Iranian Immigrants in France"!

The report*, modeled after Sherlock Holmes stories, stresses that "the invitation for the seminar said that it was free for all Iranians, the address was also mentionedâ€¦so it could be understood from such new propagandistic move that Iranian Intelligence Ministry has put new purposes in its agenda against Iranian immigrants and opponents abroad."

The purpose of this seminar was mentioned in MKO’s so-called revealing statement as follows:

"Recruiting spies and trapping asylum seekers and Iranian immigrants in France"

Elsewhere, they quoted an unknown "French Committee for a Democratic Iran" claiming that "the said association was established in order to penetrate among opponents of the Iranian regime."

The report details the full biography of all participants in Seminar, which can be fulfilled only by months of intelligence operations; for instance, they mention when and where Mr. Firoozmand was employed by Construction Company of Mr. Shadanloo and From this viewpoint, one should congratulate French security services for having an active intelligence network under their nose (which monitors the activities of Iranian immigrants in that country).

However, even if MKO’s claims were true and the mentioned association was established to recruit Iranians for spying, the sponsors wouldn’t like to disrupt the seminar by scuffling with others!

MKO’s Gestapo should be asked why they helped the sponsors achieve their goals to "trap immigrants" by deploying their supporters and members to the seminar.

NCRI’s report says that MKO members were deployed to the place to disrupt the session and that they had purposes, which resulted in clashes. The report says:

"Meanwhile, a number of political immigrants, informed about the seminar by the invitations, went to the placeâ€¦immigrants exposed mullahs’ agents without surrendering or physical reaction."

The question is that why these immigrants took part in a seminar when the MKO has boycotted all Farsi media (whether supporter or opponent of the Islamic Republic)?

On the other hand, MKO’s history and records in Europe in the past 26 years show that they have always disrupted meetings, beaten speakers, attacked Iranian officials and even Iranian embassiesâ€¦then one can understand where these players got their orders from.

What remains is the role of so-called NCRI’s Commission of Political Studies in spying on Iranian immigrants in France and other European countries, an example of which has been published as this report.

————————————————–

* This report was published by MKO on June 17

Irandidban, June 27, 2007

June 28, 2007 0 comment

The cult of Rajavi

‘Agents of the Intelligence Ministry of Iran’ – Understanding Mojahedin Activity from a Cult Perspective

On Sunday 17 June I was scheduled to speak on this subject at a public meeting in Paris. The meeting was unfortunately disrupted by an unusually large number of Mojahedin cult members who had lain in wait at the venue in order to prevent people speaking. Regardless of the implications for freedom of speech in a European country, this kind of disruption has become emblematic of the Mojahedin’s inability to even vaguely disguise its cult nature. Similar disruption has taken place in meeting after meeting held by former members of the cult; Paris, April 2005, Amsterdam, October 2005, Washington, D.C., October 2005, London, November 2005. (click here to see a montage of these meetings)

During the disruptions, charged-up cult members rant at former members accusing them of being ‘agents of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry’, ‘agents of the regime’, ‘mercenaries of the Iranian regime’. In my speech I explain the reason this is done and why, even though I was unable to speak at the time, I and other former cult members, rather than feeling angry or intimidated, have nothing but the greatest sympathy for those victims who are still trapped inside this dangerous, destructive cult.

Speech of Anne Singleton – Paris June 17, 2007

First may I congratulate all the former members of the Rajavi cult… what a long way we have come, what a difficult path we have trodden and how thankful we are to be free.

Those of us who are former members have come to understand our own experience by studying how cults operate, how they recruit and indoctrinate their members. We know first hand how it was to be subjected to mind control and psychological manipulation and in many cases painful psychological and physical coercion.

We understand that once a person has submitted to the control of the cult that it is not the ideas but rather the environment and methods used which change you from a normal, healthy, thinking person into someone whose identity, beliefs, whose very ways of thinking and feeling are shaped by the cult.

In the Mojahedin the two basic values we were required to live by were honesty and sacrifice (sedaqat and fada). We had no idea that this is the foundation for creating cult identity.

You all remember in the early days in the 1980s when it was extremely difficult to become a member of the Mojahedin and how easy it was to be thrown out. And how that changed after the marriage of Massoud and Maryam and the beginning of cult culture. After that it was too easy to get drawn in and almost impossible to get out.

When Human Rights Watch published its report on human rights violations inside the Mojahedin in May 2005, there could not have been a more appropriate title for describing the conditions we endured in Rajavi’s cult: ‘NO EXIT’.

Our knowledge of how cults operate informs us that the Mojahedin’s Camp Ashraf in Iraq is vital to the ongoing indoctrination of the majority of members – if France hadn’t thrown Rajavi out he would have had to go to Iraq anyway to pursue his vision of how the Mojahedin members must become totally obedient and dependent.

It is in the isolation of this camp, the total exclusion of anything that is not introduced by the cult, from clothes, food, timetables, information and relationships. It is this isolation which has allowed Rajavi to introduce the most outrageous demands and beliefs to his followers, and expect them to be accepted and obeyed without question.

But, there remains a question in many observers’ minds. They look at cult members like Alireza Jafarzadeh and Ali Safavi and others, and ask how is it that these people who are living in the west and are surrounded by western media and political ideas, can be described as brainwashed cult members? If it is the control of the person’s environment which enables the cult to create and maintain and shape an individual’s personality, then how do we account for those who are free to come and go and are not under this tight physical control, who may even look as though they have freedom?

One simple explanation could be that these people are ‘senior’ cult members. They are people who have submitted most to mind control and have the least possibility of thinking for themselves. But this is not the full explanation. Rajavi can never totally trust any of the members.

The answer is to be found in the way that members are indoctrinated.

When we look at the Mojahedin’s ideology we see that the cult creates what can be described within the cult context as ‘positive’ ideological beliefs: You must unthinkingly love the Rajavis, you must believe unquestioningly in the leaders’ authority, you must believe in the black and white version of reality – that the regime is totally evil and we are totally righteous. You must believe that you have to give everything – your heart, mind, body and soul – in order to fight the regime. You must believe that the cult is the source of all right and purity and that you as a cult member belong to a higher order of human kind.

But when former members think back to their time with the Mojahedin they remember that it was not a time spent purposefully and happily pursuing this vision. We remember that much of our everyday life was not about purpose and happiness, but about confusion, pain, anxiety and despair.

The reason for this is that simultaneous with the Mojahedin’s ‘positive’ cult beliefs, the cult is also busy implanting all kinds of negative ideas in the minds of the person.

These negative ideas come under the generic description of phobias. This is something that all cults do and as I describe how it works you will recognise the absolutely vital part they play in controlling the cult member. Phobias are much the most effective way of ensuring total obedience – even in your sleep.

So, what do I mean by a phobia?

A phobia is more than simple fear. Fear is vital to our existence. Fear tells us whether to stay and fight or to run away when danger presents itself. But a phobia is more than fear it is a persistent, irrational fear of an object or situation. There are many kinds of phobias, from fear of drowning, of dogs or heights, spiders and many others.

All phobias are triggered by a cue that starts up a negative cycle of fearful images, thoughts and feelings. That cue can be an internal or external stimulus such as a thought or image a word or smell, taste or behaviour.

When a person’s phobia is activated it stimulates the fight or flight response. The most common coping mechanism is to avoid the provoking stimulus.

Phobias undermine a person’s view of reality, their emotional and intellectual control, self-confidence and judgement. To the extent that the introduction of phobias is the single most powerful technique used by cults to make their members obedient and dependent.

Now this explanation gives us a better understanding of all those people that we know inside the Mojahedin who have long ago stopped believing in the Rajavis or the organisation or the cause, but who are still afraid to walk away – even when they have the opportunity. These people are quite literally frozen with indoctrinated fears. When I tell you that these fears operate unconsciously then you can see why they work so well.

I hope also that as I describe how this works, former members will begin to fully recognise their own achievement in having found the courage to escape the cult however they did it – and some have travelled the most extraordinarily painful and life-threatening paths to escape.

I am sure that as I go on, former members will also begin to remember the specific incidents when the Mojahedin either installed or activated their phobias, their irrational fears.

For example, one irrational fear is that you cannot trust your own capacity to think because you are subjected to negative forces beyond your understanding that arise from your upbringing or culture or society etc. Only Rajavi is pure enough to be able to think beyond these forces.

Another fear is that everything that goes wrong is your fault, that the leader is beyond sin and does not make mistakes. If things go wrong it is because you haven’t obeyed or followed instructions well enough.

Do you remember the one where they hinted they were just about to invade Iran and take over but that you probably weren’t ready yet. That awful fear that they’d go without you and leave you alone, that you didn’t make the grade as a Mojahed to take part in the final battle.

The main point behind such phobias is to bring you to a point at which you cannot think rationally or logically. Fear prevails over logic.

Certainly on an individual level the cult will encourage non-specific fears, fear of loneliness, rejection, failure, being shut up, being tortured, being raped or …

But one of the most powerful and indeed the most universal of cult phobias used in ALL cults not just the Mojahedin is fear of the anti-cult network. Those inside the cult are told that terrible things will happen to them if they fall into the hands of the enemy.

In this way they make you fearful of your own family and friends. They make you fear that there is a huge, well-funded network of enemy forces constantly looking for ways to tear you away from the safety of the cult. Looking at this from outside a cult someone might find such beliefs laughable. But these fears bind the members in perpetual fear and anxiety.

Now, let me tell you the name of the Mojahedin’s specific phobia which deals with this phenomenon. It is called:

‘working for the intelligence ministry of Iran’

No, I’m not talking about a job description. But former members will all recognise this as one of the Mojahedin’s most obvious and powerful phobias. There is not a single person inside the Mojahedin cult who does not believe that anyone who speaks out against the Rajavis and the Mojahedin is working for the Iranian intelligence ministry. Certainly when I was with them I believe this without question.

This is such a specific and widely used phobia that it deserves our further explanation.

This is Rajavi’s way of bringing the enemy right to the doorstep of his members. For years they have lived in isolation and the enemy has been far away. Not only that, but the enemy has changed beyond all recognition for the members – as anyone who has travelled to Iran can testify. So, Rajavi has brought the enemy right up to the members and supporters in order to terrify them, to make them feel that there is nowhere they are safe, that the enemy is right there at the door. And beyond that he has made the members believe that this enemy must be killed.

Those of us who have been inside the cult at any level know that this accusation is shorthand for ‘death sentence’. We all know that when Rajavi says someone is working for the Iranian regime, this is not describing a factual situation – no one ever asks for proof or evidence that this accusation is true or not – just by saying it Rajavi is issuing a death sentence. He is giving permission for anyone to kill the offender any time he orders.

But it goes far beyond this simple threat that the enemy is right upon you and must be confronted. Because for the cult member it is the worst fate ever to be imagined. Even worse than the fear of being tortured or executed is the fear of being accused of being on the side of the enemy. This would mean they had totally betrayed the leadership of Rajavi.

Massoud Rajavi has set himself up as the equivalent of God’s representative on earth. Rajavi’s enemy is the Iranian regime in its entirety. The whole purpose of the cult is to fight the regime and replace it with Rajavi’s rule. There is nothing other than this. Therefore in simple terms you are either with Rajavi or with the enemy.

Anything you do which may be interpreted as not giving 100% of your self, mind body and soul to Rajavi can be labelled as ‘regimi’ that is, undermining Rajavi by supporting the enemy.

Of course, inside the Mojahedin, even a sneeze can be interpreted as being against Rajavi if that sneeze is not performed in the name of Rajavi. So, you can imagine, the level of fear is intense.

The daily confessions and cleansing sessions are aimed at creating and maintaining this phobic mentality.

Now, imagine you are Alireza Jafarzadeh sitting in Washington, surrounded by happy normal people. If one of the distant supporters even hints that you have looked for two seconds longer than necessary at a female journalist or passer-by or something similar, then Jafarzadeh and others like him will be asked to report on their betrayal of Rajavi. Because thinking about anything except Rajavi is considered a sin.

Now, imagine you are not thinking about something as innocent as a woman’s hairstyle or imagine Dowlat Nowroozi is not thinking how nice some man’s aftershave smelled. Imagine instead you are thinking about why Rajavi has sent you to work with Fox News when only a few years ago Maryam Rajavi was running after a meeting with the late Yasser Arafat.

Are you not going to feel frozen in fear that just this question which innocently popped into your mind will lead you to be accused of undermining all of Rajavi’s great empire and ‘working for the enemy’.

Better not to think about it. Empty your mind and focus on something else.

How convenient then that there are people out there who are quite legitimately asking such logical questions, and uncovering some rather unpleasant facts about life in the Rajavi cult. How much easier it is to repeat the mantra to yourself that ‘they’ and not you are working for the Iranian regime, that ‘they’ and not you deserve to die. How comforting to draw that line and be on the right side of it.

How easy.

The effect of phobias is that the cult member cannot imagine being safe, happy or fulfilled outside the cult. At best they fear that their life will lose meaning and purpose, that they will never have such an exalted position again.

Inside a cult you are made to feel that you are the saviour of the world. Only you and this cult can solve the world’s problems.

How difficult then to first reject that position by leaving, and then how difficult to accept that what we were made to believe just wasn’t true anyway and that we had been lied to and cheated and half our lives stolen from us for nothing.

When we are able to penetrate the slick propaganda image and peer into the inner world of a cult we can easily discern the methods of control. It is this ability which arouses our compassion and sympathy for those still trapped inside the Mojahedin cult even when they shout at us.

We can now understand that the hecklers who come to meetings where former Mojahedin members gather, have had this specific phobia deliberately triggered. Although they believe they are attacking their enemy and feel courageous in their face-to-face confrontation with the ‘agents of the Iranian regime’, we understand that the cult leaders’ real purpose behind triggering their ranting is to create an impenetrable barrier between their indoctrinated cult identity and the normal outside world where logic, reason and freedom live. The place that we all now live.

Addendum

How phobias are indoctrinated

Direct suggestion

Eg. You will become a drug addict or a prostitute if you ever leave

Indirect suggestion

Eg. Whenever anyone leaves something terrible always happens to them or their family

The use of stories and testimonials

Eg. Do you remember so-and-so, after they left they got taken to prison and tortured

Use of existing phobias and fears

Members reveal in daily reports information about their past – in particular traumatic events or psychologically disturbing events or disorders. Fears surrounding these can be recreated or triggered.

The cult members’ fear is generalized to include anything which is designated as a threat to the cult identity.

Any thoughts or feelings or information critical of the cult leader, ideology or organisation

Fear of former members or critics of the group

Doubts or thoughts about leaving the group

Once the phobia is in place the cult member becomes a dependent personality, filled with helplessness and hopelessness about leaving the group. Cult leaders want the members to be filled with fear and self-doubt, they cultivate low self-esteem and manipulate members to work harder for praise and promotion.

Common Cult Phobias

Physical health – if they leave the cult member will:

Die painfully, commit suicide

Become ill and die of AIDS or cancer

Become drug addicts

Become prostitutes

Develop sexual perversions or diseases

Become overweight or not eat

Psychological health – if they leave the cult member will:

Go insane

Be committed to a mental institute

Be a failure

Become less intelligent

Lose their memory or talents or abilities

Lose control completely

Never be happy

Lose their dreams and hopes and aspirations

Spiritual life – if they leave the cult member will:

Lose their relationship with God

Be haunted by past problems and without the group’s help they will not be saved

Be judged sinful on Judgement Day

Find their soul rotting in hell forever

Be possessed by evil

Social life – if they leave the cult member will:

Lose the safety and security of the group

Be unloved

Never be able to trust anyone again

Never find a good wife or husband

Be controlled by others

Be rejected by family and friends

Be harassed

Commit crimes

Be imprisoned

Be persecuted by psychiatrists

Paranoia instilled in cult members

Fear they are being spied on and followed

Fear of kidnap by ex-members

Fear their families are working for the enemy Anne Singleton, June 26, 2007

June 28, 2007 0 comment

Iran

Iran is America’s best hope for stability in the Gulf

Iran is ready to help the US stabilise both Iraq and Afghanistan, but only for a price: a gradual accommodation between Washington and Tehran, starting with the complete cessation of CIA and Pentagon covert operations designed to promote "regime change". "The United States is like a fox caught in a trap" in Iraq, said Amir Mahebian, editor of the conservative daily Reselat, in a recent Tehran conversation. "Why should we free the fox so he can make a dinner out of us?"

In the most widely reported covert operations under way in Iran, the US is smuggling weapons and money to disaffected non-Persian ethnic minority factions. But at the recent Iran-US talks in Baghdad, Iranian delegates focused on less publicized sabotage and espionage missions in the Persian heartland of Iran by a US-backed militia of Persian exiles known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). The MEK backed Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and its 3,600 fighters stayed on in Iraq afterwards. Since the invasion of Iraq, US intelligence agencies have disarmed the fighters but have kept the base camps intact and have used MEK operatives for missions in Iran, even though the State Department lists it as a terrorist organisation.

In the Baghdad talks, Iran rejected a US offer to transfer the camps to Morocco, aides to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, told me. What Tehran wants is a complete dismantling of MEK paramilitary forces, starting with a screening process in which the Red Cross would arrange reunions between MEK members and their families. Members opting to return to Iran would get an amnesty.

Dismantling the MEK would be the best way to signal US readiness for an accommodation with Tehran, since it is the only militarised exile group seeking to overthrow the Islamic Republic and is the darling of the Washington "regime change" lobby. Alireza Jafarzadeh, chairman of an MEK front group,the National Council of Resistance of Iran, appears regularly on Fox News and is playing a role like that of Ahmad Chalabi in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, rallying congressional and media support for bombing the Natanz nuclear site.

The dominant impression emerging from a week of high-level conversations in Tehran cutting across the ideological spectrum is that Ayatollah Khamenei and the pragmatists in his National Security Council, not the fire-breathing president, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, control foreign and defence policy; and that most outstanding issues, including the nuclear issue, can be defused over time if the US moves towards recognition of the Islamic Republic and keeps out of the internal Iranian struggle between hardliners and moderates.

It was a naive blunder for George W. Bush, US president, to announce that $75m was being funnelled to Iranians "seeking to promote openness and freedom for the Iranian people". This gave hardliners their excuse for the unconscionable recent arrests of four Iranian-American dual citizens. Similarly, hardline elements are strengthened by pressure tactics on the nuclear issue, such as United Nations sanctions, harassing Iranian banks and stationing two aircraft carriers equipped with nuclear-capable aircraft off Iran’s coast.

What, specifically, is Iran prepared to do in Iraq and Afghanistan? The quickest pay-off would come in intelligence-sharing, help in training security forces and reconstruction assistance. In Iraq, Iranian officials say, they would help in breaking up Sunni terrorist networks and, as relations with Washington improved, in moderating the role of the Shia militias. Iran agrees with the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, they say, that a timetable for the departure of US combat forces is necessary to calm the nationalist passions that fuel insurgent activity. In Afghanistan, said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis (parliament) foreign affairs commission, Iran is ready to expand its economic aid, accelerate anti-narcotics operations and intensify co-operation against the Taliban. What he did not say is that, if US covert operations continue, Iran can retaliate by helping the Taliban.

Even with Iranian help, the future in both Baghdad and Kabul is likely to be tempestuous, but co-operation between Washington and Tehran offers the best hope for damage limitation. This is especially true in Iraq, where the destruction of the Sunni-dominated Saddam regime predictably set the stage for an Iran-tilted Shia majority regime and has made the search for a US-Iranian accommodation throughout the Persian Gulf region an increasingly unavoidable geopolitical necessity.

The writer is director of the Asia programme at the Center for International Policy in Washington

THE FINANCIAL TIMES – By Selig Harrison – June 20, 2007

June 26, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Iran Policy Committee: Lobbyists for the Rajavi Cult?

In a video posted online, Professor Raymond Tanter has denied that the Iran Policy Committee is a lobbyist for the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists.

US Intelligence on Iran & the MEK

Friday, 30 March 2007

This investigative report produced by the Dateline programme probes into the role of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (the MEK) in providing intelligence related to the Iranian nuclear programme to the US. The MEK is a listed terrorist organisation, which is amongst the world’s most equipped and well armed, having under its control a functional military capability. Following the historic and infamous Iraq intelligence failures, this report questions once again the credibility of US intelligence sources.

http://www.aimislam.com/aim-tv/videos/us-intelligence-on-iran–the-mek

Unfortunately, the interviewer did not ask Professor Tanter who is funding the Iran Policy Committee (IPC).

http://www.iranpolicy.org/

The Iran Policy Committee has disclosed:

Members of the IPC: James Akins, Ambassador (ret.); Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, USMC (ret.); R. Bruce McColm, Lt. General Thomas McInerney; Captain Charles T. ‘Chuck’ Nash, USN (ret.); Lt. General Edward Rowny, USA (ret.); Professor Raymond Tanter; Major General Paul E. Vallely, USA (ret.).

Not-for-Profit Status

Contributions payable to the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law. The Committee is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization and is publicly supported as described in 509(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Committee’s IRS identification number is 20-2883425

http://www.iranpolicy.org/mission.php

The Iran Policy Committee

Alban Towers, Suite L-34

3700 Massachusetts Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20016

Office: (202)249-1142

Fax: (202)249-1143

Email: info@iranpolicy.org

http://www.iranpolicy.org/contact.php

Currently, Guide Star is showing the following disclosures for the Iran Policy Committee:

IRAN POLICY COMMITTEE 911 DUKE ST

% CLARE LOPEZ

ALEXANDRIA , VA 22314

——————————————————————————–

GENERAL INFORMATION

This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity.

This organization is required to file an IRS Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Contributions are deductible, as provided by law.

——————————————————————————–

NTEE Code

B05”Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

FORM 990 AND EDOCS

None Available.

http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=guidestar&npoId=100790851

Please note:

1. Clare Lopez is a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who claims that she is no longer employed by the Iran Policy Committee. Clare Lopez continues to speak in support of the Rajavi Cult terrorists, claiming to be an independent consultant (without naming any consulting clients).

2. If Guide Star’s information is correct, then the Iran Policy Committee has failed to update even its address with the Federal Government.

3. If Guide Star’s information is correct, then the Iran Policy Committee has failed to comply with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filing requirements.

4. The Iran Policy Committee claims to occupy only one suite in the Alban Towers. If the Iran Policy Committee discloses its Form 990, then everyone can know if the Iran Policy Committee is paying for additional suites in the Alban Towers.

5. On the day the interviewer visited Professor Tanter, there was no old bed left on the street in front of Alban Towers. Hopefully, Professor Tanter will disclose if the old bed came from any of the suites belonging to the Iran Policy Committee or to any of the individual members of the Iran Policy Committee.

6. In the video, Professor Tanter claimed to be a lobbyist for America. No American would support the totalitarian overthrow of Iran by the Pol Pot of Iran. The MEK has murdered American military officers, Rockwell International employees, and large numbers of Iranians and Iraqis. As noted in the video, the MEK was involved in the taking of the American Embassy hostages in Iran. The video shows MEK supporters waving their red communist flags.

7. It is time for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to disclose the financings of the Iran Policy Committee.

Take action — click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:

Disclose Iran Policy Committee’s Finances

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://360.yahoo.com/paulsheldonfoote

Professor, California State University, Fullerton

After marriage to an Iranian lady in Tehran, Iran in 1968, I returned to Tehran in the summer of 1970 to work at the American Embassy. After earning an MBA from Harvard Business School, I remained at Harvard University for another year to study the Persian (Farsi) language. In the early 1970’s, Singer Sewing Machine Company sent me on assignments in the Middle East and North Africa, including assignments in Tehran, Iran.

From 1994 to 1996, I was a professor at Sultan Qaboos University in the Sultanate of Oman. This gave me an opportunity to present papers at academic conferences in the United Arab Emirates and in Turkey. Also, I was able to speak to audiences in Iran and to teach English in Iran during vacations to the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1995 and 1996.

My wife makes frequent trips to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In our home in California, we have an international satellite dish providing access to television stations from a large number of countries in the world, including approximately 20 Persian (Farsi) language stations.

opednews

June 25, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Terrorists’ Justified Armed Resistance

It is much disappointing to come across accounts that, to appease terrorists for certain personal or political concerns, try to justify blatant terrorist moves perpetrated by a globally proscribed terrorist group as “a just armed resistance”. No doubt, the composers of these accounts can hardly differentiate between terrorism and resistance.

Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization has recently started a new move in Scandinavian countries against the EU to remove its name from the terrorist list. Of course, many of those who concur with MKO to antagonize its proscription, are not fully or at all acquainted with the group’s past history of bloody terrorist moves against innocent Iranian civilians and have not developed a good understanding of its hypocritical nature.

For instance, a Danish columnist, Ole Damkjær, in an article released in Berlingske Tidende, criticizes the EU’s approach to keep MEK in the terrorist list. The writer states that:

Opposition in the Danish Parliament along with other oppositions in EU countries have criticized the government for not abiding by the ruling of the EU Court as well as not presenting any evidence on the reason for inclusion of MEK in the list. The Foreign Minister Per Stig Muller has yielded to Parliament’s European Committee and sent them a top secret letter which specifies the reasons for inclusion of MEK in the terrorist list.

This document which Berlingske has obtained lists five violent activities between 1980 and 2001 and MEK renounced violence in 2001. In none of these 5 operations of the Iranian organization any terrorist activities such as those of Al-Qaeda’s have been utilized. The first reason the EU presented for including the Mojahedin in the list is concerning that MEK in 1980 that carried out operations across the border from their bases in Iraq. Other reasons are as follows:

In 1992 MEK had terrorist operations against 13 Iranian embassies and establishments.

In 1993 right before the Presidential election in Iran, the organization claimed the responsibility for attacks on Iranian oil facilities such as Iran’s largest refinery.

In 1999 MEK assassinated deputy commander of Iran’s armed forces.

In 2000 and 2001 MEK announced that its members were involved in attacks on Iranian armed forces, police and governmental offices near Iran Iraq border.

These are activities that EU lists in a document and emphasizes on and calls them terrorist activities. But their reasons are questioned not only by MEK but increasingly by a great number of EU Parliamentarians. They say MEK has only carried a just armed resistance against the brutal mullahs’ regime.

I do not know if these Danish advocates of MKO would maintain the same idea about “a just armed resistance” in case a group carried out the same “questioned” operations in a European country. The terrorists that demolished the Twin-Towers in 9/11 or blasted the London Subway had also justifiable reasons for themselves. Then, why a global war on terrorism is declared? If all dissidents and resistances were engaged in armed moves, what the world would be like?

Besides, the above mentioned reasons compared with the group’s unmentioned black file of terrorist atrocities are of no significance. A look at some counter-MKO websites, mojahedin.ws, iran-intrlink, irandidban and …, that present instances of the group’s terrorist operations will contribute to further information. For instance, MKO claim it has denounced terrorist activities since 2001. Can you believe it? Here are evidences that are excerpts from the group’s organ, Mojahed.

Furthermore, I do not think anybody can challenge the State Department’s recent report on MKO. Either all those countries that have proscribed MKO as a terrorist group are mistaken or MKO is lying to dupe the world. It is betrayal of moral standards to take safe refuge behind the globally accepted counter-terrorism laws to chant in favor of terrorists. One should choose to stand either in the former or the latter front.

June 25, 2007 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts