Hot Topics

Strange Bedfellows in the Conflict with Iran

As the European Union prepared to consider tough new sanctions against Iran on Monday, a group of eminent Americans was cozying up here to an exiled Iranian opposition group that the Washington's favorite terrorists, Mojahedin Khalq United States classifies as terrorists.

Even undeclared war makes strange bedfellows, and none more so than the former politicians, generals and spooks on the panel at a conference in Paris on Friday evening and their hosts, the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran.

In its checkered history, the P.M.O.I. has been accused of murdering American servicemen, was involved in not one but two invasions of the U.S. embassy in Tehran during the Iranian revolution, and allied itself with the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

More recently it claims to have provided information exposing details of Tehran’s attempts to produce a nuclear weapon, while vigorously denying widespread speculation that it might have assisted in recent unexplained assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

Western governments, including that of France where the group’s leadership is based, regard the Mujahedeen as more of a cult than a political movement.

Presiding over Friday’s conference in the old Bourse building in Paris was Mariam Rajavi, the movement’s leader and wife of its founder, Masoud Rajavi. He has disappeared from public view, perhaps emulating the Hidden Imam of the Shia Muslims .

Dressed in a familiar outfit of a modest but brightly colored suit and matching headscarf, she was greeted with chants of “Mariam, Mariam,” from the almost exclusively Iranian audience.

Americans on the international panel included General Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff; Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor; and Michael Mukasey, former U.S. Attorney General. Other panelists included Philippe Douste-Blazy, a former French foreign minister.

Gen. Shelton told Rendezvous he believed the U.S. had a sworn obligation to protect Mujahedeen refugees being evicted from Camp Ashraf in Iraq by a hostile government in Baghdad.

Camp Ashraf was a heavily armed encampment under Saddam Hussein from which Mujahedeen fighters attempted to invade Iran at the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. They were driven off. Today they enjoy little support in their home country, in spite of Mrs. Rajavi’s claims to lead the main resistance to the Islamic Republic, apparently because their efforts were seen as treacherous by many Iranians.

In the 2003 war that unseated Saddam Hussein, U.S.-led coalition forces attacked Mujahedeen military units but subsequently a ceasefire was arranged. Before the conflict, the Rajavis had repaired to their long-time base in the Paris suburb of Auvers-sur-Oise, which French anti-terrorism police raided in 2003, seizing millions of euros.

“There’s no longer any reason to keep these people on the terrorist list,” said Gen. Shelton, expressing an opinion that has won widespread bipartisan support in Washington, as my colleague Scott Shane has reported.

The P.M.O.I. — also known by its Persian title Mujahedeen-e-Khalq — has used a seemingly bottomless budget to push its case in the corridors of the U.S. Congress and to finance international meetings to maintain its profile.

Despite that, the State Department has adamantly refused to remove the group from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. A U.S court ruled in 2010 that the government must allow the PMOI a chance to rebut unclassified information the government used to justify its designation, Legal Times reported at the time.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has the matter under consideration.

The Mujahedeen fears the administration wants to keep a diplomatic line open to Iran in the escalating nuclear dispute. “Did you see those reports of Obama sending a secret letter to Tehran,” said a Mujahedeen insider knowingly.

Listing the P.M.O.I. as terrorists is the one thing on which Washington and Tehran agree and a delisting would be certain to derail any diplomatic initiative that might be under way.

As things stand, U.S. and European policy is to squeeze Iran economically until sanctions force it to yield on the nuclear issue.

The next step in that campaign will focus on Brussels, where European foreign ministers are moving toward a phased embargo of Iranian oil.

By HARVEY MORRIS

January 25, 2012 0 comment

Mujahedin-e-khalq Organization Members

750 Mojahedin Khalq members ask to return to Iran

Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Danaifar says nearly 750 members of the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) have expressed readiness to return to Iran.

A file photo shows a member of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO)
holding his weapon as he stands guard near the terrorist group’s
base in Camp Ashraf in northern Iraq.

Danaifar had earlier announced that Iran had pardoned all the residents of the Camp Ashraf except for less than 100 individuals who have criminal records.

The Iranian ambassador said on Sunday that Iran would not grant amnesty to the ringleaders of the terrorist group, adding that “those whose hands are not stained with the blood of Iranian citizens will be pardoned.”

Danaifar noted that during UN envoy’s visit to Camp Ashraf, the majority of the group expressed willingness to return to Iran in Iraq; however, the MKO leaders do not allow them to leave the camp and they have “somehow taken those members as hostages.”

The MKO, which has carried out numerous acts of terror and violence against Iranian civilians and government officials, fled to Iraq in 1986, where it enjoyed the support of Iraq’s executed dictator Saddam Hussein and set up the camp in Diyala Province, near the Iranian border.

The terrorist group is also known to have collaborated with Saddam in the bloody repression of the 1991 Shia Muslims in southern Iraq and the massacre of Iraqi Kurds in the country’s north.

Iran has repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to expel the group, but the US has blocked the expulsion by mounting pressure on the Iraqi government.

January 23, 2012 0 comment

The MEK; Baath Party Accomplice

MKO hanging in a vague future and past !!!! (Part3)

One important issue that should be noticed is about the organizations funds and expenses of which I obtained some films and documents of former Baath intelligence service. It was also mentioned in some of interviews I had [with former members of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization]. The former Iraqi Baath regime extensively supported the group both financially and militarily and funded it with hundreds millions of dollars and Iraqi Dinars. A dozen packages of 400 thousand dinars were paid to the MKO, according to a film recorded in 1986 by former Iraqi intelligence. We are well aware of the exchange rate of dinar versus dollar at that time. “Most of these funds were invested in large American and European firms and banks and the benefits resulted from those investment are spent for running the organization but the support from former Iraqi regime wasn’t limited to this,” says Mr. Hassan Azizi. "The families of MKO spies who worked for Iraq inside Iran and were arrested by Iranian MKO hanging in a vague future and past !!!! government were also paid monthly salaries (based on the documents obtained of former Iraqi intelligence service, issued on February 2nd, 2000). Besides Iraqi Baath regime, Arabic states of Persian Gulf including Saudi Arabia used to fund the organization. In one case when [Rajavi] returned from Iraq he said in a meeting,’ it was a prolific trip. "

One of the most important financial resources of the organization was “information selling”. This is done by a large spying network which is working under the supervision of the MKO. It sells the extensive intelligence it gains from all over the world to countries willing to have them.

Besides, they reach large amounts of funds for committing terrorist operations planned by certain authorities.

All former members whom I interviewd, speak of the legendry wealth of the organization and nobody is aware of the sources. Mr. Hassan Azizi and Mr. Abbas Sadeqi suggest:”if you have a detailed look at the MKO’s foreign policies, you can come to the idea that the organization shares one objective with countries such as Israel, the US and Arab states of the Persian Gulf and that is the overthrow of Iranian government which is considered as their biggest enemy, and regarding this common interest you can recognize the source of most of financial support the MKO enjoys.”

The Khalq Organization or the Cult of Rajavi has so far sustained terrible strokes that have led it to a cul-de-sac and a total bewilderment. The strokes were:
1. A large number of members left the group after it moved to Iraq (in 1980’s)

2. Shaabanieh revolution. It can be called the beginning of an end for the MKO. Mr. Mehdi Naderi, another defector of the group and Mr. Hassan Azizi and Mr. Abbas Sadeqi Nezhad, all confirm the fact:

“At the time of the first Gulf War in 1991, the leaders of the organization told us in a statement that a few brigades of Iranian forces disguised in Kurdish and Shiite clothes wanted to attack the organization’s bases. They allegedly intended to demolish the group. Thus, the group authorities distributed a large number of forces of the National Liberation Army in strategically crucial locations of Iraq such as Sulaimanbeig, Kefri, Jalula, Khaneqein and certain Shiite areas. As the result of the operation, 25000 of Iraqi children, women and men were massacred.

However, some of forces of the NLA who were told that these innocent people were Iranian revolutionary guards, abstained from the order consequently they were shot and killed by the organization’s artillery. Following Shaabanieh Revolution many of MKO members doubted about what had taken place in that operation. Some found out about the organization’s secret deals so they left the group and went to other countries.

3. After the collapse of the Baath Regime, American forces disarmed the group. You can definitely come to the conclusion that the organization that was completely dependent on its arms in all stages of its activities lost its existence. Thus, the MKO’s activities shifted to covert Iraqi politics. They paid big bribes to certain pro-Baath politicians, supporting them in their election debates. For instance I quote from Mr. Mehdi Naderi:”while the provincial council elections in Iraq, some of the candidates received their advertising posters from Camp Ashraf.”

By Mohammad Saad / Almurakeb-al-Iraqi – Translated by Nejat Society

January 21, 2012 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

When is a terrorist not a terrorist? & War with Iran or not?

In the case of the assassination of Iranian scientists, the Mossad’s assets are almost certainly members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) also known as The Peoples’ Mujahedin of Iran, which is committed to overthrowing the Iranian government.

The longer and complete form of the first question in the headline is – When is a terrorist not a terrorist in the eyes of the Obama administration (not to mention all of its predecessors) and the governments of the Western world?

Answer: When he or she is an Israeli Mossad agent or asset.

In the case of the assassination of Iranian scientists, the Mossad’s assets are almost certainly members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) also known as The Peoples’ Mujahedin of Iran, which is committed to overthrowing the Iranian government. Many of its activists are based in Iraqi Kurdistan where Mossad has a substantial presence. It does the training there, selects the targets in Iran and provides the bombs and other weapons, and MKO members do the actual killing.

It’s reasonable to presume that Mossad is more comfortable operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan with Iranian MKO assets than it was when its own agents were posing as CIA officers to recruit members of Jundallah, a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization, to carry out assassinations and attacks on installations and facilities in Iran.

Some of the essence of that Israeli false flag operation has been revealed by Mark Perry in an article for Foreign Policy. His report is based on information he acquired about memos buried deep in the archives of America’s intelligence services which were written in the last years of President George “Dubya” Bush’s administration, plus conversations he had with two currently serving U.S. intelligence officials and four retired intelligence officers who worked for the CIA or monitored Israeli intelligence operations from senior positions inside the U.S. government.

According to Perry’s sources, one of whom has seen the memos, the Mossad agents who were posing as CIA agents to recruit Jundallah operatives had American passports and were “flush” with American dollars.

The memos tell the story of an investigation which debunked reports from 2007 and 2008 accusing the CIA, at the direction of the White House, of covertly supporting Jundallah. The investigation apparently showed that the U.S. “had barred even the most incidental contact with Jundallah.”

The memos also gave details of CIA field reports on Mossad’s recruitment of Jundallah operatives, mainly in London and “under the nose of U.S. intelligence officials.”

Perry’s sources confessed to being “stunned by the brazenness of Mossad’s efforts.” And one of them said: “It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with. Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn’t give a damn about what we thought.”

I take issue with the first part of that statement. What is really amazing is not what Mossad and almost of Israel’s political and military leaders think they can get away with, but what they KNOW they can get away with because of the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress on all matters relating to policy for the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel.

And that in turn is why, generally speaking, Israel’s leaders don’t give a damn about what American administrations think, They come and go but the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress is a permanent fixture. (In private conversation with General Moshe Dayan when he was Israel’s defence minister, I once summed up Israel’s unspeakable but implicit message to the governments of the world in the following way. “We know we shouldn’t have done this but we’ve done it because we also know there’s nothing you can do about it.” Dayan didn’t comment but the look on his face said something like, “You’re right but I’m not going to say so.”)

Though Israel doesn’t usually comment on reports about Mossad’s activities, a senior government spokesman described Perry’s account of Mossad agents posing as CIA agents as “absolute nonsense.” As I was reading the denial I used a Jimmy Carter expression – “BS” (Bull Shit).

After the latest assassination of an Iranian scientist, Rick Santorum, the right-wing religious joker in the pack of Republican presidential hopefuls, said this: “On occasions scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing.”

A different view was offered by Jewish American journalist Richard Silverstein. For his weblog Tikun Olam he wrote this: “These are shameful acts by a shameful Israeli government exploiting Iranian terrorists for their own ends. I find it disgusting that Israel can get away with such acts with impunity.”

Disgusting it certainly is but there’s no mystery about why Israel can commit crimes including acts of naked state terrorism without fear of being called and held to account for them by the UN Security Council. When after the 1967 war it refused to label the Zionist state as the aggressor and require it to withdraw from the newly occupied Arab lands without conditions, it effectively created, at the insistence of the U.S., two sets of rules for the behaviour of nations – one set for all the nations of the world minus Israel and the other exclusively for Israel. That was the birth of the double standard which is the cancer at the heart of Western foreign policy.

Now let’s pause for a moment to imagine what the response would have been if Iranian agents or assets had assassinated an Israeli scientist (just one) in the Zionist state.

Led by America, Western governments would have bellowed their condemnation of the terrorism and pledged full support for all efforts to hunt the terrorists down and bring them to justice. And they would, of course, have blamed the government of Iran even if there was not one shred of evidence of its authorization. The assassination of an Israeli scientist might even have tipped the Washington decision-making balance in favour of the mad men who want the U.S. either to attack Iran or give Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu the green light to go, with or without nuclear tipped, bunker-busting bombs.

And Israel? How would it have responded? With or without a green light from President Obama it almost certainly would have bombed selected targets in Iran, even if doing so was likely to set the region on fire and do vast damage to Western interests in the region and the whole Muslim world. (As I note in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, in the chapter headed The Liberty Affair – “Pure Murder” on a “Great Day”, the lesson of the cold-blooded Israeli attack on the American spy ship was that there is nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way).

Now… At the risk of inviting a charge from some and perhaps many readers that I am naive in the extreme, I have to say I am inclined to the view that the Obama administration was telling the truth when it strongly denied any American complicity in the latest Israeli/MKO assassination. The New York Times put it this way:

“The assassination drew an unusually strong condemnation from the White House and the State Department, which disavowed any American complicity… ‘The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this,’ said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to expand the denial beyond Wednesday’s killing, categorically denying any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.”

The NYT report then quoted Mrs. Clinton as saying this:

“We believe that there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbours and the international community that finds a way forward for it to end its provocative behaviour, end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community,”

That in my opinion is code for something very like: “This administration is not completely mad. We know that an attack on Iran could have catastrophic consequences for the region and the world. Despite the mounting and awesome pressure we are under from Netanyahu and those who peddle his propaganda here in America, we know that the nuclear problem with Iran must be solved by jaw-jaw and not war-war.”

How catastrophic the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran could be for the region and the world has been put into words by Philip Giraldi, currently the executive director of the Council for the National Interest and a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer. The scenario he presents under the headline What War With Iran Might Look Like takes us all the way to World War III. His article can be found at http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/the-cost-of-israel-to-the-us/item/1319-what-war-with-iran-might-look-like

So I believe NYT reporter Scott Shane was on the right track when he wrote that the statements by U.S. officials appeared to reflect serious concern about the (Israeli/MKO) assassinations of Iranian scientists because they could “backfire” and make Iran’s leaders less willing to talk. And, I add, more willing to give in to those forces in Iran, the Revolutionary Guards in particular, who might well be saying that Iran must possess nuclear weapons for deterrence.

My guess is that U.S. officials are also concerned by the possibility that more assassinations could provoke an Iranian response which would give Israel the pretext to attack. (It’s by no means impossible that the main purpose of the assassinations is to provoke an Iranian response to give Israel the pretext for an attack).

That brings me to my own speculation about what is really going on behind closed doors in the Obama administration. At executive level it is, I think, in a state of something close to total panic about what to do to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran if Netanyahu is not bluffing.

My reading of Obama’s latest turn of the sanctions screw on Iran is that it’s his way of not only putting more pressure on the ruling government. It’s also his way of saying to Netanyahu something like, “Give me more time to solve the Iranian nuclear problem by all means other than war.”

Obama needs more time not only to try to get serious and substantive talks with Iran going but also to establish beyond any doubt whether Israeli threats to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities are a bluff (to put pressure on the U.S.) or not. In an article for Ha’aretz under the headline Israel and U.S. at odds over timetables and red lines for Iran, Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel wrote:

“Do Barak and Netanyahu really intend to attack on their own, or is Israel only trying to prod the West into more decisive action? That is the million-dollar question. It has been discussed intermittently for the past three years and it seems that Washington does not have a satisfactory answer to it.”

In a few days time General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, is scheduled to arrive in Israel for talks with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Chief of Staff Lt. General Benny Gantz and other senior Israeli defense and intelligence officials.

Dempsey knows that when U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Netanyahu and Barak last November, they refused to give him a commitment that Israel would not attack Iran without informing America of its intention to do so.

If I am right about the panic in the Obama administration, my guess is that Dempsey will try to obtain the commitment Panetta failed to get. What if Dempsey does not succeed?

My guess is that whatever he may say in public after his meetings, Dempsey will tell the Israelis in private that if they go to war with Iran they will be on their own. The U.S., I can almost hear him saying, will not become engaged except to defend its own national interests if and as necessary “because the American people, most of them, are tired of war.” He could add “and we don’t have the money to pay for it.”

An interesting question for the coming days is something like this: What if Dempsey returns to Washington without being able to give behind-closed-doors assurance that Israel (despite what it might continue to say to the contrary in public for propaganda purposes) will not go it alone with an attack Iran?

In theory there is a card President Obama could play. He could put Israel on public notice that if it attacked Iran and if as a consequence America’s own bests interests were harmed, the U.S. would have to rethink its relationship with the “Jewish state”. A statement to that effect would imply that the days of America’s unconditional support for Israel right or wrong could be coming to an end.

But that’s not a statement Obama could make this side of November’s presidential election. So if Netanyahu is not bluffing, and if he was determined to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before November’s election, there’s nothing Obama could do to stop him, even knowing that the end game could be, as Giraldi speculated, World War III.

My own view has always been that Netanyahu is bluffing to the extent that he even he is not crazy enough to order an Israeli attack on Iran without a green light from the U.S. and American cover and participation,

I hope I am right. If I am it could be that General Dempsey will return to Washington with the news Obama wants and needs – that without a green light from the U.S, Israel will not bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

By Alan Hart – Salem-News

January 16, 2012 0 comment

MEK Camp Ashraf

Camp Ashraf Relocation Woes

Camp Ashraf is finally coming to an end. It has served as home for the past twenty-five years for over three thousand members of the terrorist cult, the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK). United Nations Assistance Mission representative, Ambassador Martin Kobler as well as the Camp Ashraf Relocation Woes Iraqi government officially signed the Memorandum of Understanding, which is, in essence, an evacuation notice. [1]

Iraq has agreed to a UN hosted mediation that the camp is to close within six months, which is beyond the previous deadline of December 31st 2011. Leaders of the Ashraf wanted to remain at the camp and avoid resettlement, but were unable to permanently obtain their request. What they got was a delay. [2]

Following the mediation, four hundred residents of Ashraf reluctantly agreed to resettle after seeking guidance from the Paris-based cult leader, Maryam Rajavi. They will relocate to Camp Liberty, a former American military base near Baghdad International Airport. Rajavi called this decision as “a sign of goodwill” but she made no mention of when the other residents would go. [3]

In Washington DC a special briefing by Ambassador Daniel Freid took place on December 29th 2011. Freid remarked that “the residents of Camp Ashraf will be moved from Camp Ashraf to former Camp Liberty, which used to be a U.S. military facility and is located near the Baghdad Airport. UNHCR is – will begin immediately to process these people for refugee status. At the same time, those wishing to return voluntarily to Iran as, by the way , several hundred from Ashraf have already done, will be able to do so.” [4]

Due to concerns over the possibility of group pressure on the individuals in Camp Ashraf, Ambassador Fried was asked whether the interview process is private and without an MKO superior watching. He replied, “I would say that the UN and other international organizations are well aware of the potential problems of group think or group pressure, and they are very well aware of the many reports about the atmosphere at Camp Ashraf and the character of that place.” [5]

The signed agreement seems to have provided the opportunity for Ashraf residents to release themselves from a three-decade long imprisonment in a cult of personality around the husband and wife co-leaders, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi. As Camp Ashraf is dissolved, it gives hostages of the cult an opportunity to break away from the group and return to their families.

Daniel Larison of theamericanconservative.com suggests that Rajavi leadership is keeping some members in the camp to use as a bargaining chip in their effort to manipulate American opinion. Basically the Rajavi’s are lobbying the US government to change the official status of the Mojahedin Khalq—from a terrorist designated organization to a regular organization. According to the US State Department , currently their official status remains a “terrorist organization.” [6]

The MKO’s well-documented lobbying and propaganda blitz sets in motion a one-sided uproar about the “humanitarian crisis” at Camp Ashraf. Paid advocates of the MKO expect the US administration to delist the group and “regularly exploit the misinformation of the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf, wrap themselves in the mantle of humanitarianism and confuse the very different issue of the inhabitants’ safe departure from Iraq and the status of the MEK.” [7]

As Ashraf comes to dissolve, non-cult relatives of cult members, and many in the international community fear there is a risk of mass suicide—death and martyrdom have been an integral part of the cult’s ideology. Maryam Rajavi responded to this concern by announcing in her so-called "sign of goodwill” that 400 of the 3200 residents of the camp are ready to move.
What is daunting is that despite the move of 400 residents, very few, if any members of the cult have stepped out of the camp for years. Maryam Rajavi on the other hand lives a luxurious and free life in France (Massoud, her co-leader husband is not so lucky, as he has been in hiding or disappeared since the arrest, and subsequent release by French police of Maryam, in 2003.

Scott Peterson of The Christian Science Monitor suggests that “with the complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq this week, options for the MEK have narrowed." [8]
Furthermore, according to Joby Warrick of The Washington Post, "US and UN officials have been scrambling to resolve the fate of the estimated 3400 residents of Camp Ashraf, but officials say the MEK and its backers have complicated matters by insisting on US protection.” [9]

Warrick reports from State Department talks that “the possibility that American troops would be ordered back into Iraq to guard the dissidents is remote, at best.” On the condition of anonymity, Warrick reports that an official in the State Department flat out said, “It’s not going to happen" [10]

Larison optimistically views residents’ relocation a “good outcome” but not for “the group leadership and its friends in the west.”[11] Once Ashraf residents are resettled at Camp Liberty, they can apply for immigration to third countries under UN observation. Strategically, Camp Ashraf was in a geographical position near the Iranian border, and it enabled Ashraf leaders to take advantage of the location—sending Western sponsored spies into Iran from the camp.

By Mazda Parsi

References:
[1]BBC, Iraq and UN sign Iranian Camp Ashraf exile deal, December 26, 2011
[2] Reuters, Iraq extends deadline for closing Iranian Camp, December 21, 2011
[3]Charton Angela, Iranian exiles ready to leave Iraq Camp, Associated Press, December20, 2011
[4]US department of State, Briefing on the situation at camp Ashraf, December 29, 2011
[5]ibid
[6]Larison, Daniel, Camp Ashraf deal undermines Western pro-MEK advocacy, The American Conservative, December 26, 2011
[7] ibid
[8]Peterson, Scott, with deadline looming to close MEK’s Camp Ashraf in Iraq, what next? Christian Science Monitor, December 20, 2011
[9]Warrick Joby, Iraq agrees to UN-brokered deal on fate of Iranian exiles, The Washington Post, December 25, 2011
[10]ibid
[11]Larison, Daniel Camp Ashraf undermined Western pro-MEK advocacy, The American Conservative, December 26, 2011

January 16, 2012 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US presidential candidates, MKO terrorists; any link

In his article on Antiwar.com on Monday, Justin Raimondo wrote about the MKO’s advocates among the US presidential candidates and their being motivated to take part in the MKO campaign for taking out of the US list of foreign terrorist groups mostly for private gain.

This American author says "Bolton has long championed the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (Peoples’ Mujahideen, or MEK), an Islamo-Marxist cult widely hated in Iran."

Earlier last month Newt Gingrich promised to appoint the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations for President George W. Bush, John Bolton, to be secretary of state if elected president.

The analyst also warned that under a Gingrich administration we would witness the spectacle of the US Army "installing in power a group currently on the US State Department’s list of terrorist organizations".

Some months earlier Republican figures including John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey also took part in the campaign to remove MKO from US blacklist.

He made reference to another Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, and stated that "Romney, too, has his MEK connection," alluding to Romney’s especial advisor, Mitchell Reiss, who is a leading supporter for Mujahedin-e Khalq terrorist group.

The editorial director of Antiwar.com also pointed out that Mujahedin-e Khalq enjoys "widespread support on Capitol Hill" and stated that "this is the only terrorist group I know of that is allowed to maintain an unofficial embassy in Washington through various front groups".

He raised a question that "could it have something to do with the large amounts of cash the MEK front groups in Washington are throwing around?" concluding that some of these supporters are somehow motivated to take part in the campaign in Washington to remove the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK, MKO, PMOI, Rajavi cult) from the US list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations mostly by the desire for private gain and, in fact, are charged by MKO’s front groups.

January 12, 2012 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

MKO hanging in a vague future and past!!!!(Part1)

The article has been written completely based on testimonies of some former members of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization and films and documents obtained from former Iraqi regime. It does not contain any personal position.

I woke up late in the morning. I fumbled toward my desk. As usual I took my cell phone to check my calls. I saw an unknown phone number that brought me totally on the alert. Immediately I called back, excited to know who would get the call…

The next day, I left home for a hotel in Baghdad while I hadn’t slept the previous night at all. I wanted to visit a group of Iranians who had come to Iraq from both Europe and Iran for one single cause: revealing one of the most mysterious and active covert political and intelligence organizations that I had already gathered a little information about.

The organization was founded by a group of Islamist political activists, Mohammad Hanif nejad, Saeed Mohsen and Ali Asghar badeezadegan who started their armed struggle following the June 5th,1963 (Khordad 15th,1342) uprising in Iran. They were inspired by Latin America armed movements. Two years later in 1965 they founded their organization that was not named Mojahedin Khalq yet and was simply called the “Organization” by its members. Their cause was the overthrow of Pahlavi regime that arrested and executed a large number of the organization’s activists shortly after. In 1971, thirteen MKO leaders including Massoud Rajavi were sentenced to death. Massoud Rajavi could suspiciously survive that death penalty.

The organization has never been a moderate one in its approaches. They never agreed with Islamist activists who were also struggling before the Revolution. Mr. Hassan Azizi [former MKO member]’s testimony proves the issue:”The MKO used to quarrel with Islamists in the prison. They used to offend them [their co-prisoners] telling them “Until we are, you mustn’t be”.

Asked about Massoud Rajavi’s personality, he replied:”he is an evil under the cover of human.” To support his claim, he said, ”We got to know that the Iranian government had suspected one of the team bases that had housed the organization’s number two, Musa Khiabani and his wife Azar Rezaiee and Massoud Rajavi’s first wife, Ashraf Rabiee’.

"According to the group security regulations, the place had to be immediately abandoned for 48 hours in order to make sure about the safety of the place after that they could return. But Massoud Rajavi called from France and assured them that the base was not recognized [by security forces] and that they would be able to stay there. Then the government forces besieged the house and after two hours of armed clashes [the MKO] agents were killed. Besides, when all the group leaders were imprisoned and then executed by the Pahlavi regime, he [Rajavi] was the only one who survived.”

He also said:”in 1383, National Council of Resistance was established by Iranian opposition movements including Kurdistan Democratic Party led by Dr. Qasemlou – who was suspiciously murdered in Viene, Austeria- National Democratic Front led by Hedayat Allah Matin Daftari and famous personalities like former Iranian president Abul Hassan BaniSadr. [The NCRI] intended to create a free region in Iranian Kurdistan. Following the hammering of Kurdistan by Iranian government, we were transferred to Alan Heights in Iraq, under Massoud Rajavi’s order. [In Iraq] we were busy-minded with a question: what are we doing in a country hostile to Iran? There, the aims of the organization were not clear to members so most dissident members were killed by Rajavi in ambiguous ways.”

By Mohammad Saad / Almurakeb-al-Iraqi

to be continued

January 10, 2012 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MKO relocates terrorists to Europe

The 200 members of the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) who disappeared from the notorious Camp Ashraf in Iraq in past months have been reappearing in European countries.

Nine Massoud Rajavi loyalists, who had been taken to Camp Ashraf from Canada, have once again returned to the North American country.

With the help of the Zionist lobby, the group has been tasked with contacting Canadian politicians and convincing them the situation in Camp Ashraf is exactly as the Rajavi cult has described.

Another four Rajavi acolytes have gone to Washington and filed a lawsuit against the Iraqi government, which has decided to close the camp. This is while the Iraqi judicial system is currently investigating the Iraqi people’s complaint against organized crimes carried out by the terrorist cell.

Three Rajavi acolytes who have recently arrived in Europe are expert bomb makers trained by Saddam Hussein’s army.

Kashmiri and Kolahi, who masterminded the assassination of a former Iranian president and prime minister in the 1980s, have both been sighted in the suburbs of Cologne, Germany.

Analysts maintain that Rajavi will not hesitate to use such MKO operatives to attack Iranian and Iraqi embassies in Western countries in order to stoke tension in political relations.

The US and Iraq’s intelligence services agreed last week to get Massoud Rajavi out of the camp so that the Iraqi government would be able to close it.

Rajavi will be taken to the second major base of the terrorist group in the suburbs of Paris.

The Iraqi government has made clear its plans to close down the notorious Camp Ashraf, located about 120 kilometers (74 miles) west of the border with Iran.

On November 27, the US government announced it is mulling removing the anti-Iran organization from its terrorist blacklist and giving refuge to its members, a move which many believe is an indication of Washington’s support for terrorism.

The MKO is designated as a terrorist organization under United States law, and has been described by State Department officials as a repressive cult.

The group fled to Iraq in 1986, where it enjoyed the support of Iraq’s executed dictator Saddam Hussein, and set up the camp in Diyala Province, near the Iranian border.

MKO is also known to have cooperated with Saddam in suppressing the 1991 uprisings in southern Iraq and the massacre of Iraqi Kurds. The group has carried out numerous acts of violence against Iranian civilians and government officials.

Iran has repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to expel the group, but the US has blocked the expulsion by mounting pressure on the Iraqi government.

January 9, 2012 0 comment

Open Letter from Sahar Family Foundation to Martin Kobler

Sahar Family Foundation has written a letter to the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq, Mr Martin Kobler, regarding the latest developments at the base of the Rajavi cult in Iraq.

The text of the letter is below:

United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI)
Mr. Martin Kobler,

With kind respects and best wishes for your task regarding the issue of the inhabitants of Camp New Iraq (formerly Ashraf garrison), we would like to inform you of the following:

According to information gained from inside Ashraf garrison, Massoud Rajavi arranged a video conference with Ashraf inhabitants towards the end of September 2011. Participation in this session was mandatory for all cult members residing in Ashraf. In this conference, which lasted for 8 continuous hours, Rajavi tried to prepare his followers for the possible UN interviews beforehand.

He directly threatened members of his cult that during interviews they should not say or write anything but their names and the period they have been in Ashraf garrison, and should not mention anything about wishing to leave the base of the cult since this would produce severe consequences for them.

In his lengthy speech, Rajavi tried to frighten people against any and every possible UN action and emphasized that they would gain no benefit from the UN interviews and the UN intervention and it could even harm them. He told them that if they do anything except what he has asked them to do they would be arrested and handed over to the Iranian regime where they would be tortured and executed.

During his speech, Rajavi said that the Iraqi government, the EU, the UN, the ICRC and any other agency cannot make any decisions and the US is the only agency that makes all the decisions. In this respect he tried to give hope to his followers that with the US administration’s approval, the conditions that the organization used to enjoy under Saddam Hussein would be reinstated.

The information received from Ashraf garrison also indicates that all members have been put on a state of alert against the Iraqi forces and specific plans have been made in this regard. These plans are mainly defensive but some plans for ambushing the Iraqi forces and disarming them have also been made. The members are told that after disarming the Iraqi forces they should hand over the captured weapons to their superiors and wait to be told what to do next. It should be mentioned that during the April clash with the Iraqi forces some weapons were seized from Iraqi soldiers which are still being held by the Rajavi cult.

There has also been news that the leaders of the cult are actively seeking another clash with the Iraqi forces in order to eliminate some of their discontented members as they did in previous cases. This has been done several times in the MeK cult before. During the invasion of Iraq by allied forces in 2003, the leaders of the Rajavi cult murdered some of those who wanted to leave and later announced that they had been killed during the bombardments. In the following years as more dissidents fled Ashraf garrison it was revealed that of the over 50 persons that the MeK claimed were killed as the result of the bombardments, a maximum number of 5 had actually been killed in this way and the rest were eliminated by the cult itself.

What we would specifically like to draw your attention to is that inside Ashraf garrison the brainwashing sessions called “current operations” are proceeding with intensity. The reason for these delays and time-killing by the leaders of the cult and preventing the UN from carrying out its tasks is that they want to identify those who are potential deserters and also to mentally prepare their members for the interviews.

We therefore on behalf of the suffering families, who are the only right representatives of the inhabitants of the garrison and are truly following their best interests, urge you to adopt the following means.

– Arrange for the hundreds of families of members, who have been picketing outside the garrison for nearly two years and merely request to visit their loved ones which the leaders of the cult have denied, to visit the inhabitants during the transfer and interview process.

– Make sure that such meetings are carried out without the presence of the MeK officials. It is necessary for the International Red Cross and preferably the next of kin of interviewees to be present in order to gain the rapport and trust of the asylum seekers.

– Pass adequate information about their actual situation to these people since they have been away from the real world for many years and have no clue whatsoever about the circumstances outside the cult. Their only source of knowledge has been the cult leaders, so they must be well informed beforehand.

As before, Sahar Family Foundation declares its readiness for all possible cooperation. We would like to share all our resources in any appropriate way with the international organizations in order to reach a quick and peaceful solution for the dilemma of Ashraf garrison.

Sahar Family Foundation
Baghdad, 3 January 2012

Copy to:
Mr. Daniel Fried, U.S. Special Adviser on Camp Ashraf
Mr. Jean de-Ruyt, EU foreign policy adviser on Camp Ashraf

January 5, 2012 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

MKO status from the perspective of International Law

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes a right to enjoy asylum as a fundamental right of human beings, which is a limited right (comes with exceptions), because the second paragraph of Article 14 limits the right to asylum by stipulating that "this right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

The position of the International Law towards the refuge and refugees has changed from the very beginning of the UN foundation in 1945, after the end of the Second World War, with regard to the changes and developments of the international community.

One year after the foundation of United Nations, on December 1946, the General Assembly passed a resolution to establish “International Refugee Organization”. It was a temporary organization of the United Nations (UN), which itself had been founded in 1945, with a mandate to repatriate or resettle European refugees to their homeland. Those who had been immigrated or moved to other countries due to the outcomes of the war. International Refugee Organization (IRO) was dissolved in 1952 after resettling these individuals (about one million refugees).

Although human beings have been relieved of WWII, its consequences and postwar tribulations were being gradually appearing. Economic, political, and social conditions of most of the countries where such that a significant proportion of individuals who have been repatriated to their homeland by International Refugee Organization preferred to seek refuge in the countries other than their own. Therefore, on 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Article 14 of which is about the right to seek and enjoy asylum:

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

After the dissolution of International Refugee Organization in 1950, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was established to address the new problems.

Subsequently, in 1951, Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and in 1967, its Additional Protocol was approved by the United Nations. Also in 1967, the General Assembly approved the Declaration on Territorial Asylum.

As mentioned previously, Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes a right to enjoy asylum as a fundamental right of human beings. This is a limited right (comes with exceptions), because the second paragraph of Article 14 limits the right to asylum.

Article 14(2) refers to “the purposes and principles of the United Nations” which are mentioned in the Charter of the United Nations paragraph 1 of Article 1, and the most important of which is “to maintain international peace and security”. It is of great importance that one of the chapters of the Charter (Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression) guarantees maintenance of international peace and security.

So we can say that the importance of maintenance of peace and international security is among the major priorities of the United Nations and the rest of its duties have to be implemented in a way that it does not being threatened.

With the resolution of the economic, political, and social crisis, above all lack of employment, the European and American countries gradually narrowed refugee admission, even though the number of asylum seekers soared.

The reaction of the countries was tightening rules on accepting refugees, e.g., coining the new term of ‘asylum seeker’ instead of ‘refugee’. To be brief, asylum seeker is a person who is seeking protection as a refugee and his/her refugee status has not yet been determined by the host country.

The most important issue and problem of the above definition from a legal perspective is that the right to asylum is an individual right; interpretation, expansion, or restriction of which has to be done along the lines of protecting the individual rights.

The term “Asylum seeker” as opposed to “refugee” actually restricts the people to fully enjoy a right as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So, separating asylum seekers and refugees explicitly violates the Article 14, Article 1 (equality), and Article 2 (non-discrimination) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

To solve the problem it is said that:

Although the right to asylum is an international right and is internationally confirmed, the practical identification and definition of that should be established separately by each country and with regard to the location and facilities of each of them.
Implementation of an individual/private right should not prevent that of public rights (the right to security, sovereignty, etc.). In a nutshell, private rights yield to public rights (Privatum commodum publico cedit).

As mentioned, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not describe the right to asylum as an absolute one, the right to asylum should not preclude states from exercising sovereignty. As a result, governments with regard to their sovereignty and facilities have the right to accept asylum seekers or deny them.

At the present time, those governments which have a good reputation in accepting refugees have tightened rules and regulations, as compared to the past. In addition, they inform the UNHCR of the maximum number of refugees could be admitted by them, and they rarely accept more than the stated number. The discussion for legal grounds for such an action will be discussed in the second part of the article.

The current status and UNHCR’s approaches

As it is understood from the official documents of the organization known as Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK/MKO) and its front organizations such as NCRI, residents of the Organization’s camps, which gathered in Camp New Iraq (formerly Camp Ashraf) when they surrendered camps to the US forces, had various motives for staying in MKO camps in Iraqi soil. Diversity of people and motives is too much. (page 19)

For example, National Council Magazine pages 17-56 (titled: ‘Mujahedin Prison’) Addendum 20 and 21 June and July 1986, which is written “Armed resistance: a report from behind the front lines, Manouchehr Hezarkhani” on the front cover. The author describes a visit to one the Organization’s camps.

The author claims that one of the camps of MKO in Iraqi Kurdistan “covers an area of 28000 square meters.” In addition to other sectors in the camp there are two additionally, quarantine and reception sections, which those who for whatever reason are willing to cooperate with MKO have to pass these two stages.

The author quotes the head of the camp as saying that the individuals are divided into seven groups:

Supporters who were away for a while.
Iranian soldiers fleeing the battlefront
The escapees whose final destination was Europe, but they have failed to fulfill their goals.
Affiliates of other opposition groups with urgent conditions (neither agree with their organizations nor with ours.)
Iranian fugitives from refugee camps in Iraq.
People who approach the camp due to their economic problems.
Recruits of the Organization “who do not tolerate our discipline, or do not agree with our political line or ideology.”(page 19)
MKO has had extensive and systematic efforts within the Iranian prisoner-of-war camps in Iraq, according to documents and Iranian POWs. We should add at least another item to the above list.

Residents of one of the foreign countries who have joined the MKO camps in Iraq on account of opposition to the government of Iran (ninth group).

Considering all the previously mentioned aspects, we should say that:

Firstly, if the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) duly interviews the members of the MKO in the camp one by one, should consider this classification.

Secondly, Iranian government claims to have documents and evidences revealing that some of the MKO members in Camp New Iraq are being prosecuted for non-political crimes. As mentioned in the very beginning of the article, such individuals do not have the right to enjoy refugee, relying on Article 14(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Thirdly, some of the MKO members have committed war crimes, especially breach of peace and security during the Iran-Iraq war, 1980-88. The MKO operation Foroughe Javidan (Eternal Light) against Iran is one of the most obvious breaches of International peace and security.

It seems to take so long for UNHCR to simply follow the mentioned classification, and it’s unlikely to succeed. Thus, the best option for UNHCR to expedite refugee status determination of MKO members in Iraq is to divide them into two groups:

Those who participated in the operations which breached the International peace and security.
Those who did not involve in such operations.
If the UNHCR admits the refugee of each of these individuals without considering their records and introduces them to one of the countries which accept refugees, then they commit some crimes against rules and regulations of the host country (such as self-immolation, spying against the host country, money laundering, organized crimes, etc.) the refugee processing system of UNHCR will be questioned. Moreover, it may even be charged with supporting those who have breached international peace and security.

January 5, 2012 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts