Based on the finding that the proscribed Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) has ceased its military and terrorist operations since June 2001, the UK POAC ruled de-proscription of the group. The court puts emphasis on the proof that “There is no evidence relied on by the Respondent that the PMOI has at any stage subsequently sought to obtain weapons of any type or undertaken any type of military operations, military training of personnel or recruitment of individuals for potential military operations”. That is a good idea if a terrorist group has decided to renounce terrorism and dissolve military units. But MKO’s aired TV programs, especially following the court’s judgment, are in absolute contradiction with its claims. MKO’s TV network is repetitively broadcasting clips from its military operations, manoeuvres and marches in which women’s presence seems to have greater significance. Even the music concerts are performed in a militaristic atmosphere with choir and singers in military uniforms. Do these programs broadcasted by the official TV network of a proscribed organization corroborate its claims of abandoning terrorism and militarism? These pictures and clips well indicate that claims and words can never be trusted unless proved by action.
I have recently posted an interesting piece by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich entitled "Iran Intelligence Report: Another Psychological Warfare?". This was not the first time I had read Soraya’s very interesting and insightful articles about Iran and this latest piece prompted me to contact Soraya and ask her for an interview. Soraya kindly agreed to my request and it is my real pleasure today to resume my "Saker interviews" series with a (virtual) conversation with her.
——-
Q: First, could you please introduce yourself in a couple of words. I know that you have an interesting bio and that you lived in several countries, including Iran. Could you please give us some details about yourself?
A. I am an Iranian-American with a degree from International Relations from U.S. As an independent researcher, I have focused on U.S. foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program and the role of lobby groups in foreign policy decisions. I think of myself as a peace activist and have become a political essayist because I think that building awareness is important and people can make a change. I am also a public speaker and radio commentator.
Q: Also, just to set the record straight, do you consider yourself a supporter or an opponent of the current government of the Islamic Republic of Iran?
A. I support a secular democracy. Having said that, I must emphasize that there is a clear distinction between Iran as a country, as a nation with over 10,000 years of history, and the current government policies. While I disagree with the internal policies of the Islamic Regime of Iran regarding human rights and democracy, I strongly support Iran’s right for independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Q: In your article you mention the Mojahedeen-e Khalgh (MEK) group. In the western corporate media it is very rarely mentioned. This group is listed on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations but a number of observers have also alleged that this group is supported by the USA and especially the CIA. What can you tell us about this group, its activities in Iran and its relationship with the USA?
A. Mojahedeen-e Khalgh/National Council of Resistance (also known by their acronyms MEK/MKO/NCRI) is a terrorist group in every sense. U.S. and EU also consider them as a terrorist group, and yet they are supported by the United States. In act, it is such an irony that Mr. Bush declares a war on terror, depletes our treasury, American soldiers die in order to keep us safe from terrorists, yet our tax dollars are being spent not on keeping terrorists in comfort. Upon invading Iraq, 3800 MEK terrorists were given special persons status by the orders of this administration. When this order was issued, there was considerable surprise even at the State Department briefing (source: US State Department Daily Briefing).
These sentiments are echoed in Europe where their leader roams around the European parliament. Hardly the treatment a terrorist should receive.
As for their relation with Iran – The MEK is deeply hated by the majority of Iranians because of their [alliance] with Saddam Hossein during the Iran-Iraq war. The MEK are responsible for killing Iranians and the American government now thinks they can install them as a substitute to the Iranian regime.
The MEK claims to have exposed Iran’s nuclear plant under construction “ however, Sy Hersh exposed their Israeli connections. And the essay I wrote, further exposed the role the US/Israel has in mind for them.
Q: Even before the publication of the 2007 NIE it was quite obvious that all this nonsense about an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program being developed right under the noses of the IAEA inspectors was just a pretext for "regime change" in Iran. But what about the accusation that Iran is training, funding, arming and even possibly directly supporting various Shia factions in Iraq, including the Badr Corps and the Mehdi Army? What do you make of the US accusation that the Pasdaran’s Quds Force is operating in Iraq against US occupation forces?
A. I have not seen any credible evidence to support these accusations. But, the Iraqi government at the highest level such as Prime Minister Nouri Maleki, Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari, all have repeatedly appreciated Iranian cooperation for Iraq’s stability and security. However, I just find it odd that the U.S. is always losing military equipment. Not only was the war planning poor, but it seems that the arms are coming from the US, and not from Iran. In the latest scandal it has been discovered that $1 billion in military equipment is missing in Iraq.
Laura Strickler, CBS News, said, "Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted-for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit."
Q: In his testimony to Congress General Petraeus said: In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps’ Qods Force. A Hezbollah "department 2800" directed by the Quds Force, that sounds very specific. What do you make of that accusation?
A. This is curious indeed. World Public Opinion came out with a poll taken in 4 Moslem countries, Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia, and Pakistan. With a vast margin, they all thought that the US is seeking to undermine Islam. Every time there is news of an incident, it is reported as ‘Islamist radicals, Islamist terrorist, racial Islam’ and so forth. Not a single terrorist is identified by his or her nationality, they are always identified by their religion, I presume because we lack the intelligence to identify the perpetrator’s nationality – unless we want to make a point about Islam being a terrorist religion. – which could explain why the Moslem world is so apprehensive about America. So I am dumbfounded how in Iraq, General Petraeus who I dare say is the Green Zone, managed to know exactly who is training a specific group in such minute detail. One must also understand that Hezbollah has fought hard to become a legitimate group in Lebanon – it is one thing to fight against Israel as a force, another to be ‘terrorists’ in Iraq. Moreover, if Iran wants to do something in Iraq, regretfully, it has its own people.
Q: The Neocons have succeeded in getting Congress to pass a resolution declaring that the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (Pasdaran) is a ‘terrorist’ organization. Since the latter are under the direct command of Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, does that not amount to declaring him and the entire Iranian government as ‘terrorist’?
A. Since Ayatollah Khamenei is the chief commander of Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guards as well, then one might assume that Ayatollah himself is accused indirectly. I forget how many years it has been since they have said Iran is a state sponsor of terrorists. But, I don’t think those who passed this resolution, really meant the Ayatollah. I think the main purpose of this resolution is to create a dispute between the two main branches of Iranian military organization–the regular Army and the Revolutionary Guards on one hand and also to justify economic pressure on the Revolutionary Guards, such as blocking its assets outside Iran.
However, Mr. Rafsanjani (the former president and the current Chairman of the Assembly of Experts) responded to this law that it is against the entire Iranian nation. And even the moderates such a former president Khatami expressed almost the same opinion, but in a different way. Moreover, it seems that there is not much enthusiasm to enforce this resolution.
Q: Speaking of Ali Khamenei, he is a very interesting figure. According to Wikipedia, he is not Persian but Azeri and even though he is at the helm of a majority Persian country he is also the spiritual leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah (even though most Lebanese Shia are followers of Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Lebanese Arab). What is your take on this little know personality (at least in the West), on his role in today’s Iran, and on his relationship with President Ahmadinejad?
A. Yes, that’s true Ali Khamenei as a religious leader and as an Ayatollah has many followers and not just in Lebanon. In Shia, there is no Pope-like figure that everyone follows. All Shia Grand Ayatollahs, whether Arab or Iranian, while they have common and extremely close perception of Shiism even as they hold different view in many details. For example, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Najaf, who was born in the Iranian city of Mashhad is the most influential man in Iraq, who can send shockwaves through Iraq with a Fatwa. All Iraqi Shias listen to him and follow his command in despite of Iraqis being Arabs.
So, the same holds for Lebanon; many Shias despite being Arabs follow Ayatollah Khamenei as their spiritual leader while others follow Grand Ayatollah Fadl-Allah – These two are close friends. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah is a political leader and not a spiritual leader, though he is a medium rank Shia cleric. Nasrallah came out as a hero for defending Lebanon against Israel during the 33-day war – Ahamadinejad is a hero to many for resisting the U.S. intimidation and defending Iran’s sovereign right.
Q: There have been a number of changes at the head of the Pasdaran recently with Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jaafari replacing Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi who was appointed to the position of Senior Advisor to the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for Military Affairs. Similarly, Saeed Jalili has replaced Ali Larijani as Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator. What do you make of these changes? Are they are reflection of infighting among various groups inside the Iranian government?
A. It is hard to say, it could be because of many reasons. As you may know, it is a policy in any country that no one should occupy a key position, specially in the military and security for a long period. That is what happens and even in the U.S. high-ranking generals, in spite of their loyalty and service are replaced all the time. I think, this could be the main reason for the recent changes in Sepah (the IRGC or Pasdaran. VS), though, I do not exclude other possibilities.
Q: What kind of political opposition is there in Iran today? What has been going on between the ‘Conservative’ and ‘Reformist’ parties in Iran? What about the so-called ‘ultra-conservatives’ lead by Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi? It is often said that President Ahmadinejad has disappointed his supporters? Is that true and, if yes, who do you believe might succeed him?
A. "Ahmadinejad: rock star in rural Iran" (see CS monitor article)
Q: According to Wikipedia, Iran is only 51% Persian. The US has often used the ethnic diversity of the countries who dared to refuse its supremacy to break them apart into smaller, subservient, parts fully dependent on Washington’s goodwill. One only needs to see how the US financed and supported the various nationalist movements in the former Soviet Union or former Yugoslavia to impose its rule by the old ‘divide and conquer’ tactic. Is there are risk that the USA might repeat this with Iran?
A. Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. As you know, very often some people might change and edit the posted material. Furthermore, nobody knows exactly the precise percentage of ethnic diversity of Iran. Even the Iranian government can’t give the exact figure, what is at hand is based on guestimations. For centuries, Iranians have intermingled from different parts of Iran, greater Persian Empire and even different parts of the Middle East. So, it is really foolish to map out Iran based on ethnicity.
But, the second part of your question about the possibility of creating ethnic problem for Iran, I say yes, there might be small groups of western-supported separatists, like PJAK [Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan] who commit terrorism. Please see the article Movers and Shakes of U.S. foreign Policy
But the analogy of the former Soviet Union or even former Yugoslavia is not appropriate here. The former Soviet Union was made of different Nations occupied by Russia. The former Yugoslavia came to existence only after World War I. On the other hand, Iran has been a nation for more than 2500 years. The sense of national pride and long history is very strong amongst the vast majority of Iranians.
by VINEYARDSAKER
Danish Ambassador to Tehran Soren Haslund conferred on Wednesday with Head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi on expansion of parliamentary cooperation between the two countries.
At the meeting, the Danish ambassador lauded the positive role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in fostering peace and stability in Afghanistan.
He said Denmark and Iran have common goals in restoring security and stability to Afghanistan and in anti drug fight in that country which could help broaden cooperation between the two countries.
Europe attaches importance to Iran’s decisive role in anti drug campaign in the region, he said.
Calling the MKO as a terrorist group, the Danish ambassador underlined that the Danish government is determined to prevent activities of the grouplet in the country.
Boroujerdi, for his part, referred to exchange of visits between the European and Iranian parliamentary delegations and said the two countries enjoyed ample potential which should be explored.
Role of parliaments in expanding and consolidating ties among countries are of prime importance, Boroujerdi said.
Referring to crises in the region mainly in Afghanistan, he described them as very complicated. He said increasing
terrorist acts and unprecedented production of narcotic drugs in Afghanistan is a cause of concern for all countries in the region.
Campaign against drug trafficking would have an effective impact on activities of terrorist groups in Afghanistan and the region, he pointed out.
Criticizing the weak role of Europe in anti-drug fight, he called for more active role on the part of Europe in dealing with the issue.
Americans bizarre approach in arming proscribe terrorist organisations like Mojahedin Khalq Full report: Solana, Al-Baradi’i and China good for Iran’s active diplomacy Ali Larijani said that Iran, Javier Solana and International Atomic Energy Agency are the three angles of a triangle that has brought fruitful results for the Islamic Republic’s diplomacy while stressing the importance of using China as a potentially important card to play for future diplomatic engagements. At 1913 gmt the Iranian television started broadcasting a live interview with Ali Larijani, the former head of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. Reacting to the National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran’s nuclear policy Larijani said:”This is in effect a triangle one of the angles of which is Iran, another which is Solana and the third is Al-Baradi’i… The Chinese have significant economic ties with us, while at he same time we have common interests. In other words, if a certain problem arises and becomes complex then the principle country within the group of 5+1 to be affected by this will be the Chinese”
The presenter, Morteza Heydari, asked for the overall reaction of Ali Larijani who said that ”this is a great fiasco for the Americans. The Americans must be impeached for this”. He added that although there are many ifs and buts in the report the main contention of the report is that the basis of all allegations against Iran is false. He pointed to the fact that the report says that ”we can say with great confidence that Iran does not have a military programme in its nuclear project”.
Larijani added: they do leave the door open with certain ambiguities in their report to allow US adventurism.
He went on to add that three issues come out in the overall analysis: Firstly that Iran has no nuclear arms. Secondly, that between 2003 and 2007 it has not pursued a military programme in its nuclear project and finally that it will not be able to do that until 2015.
He stressed that the report makes some erroneous statements notably that Iran has been pressurised into its cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency. He dismissed these saying that they have misunderstood Iran’s confidence building and good will measures.
Presenter asked him why is it that out of the 150 page report they have only published 9 pages of it. Is it because the Americans are saying that Iran has stopped its military programmes when pressures increased on Iran or is it that the Democrats have put pressure on the Bush Administration to publish these nine pages.
Larijani said that this is no accidental leak or due to Democratic pressure. He continued that the Americans are facing a ”crisis of honesty”.
The former Supreme National Security General-Secretary and present advisor to the leader added that Bush had, also, said that it is due to the reforms of the intelligence apparatus that these sorts of reports come out. He dismissed it as disingenuous and dishonest.
He conjectured another possibility on the so called ”Zionist lobby”. 1930
The National Security advisor to the leader added: The other possibility is that they may try to manipulate some members of the 5+1 saying that although we accept that there may be no military aspect to Iran’s nuclear programme it nevertheless shows that pressures on Iran have worked which is why no military pursuit of the nuclear programme has been detected.
Larijani, also, paid tribute to the Iranian nation’s resolute stance against ”bullying” by USA and this is what has caused the report to be leaked.
Presenter asked why is it that the ”Zionists” have firmly rejected the report despite the fact that many of the European countries have reserved judgment.
Larijani said that ”Zionist” leaders have been shocked by this report. He said that he doubts that the ”Zionists” will be able to make great capital out of this.
Larijani added that the Chinese are playing a more active role which is positive and must be welcome.
Larijani said that there is no guarantee that the Americans will come to their senses and stop their policies against Iran. They have to understand that through putting pressures on Iran they can not dissuade Iranian people from their nuclear policies.
He added that as Iran is a democratic country then Iran must be engaged diplomatically:”If there is a country with a sustainable democracy in the region it is Iran. The influential aspect of Iran is important in the region. It is obvious that they can have a proper engagement with this country. It is in the interests of the 5+1 countries. When I spoke to some leaders of Europe they used to tell me that they want to use Iran’s potential to create security in the region and for extending economic relations. You can use this potential. It will be in your own interests. And, naturally you will achieve more in the realm of regional interests and energy security and comprehensive economic relations with Iran. This is our suggestions.”
Asked about President Bush’s statement that ”Iran is a danger” Larijani said that ever since September 11, 2001, there is an air of savagery in American attitudes.
Presenter asked that one of the reasons cited for the subsiding of tensions in Iraq is due to Iran meddling less in Iraq affairs, how true is this?
Larijani said that talks were held three times with Iran. Iran has presented a coherent programme to help Iraq but the Americans are conducting certain bizarre approaches such as arming non-military groups some 70,000 in number. He drew parallels between this policy and arming the Mojahedin Khalq fighters and Pezhak in Kordestan. He called this serious. He said that this tactic will not change the realities of Iraq.
He went on to say that Iran has always helped the Iraqi government while knowing its own obligations and duties.
He dismissed the war-peace dichotomy of some of the discourses in the West adding that these are for internal consumption and they are false, no one wants to see war and things must not be seen in such black and white terms.
Presenter asked him what the realistic scenario for Iran’s dossier to be closed in the Security Council?
Larijani said that by rights Iran’s dossier must be closed. He added, however, that what is right is not necessarily what will happen in reality.
Larijani added:”We have to pursue an active and smart diplomacy in order to block their adventurism. It is obvious that the Americans are pursuing a policy of creating nuisance. This particular avenue [The nuclear dossier] has been blocked now but they will pursue another agenda. It is clear what this new agenda is going to be. It is not very complex. I believe that if Iran pursues a several-pronged approach – which at any rate it is doing already – it can be quite effective. One of these is cooperation with the Agency. We have said that we will follow this line up. Mr Al-Baradi’i’s report was a good one. Of course I have made criticisms of it saying that it had to be written in a more precise way. Some of its statements are not the sort which is at the level of the Agency’s function. It suffers the same problems as this present report [The Intelligence Estimate] saying, for example, that Iran’s cooperation has been reactive. This has no technical or legal characteristic but can turn into a pretext for trouble-making entities.”
He also emphasised the negotiations with Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief saying:”The talks with Mr Solana are quite helpful. Please pay attention to the fact that the Modality approach was the fruit of the debates that we had with Mr Solana. In reality we made an agreement in Lisbon on the basis of which the modality of cooperation with Mr Al-Baradi’i was formulated and an agreement was reached with him. This is in effect a triangle one of the angles of which is Iran, another which is Solana and the third is Al-Baradi’i. This will really help.”
He further pointed to cooperation with the Chinese saying:”I believe that the Chinese constitute a good potential in this too. And my understanding that there are countries who are interested in China playing a useful role. The Chinese have significant economic ties with us, while at he same time we have common interests. In other words, if a certain problem arises and becomes complex then the principle country within the group of 5+1 to be affected by this will be the Chinese… I see that the future is generally bright but we need to pursue a smart diplomacy.” BBC Monitoring Middle East, December 07, 2007 Source: Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 2, Tehran, in Persian 1900 gmt 4 Dec 07
LONDON — In a victory for British politicians pushing for regime change in Iran, an appeals tribunal ruled Friday that their government had no authority to ban a leading Iranian opposition group as a terrorist organization.
The ruling, which could help the group gain legal status across Europe, was hailed by proponents of the cause as a significant boost to efforts to organize democratic opposition to the Islamic government in Tehran.
But by legitimizing an organization with a history of deadly attacks in Iran, the British panel’s decision could also undermine Iran’s willingness to cooperate on international anti-terrorism fronts and inject a new stumbling block into negotiations over the Persian Gulf nation’s nuclear program, British officials have warned.
The successful appeal was filed by three dozen members of the British Parliament, many of whom say they hope to empower Iranian opposition groups to peacefully overthrow the government in Tehran.
"This judgment will help Iran build a new country," said Robin Corbett, chairman of the parliamentary committee that filed the appeal. "Iran will be free."
The British government said it would probably appeal the ruling.
The case involves the People’s Mujahedin, also known as the Mujahedin Khalq, which over the years has carried out bombings, assassinations and cross-border attacks aimed at unseating Iran’s government. The group maintains that it has abandoned violence and is working to promote democratic transition, but it says it cannot effectively carry out its political activities when it is banned as a terrorist organization.
Outlawed in U.S., Europe
The group is outlawed by the U.S. and throughout the European Union. Its lawyers said it hoped to use Friday’s ruling to win reconsideration internationally and step up efforts to topple the Iranian government.
"The fundamental solution to Iran’s crisis is neither foreign military intervention nor appeasement. The solution is democratic change by the Iranian people, and resistance. For this solution to work, all obstacles placed in the path of the resistance must be removed," said Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an umbrella political opposition group that includes the People’s Mujahedin.
Rajavi spoke to cheering supporters in London by video link from the group’s headquarters in Paris. Dozens of Iranians filled the street outside the courthouse in London after the decision was announced, some weeping, many waving the group’s flag, while organizers handed out sweets.
"Thank you!" the crowd chanted repeatedly.
The British warned in evidence presented to the Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission that delisting the group could present foreign policy problems for Britain.
"The government adopted a cautious approach in relation to the de-proscription of the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran," Home Office minister Tony McNulty said in a statement.
"I remain convinced that where terrorism is concerned, the rights of the law-abiding majority and the overriding need to protect the public, both in the U.K. and abroad, must lead us to take such a cautious approach," he said.
The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, noted that U.S. officials also regard the group as a terrorist organization, and he said he had been assured that the British government would attempt to retain its prohibition.
"Some of you have seen for yourselves the terrorist activities of this group inside Iran. They have assassinated, they have killed and injured innocent Iranian citizens. This will not at all be a good precedent for Britain," he said during a visit to London to negotiate Iran’s nuclear dossier with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
In 2002, the National Council of Resistance provided the first public reports of Iran’s then- secret nuclear program, and some U.S. military officers say the group has provided valuable intelligence about Iran’s leadership and could be a key ally.
A State Department counter-terrorism official said Friday that the Bush administration was not considering removing the People’s Mujahedin from its own terrorist list, where it was placed in 1997.
U.S. officials believe the group, also referred to as the MEK, is capable of committing acts of violence harmful to American interests.
By Kim Murphy
The formation of the MKO’s National Liberation Army (NLA) in 1987, that heavily relied on financial, logistic and arms aids of Saddam and Baath Party, definitely constituted a new phase of militarism within MKO that escalated the group’s across the border terrorist operations. The failure of the guerilla warfare inside Iran, the separation of the Kurdistan Democrat Party from the NCR as well as the impossibility of using the soil of Iran’s neighboring countries were the main causes leading to the formation of the so-called NLA. The army was supposed to be an amalgamation of the forces that were unanimous in overthrowing the Iranian ruling system to bring about regime change regardless of their political and ideological incongruities. Although the idea of the very formation of a people’s army was first theoretically criticized by the left parties such as Fadaiyan-e Khalq, after a while, and particularly after the strategic failure of the Operation Eternal Light, it took an absolutely ideological form and consequently turned into a tool for perpetration of terrorist operations inside Iran. Expounding on the features of a people’s army Ashraf Dehqan has said:
In the formation process of a people’s army, the class diversity of the forces as well as the unanimity of the leadership has to be considered. As such, in an anti-imperialist revolution, there should not be but one army. If any organization and group plans to have its own army or childishly call itself an army, it appears that not only it has no true understanding of the army but is also challenging one of the basic concerns of the Iranian revolution. [1]
These position takings before anything highlight the lead of hegemonic and egoistical mannerism in Mojahedin on the one hand and their manipulation of passive and aimless forces of opposition groups on the other hand. Fedaiyan-e Khalq, as an active militia force, disapproved formation of a liberation army; it explicitly implies that Mojahedin had no alliance in tactical form. Still the claimed liberation army was destined to failure since it lacked the required features of a people’s army. The failure of the army in the operation Eternal Light actually ended in the transformation of a supposed people’s army into a predestined apparatus of terrorism since it had to be either dissolved or metamorphosed. As Niyabati states:
The encountered conditions provided Mojahedin with a new option. They had to either continue focusing on the key role of the ‘liberation army’, which was neither prudent nor possible to be called national but ideological, or change their strategy and abandoned the idea of the ‘modern liberation war. [2]
The formation of the liberation army mainly aimed at distancing the organization from the terrorist allegations and winning legitimacy from the West. Today, the organization has changed to pose as a democratic alternative for the same reason. Antoine Gessler in his Autopsy of an ideological drift precisely explains that Mojahedin’s so-called liberation army could in no way convince the west that it was moving on the same strategic line of a real National Liberation Army:
The Mojahedin’s "National Liberation Army" has never really acted as an army in the Western sense of the word. After some stunning defeats during its conventional attacks, its soldiers fell back on the tried and true methods of guerrilla political terrorism. These are techniques which have advantages and disadvantages for the PMOI. On one hand, the organization could loudly and widely claim that it had a military capability. Later, it tried to build its "legitimacy" to the Iranian diaspora -who entertained no illusions about them. Finally, it tried to establish itself as the only possible alternative to the power in place. Most of the actions carried out inside the national borders were followed by a communiqué claiming responsibility. [3]
Rajavi’s insist on the militia and terrorist potentiality of an army that is actually disarmed and fallen short of engagement in any military operation is the unambiguous truth about NLA. It is an undeniable fact that its successive military defeats detached it from the make-up of an army and turned it into an absolute ideological annex that took a paramilitary structure to launch terrorist operations inside the Iranian soil. A supposed people’s army whose main objective was liberation of people was now targeting the same defenseless people through shelling mortars and terrorist ambushes. Elaborating on the tactic adopted by Mojahedin, Gessler says:
But, since the Liberation Army has only limited means and a limited number of recruits, especially compared to the numbers and armaments fielded by the regular Iranian Army, they can only plan small acts of force. Mortar attacks, attacks with explosive charges. Nothing important in itself, but actions that kill. Usually the victims are innocent civilians, if they are not targeted murders. This does not help the PMOI, especially when it hopes for a real popular representation in country. And this they lack completely. It is necessary not to sink into oblivion but the use of bloody mean: attracts harsh criticism on the international stage. There, the decision seems clearly taken to wipe out all extremist groups preaching the use of violence. Since then, Mr Rajavi and his friends gild the lily in grasping at prestigious straws. Many times, he has spoken of General de Gaulle’s legacy ill an attempt to draw self-serving conclusions [4].
The importance of this entirely ideological structure for MKO’s leadership lies not in its military potentialities but in its blind obedience. As Rajavi himself says, he prefers the arms carriers to the arms itself. An obedient veteran, even if disarmed and disguised, is on the alert apparatus, restricted by no place and uniform, to accomplish cult ambitious throughout the world.
References:
1. Niyabati, Bijan; A different look at the ideological revolution within MKO, p.41.
2. ibid, p.68.
3. Gessler, Antoine; Autopsy of an Ideological Drift, chapter 7.
4. ibid.
Bahar Irani,Mojahedin.ws,November 24, 2007
Professor Hezarkhani’s sight in Rajavis’ Fort
A Masqueraded Partisan of Democracy Preaching War
In contrast to its widespread propaganda to have adopted a strategy of pro-democracy in its struggle, MKO’s bellicosely terrorist nature pops out of its leader’s messages. In most of speeches delivered by Maryam Rajavi after the organization’s great shift following the fall of Saddam, she has put forth the third option of democratic change in Iran. The organization has also expressly renounced all military activities since June 2001, as stated in the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The spell seems to have worked on some European lawmakers and American congressmen since they might have been kept in dark about the true nature of the organization that for solid evidences occupies a permanent position on global terrorist lists.
While in Western countries MKO’s appointed agents are in a ceaseless attempt to remove the terrorist tag from the group through advertising pseudo-democratic claims, the leader’s message to the insiders residing in Camp Ashraf, and of course the sympathizers throughout the world, aims to bolsters the members’ combative morale and contains military threats against Iran. The gist of Massoud Rajavi’s latest message issued from his hideout on 29 October is that the organization never withdraws from its long-advocated policy of resorting to terrorism and militarism to assume political power. Addressing Iranian statesmen Rajavi concludes:
But if you paid no heed and fancied that there would possibly be no war and no land forces,… the final rendezvous of the National Liberation Army (NLA) with you would be in Tehran.
It is an evident fact that Mojahedin adopted the policy of armed struggle not since it was deemed to be a necessity but much because it is innately instituted in its ideology. A review of the organization’s early pamphlets and publications proves that resort to militarism and armed warfare before delineating the struggle strategy is a solution to the vital question of to be or not to be. Renunciation of terrorism and militarism, although MKO has refrained to denounce publicly, first needs a through ideological polish, something MKO has dodged to go through at least up to now.
The main problem lies in the fact that many have failed to grasp the seriousness of the threat. By taking advantage of the global underestimation, Mojahedin play for time through a disguise of pro-democracy. The world has the right to know, so as to be protected against the horrors and atrocities of terrorism, that what the organization advertises and practices in the face of the public is in total contradiction with its ideological bindings. And the world has the right to know why Massoud Rajavi’s messages, originally in Farsi, are rarely translated into other languages while his wife’s speeches are translated into many languages before they are delivered!
Mojahedin.ws, November 9, 2007
http://www.mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=1464
Massoud Rajavi, leader of the Mojahedin-é Khalq Organisation (MKO), issued a statement from his hiding on 29th October 2007 (7th Aban 1358) which appeared on the organisation’s website "hambastegimeli" on 1st November 2007 (10th Aban 1358).
In his lengthy statement he has tried to encourage the US administration to launch a full-scale military attack against Iran and has also tried to provide as many excuses as possible for that purpose. He clearly complains why the Americans are in the state of "no war" with the Islamic Republic of Iran and why they don’t finish off the job.
Towards the end of his statement, Rajavi who is addressing the Iranian regime in Tehran warns them:
وعده نهايي ارتش آزادي با شما در تهران…….
"The last engagement of the Liberation Army with you is in Tehran". That is, the National Liberation Army (NLA) will fight all the way through to Tehran and topple the mullahs’ regime forcibly.
In his statement Rajavi clearly threatens anybody who is not advocating war and is opposing the regime peacefully. The title of his message of course is "War or Peace with Religious Fascism?" and Rajavi clearly emphasises that they [NLA combatants] will not give up their war with the regime.
Rajavi ends his statement by declaring that:
راه حل مريم در پايتخت شيروخورشيد پيروز ميشود……
"Maryam’s solution will win in the capital of the lion and the sun".
Maryam Rajavi has proposed that the NLA be armed and backed by the US Army in Iraq and assisted to enter Iranian territory and fight against the Iranians and move towards Tehran. She has also offered that her forces in Iraq be helped and used by the Americans to perform sabotage activities in Tehran and other major Iranian cities.
Rajavi’s statement clearly shows that by no means does he favour any peaceful solution to the Iran problem and is absolutely certain that he will use violence to reach his political goals.
Ebrahim Khodabandeh, November 11, 2007
Ebrahim_khodabandeh_2006@yahoo.com
I’m very excited and pleased to introduce today’s guest poster, Danny Postel, who comes to us with some absolutely chilling revelations about the bad faith of the neoconservatives’ supposed dedication to”freedom”(I know, I know: you’re shocked). Danny is the author of Reading “Legitimation Crisis” in Tehran: Iran and the Future of Liberalism and is co-coordinator of the Committee for Academic and Intellectual Freedom of the International Society for Iranian Studies.
By Danny Postel
During the week of October 22-26, an official announcement effuses, “The nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever – Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses.” Ringmastered by David Horowitz, this circus will be performing under the tent of something called the”Terrorism Awareness Project.”
The purpose of this ballyhoolooza, we are told, is to confront the “Big Lies” of the Left regarding terrorism and militant Islam. Worthy subjects, to be sure. Indeed I would like to help the sponsors of the “wake-up call” promote awareness of them. Toward this end, let’s consider the American Right’s “special relationship” with one group of terrorists.
The U.S. State Department officially considers the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) a Foreign Terrorist Organization. While those honors date back to 1994, they’ve been renewed during the Bush years. Indeed in 2003 Foggy Bottom went further, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran — an MEK alias — under the terrorist designation. (The MEK is also known as the People’s Mujahedeen.)
To make a long and bizarre story short, the MEK got its start in early 1960s Iran, helped overthrow the Shah in 1979, but quickly turned on the revolutionary government it helped bring to power. Employing an ideological blend of Stalinism and Islamism, the tactics of a paramilitary guerilla faction, and the organizational structure of a cult, the group went into exile, eventually making their home in Iraq in the mid-1980s. Not only did Saddam give the organization cover: he armed, funded, and utilized them for a variety of ends over two decades.
The group’s wicked political brew was on spectacular display on the old MEK flag (see below; since abandoned), with its sickle and Kalashnikov positioned atop of a Koranic verse. (Not — to state the obvious — that the mere presence of a Koranic verse in and of itself implies Islamist political commitments, but in this case the shoe very much fits.)
Here you have virtually everything the Right claims to oppose all rolled into one: Islamism, Marxism, terrorism, and Saddam. Naturally, then, neoconservatives would utterly deplore the MEK and everything it stands for, right? The MEK would in fact make an ideal target for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week and Terrorism Awareness efforts, no?
Well, no. At least one of the carnival’s acts, it turns out, is rather fond of the Islamo-Stalinist-terrorist cult group, and has repeatedly argued for the removal of the MEK from the State Department’s list of terrorist groups and indeed urged the U.S. government to embrace it. Daniel Pipes, who will be speaking at Tufts on October 24th as part of the Horowitz high jinks, has made the MEK a recurring theme in his writings going back several years.
Pipes has also gone to bat for the MEK right in the pages of Horowitz’s house organ.
But Pipes is far from alone on the Right in championing the MEK. He co-authored the first piece linked to above with Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Right-wing commentator Max Boot has argued not merely for the removal of the MEK from the terrorist list but for funding and unleashing it to do battle with Iranian forces — this while casually acknowledging that it is a “political cult.”
In some cases the MEK plays a stealth role in the media machinery of the American Right. What the FOX News Channel tells viewers about Alireza Jafarzadeh when he appears on its airwaves is that he is an “FNC Foreign Affairs Analyst.” What you have to go to the FOX News website to discover, however, is that Jafarzadeh served “for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.” But it is scarcely known that the sonorous-sounding National Council of Resistance of Iran is in fact a front name for the MEK.
Now, it’s true that Jafarzadeh discontinued his post with the National Council of Resistance of Iran—but only when (and only because) its Washington office was forced to close in 2003 as a result of the State Department decision about it being a front for the MEK. It’s not like he had a change of heart.
If you attend an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” event, you might want to ask the speakers about this terrorist cult and whether they condemn it. Some of them might — not all neoconservatives agree on the MEK.
But the fact that several prominent American conservatives have cozied up to an Islamist-Stalinist cult that was on Saddam’s payroll and the State Department considers a terrorist organization — this raises serious questions (to put it mildly) about the Right’s bedfellows and the calculus that determines them.
It suggests the need for a little more terrorism awareness.
Commonsense – By Rick Perlstein