"We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." President George W. Bush September 20, 2001 Address to Joint Session of Congress "… MEK hold fundraising events, where like-minded individuals are invited to contribute funds ultimately meant for terrorist activities." Assistant Secretary Juan C. Zarate, Terrorist Financing, Department of the Treasury February 1, 2005 Harper’s Bazaar/International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition Summit ——————————————————————————– Who are the Mojahedin and what are they up to? Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 13224. This order ostensibly blocked the assets of terrorist organizations and individuals associated with terrorism. The Mojahedin-e Khalq Organziation (aka MKO, MEK, National Council of Resistance of Iran, NCRI, People’s Mojahedin of Iran, PMOI, et al.) is one such listed terrorist organization. Several years before, however, Congress passed the 1996 Antiterrorism Act which directed the State Department to draw up a list of foreign terrorist organizations. Such a list was produced by then Secretary Albright in 1997 and has been updated each two years or as required (1999 info). Additional information on the terrorist list is found in The "FTO" List and Congress. It is a common assertion of the MKO that they were listed during the Clinton administration as a "gesture" to Iran. As evidence of this, an article in the 09 October 1997 issue of the L.A. Times is cited which paraphrases an un-named Clinton administration official as stating that the listing was intended as a goodwill gesture. Whether or not there were persons in the Clinton Administration who held this view, it was made clear to me in my conversations with the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department that no such political considerations were made in drawing up the list. The fact is that the MKO were included in the very first list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act and this determination was consistent with prior assessments by the State Department that the MKO was an organization involved in terrorism and this view was expressed even during the first Bush Administration. Indeed, in its decision on docket No. 01-1465 the United States Court of Appeals found: …. Petitioner argues that there is not adequate record support for the Secretary’s determination that it is a foreign terrorist organization under the statute. However, on this element, even the unclassified record taken alone is quite adequate to support the Secretary’s determination. Indeed, as to this element-that is, that the organization engages in terrorist activities-the People’s Mojahedin has effectively admitted not only the adequacy of the unclassified record, but the truth of the allegation. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the MKO has some supporters in Congress and this is evidently the result of a long lobbying effort. The effect of this lobbying effort is primarily seen in the repeated claims that some large number of members of Congress have signed on to some statement endorsing the MKO. The statements never have been published in the Congressional Record and the identities of the alleged co-signers are closely guarded by the handful of sponsors that are apparently well paid for their efforts (as you will see). The investment of the MKO has not always been well-placed, however. Two of their champions and targets of much money were Congressman (and then Senator) Robert Torricelli and Congressman James Traficant, both of whom were driven from office over corruption and influence peddling charges. Traficant was convicted and sent to prison. Gary Ackerman has also been the recipient of substantial contributions but these seem to have dried up since he told the Village Voice, in response to questions about his support of the MKO, "I don’t give a shit if they are undemocratic"… "OK, so the [MKO] is a terrorist organization". For some introductory information on the MKO and their friends in Congress, it is suggested that you read the following articles: "A Very, Very Bad Bunch" Don’t Confuse This Group with Freedom Fighters Iran "terrorist" group finds support on Hill Rep. Ros-Lehtinen defends Iranian group labeled terrorist front for Saddam Hussein U.S. bombs Mujahedin; backers hide Terrorists plan D.C. fundraiser Richard Perle Supports Terrorism. He spoke at a terrorist fundraiser In The Money: Congressman James Traficant And His Campaign Contributors Opponents Hit Torricelli On National Security ——————————————————————————– Data on political contributions In an effort to discover some of the MKO lobbying activity in the U.S. I have compiled some data from public sources and posted it here. The Federal Election Commission keeps records of donations made to political candidates and to political committees. There are a number of sites that provide search tools and resources to research this information on line. Two suggested sources are: FEC Campaign Finance Reports and Data Campaign Contribution Search at Newsmeat An Excel File of Political Contributions can be viewed (if you have Excel) by clicking on the highlighted link. This file contains data arranged in tabs according to year in which the contributions were made. Readers are cautioned that the list is almost certainly incomplete and inclusion of a contribution does not necessarily imply a link to the MKO. The file includes data that was collected according to one or more of the following criteria: 1) the contribution was made to a candidate who has promoted the MKO/NCRI or attended their conferences or other events. 2) the contribution appeared to be part of a concerted contribution to a candidate or committee, i.e. one of several contributions made on the same day or same time period, often of the same magnitude and to the same target. 3) the contribution was made by someone known to be associated with the MKO. Where there is an asterisk placed after the name of a contributor in the Excel file, this indicates a known association with the MKO/NCRI and specific information of such affiliations can be reviewed in the list of reference data. ——————————————————————————– OK, so what does this mean? Well, let’s look at one example and see how the facts tie together. On one day this year (May 11, 2004) the Ros-Lehtinen for Congress committee (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is a Representive from the 18th Congressional District in Florida) reported contributions totalling $8,500 from 9 residents of California: Mr. Ali Kashani 1367 Camino Robles Way San Jose, California 95120 Shahid-Chamran University $500 Mr.[sic] Shahnaz Kiani 1077 Gray Fox Circle Pleasanton, California 94566 Valley Care Med. $1,000 Mr. Behnam Mirabdal * 1920 Francisco Street 301 Berkeley, California 94709 Copy Express $500 Mr. Ahmad Moeinimanesh * 3327 Parkgate Court Richmond, California 94806 Fujitsu $2,000 Ms Marzieh Nikouei 1012 Cornhill Way Folson, California 95630 Capitol Bowl $500 Mr. Farideh Sedighi * 721 San Luis Road Berkeley, California 94707 Cisco Systems $2,000 Mr. Ensieh Yazdanpanah * 4831 Meadowbrook Drive El Sobrante, California 94803 Albany School District $500 Ms Moigan Fahima * 1935 Marin Avenue Berkeley, California 94707 Self-Employed $1,000 Mr. Parvis Ghaffaripour 13765 Heritage Creek Court Saratoga, California 95070 Maxim Integrated $500 OK, well enough. It is possible that Ileana Ros-Lehtinen came to California to raise money for her campaign. It is possible that all these people just happened to want to donate to her campaign in a different state, all on the same day. There may be other explanations. It just seems odd. So let’s look at things more closely. According to the FEC records, Mr. Mirabdal is affiliated with Copy Express. There is a Copy Express at 1164 Solano Avenue in Albany, CA. This business not only sells copying services and greeting cards but also rents post boxes. In this store was found a stack of business cards printed: Copy Express Mojgan Fahima 1164 Solano Ave. Albany, CA 94706 T:510-524-0235 / F:510-524-2590 So now we have established a business relationship between two of the contributors in the list. What else? Well, with the help of some additional information we realize that two of the post boxes rented at that store are being used as registration addresses for web sites used by the MKO: WWW.IRANNTV.COM Registrant: Linear Communications Nasrin Saifi 1164 Solano Ave. #120 Albanay, CA 94706 US Phone: 510-528-0605 Fax..: 510-528-0605 Email: nasrins@earthlink.net www.iran-solidarity.org Registrant: Azimi, Hamid 1164 Solano Ave, No. 117 Albany, CA 94706 US Administrative Contact: Azimi, Hamid hamid@azimi.net 1164 Solano Ave, No. 117 Albany, CA 94706 US 510-528-0605 fax: 510-751-5332 WWW.IRANNTV.COM is the web site of MKO television, Sima-yeh Azadi, and the registrant of that site, Nasrin Saifi, is found to have been a contributor in coordinated donations in past years to pro-MKO candidates Robert Torricelli and Gary Ackerman. WWW.IRAN-SOLIDARITY.ORG is the web site that was used by the MKO to announce their fundraiser in Washington DC earlier this year (see introductory articles). Hamid Azimi was registrant for other MKO web sites including www.iran-e-azad.org and used his contact information in one of the registrations of the site www.mojahedin.org. Now we have established a business relationship between four persons, two in the above list, two with clear MKO links and one a prior contributor. But there is more. The names of two more persons in the above contributor list, Farideh Sedighi and Ensieh Yazdanpanah, appeared on a MKO letter to Jacques Chirac in response to the arrest of the MKO leader, Maryam Rajavi, in France. And one must truly wonder what a person listing their affiliation as "Shahid-Chamran University" (Ali Kashani) is doing making political contributions in the U.S. Recent Events On October 14 2004 a web site was registered with the domain CFDIRAN.COM. A check of the registration shows an address which matches that reported on the receipt for Mr. Ensieh Yazdanpanah’s donation to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen as noted above: Registrant: cfdiran.com 4831 meadowbrook Richmond CA 94803 US The purpose of this web site seems to have been to announce the protest event which took place in Washington DC on 19 November 2004. The Washington Post reports that the event was organized by "the Council for Freedom and Democracy in Iran and the Global Coalition Against Fundamentalism". This "group", the Council for Freedom and Democracy in Iran, had hitherto been unknown and seems to have been created solely for the purpose of obfuscation and to give the appearance of broad support for the MKO. Its creation just prior to an important MKO event is similar to the sudden appearance of the site WWW.IRAN-SOLIDARITY.ORG weeks before the MKO fundraiser in January of this year. Looking into the other reported organizer, Global Coalition Against Fundamentalism, shows that it has a web site, too: WWW.GCAF-USA.ORG Registrant: Shirin Nariman 1409 Beulah Rd Vienna, VA 22182 Phone:+1.7038562565 FAX:+1.7038562565 shirin-nariman@yahoo.com The registrant, Shirin Nariman, is reported to have been an organizer also of the fundraiser. But she denies any link to the MKO , said that there were no MKO members at the event but admitted that there might have been "supporters" there. Interestingly, in other circumstances, defending the MKO, she proudly proclaimed that she had been an MKO supporter for over 24 years. Some of those who witnessed the 19 November event had interesting comments not reported in the media and it was observed that the protest was unusually orchestrated and appeared to have participants flown in from overseas. This may well be, the Washington Times reported 30 November 2004 that a delegation of Iraqis came to Washington for the event and to press for the removal of the MKO from the terrorist list. But we should not forget that in making its case for going to war in Iraq the White House put the MKO at the head of its list of terrorist groups receiving support from Saddam Hussein in violation of UNSCR 687, viz.: Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians. [NOTE (20 Jan 2005): According to a Homeland Security report obtained by Cryptome the Secret Service reported an Iranian from Germany suspiciously videotaping near the White House on 18 November 2004. The man claimed to be in Washington DC for the demonstration. Also, it was reported that on 19 November 2004, 25 Mujahedin e-Khalq linked persons were denied entry at the Alexandria Bay Port of Entry from Canada. The 25 were planning to attend the rally.] The group isn’t quite so benign in its operations in the U.S. since the 1970s, though. While the focus of the organization is no longer generally against American targets since their falling out with Khomeini, the fanaticism of the MKO remains and this from time to time comes through in extreme acts such as the self-immolations in Europe in 2003 (example reference articles 1 and 2 ). The last major act of violence committed by the MKO in the U.S. known to this author was the seizure and hostage taking at the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York in April 1992 (reported in the New York Times, 06 April 1992). This was part of a concerted terrorist operation on a global scale. In its report on the threat of terrorism to Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service writes: On 5 April, 1992, the Iranian Air Force conducted a bombing raid on an MEK base in Iraq. Hours later, forty MEK supporters wielding sticks, crowbars and mallets attacked the Iranian embassy in Ottawa, wounding several people. Near-simultaneous attacks were carried out on Iranian Embassies in thirteen other countries around the world More Coincidences The web site of the Council for Freedom and Democracy in Iran, which one reporter stated was "Virginia based", lists a mailing address at: Council for Freedom and Democracy in Iran (CFDI) 5765-F Burk Center Pkwy #360 Burk, VA 22015 which is evidently a typo, as there is, rather, a Burke, VA and a 5765-F Burke Center Pkwy. The address is that of a mailbox facility and not a business office. Several names in the FEC database immediately come to attention in reviewing those from the 22015 Zip code. One is Shirin Nariman, the organizer of the January 2004 fundraiser. Another is that of Hossein Panah. In 1996 Hossein Panah made a contribution to Ed Towns, listing his address as "6338 Draco St., Burke, VA 22015". Interestingly, Shirin Nariman also used this address once in an on-line posting. And last but not least, it appears that Bob Filner, who spoke at the 19 November event, was the recipient of an infusion of donations just weeks before, from an interesting group of Californians all residing outside his district: 10/25/2004 Alavi, Parvinalsadat 12468 Whispering Tree Ln Poway, CA 92064 American Int. University/Accountant $400 FILNER, BOB (D) 10/25/2004 Kohani, Kambiz D.D.S. 7920 Grado Al Tupelo Carlsbad, CA 92009 Costa Verde Dentistry & Ortho $300 FILNER, BOB (D) 10/25/2004 Mokhtari, Parvaneh 15 Malibu Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Home Couture Design Group/Interior $600 FILNER, BOB (D) 10/25/2004 Parsay, Farhad * P.O. Box 92603 Long Beach, CA 90809 Solar Turbines/Engineer $300 FILNER, BOB (D) 10/25/2004 Taheri, Massood 13488 Turlock Court San Diego, CA 92129 Banyan Associates/Business Owner $1,000 FILNER, BOB (D) 10/25/2004 Tasooji, Matthew 851 Cocos Drive San Marcos, CA 92078 Nokia Inc./Senior System Engineer $500 FILNER, BOB (D) Several of these names (Farhad Parsay, Massood Taheri and Matthew Tasooji) repeat throughout the FEC records. Farhad Parsay’s name was on the 2003 MKO letter to Jacques Chirac. Bob Filner received another infusion of cash (at least $4,750 according to FEC records) from additional persons outside his district a month prior to his appearance at a 14 April 2005 rally of the MEK in Washington DC. The first in the following list of contributors, Somayeh Yazdanpanah, used an address identical to that of the CFDIRAN.COM registrant: 3/4/2005 Somayeh Yazdanpanah * 4831 Meadowbrook Drive El Sobrante, California 94803-2051 Albany Unified School Distri $1,000 FILNER, BOB (D) 3/4/2005 Yousef J. Shenasi 3328 E Clay Avenue Fresno, California 93702-1017 Department of Transportation $1,000 FILNER, BOB (D) 3/4/2005 Shahin Toutounchi 1077 Gray Fox Circle Pleasanton, California 94566-6969 Xilinx $1,000 FILNER, BOB (D) 3/4/2005 Nader Moavenian 3949 Acapulco Drive Campbell, California 95008-3821 E2 Open $750 FILNER, BOB (D) 3/4/2005 Fatohllah Dastmalchi 1098 Bevinger Drive El Dorado Hills, California 95762-7669 Department of Transportation $1,000 FILNER, BOB (D) Please note that the address of Shahin Toutounchi is the same used by Shahnaz Kiani in her May 2004 contribution to Ros-Lehtinen documented above. Likewise, James Talent was the recipient of $8,500 before his billing as a celeb at the MEK convention: 12/1/04 SADEGHPOUR, MAJID 500 Kendall Street CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142 GENZYME $1,000 TALENT, JAMES MATTHES (R) Senate – MO 12/5/04 SAJADI, SAEID * P.O. Box 3668 KANSAS CITY, KS 66103 PHYSICIAN $2,000 TALENT, JAMES MATTHES (R) Senate – MO 12/5/04 TALEBIZADEH, ZOHREH 2401 Gilham Road KANSAS CITY, MO 64108 CHILDRENS MERCY $1,000 TALENT, JAMES MATTHES (R) Senate – MO 12/5/04 SHAHRIARY, AZAM 1535 Hummingbird Hill ELLISVILLE, MO 63011 BIOTECH BIOLOGICAL $1,000 TALENT, JAMES MATTHES (R) Senate – MO 12/5/04 ARDAVANI, RAHIM 700 NW 5th St BLUE SPRINGS, MO 64014 RAIL AUTOMATION $1,000 TALENT, JAMES MATTHES (R) Senate – MO 12/5/04 ATTARAN, ALIREZA 1535 Hummingbird Hill Lane ELLISVILLE, MO 63011 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI $500 TALENT, JAMES MATTHES (R) Senate – MO 12/5/04 KHATAMI, SHAHAB 705 Falls Landing Ct ALPHARETTA, GA 30022 STRUCTURAL DESIGN INC$500 TALENT, JAMES MATTHES (R) Senate – MO 12/5/04 NEJAT, KASRA * 903 Cleta Drive MANCHESTER, MO 63021 ST JOHNS MERCY $1,000 TALENT, JAMES MATTHES (R) Senate – MO 12/5/04 NEJAT, KASRA * 903 Cleta Drive MANCHESTER, MO 63021 ST JOHNS MERCY $500 TALENT, JAMES MATTHES (R) Senate – MO According to the Washington Post, "about 300" staged the MEK convention at DAR Constitution Hall on 14 April 2005, while one of the MEK’s news outlets, Iran Focus, inflated the attendance to "thousands". Although coming on the heels of a rally last November, the press release announcing this event described it as a "first-ever convention". Not to lose out on a winning slogan, the MEK held another "first-ever convention" in Brussels less than 2 weeks later according to the MEK’s Iran Focus. ——————————————————————————– The Foreign Agents The U.S. Department of Justice list four persons under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as registered foreign agents of the National Council of Resistance of Iran: Filabi, Mahin Jafarzadeh, Alireza Mostowfi, Hedayatollah Samsami, Soona Of this group, Mahin Filabi and Hedayatollah (aka "Hedayat") Mostowfi have recorded political contributions with the FEC. Recently, Mr. Mostowfi is shown to have made donations to the FED Political Action Committee on 8/20/2004 and on the same day (7/20/2004) with Mr. Mehdi Ghaemi, donations were made to the Republican Party of Virginia. He lists his address and affiliation as: 2721 South Adams St. #203 Arlington, Virginia 22206 CSRI/Executive Director The CSRI is the "Committee in Support of Referendum in Iran" ( www.referendum-iran.org ) whose board lists Hedayat Mostowfi as Executive Director. All the other names on the list will be recognizable from the FEC files cited above (Mr. Sharifi’s name appears under a number of permutations, most often as "Nassersharifi"): Board of Directors: Masoud Dolati, PE CSRI President and Director of Media Relations dolati@referendum-iran.org Mansour Panah, MD CSRI Vice President panah@referendum-iran.org Ali Parsa, Ph.D CSRI Secretary and Director of Research and Policy Analysis parsa@referendum-iran.org Homayoun Sharifi CSRI Treasurer and Director of Public Relations sharifi@referendum-iran.org Hedayat Mostowfi Executive Director mostowfi@referendum-iran.org The domain registry for the website of this group shows that it was created 26-Nov-2003. At about this same time several other persons who have served as officials or spokespersons of the MKO/NCRI set up web sites and/or corporations with an assortment of names. For example, the "National Coalition of Pro-Democracy Advocates" (http://ncpda.com/) was domain registered 06-oct-2003 by Haydar Akbari. Nasser Rashidi is identified as the group’s Executive Director. Nasser Rashidi has registered an additional web site on Aug 18 2003, http://www.prusa.us/, for a corporation offering lobbying services and giving an address in Virginia. However, no such corporation appears in searching the Virginia State Corporation Commission records: PR-USA Inc. 850 N. Randolph St. Suite 103-A150 Arlington, VA 22203 Tel: 202 487-6989 Fax: 202 318-8331 The web site domain registry, however, lists a different address and it is exactly the same address as used by Hedayat Mostowfi in the FEC records of his donations this year: 2721 S. Adams St Apt 203 Arlington, VA 22206 1.2024876989 nasser_rashidi2003@yahoo.com And then there is the case of Ali Safavi, who was known to have been outside the country in the middle of last year. He is cited as the NCRI London spokesman in a CNN interview aired June 17, 2003. Prior to that he had served in various other locations including Paris, Dubai and Baghdad according to news reports in which he is quoted. Although U.S. law bars entry of non-citizen members of terrorist organizations, barring the possibility of a failure by Homeland Security, Mr. Safavi must have entered the U.S. some time toward the end of 2003 with a U.S. passport. We know this because the Virginia State Corporation Commission records that he established on 11/05/03 a corporation: Near East Policy Research Inc. (NEPR Inc.) 4625 SOUTHLAND AVE APT 302 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312 [Note: one report states that Ali Safavi has political assylum in the United States. He also travelled to London again in Dec. 2004 to speak on behalf of the Mojahedin.] Similarly, Alireza Jafarzadeh, who we will remember from the list of NCRI foreign agents above, set up a corporation with web site (http://www.spconsulting.us/) giving an address: Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc. 1101 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: 202-756-2288 Fax: 202-318-8382 The Virginia state records list the corporation as being effective 10/07/2003 and with the following address information: 2101 CRYSTAL OLAZA ARCADE #164 ARLINGTON, VA 22202 4600 This is probably a typo, however, as there IS a 2101 CRYSTAL PLAZA ARCADE in Arlington, VA. Actually, it is the address of a mailbox rental firm; Plaza Mailboxes ( phone: 703-415-0400 ). Searching the address "2101 Crystal Plaza Arcade, Arlington, VA" turns up dozens of different organizations. Similarly for "1101 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite 600". Presumably that also is a mailbox rental facility. Mr. Mohamad Alafchi is a prominent contributor in the FEC records. On 6/28/2004 it is recorded that he made a $1000 contribution to the Committee to Re-elect Ed Towns. Mr. Alafchi is cited on the ncpda.com web site as the President of American Iranian Association- New York. This organization, along with others which you will recognize, cosponsored a Conference at UN Plaza, December 17, 2003. The list of sponsors included: sponsors: Honorable Congressman Ed Towns (D-New York) Association of Iranian-American in New York (AIA-NY) The National Coalition of Pro-Democracy Advocates (NCPDA) The Public Relations USA, Inc. (PRUSA) Near East Policy Research, Inc, (NEPR) If one did not know better, it might appear that this had been a broadly organized event! Soona Samsami, who has long served as a spokeswoman of the Mojahedin’s NCRI and was appointed in 1998 as their U.S. Representative, is now identified as "President" of the Women’s Freedom Forum (http://www.womenfreedomforum.org/) and makes appearances as their "Spokeswoman". Another spokeswoman of the Women’s Freedom Forum, Zolal Habibi, participated in the 19 November 2004 rally (link is to CFDI site that includes Washington Times coverage) in Washington DC. The National Coalition of Pro-Democracy Advocates, Women’s Freedom Forum and Women’s Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran all share common U.S. hosts and Australian Registrars for their web sites: National Coalition of Pro-Democracy Advocates Domain Name: NCPDA.COM Creation Date: 06-oct-2003 IP Address: 66.218.79.170 (Yahoo!) IP Location: US(UNITED STATES)-CALIFORNIA-SUNNYVALE Current Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE Women’s Freedom Forum Domain Name: WOMENFREEDOMFORUM.ORG Created On:23-Mar-2004 IP Address: 66.218.79.157 (Yahoo!) IP Location: US(UNITED STATES)-CALIFORNIA-SUNNYVALE Sponsoring Registrar: Melbourne IT, Ltd. dba Internet Names Worldwide Women’s Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran (Radio Voice of Women) Domain Name:WFAFI.ORG Created On:26-May-2004 IP Address: 66.218.79.164 (Yahoo!) IP Location: US(UNITED STATES)-CALIFORNIA-SUNNYVALE Sponsoring Registrar:Melbourne IT, Ltd. dba Internet Names Worldwide There are certainly more manifestations that I have failed to list.
Mujahedin Warmongers
Fox News, the channel of American warmongers, which seems to have faced legal restrictions for using the spokesman of terrorist MKO (Alireza Jafarzadeh), reported a letter from him- without inviting or showing him.
Terrorist MKO, that has been long trying to work for the strategic gaols of Israel in the region and instigate the US to open a war against Iran, took advantage of Israel’s war on Hizballah to charge Iran and call on the US to attack it.
Fox News anchorman quoted Jafarzadeh:
"What’s happening now in Lebanon didn’t come to occur overnight. To pave the way for this dirty war, Iran had recently increased deploying its missiles, ammunition and weapons to Lebanon. Member of Iranian revolutionary guards, who have been in Lebanon for years, boosted their presence in the region."
To have more effect on US officials, Jafarzadeh referred to the comments of Iranian leader and said:
"In a speech, which was aired by TV, [ayatollah] Khamenei said: "US president says Hizballah should be disarmed. This is what he and Zionists want, but it will never happen."
Then, Jafarzadeh points to irresponsible stance of Arab leaders of the region against the resistance of the Lebanese and says their stance along with Israel is due to their fear from Iran. "In an important and unexpected change, important Arab countries criticized mercenary Lebanese groups and their main supporter Iran for the current situation… the rare preparedness of these countries to take a stance against the will of majority of their people indicates their fear of Iran’s increasing influence in Iraq and the whole region."
In the end, Jafarzdeh suggests Americans to destroy Hizballah and the resistance of the Lebanese and, in the next step and in order to stop Iran’s increasing influence, consider attacking Iran a priority:
"Tehran has never paid the price of supporting terrorism in the past decades. Instead, Iranian regime has taken advantage of terrorism for receiving privileges from the West. The world community should make sure that Iran’s war machine is disabled in the Middle East. If Tehran’s terror machine is allowed to come out of the region’s crisis victorious, a disaster will take place."
There’s no doubt that Israel, by playing it recent game (the killing of innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians is only a small part of which), is trying to involved Syria and Iran in the war as well. When the US failed to mobilize world’s public opinion against Iran, Israel made this crisis and the MKO, following Israel’s policies, expressed its deep desperation over Iran’s referral to the UN Security Council. Mojahedin-e Khalq, who can survive only by the existence of crises, believes the only way for staying alive is to make a regional war.
However, the resistance of the Palestinians and Lebanese, vigilance of Iraqis and independence of Iranians foiled this last hope of Israelis and revealed the true nature of the enemies of the region’s Muslims.
Irandidban – 2006/07/26
EXILES
In the spring of 2003, another Iranian opposition group, the Mujahideen-e Khalq (people’s Mujahideen), or M.E.K, was also trying to exploit the opportunity created by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Its situation was more complicated, as its forces were based in Iraq and Saddam had been its financial backer and protector, but this was not the first time that the M.E.K had turned adversity to its advantage. Founded in the mid-nineteensixties by middle-class students at Tehran University opposed to the Shah, it has shifted from an eclectic mixture ofIslamism and Marxism to anti-imperialism, and, finally, to its latest incarnation, which espouses democracy, freedom, and women’s rights. Like the monarchists, the M.E.K’s leaders claim that theywill bring a pluralistic democracy to Iran that will be fuendly to the West.
Just before the Shah was deposed, Massoud Rajavi, who as a politicalscience student at T ehran University had been part of the group’s governing committee, was freed from prison and assumed its leadership. Although at first Rajavi seemed a potential Khomeini ally, by 1980 he and the Ayatollah were enemies. (M.E.K members were prevented, through electoral fraud, from winning seats in the parliament, and Khomeini banned Rajavi from appearing on the ballot as a Presidential candidate.) In an effort to launch another revolution, Rajavi mobilized the M.E.K against the regime. In mass demonstrations in June, 1981, scores of people were killed or arrested and later executed. Rajavi escaped to Paris. The regime continued to target the M.E.K, carrying out hundreds of executions a month, and, with Rajavi calling for "revolutionary justice," the M.E.K, in turn, assassinated hundreds of regime officials, clerics, and judges, ‘often through suicide bomb attacks.
In Paris, Rajavi formed the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which initially was a genuine "council," including other opposition groups in addition to the M.E.K., but the other groups subsequently dropped out. Rajavi’s style of leadership was autocratic from the start, but by the mid-eighties the signs of a personality cult were unmistakable. According to Ervand Abrahamian, in his authoritative book, ”The Iranian Mojahedin," M.E.K members, especially in Westem Europe, lived in communes, and each member had a supervisor, to whom he or she had to recount, hour by hour, the day’s activities, which ended with a prayer and the chant "Greetings to Rajavi." Members had to surrender all their financial assets. Reading non-M.E.K. newspapers was prohibited, and self-criticism was obligatory. Those who wanted to marry had to obtain permission from the organization, which often provided a spouse as well. ”In short, the Mojahedin had metamorphized from a mass movement into an inwardlooking sect in many ways similar to religious cults found the world over," Abrahamian wrote. This transition was epitomized by Rajavi’s involvement, in 1985, with Maryam Azodanlu. Maryam was already married, to Mehdi Abrishamchi, one of Rajavi’s close associates. Rajavi overcame that fact by making the romance a matter of revolutionary necessity. FIrst, he said that he was making Maryam his co-Ieader-and that it would transform thinking about the role of women throughout the Muslim world. Then, about a month later, it was announced that Maryam was divorced from Abrishamchi and that the two co-leaders would marry, in order to further the "ideological revolution." The announcement implicitly compared the marriage to one of the Prophet Muhammad’s.
In 1986, the French government, eager to improve Franco-Iranian relations, yielded to demands from the Islamic Republic and expelled Rajavi and many of his followers. Rajavi went to Iraq, where he created the National Liberation Army of Iran, with about seven thousand M.E.K. troops. The M.E.K. established communes, training camps, clinics, schools, and prisons. In the ongoing Iran-Iraq war, the M.E.K. provided Saddam with intelligence on specific targets in Iran, and received arms, funds, and protection. (For this collaboration, above all, the M.E.K. is despised in Iran; several hundred thousand Iranians died in the war. "It is one of the issues where the Islamic regime and the people agree," Mshin Molavi, the Iranian journalist, said. "Language is really important in Iran. For the U.S., the government says ‘Global Arrogance "-the term has largely supplanted the familiar "Great Satan"- "but the people say ‘Americans.’ The government refers to the M.E.K. as monafeqin, which means hypocrite; it’s a very loaded term, meaning almost a kind of blasphemy. And the people, too, casually say, ‘Those monafeqin.’ ") .
In Iraq, M.E.K. fighters (many of them women) lived in military camps where vows of celibacy were mandatory, dissent suppressed, and any contact with outsiders strictly monitored. According to former M.E.K. members, some of their comrades who decided that they wanted to leave the M.E.K. camps were imprisoned or killed. The system of indoctrination, however, appears quite effective. When, in June, 2003, Maryam was arrested and imprisoned in France, several of her followers in Europe immolated themselves. Today, images of Maryam and Massoud Rajavi gaze out from walls in M.E.K. offices and barracks in Iraq, and adorn placards and T-shirts at M.E.K. demonstrations (as, for example, at the United Nations last September, where M.E.K. members protested against President Ahmadinejad, who was addressing the General Assembly).
As the best-funded and best-organized Iranian opposition group, the M.E.K. has a highly sophisticated and successful propaganda machine. A1i Safavi, a deft, smooth-talking Iranian émigré, acts as a spokesman for the N.C.RI., the M.E.K’s political wing. "For years, the Saudi lobbying machine in Washington was put to use by the M.E.K," Vall Nasr, the Naval Postgraduate School professor, told me. "Reza Pahlavi and other exiles were envious of the contacts A1i Safavi had." Despite the fact that the M.E.K has been on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations since 1997, the group has many supporters in Congress, including Representative lleana Ros- Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, who noted in April, 2003, that "this group loves the United States. They re assisting us in the war on terrorism-theyre pro-U.S."
In the weeks before and after the invasion of Iraq, American and Iranian officials held talks; as with the U.S.-led invasion of Mghanistan, there were common interests. The Americans were planning to remove Saddam Hussein, and to establish a democratic Iraq in which the long-oppressed Shiite majority would gain greater political power. The Iranians, as Shiites, heartily approved both measures. A Shiite-dominated government in Iraq would at least be friendly, if not an Iranian proxy. Iran, therefore, not only would not cause trouble for the U.S. invasion but would offer assistance in the early reconstruction period. In the course of the talks, however, the Iranians asked for assurances that U.S. forces would treat the M.E.K. members, most of whom were in a facility called Camp Ashraf, near Iraq’s border with Iran, as a hostile, Saddam backed force. An Iranian official told me that ultimately such assurance was given.
A military officer who was monitoring intelligence and communications £rom American troops as they approached Camp Ashraf, where some four or five thousand M.E.K. fighters were living, told me, "They were clearly a target. We viewed them as a possible ally of Sad dam. But, once our folks rolled up on the camp, it was Wait a minute, were going to hold up and talk’" A ceasefire was negotiated.
In the Bush Administration, the usual factional conflict now erupted over the question of what should be done with the M.E.K. At the State Department, Richard Armitage said, "Some of us were arguing that they should be disarmed
they’re a terrorist organization. And the Pentagon was arguing, Maybe we can use them in Iran. And Dr. Rice"-Condoleezza Rice, then the national-security adviser-"I heard her say one time, ‘Look, a terrorist group is a terrorist group.’ "
In the end, the M.E.K. fighters were largely disarmed, and were restricted to Camp Ashraf, under U.S. control; then, suddenly, they became a bargaining chip. On May 12, 2003, three truck bombs were detonated in Western housing complexes in Saudi Arabia, killing twenty people, seven of them Americans. According to U.S. intelligence, A1 ~eda figures connected to that bombing were in Iran, and U.S. officials demanded that the Iranians turn them over. The Iranians responded that they would do so, but only in exchange for the M.E.K.-terrorists for terrorists. The Administration said no.
If the Administration had gone ahead, it would have laid the basis for discussing other parts of a grand bargain," Martin Indyk, a top Middle East negotiator in the Clinton Administration, said. In the spring of 2003, no longer in the government, he spoke with Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Javad Zari£ "After the toppling of Saddam, the swiftness of that victory and the presence of U.S. forces on all oflran’s borders got the attention of the hard-liners. They sent signals to the Bush Administration that they might be ready for a grand bargain."
"That’s nonsense," an Iranian official said. "The discussions were initiated by the United States. The idea did not originate in Tehran." The official said that the regime received a proposal through an intermediary who said that it had originated on the seventh floor of the State Department. He said that the gist of the proposal was that Iran and the United States should agree to start negotiating with mutual respect, and that each side would address the others concerns. The official wouldn’t specify details, because he still hoped that the proposal could serve as the basis for future talks.
According to Indyk, who was one of
a number of conduits between the two countries during this period, "Zarif said that everything would be on the table: their nuclear program; their sponsorship
of terrorism-he was quite open about it. He said they would drop support for the Palestinian terrorist organizations. But they had certain requirements, regarding their role in Iraq and in the Gulf: They wanted us to concede their dominance in the Gulf: We’d essentially be partners. And what kind of security guarantees could we provide?"
The Iranian official said that the regime responded with a counterproposal, which had only minor modifications. "And that was the end of the story. It was April, May, 2003. There was no reaction."
(A former U.S. government official who had read the proposal speculated that the confusion about its provenance may have originated with the intermediaries.)
If the Administration’s engagement faction had had its moment, it was short lived, and the proponents of regime change clearly carried the day. The proposal was dropped. "Once that was off the table, the Iranians went into a different kind of calculation," Indyk said. "As we became bogged down in Iraq, we were much less of a threat, and we needed them not to playa destabilizing role." Indyk ticked off examples of U.S. actions that had benefited Iran: beating back the Taliban, overthrowing Saddam, empowering the Iraqi Shiites, and pushing the Syrian Army out of Lebanon, which left a vacuum that the Iranian-backed Hezbollah was able to fill. ‘The Iranians are markedly strengthened. It’s a perfect storm! And all by our own actions." Indeed, the Iranian official remarked to me recently, "Since the revolution, we’ve never felt stronger in the region."
The M.E.K, demonstrating its longhoned talent, was wresting opportunity from this latest misfortune. Having lost its Iraqi patron, naITowly escaped annihilation by U.S. forces, and come close to being delivered into the hands ofits bitterest enemy, it was promoting its candidacy as an agent of regime change. In Camp Ashraf, M.E.K fighters being interviewed by American intelligence officials struck consistent themes, according to a former U.S. military officer. FlI’St, they should be taken off the F.T.O. list. Their forces could then assist the Coalition Provisional Authority, patrolling the border between Iraq and Iran. And, more broadly, this former officer
continued, "they saw themselves as the equivalent of the Iraqi National Congress, the Chalabi group that was used so heavily in prewar planning. They wanted to be like that, and part of the solution of a new Iran." A person close to the M.E.K said that it offered to provide intelligence, both on Iran and on Iranian activity in Iraq.
In fact, the highlight of the M.E.K resume is its role as an intelligence source. Over the years, it has made periodic claims about Iran’s nuclear programs. The claims have always elicited skepticism from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the organization that monitors nuclear proliferation. In August, 2002, the M.E.K’s political wing, the N.C.RI., announced at a news conference in Washington that its sources had discovered that two secret sites were being built, south of Tehran, to provide fissile material for nuclear weapons. One, it said, was a plant that would be used for nuclear-fuel production, in the desert town of Natanz, and the other was a heavy-water production plant, for the extraction of plutonium, in Arak. This time, the I.A.E.A. was able to confirm the allegations, and in early 2003 the M.E.K attained a level of credibility it had never had before.
An Iranian-American political activist told me, however, that the N.C.RI.’s intelligence had actually come from Israel. This person said that Israel had earlier offered it to a monarchist group, but that that group’s leaders had decided that "outing" the regime’s nuclear program would be viewed negatively by Iranians, so they declined the offer. Shahriar Ahy, Reza Pahlavi’s adviser, confirmed that account-up to a point. "That information came not from the M.E.K but from a friendly government, and it had come to more than one opposition group, not only the mujahideen," he said. When I asked him if the "friendly government" was Israel, he smiled. "The friendly government did not want to be the source of it, publicly. If the friendly government gives it to the U.S. publicly, then it would be received differently. Better to come from an opposition group." Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.RI. broadcasts from Paris into Iran. When I asked an Israeli diplomat about IsraeYs relationship with the M.E.K, he said, "The M.E.K is useful," but declined to elaborate.
While the M.E.K fighters in Camp Ashraf were making their case to American intelligence officers, the N.C.RI. was working its levers in Washington. In 2003, an associate from the powerful Republican lobbying group of Barbour Griffith & Rogers invited Neil Livingstone, the C.E.O. of Global Options, an international risk-management firm, and Gregory Minjack, who was an executive at Public Strategies, a Washington-based crisis-management company, to explore the possibility of getting the M.E.K off the F.T.O. list, and to promote its usefulness. Even though the N.C.RI. was allowed to operate in the United States, the job would have to be handled carefully, because receiving funds from an organization on the F.T.O. list is prohibited. Payment was supposed to come from U.S.-based Iranian expatriates.
For several weeks, the three companies worked on a pitch, sending representatives to meet with different expatriate Iranians who might serve as fund-raisers for the effort. Livingstone told me that he has known some M.E.K fighters for decades. ‘There are a few cult like aspects to them," he said, but added, "I like them, because they bug Iran." Minjack, who did a good deal of the legwork, learned that the M.E.K was eager to serve as a proxy for the Bush Administration. "The M.E.K people were saying, ‘Let us be your surrogates, the lead troops-and then the disaffected will rise up,”’ he said. "It was to be a Bay of Pigs kind of thing."
The M.E.K also wanted to be the government-in-waiting, Minjack recalled, so he asked whether the organization had any documentation to show its democratic bona fides. A constitution? Statutory documents? Members gave him "a big stack of stuff,” which he asked an analyst at the Hoover Institution to examine. "I wanted to see whether Hoover would give them a seal of approval-saying, if something happens, this group has the intellectual basis to fill the vacuum." The analyst declined to become involved. All this maneuvering came to an abrupt halt on August 15, 2003, when the Treasury Department shut down the N .C.R!. office in Washington; the State Department had argued that the office was functioning as part of the M.E.K.
As the Bush Administration became wholly absorbed by Iraq, the M.E.K concentrated on making itself useful to the U.S. there. In the past eighteen months, it has provided a steady stream of intelligence on what it claims are Iran’s activities in Iraq, and its Washington advocates continued to lobby on its behalf Last summer, Raymond Tanter, a former National Security Council staff member and a visiting professor at Georgetown University, told me that he considered the M.E.K. the only opposition group capable of overthrowing the regime. He added that he had spent six hours with Maryam Rajavi in Paris, and found her to be a "very impressive woman." (Massoud Rajavi’s whereabouts have been a mystery since the U.S. invasion of Iraq.) Tanter predicted that the M.E.K. would be removed from the terrorist list and used by the U.S. against the regime. "I foresee a situation where Laura Bush, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes, and Maryam Rajavi are posing for a picture in the White House," Tanter said.
New Yorker – BY CONNIE BRUCK
Mansoor Ghadrkhah, a member of NCRI, has initiated a discussion in Iranliberty website titled "What’s the Third Option?"
The reason for posting such a question is that there are many doubts and questions on this issue, which has been proposed as a part of MKO’s propagandistic activities. These questions come from people who are very close to the MKO but they don’t know what they are supporting!
The root of such questions lies in the fact that MKO supporters are not aware of MKO’s intentions and simply think that Mojahedin are talking in the framework of social thoughts; however, the purpose of repeating words such as "referendum" or "Third Option" by the MKO is that they think they can find a way out of political and organizational conflicts they’re wrestling with.
But it’s really naïve to think that there will be a change in MKO’s critical situation and that Mojahedin will answer the questions of Ghadrkhah and others.
What follows is an example of MKO supporters’ questions on "Third Option" posted on Ghadrkhah’s website. These messages reveal the confusion of MKO supporters and sympathizers.
Ali Ghasemi’s Open Confession:
"Unfortunately, due to Iraq war… Mojahedin had to surrender their weapons. Anyway, with or without weapons, third option is the only solution for Iran. From June 20 to the overthrow of the regime, there’s only one way.
So, I believe it’s the duty of all nationalist forces (with whatever opinions), who seek the overthrow of the regime, to support Mojahedin-e khalq and not to talk about sharing the power in future! This regime should be forced to quit nuclear issue, interfering in Iraq and efforts should be focused on lifting the name of MKO from terror list.
The opinion openly expressed by Ghasemi has nothing to do with the change by people but it’s related to MKO’s call on the west to supported disarmed members in Iraq. Mojahedin evade from telling the truth.
Omitting people from the equation means that MKO is unable to mobilize people and also reveals the group’s unpopularity among Iranians. By ignoring this fact, MKO gets the opportunity to deceive its own members and supporters and exploit social events.
That’s why even Ghadrkhah himself takes a stance against this confession and expresses his lack of understanding of MKO’s contradictions:
"In this issue, the role of regime is clear… but the issue of countering regime’s plans should be solved only by Iranian people. Iranians should do their best to prove to the West that Iranians don’t like war. A possible war, in which nuclear bombs may be used. Who will be the victims of such a war?"
Mehdi Atayee:
"What’s the NLA (National Liberation Army)?" This is the first question of Iranian youths. There are 40 million youths (under 30) in Iraq who were born during revolution. They have no idea about Mojahedin-e khalq, NLA and NCRI…there are many unanswered questions. For instance, they say all members of NLA are religious and Mojaheds. For those who are not religious, questions on MKO members’ religion, wearing scarf, mourning for Imams and … have remained unanswered. Do they have to say their prayers, go on fasting, and wear scarf in the case of joining the NLA? Do they all have to believe in the ideological revolution? Do they all have to be Mojaheds and believe in Massoud and Maryam Rajavi? The problem is that now there’s no one to answer these questions, which is of course understandable due to the current limitations of the organizations. However, does the MKO expect to keep forces and attract more without answering these questions? Is the NLA, according to the films broadcast by MKO TV, the army of Mojahedin-e khalq? If this army is really national, it should comprise of all kinds of people, with different religious attitudes; but it’s not.
So it’s not true to say about the Third Option that regime can be toppled by the Iranian Resistance and the help of people and that there’s no need for foreign aids, weapons and money. There has been no comprehensive discussion about this issue by the MKO and NCRI.
What’s the response of NCRI and the MKO to the idea that the NLA should work in the framework of a unification front and that this unification front should include different people with different opinions? Does the NCRI still insist on its plan of unification ftont?"
Mansoor Rostami:
"The Third Option means promoting the NLA and armed struggle. I don’t think anyone in the MKO, NCRI and … has any doubt in this. Writing about the time when Third Option was first proposed is not helpful.
That’s true that no one knows about this option, even those who confidently take part in debates on the issue …
But one should talk about the direction of this option. When explaining this option for Iranian youths, you should tell them where you are going to take them. Toward demonstrations? Civil disoebediance? Reforms? Electionis? None of them. The only thing left is taking weapons. Could they do that? Do the promoters of Third Option help the ones who go to prison for supporting a radical organization (even without taking weapons)? Was there anyone to prevent the extradition of Hojjat Zamani to Iran when he was arrested in Turkey? Is there anyone to help others who’ll have similar fates? Do you have a humanitarian organization to help youths who escape from Iran? Is there any organization to cover all those want to join the Third Option? Do the people (who want to join this option) have to go to Camp Ashraf? Who’s going to fund the costs inside Iran?
Here in the West, we are so busy that we barely have time enough to read articles and even news headlines; then, are we going to support this option only by occasionally taking part in demonstrations or writing articles for websites?
If the Third Option is achievable through NLA, then what’s this "NLA"? What’s its ideology? its strategy? Its equipments? How is that going to organize forces inside Iran (from workers to students, women and …)? How can someone join it? Who’s politically supporting it? To what extent can it be active in the current situation? What are its policies for Iran and other countries? How is that going to work inside the country and expand its structure? If the "Iranian resistance" means the NCRI, who are they? What are they doing? How is it possible for people to be in touch with them and ask questions? Is the political support of NCRI enough for the NLA? Is the "NLA" the army of Iranian people or the MKO? Does this army have media? What about the roles of other people, groups, and figures opposing the Islamic republic in this Third Option? Does this Option unify different groups (inside and outside the country) under an umbrella or is it only for the MKO and NCRI? Answering these questions can help efforts for overthrowing the Islamic Republic but promoting the Third Option without even knowing it will not be helpful.
Irandidban – 2006/06/11
A number of sources in US intelligence community revealed that some information revealed by the Mujahideen-e Khalq, particularly on Iranian nuclear activities, has been wrong. This is exactly what has seen reflected in the IAEA’s recent reports.
US intelligence authorities had earlier become suspicious about the accuracy of Chalabi’s information on Iraq and had warned about the issue. This time, authorities warn that MKO’s information can’t be trusted.
As the debate heated on Iran’s Nuclear program and Tehran-Washington ties worsened, the MKO leaders tried to flatter US officials in order to convince them that they have important information from inside the Iranian regime and that this information proves that Tehran has been enriching uranium in a wide range. This brought new discussion to the White House on the issue of support for this group and its possible role in applying US policies against Iran.
The Bush administration sees itself now in a situation similar to that of pre-Iraq war. At that time Ahmed Chalabi, the head of Iraq National Congress, had close relations with senior officials in the US, such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. He had convinced them that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Iraqi people would receive US liberators warmly.
Today, Maryam Rajavi, so-called president-elect of the NCRI, wants to repeat the scenario again by repeating this claim that “Mujahideen-e Khalq is ready to give urgent valid information on nuclear activities of Iran to Washington.”
Some White House officials believe that the MKO is able to serve the goals of Americans and that it is an opposition group with thousands of militants with many supporters.
These officials say that the MKO has proved its ability in giving information with revealing Iranian nuke sites in Natanz and Arak. They ask for the removal of MKO’s name from terror lists and stress that the members of this organization would give necessary information to the US and besides, they can play an important role in disrupting the order in the Iranian government with their supporters.
It should be noted that the MKO was added to the US terror list in 1997 by the State Department. This decision emphasizes that the MKO was involved in attacks on Americans, including the kidnapping of US ambassador to Iran in 1971, bombings of 1972 in US companies in Iran such as Pepsi Cola, General Motors and Marin Oil. They were also involved in robbing 6 banks, assassinating Colonel Lewis Hawkins, and attacking US and British airways offices and the Israeli company of Alal.
During his military trial in 1972, Massoud Rajavi, the head of the MKO, confessed to the violent operations of himself and his organization. he believes that the future of Iran should be determined by armed resistance and that political forces can’t bring changes to the fate of this country. He had accused the US of being the major reason behind all problems of the world. He called it Iran’s main enemy because the US was behind coup against Mosaddeq.
Those who oppose the MKO and removing its name from terror list have numerous historical evidences to prove that this organization is full violence. Some people try to ignore the violence and ideological differences in the organization.
MKO, with its Marxist ideas and anti-democratic theories, has tried in recent years to appear as a pro-democratic organization beside all other Iranian opposition groups. They pretend to defend the rights of women and minorities as well as democratic rights. The head of the group, Massoud Rajavi, has elected his wife Maryam as the president of National Council of Resistance (NCRI).
This organization suffers from its past and its violent operations. The Iranian people never forget these issues.
This is not true to think that the US, by supporting the MKO, would improve its position as opponent of the Iranian regime among Iranians. Cooperating with the MKO will never allow the US to become closer to the Iranians.
Now the question is: Didn’t the US take lessons from Iraq? Is the Bush administration going to repeat its mistake?
Abdullah Saleh/AlAsr (in Arabic)
There have been significant changes on the issue of Iran in the international scene, the example of which was about Iran’s nuclear activities.
IAEA’s meeting in November, along with signs of change in US’s policies toward Iran, was indeed a defeat for all warmongers who thought of stoking the fire of war on Iran.
Earlier, US security theorists had advised the Washington to avoid any kind of military action against Tehran and instead try to preserve the ways of communication. They had warned of the dangerous consequences of wrong measures. *
“Since the WMD Commission report indicates that the US has not enough intelligence on Iran, it is better for the US and its international allies to take the opportunity for getting closer interaction with Iran in order to get assurance that its nuclear activities are only for peaceful purposes. That’s because Iran has the right to have peaceful nuclear activities. This close cooperation can also yield useful intelligence on Iranian nuclear programs and can serve the needs of US intelligence community,” security advisors suggested.
Iranian president’s proposal in the UN, for inviting foreign sides to take part in nuclear projects, was also based on the idea that the only way to guarantee the peacefulness of the Iranian nuke activities is to have interaction and cooperation.
Along with this, European countries asked for the resumption of talks with Iran and the US government authorized its ambassador to Iraq to engage Iranians in Iraq.
Of course, these events are all painful for those who wanted a war on Iran by false accusations.
"On the one hand, I think it’s a good idea to maintain back-channel contacts with adversaries," said Raymond Tanter, a former National Security Council staffer, whose Iran Policy Committee has called for Washington to deploy against Tehran the Iraq-based Mujahideen-e Khalq, which is listed as a terrorist group by the State Department. "On the other hand, when you go public after Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off the map, it seems to reward Iranian belligerence. I don’t know why it’s being done." **
During past two years, these people have played with the option of “either Iran or Israel” and have tried to impose the ideas of Israeli warmongers in the US. They want to convince the US to attack Iran by using Americans’ sensitivity on Israel.
The group they (Zionist lobby and arms dealers) support is the terrorist group of Mujahideen-e Khalq. The activities of this group in the past two years were focused on spreading rumors, demonizing Iran and convincing the US to attack Iran.
The analysis of the groups’ leader, for saving the group from the crisis after the fall of Saddam in Iraq, was to stoke the fire of war against Iran by taking advantage of tension in the Iranian nuclear case. “Only in that case, we would be lifted from terror list and the US would rearm us again,” he had said.
On the one hand, the leaders of the group asked the members to have influential political and propagandistic activities regarding Iranian nuclear activities. They even said to the members- who have no contact with the outer world- that the leaders of the group were leading an international battlefield against Iran and that the MKO has convinced Europe and the US that the time for war on Iran has come.
However, on the other hand, they came to the scene as an anarchist pressure group to promote the goals of warmongers.
They have even promised to recognize the Israeli government, guarantee the interests of oil and arms companies and … if they are supported in a joint victorious war against Iran in which they would play the role of Afghanistan’s North Alliance!
With such requests, that would receive no international response due to the situation of this dying organization, the Zionist lobby has accepted to support them.
Preserving the Camp Ashraf, as the cult’s main purpose in recent months, only serves MKO’s propagandistic goals; calling “an organization” the 3000 restricted disarmed forces in this camp comes from charlatanism of the MKO to show that they are being supported.
Now, with the failure of betrayal policies, MKO continues to resort to dirty diplomatic deals. Meanwhile, it evades giving comprehensive analysis on the failure to keep closed the eyes of their members.
Members in Camp Ashraf may not understand the stances of the organization, but those who relied on the promises of Rajavi’s remnants, in front of the IAEA and European Parliament, should be said that: “This is the consequence of dealing with dirtiest representatives of imperialists and the dirty diplomacy of MKO leader. You were used as the tools of this dirty diplomacy and you should ask Maryam Rajavi about the fate of “global battlefield’s leadership”.
———————————————————
* Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
** Jim Lobe/ Antiwar.com
It would seem that there is a great deal at stake for the 150 MEK supporters in Congress. Whether it is these congressional members who are providing Jafarzadeh, the MEK spokesman, with aerial photos of Iran’s nuclear facilities, or vice versa, the Bush administration is having a field day with it at the UN General Assembly.
Of course, the doctored satellite images that took America to war three years ago, proved costly. Body bags and a depleted treasury have prompted the Pentagon to revisit its preemptive nuclear doctrine. The justification would be saving lives – obliterating cities to save a thousand American lives and half a billion dollars seems reasonable. Rumsfeld is right on the ball. School children will grow up learning that Iran had to be nuked so that the Iranians would stop sponsoring terrorists that were going to harm Americans with their nukes 10 years down the line. Oil was reaching $100 a barrel. We wanted to keep Alaska clean for you all.
Sadly, the mainstream media is following suit. Regrettably, there is no free press in this society – it is simply a mouthpiece of corporations and the government. Else, why would the speaker of a terrorist cult the MEK be given a platform? And why would the facts about Iran’s nuclear program be distorted to such an extent?
Even the once reputable The Economist writes "two decades of nuclear deception” (September 10-16th, 2005). The uninformed author of this article, or the ill-intentioned writer, should be reminded that Iran was openly soliciting bids to buy reactors from different countries after Germany, under pressure from the U.S., withheld its reactors which had been duly paid for. In fact, in 1996, Iran filed a lawsuit against Germany’s Kraftwerk Union at the International Commerce Commission.
More importantly, as a signatory to the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the construction of a facility, even a nuclear facility, does not have to be reported to the IAEA (Natanz is a case in point). The only stipulation is that 180 days PRIOR to introducing any nuclear material, the NPT member has to declare the existence of the facility. The construction of the Natanz facility is not a violation of the NPT as the Bush administration would have us believe, echoed by the media. The NPT does allow a member to legally build any nuclear facility, including one for uranium enrichment, so long as it is declared, and safeguarded by the IAEA, and is intended for peaceful purposes.
As for the revelations of Natanz, though Jafarzadeh would like to take credit, if treason can be given credit to; it was revealed by Seymour Hersh, the renowned journalist who exposed the My Lai massacre and the human right abuses at Abu Gharib prison (and Afghanistan), that it was indeed Israel that provided the MEK with the intelligence reports, many unfounded, regarding Iran’s nuclear sights.
The 150 congressional members have betrayed the trust of the American people by bargaining with the devil, the MEK, a terrorist cult who betrayed their own people”
Who is the MEK? Why are they protected in Iraq? (Part two)
The War on Terror. The Iraqi occupation. The neoconservative idealist notion of liberating the Middle East. Regime change in Iran. All of the points reach a nexus with the Mujahideen-e Khalq [MEK], an anti-Iranian regime Foreign Terrorist Organization in Iraq with US backing. In this second installment of the series, I cover the Congressional and neoconservative support for the MEK and the MEK’s role as misinformed of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Congressional support
"I know about support on Capitol Hill for this group, and I think it’s atrocious," said Dan Brumberg of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "I think it’s due to total ignorance and political manipulation."
In late 2001, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) tells the Village Voice, "I don’t give a shit if they are undemocratic. OK, so the [MEK] is a terrorist organization based in Iraq, which is a terrorist state. They are fighting Iran, which is another terrorist state. I say let’s help them fight each other as much as they want. Once they all are destroyed, I can celebrate twice over."
"This group loves the United States. They’re assisting us in the war on terrorism; they’re pro-US," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). "This group has not been fighting against the US. It’s simply not true."…"In no meeting or briefing I have ever attended has anyone called this group an anti-US, terrorist organization," she continued, adding that the group has provided useful intelligence to the US government on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
"In November [of 2002], Ros-Lehtinen released a letter of support for the MEK that she said had the backing of 150 colleagues, whom she repeatedly refused to identify. Among the 150 signers are reportedly 30 committee and sub-committee members and 35 committee and subcommittee ranking members. "Because of the [Iranian President Mohammed] Khatami’s well-funded campaign on propaganda, lies and misinformation, I have decided not to release the names of these signers."
A month earlier, as Ros-Lehtinen’s letter circulated throughout the House, Reps. Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Tom Lantos (D-CA), also wrote to their colleagues, giving them a "full" and "accurate" picture of the MEK.
"We are strong opponents of the current government of Iran but do not believe that it is necessary to use terrorism or make common cause … [with] Saddam Hussein to change Iran’s government."…"Particularly in view of the fact that the MEK is based in Iraq, has taken part in operations against the Kurds and Shia, has been responsible for killing Americans in Iran, and has supported the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran, we wanted you to have the full background on this organization as most recently reported by the Department of State, so that you may best decide whether to lend your name to the letter" of support. It further advised, "Some colleagues have signed similar letters in the past and then been embarrassed when confronted with accurate information about the MEK."
Ros-Lehtinen dismissed the US intelligence reports of the group’s involvement in Hussein-led campaigns against Kurds and Shia as "hogwash" and "part of the Khatami propaganda machine." Before the Iraq invasion, Yleem Poblette, staff director for the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia and aid to Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, stated, "In the months leading up to the war, we made it very clear that these folks are pro-democracy, anti-fundamentalism, anti-terrorism…They are our friends, not our enemies."
On January 15, 2003, the New York Times ran a full-page ad on page A8 advocating for MEK support. The ad printed six photographs of current Congressional supporters, including Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Tancredo (R-CO), Filner (D-CA), Towns (D-NY), Jackson-Lee (D-TX) and Diaz-Balart (R-FL). Insight on the News reported the MEK had given to former Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) more than $136,000 in hard money and several thousand to Towns and Ros-Lehtinen. Source.
Bob Ney (R-OH), who was once a supporter of MEK, summarized MEK support as anti-Iranian zeal. "I think a lot of people just hear [MEK] folks coming in saying, `We’re for democracy.’ These members [who support the MEK] are American members of Congress. I don’t question their patriotism or their loyalty to the United States. But on this issue, they just aren’t looking at the facts." Ney on MEK’s lobbying access, "We better watch those characters coming into the building. They’re a terrorist group. I do not believe that we need to allow them access to our physical Capitol grounds."
In late April, 2003, Bob Ney wrote a letter to the editor of the The Hill, MEK of same lot as al Al Qaeda and Hamas, in response to a recent full-page ad and letter to the editor from the group:
"In fact, because of the MEK’s long association with and support with Saddam Hussein’s regime, the former Iraqi information minister may very well have been the one who taught the MEK his craft of making false statements in the face of incontrovertible facts." Ney later alleged the reason behind Ros-Lehtinen’s refusal to publish her list of 150 Congressional supporters: "it does not exist." "At one point, it may have; in fact, when MEK representatives first visited my office several years ago, preaching democracy in Iran, I was glad to join them in what appeared to be their effort. However, I quickly discovered that the MEK are not the proponents of democracy they claim to be but are in fact documented terrorists with a history of killing American citizens and supporting Saddam Hussein. Today, no more than a handful of members supports the MEK, and even that number is dwindling."
While the frequency of public comments in favor of the MEK has declined, it is safe to assume that the same ideology which fostered Congressional support for the MEK (a fierce desire to spread democracy to Iran by any means necessary), largely remains among some Congressional hawks.
Just months after Ney’s letter, following the June arrests in France of leader Maryam Rajavi and others as well as the seizure of $1.5 million in MEK funds, members of Congress wrote a letter to President Chirac urging the immediate release of Rajavi and the others. Among the signatures were Reps. William Lacy Clay (D-MI), Dennis Moore (D-KS), Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and Edolphus Towns (D-NY).
Tom Tancredo (R-CO), always good for a genius soundbyte, stated his support for the MEK because they are an "asset to US intelligence" and "the most reliable source of information for the region." Tancredo’s press secretary, Carlos Espinosa, commented, "Are these guys saints? No…If there’s a problem, it’s that the MEK is on the [FTO] list." Espinosa added that the intelligence the MEK has supplied to America has been `100 percent true.’ "Call them what you want, but they’re not liars." Elsewhere, Tancredo has defended his support of the MEK by comparing Ted Kennedy’s support of the IRA.
In January 2004, the MEK would take part in a fundraiser in `solidarity’ with the `Iranian resistance.’ The American Red Cross, which hosted the event, later refused to accept the funds raised by the event because of its political nature. The US had temporarily lifted a ban on US donations to Iranian organizations in order to increase humanitarian aid. This allowed for the Iranian-American Solidarity Society of Kansas City and the Society of Iranian-American Medical Professionals, both led by MEK member Saeid Sajadi, and the Association of Iranian Women, led by MEK member Behjat Dehghan to sponsor the event. According to the IRS, 17 of the 23 sponsors were MEK front organizations. The event was addressed by neoconservative thinker and Bush advisor Richard Perle, British Labour MP and MEK supporter Win Griffiths and MEK leader and "president-elect" Maryam Rajavi (via satellite link). This appears to be in direct breach of Executive Order 13224 on terrorist financing. Perle later commented that he was under the impression the event was in support of an earthquake in Bam and that the proceeds would go to the Red Cross and was not aware of any ties the fundraiser had to the MEK. Perle also commented that "it did not have the aura of an event with terrorist sponsorship." (The basis of that observation is remains rather puzzling.) FBI agents were also in attendance at the event, reportedly as part of an ongoing investigation. Days later, the Treasury Department froze the assets of the event’s prime organizer.
In 2005, Ed Towns (D-NY) responded to a Human Rights Watch report which cited numerous human rights violations, including torture, beatings and solitary confinement by the MEK on its enemies and internal members who have sought to leave the group.
"It is an outrage to see the Iranian regime is using the American NGP, Human Rights Watch, to politically attack and tarnish the reputation of its main opponent the [MEK]."…"Human Rights Watch should view the MEK as its partner in defense of human rights in Iran not perpetrators. I firmly believe HRW’s report on the MEK published on May 18th will only advance Tehran’s agenda to derail the fight for democracy and human rights in Iran," calling on the group "to retract the report and provide a more factual account of rights violations in Iran."
On April 6, 2005, Tancredo and Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), co-chaired an Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus meeting, with the Iran Policy Committee in attendance as panelists. During the meeting, the caucus and the IPC members agreed on the need to remove the MEK from the FTO list. Among the IPC are neoconservatives Raymond Tanter, Paul E. Vallely (Fox News pundit and advocate for regime change in Iran, North Korea and Syria), and Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (also a Fox News pundit and advocate for regime change in Iran, North Korea and Syria).
A week following the caucus, the National Convention for a Democratic, Secular Republic in Iran was held, also in Washington. Maryam Rajavi again speaks via satellite. Filner was also in attendance commenting that, "Unless we deal with Iran, there will never be a solution in Iraq." The neoconservatives are even more passionate in their
Neoconservative support
Iranian.com reports:
"Although [MEK] agents have claimed that the inclusion [of MEK as a terrorist organization] was part of Clinton’s appeal to the reformist government in Iran, the argument is no longer cogent in light of the fact that during Bush’s 5 years in office he has yet to remove the [MEK] as a terrorist group despite significant political pressure by various neo-conservatives (this includes Daniel Pipes who currently has a chair with the US Institute of Peace) and Republican representatives."
"Not only were the [MEK] re-designated as a terrorist group under the executive order by Bush on Nov. 2, 2001, but the President used the MEK as an example of Saddam’s support for terrorism during the drive up to the Iraqi war when stating: `Iraqi shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahideen-e Khalq, which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several US military personnel and US civilians.’"
The Asia Times reports:
"The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported `AIPAC is spurring Congress to pass a sanctions bill against Iran.’ AIPAC is also pressuring the US to support the Iranian MEK (a.k.a. the NCRI) for use against Iran’s mullahs."
Michael Ledeen on the MEK:
"The MEK, an organization I do not admire, but whose information is generally credible on such matters, claimed that more than 50,000 workers participated , from Pakdast and Varamin near Tehran, to Golestan province in the north and Khorassan province in the east [against the Iranian regime]."
(The MEK is notorious for inflating the numbers of protestors and the severity of its military forces in order to create an impression of formidable opposition.)
Douglas Feith, undersecretary for policy at the Department of Defense has argued that since the MEK hasn’t attacked any Americans since the 1970s, it needn’t stay in the FTO list.
The Asia Times’ A Spector of the Iran Contra Affair is Hauting Washington:
"it appears certain elements in the Pentagon leadership, specifically Douglas Feith, are trying to sabotage sensitive talks between Tehran and the State Department to promote cooperation over Al Qaeda and other pressing issues affecting Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pentagon clique thinks Ledeen’s old friend Ghorbanifar can help, according to Newsday, which reported August 8 that two of Feith’s senior aides – without notice to the other agencies – have held several meetings with the Iranian, whom the CIA has long considered "an intelligence fabricator and nuisance."
Daniel Pipes wrote a column on his blog pleading the MEK’s case:
"Is the MEK a terrorist group? No. It used terrorism decades ago, when its members attacked Americans. For the last 15 years, however, the MEK has been organized as an army, and its only violent activities have been directed against the Iranian regime."
…
"Can the MEK be useful? Yes. Western spy agencies are short on "human intelligence" – meaning spies on the ground in Iran, as distinct from eyes in the sky. Coalition military commanders should seek out the MEK for information on the Iranian mullahs’ agents in Iraq. The MEK can also supply key information on development in Iran – where, despite a tendency towards exaggeration, it has had some major scoops. Its information in mid-2002 about Iran’s nuclear program, for example, was better than what the IEAE knew, thereby leading a shocked US government to kick off an investigation that confirmed just how far advanced the Iranians are toward building a nuclear bomb."
…
"Finally, because Iran’s mullahs irrationally fear the MEK (as shown by their 1988 massacre in the jails of Iran of 10,000 long-imprisoned MEK members and supporters), maintaining the MEK as an organized group in separate camps in Iraq offers an excellent way to intimidate and gain leverage in Tehran."
British historian Ali Ansari comments on the MEK, "They are trying desperately to set themselves up as Iran’s equivalent of the Iraqi National Congress. The Iranians will be aware that the Americans are trying to keep them as a potential INC."
"They [want] to make us mercenaries," a MEK official told Newsweek, referring to the US.
Raymond Tanter, writing in response to reports in the Washington Post that Iran was some ten years from nuclear weapons capability, disagreed:
"The intelligence community has not had a good track record regarding Iran. Most of the major nuclear sites that are now known to the outside world and are inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, including the uranium enrichment site in Natanz and the heavy water facility in Arak, were revealed by Iran’s main opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)." Tanter compares the IEAE’s findings to a "disinformation program" from the Iranian regime. "If American analysts are using ‘creative analysis’ to make up for lack of current, actionable intelligence from assets on the ground, it would argue for using information from Iranian dissidents to provide ‘lead intelligence,’ information that can be used to verify intelligence obtained from other sources and methods," according to Tanter.
On September 15, 2005, Tanter is set to hold another Iran Policy Committee seminar (he is the co-chair) in support of the MEK. In mid-October, the MEK is up for State Department review of its terrorist status. If the State Department removes the MEK from the list of foreign terrorist organizations, the MEK stands to receive large sums of aid to help them carry out any number of murderous deeds inside Iran in order to overthrow the regime.
Media influence and intelligence supply
Intelligence supply as credibility building
"In August 2002, the group revealed the existence of the Arak heavy water facility and a massive underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, both of which Tehran later declared to the IAEA, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog."
The press conference in question was held in downtown Washington, DC. The NCRI also alleged that the Iranian government was using a front company, the Mesbah Energy Company, to hide unwanted disclosures associated with the project. Iran maintained that its rationale for opening the facilities were strictly for energy purposes, "In the next 20 years, Iran has to produce 6,000 megawatts of electricity by nuclear plants and the launch of these two centers are aimed at producing necessary fuel for these plants," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said.
Under IAEA regulations, Iran was not required to notify the watchdog until it had begun "source or special nuclear materials" at Arak or Natanz.
"However, the satellite images of the site put on [the] internet by an American specialized firm a day after confirmed that the information was provided to the group by some Pentagon sources keen to get the [MEK] out of the terrorist list, giving it the image of a group that has reliable sources inside Iran."
(Because if you can help the Americans with intelligence, you’re should no longer be deemed a terrorist.)
Later, a CIA source would comment, "’We had all these information and have reported them to the Administration,’…frustrated at the leak of sensitive intelligence documents to the terrorist group."
"Evidence of these effects can already be seen by [MEK]’s effectiveness in persuading the mass news agencies to publish stories advocating that newly elected President Ahmadinejad was pictured directly involved in the 1979 hostage [taking]."
Counterpunch notes:
"Every few weeks these Chalabi-like, men-in-black characters-and also Fox News commentators-come up with some `top secret satellite photos’ showing non-existent nuclear weapons sites in Iran (how a US-designated terrorist organization gets top secret satellite photos is, of course, beyond anyone’s imagination.)"
CSM reports:
"Some [MEK] tips have led to recent revelations about key aspects of Iran’s clandestine nuclear program, though many others have proven unreliable. Long a diplomatic hot potato, which Tehran has offered to solve by exchanging [MEK] militants for Al Qaeda players now in Tehran, the [MEK] continues to complicate US-Iran-Iraq relations."
(But, as you’ll see later, the neoconservatives refused to give up their grunts.)
In September of 2004, just days before an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting, the National Council of Resistance of Iran held a meeting in London, the NCRI claimed that it had unearthed more information about Tehran nuclear weapons program. They claimed that Iran secretly had a nuclear weapons facility in Bandar Abbas and that it is the "second largest facility for converting uranium to yellow cake. This site has not been disclosed before and it is in its final stage of being fully installed."
Cameron Brown, assistant director of Israel’s Global Research in International Affairs, said she believed the information but warned, "Remember the lousy information that the United States had on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction also came from dissidents."
However, on January 24, 2005, the AP ran a story clearing Iran and dismissing the NCRI’s allegations. "Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s former envoy to the Vienna-based IAEA, said Iran had informed the agency in 2003 about the Bandar Abbas facility."
"August 18, 2005 – In a press conference in London, Hossein Abedini of the National Council of Resistance of Iran told reporters that Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had secretly produced the centrifuges on the orders of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini."
A day later, Reuters ran a story with the NCRI as their source, presumably from the same press conference, claiming that Iranian officials had recently expressed their pleasure with the progress being made at Iran’s heavy water program in Arak. The NCRI claimed that the site could produce plutonium.
On August 20, a former senior member of the MEK told the Iran Press Service:
"All the information that [MEK] provides the western media is pure lies and fabricated to discredit the Iranian regime and help the United States and Israel to put more pressure on Iran."
The article also reports that the MEK simply tells the media "what the CIA feeds them." Later, Mas’oud Khodabandeh, a former senior MEK officer, would confess,
Further:
"Except the information on Natanz and Arak the group disclosed, documents that were given to them by the Americans, all other material the [MEK] gave to the media are open secret, most of them from the Iranian press, like the name of companies and firms that works for the Defense Ministry and are known to the IAEA."
Khodabandeh deserted from the [MEK] and now runs a website, Iran-Interlink.org, which exposes the true face of the MEK, and leads the Association for the Support of Victims of MEK.
The MEK campaign to spread misinformation doesn’t stop at holding press conferences and writing press releases. The MEK has adjusted to the web and hosts Iran Focus, and Iran Terror are MEK-affiliated news sites. In addition, the NCRI has a website, featuring the latest publications of their misinformation and, even, an RSS feed. The blog, Iranian Truth, has more background on MEK’s media affiliates.
In the third and last installment, I’ll focus exclusively on the deal that never was. For several months, the US (backed by the State Department) was vigorously attempting an exchange of captive MEK members in Iraq for five top Al Qaeda members, including Saad bin Laden, the son of Osama bin Laden, and Saif al Adl, intelligence chief. The neoconservatives would ultimately prevail, the deal was dropped, and they kept their pawn.
Minority warmongers laugh at Majority peace-seekers!
Terrorist brutes laugh at the victims of terrorism!
Ungrateful traitors laugh at decomposition of their country!
Mercenary hypocrites laugh at masses (of people)!
“ but at the day of judgment, terrorist brutal warmongers will cry.
When Khorramshahr was freed from the occupation of Baath army, Iranian masses celebrated and bowed to the Iranian resistance to scandalized warmonger enemy. But at that time, mercenaries who had camped in the home of Iran’s enemy were upset from this victory. From that day up to 6 years later, when they separated the city of Mehran and presented it to their master, they have always been beating the drum of war, celebrated and laughed.
Ceasefire was a flaming charcoal into their throats; so they sought another war with defining the strategy of “spark and war”, wishing (like a vulture) to take advantage of the outcome of the events. Suddenly, the bloodthirsty master was hunted by another hunter and hungry vultures, which hoped to stay, mourned for their godfather.
Now, the strategy of “spark and war”, is being followed by those very vultures in a larger scale and whenever a dragon threatens Iran of making a war against it, these vultures congratulates the bats laughingly!
Prostitutes, who relied on military victories of a devil like Saddam, are now waiting for a military attack against Iran in order to take advantage of the events. Clearly, they want to show themselves as modern, peace-seekers and human rights protectors in the nonsense they say, that’s why they appear with mummy face in European Parliament and add that”no war, no compliance, only let the resistance (cult) liberate Iran” and then they write this very bluff in Herald to pretend that they’re against the war!! But they agree with terrorism under the name of ”liberating movement”! and they think that if a wolf pretends to be a dove, others will easily accept!
When Iranian cities were hit vainly by Iraqi missiles, Massoud Rajavi asked Saddam Hussein to stop bombings!! And then claimed that his requests were signs of his friendship with Iranian people! And then he ordered his forces to fulfill the uncompleted missions of Saddam Hussein by mortaring.
We remember that he called peace”the execution rope of regime” and said that the fall of regime following the peace is certain. He did this to get the figure of peace-seeking! And when the ceasefire was put to practice, they started second war with the strategy of “spark and war” and this is how they were registered in the memory of Iranians, and in the history of mercenaries, as dirty opportunists.
Now that they deny the war and promote the liberation of Iran by Mojahedin, they have initiated exactly the same previous tactics. The tactics which have taken the form of this strategy that “basically, the war has become a kind of sadism for Mojahedin which makes them happy, and they are fed from the bloodshed; and they are waiting for a big war against Iran”. But they are ignoring 3 points. First, warmongers are aware of MKO’s inefficiency and believe that these cursed ones have no base in Iran; second, they are well aware that if Mojahedin could do anything they would have done something when supported by Saddam. Third and above all, God scrambles all the equations of warmongers and turns these equations against themselves and restrains dragons, vultures and dictators from convenience and relief, and also scandalizes them in both worlds;The time and history will confirm this claim.
Shahin Torabi
Despite the Bush administration’s insistence that, at least for now, it remains committed to using diplomatic means to halt Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, war drums against the Islamic Republic appear to be beating more loudly here.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured Europeans on her trip this past week that Washington does indeed support the efforts of France, Britain, and Germany (EU-3) to reach a diplomatic settlement on the issue. However, she also made it clear that Washington has no interest in joining them at the negotiating table or extending much in the way of carrots.
And her consistent refusal to reiterate former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s flat assertion in December that Washington does not seek "regime change" in Tehran has added to the impression that the administration is set firmly on a path toward confrontation.
Whether the administration is pursuing a "good cop/bad cop" strategy in which Washington’s role is to brandish the sticks and the EU-3 the carrots remains unclear, but the voices in favor of an "engagement" policy are being drowned out by crescendo of calls to adopt "regime change" as U.S. policy.
The latest such urging was released here Thursday by the Iran Policy Committee (IPC), a group headed by a former National Security Council staffer Ray Tanter, several retired senior military officers, and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
The 30-page document, "U.S. Policy Options for Iran" by former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Clare Lopez, appears to reflect the views of the administration’s most radical hawks among the Pentagon’s civilian leadership and in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
It was Cheney who launched the latest bout of saber-rattling when he told a radio interviewer last month that Tehran was "right at the top of the list" of the world’s trouble spots and that Israel may strike at suspected Iranian nuclear sites even before the U.S.
The study echoes many of the same themes mainly support for the Iranian exiled and internal opposition against the government as another policy paper released by the mainly neoconservative Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) in December, but it is also much harsher.
Both papers favored military strikes against suspected nuclear and other weapons facilities if that was the only way to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and endorsed "regime change" as U.S. policy.
But the CPD paper, which had the influential backing of former Secretary of State George Shultz, called for a "peaceful" strategy that involved elements of both engagement and nonviolent subversion similar to that pursued by Washington in Poland and elsewhere in Central Europe, particularly during the 1980s.
The latest report does grant a role for "carrots" in achieving a delay in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and even in regime change, although the IPC’s members expressed greater skepticism that the EU-3 talks will be effective or even desirable.
"Negotiations will not work," said Maj. Gen. (ret.) Paul Vallely, chairman of the military committee of the neoconservative Center for Security Policy, who described the Iranian regime as a "house of cards."
Instead, the IPC’s main emphasis is on more aggressive actions to bring about the desired goals, including military strikes and active efforts to destabilize the government, in major part through the support and deployment of what it calls "indisputably the largest and most organized Iranian opposition group," the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) an idea that many Iran specialists here believe is likely to prove exceptionally counterproductive.
"[A]s an additional step [in a strategy of destabilization]," the paper states, "the United States might encourage the new Iraqi government to extend formal recognition to the MEK, based in Ashraf [Iraq], as a legitimate political organization. Such a recognition would send yet another signal from neighboring Iraq that the noose is tightening around Iran’s unelected rulers."
The MEK fought on Iraq’s side during the Iran-Iraq war and has been listed as a "terrorist group" by the State Department since 1997 as a result of its assassination of U.S. officials during the Shah’s reign and of Iranian officials after the Revolution.
However, it has long been supported by the Pentagon civilians and Cheney’s office, and their backers in Congress and the press as a possible asset against Iran despite its official "terrorist" status.
Indeed, there have been persistent reports, most recently from a former CIA officer, Philip Giraldi, in the current edition of the American Conservative magazine, that U.S. Special Forces have been directing members of the group in carrying out reconnaissance and intelligence collection in Iran from bases in Afghanistan and Balochistan, Pakistan, since last summer as part of an effort to identify possible targets for military strikes.
After bombing MEK bases in the opening days of the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the U.S. military worked out a cease-fire agreement that resulted in the group’s surrender of its heavy weapons and the concentration of about 4,000 of their members, some of whom have since repatriated voluntarily to Iran, at their base at Ashraf.
The State Department, which was then engaged in quiet talks with Iran about dispersing the group in exchange for Tehran’s handing over prominent al-Qaeda members in its custody, clashed repeatedly with the Pentagon over the MEK’s treatment.
After State was forced by the White House to break off its dialogue with Tehran following al Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia, allegedly ordered from somewhere on Iranian territory, the administration determined that MEK members in Iraq should be given Geneva Convention protections.
The IPC now wants the State Department to take the MEK off the terrorist list, a position backed by several dozen members of Congress who have been actively courted by the group and believe that a confrontation with Iran is inevitable.
"Removing the terrorist designation from the MEK could serve as the most tangible signal to the Iranian regime, as well as to the Iranian people, that a new option is now on the table," according to the report.
"Removal might also have the effect of supporting President Bush’s assertion [in his State of the Union address] that America stands with the people of Iran in their struggle to liberate themselves."
But most Iran specialists, both inside and outside the government, who agree that the regime is deeply unpopular, also insist that Washington’s endorsement of the MEK will actually bolster the regime in Tehran.
When they invaded Iran from Iraq in the last year of the Iran-Iraq war, according to Sick, who teaches at Columbia University, they had expected to march straight to Tehran gathering support all along the way.
"But they never got beyond a little border town before running into stiff resistance. It was a very ugly incident. They had a chance to show what they can do, and the bottom line was nothing very much. I’ve seen nothing since then to change my estimate," he said.
by Jim Lobe
Older Posts