Rajavis and Cult Leadership

West Serves Iran Against the MKO

Maryam Rajavi complained of Western countries’ apathy about the MKO as well as these countries’ silence on the decision of Iraqi government to expel the group from Iraq; she also took projective stance toward Iraqi government and asked the Western country to employ her group in Iraq.

Maryam Rajavi, who failed to meet Norwegian officials and sufficed to visiting a handful of parliament members, expressed her real pain as being discredited in the West and Western countries’ apathy about her gang.

"Unfortunately, mullahs have taken advantage of the policy of compromising to use the West in order to restrict the main threat for their regime, namely the Iranian Resistance. Thus, the only factors that can bring a change to Iran have been restricted and the world has been deprived of the major factor for thwarting regime’s threats.

3500 members of resistance are in Camp Ashraf and the mullahs want to remove the main threat for their regime by denying their refugee status that has existed for 20 years. Meanwhile, Western governments are still silent on regime’s plots against Camp Ashraf," said Maryam Rajavi.

Maryam Rajavi revealed why the MKO insisted that Iran’s case should be dealt with in the UN Security Council (that is, the survival of the group in Iraq) and said:

"To prevent the expulsion of MKO from Iraq, UN Security Council should apply diplomatic, military, technological and oil sanctions against the regime. Mullahs’ hands should be cut from Iraq and the region and restrictions on the Iranian resistance should be lifted."

So, it becomes clear that the project of "making Iran angry" by a number of European countries (to get advantages in dealing with Iran over its nuclear program) has already failed and that Maryam Rajavi, practically inviting these countries to participate in terrorism, uses this project to express the restrictions and sufferings of her own cult.

Irandidban – 2006/11/12

November 14, 2006 0 comments

USA

A Look at the Report of Gates-Brzezinski

"When the US President George Bush suddenly announced the removal of his Defense Minister, many of the experts were not surprised of the change, but they were surprised by President’s nominee "Robert Gates". Gates has been advocating the talks and relations with Iran. Two years ago in the summer, beside then the National Security Advisor of the White House, he headed a group that sought opening dialogue with Iran. Part of this group’s report said that lack of relationship with Iran and lack of presence in this country for a long time would deeply hurt US’s understanding of domestic and regional developments. This, in turn, restricts Washington’s influence in the Middle East; there’s no need to wait for full coordination between the two countries before starting the dialogue." (Radio Farda)

This very report from Radio Farda mentioned that the members of Mojahedin-e Khalq should be either extradited to Iran or be exchanged with Al-Qaeda members held captive in Iran.

The report was based on the experiences of relations between Iran and American as well as a very pragmatic view on Iran. Neocons couldn’t understand this report and ignored it wholly.

It seems that tasking James Baker with the preparation of a report on Iraq’s situation was not simply an act of propaganda, but there was really a need to change the strategy in Iraq. Nomination of Gates for the Ministry of Defense proves that the White House is determined to conduct these changes. Although the Neocons are still insisting on their slogans, it seems that they have no choice except accepting these changes.

In this way, the extradition or exchange of MKO members is possible because:

– US’s efforts to transfer them to a third country have failed,

– The US has remained silent on Iraqis’ decision to expel the group.

So, with respect to the changes in the policies of US military in Iraq, we should expect real developments in the situation of Mojahedin-e Khalq.

Irandidban – 2006/11/11

November 14, 2006 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

Playing with Blood Begins

The successor of inhuman leader of terrorist MKO Maryam Rajavi, following the lines of her ideological leader, sold the blood of 3800 detainees of Camp Ashraf to her own and her husband’s ambitions and to help the survival of the cult.

Maryam Rajavi, in a joint meeting with a number of lawyers in Beligum, threatened non-political legal institutions (such as UNHCR and Red Cross) and said:

"If the UNHCR and the Red Cross neglect their duties regarding the members in Camp Ashraf, there will be irrecoverable disaster."

There’s no doubt that this means that these two international organizations should give in to the hostage-taking by Rajavi and to the ambitions of this terrorist group for staying illegally in Iraq.

Representatives of this terrorist group have repeatedly asked these organizations to find illegal political ways for the group’s staying in Iraq and obey US forces!

In fact, they want these organizations to help the group keep dissident members, which is a very inhuman act.

The meaning of Maryam Rajavi’s recent stance, backed by a number of mercenary lawyers, is that "the MKO will not submit to legal decisions for the expulsion of the group and that if any decision is made against them, each and every MKO member will be forced to set himself on fire or commit suicide.

Rajavi’s gang decided 3 years ago to counter the legal activities for dismantling this terrorist group; to do this, they promised no one will be allowed to leave the camp alive and now that the situation has worsened for them, it seems that they are really preparing the members for such plans.

Irandidban – 2006/10/30

November 2, 2006 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

For Whom The Bell Rings?

MKO leaders held ceremonies to commemorate the anniversary of Maryam Rajavi’s election by Massoud Rajavi (as elect-president, the head of the MKO and …) and boasted about it.

Although such ceremonies have been designed to make MKO forces (restricted to Camp Ashraf) busy so as not to think about the current situation, the group is following other purposes (for instance, they want to convey some messages to their colonialist masters).

In the ceremonies, it was repeatedly said by MKO officials that Maryam Rajavi is the sole leader of the resistance! And that the MKO has only one duty: to get her to Tehran by any means!

By this stupid tactic, remnants of Rajavi are pursuing a number of purposes:

1. Save Massoud Rajavi from the pressure of being the head of a terrorist group.

2. Transfer the responsibilities of the organization to Maryam without any formal announcement or change in policies.

3. Turn the challenges from MKO’s terrorist nature and activities to so-called political activities of the group in Europe and pave the way for being accepted by Zionist lobby and the US.

Meanwhile, what’s happening is that the MKO leaders are giving in to the plans of those who control the group (who believe that Rajavi should leave the group and NLA should be dismantled if the group wants to continue activities).

However, current masters of terrorist MKO say that the group should repent for its terrorist activities and dismantle NLA before they can remove Rajavi from the equation.

It should be noted that this situation is not in contrast with the will of Pentagonist for using MKO in an invasion against Iran. However, since the issue of MKO’s expulsion from Iraq and determining their fate has become a major issue for occupiers, it’s not possible to keep them for a possible invasion against Iran; in addition, some US parties are not interested in taking advantage of them.

Irandidban – 2006/10/22

October 31, 2006 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi, the man who wanted to be a king

The operation Eternal Light (Forugh Javidan), is deemed by its leader a turning point in MKO’s history. The operation, no doubt, remains a black spot in history because of the significant strategic and military factors being considerably disregarded. In spite of the fact that Rajavi has recurrently admitted to have been aware of being no equal to Iran’s military strength, yet he would insist to recognize the operation as an integral part of MKO’s existence. To vindicate the necessity of launching the operation regardless of the outcomes, Rajavi has said:

Namely, at the crucial, serious situation that changes were speeding, the National Liberation Army had to be either checkmated or to sit waiting with the made excuses of not being prepared or the time was not ripe for the action… . [1]

Can it be the mere prove that the operation, with no rational raison d’être, was just a reaction to unpredictable conditions? Of course, the operation’s aftermath and the panorama Rajavi depicted for the forces on the eve of the operation well justify the claim. Talking on the outcomes of the operation before its initiation, Rajavi, commanding rather than asking, stated:

Now to be recorded in the history as you are making a great, prime decision unprovoked by emotions, although no revolution can de dissociated of its emotions, but absolutely based on military-political calculations, I tell you, raise your hands if you agree to go, if you think leaving for the operation, with whatever result, is quantitatively better that sitting idle. Whoever is convinced it behooves us to leave for operation and it makes it much worse if we don’t, raise the hand. I want to see this moment recorded in the history. [2]

Being well aware of the consequent failure of the coming operation, Rajavi cleverly sought to pick up surrogates to accept the responsibility of the inevitable defeat by stirring up the members that operation was the sole way to overthrow the Iranian ruling power. His rhetorical speeches provoked the members to both launch the operation and accept the responsibility for the consequent defeat. In fact, no body was to question Rajavi for the defeat but he was the one to reprimand all.

Really, how did Mojahedin justify the causes for the Operation Eternal Light? Was Rajavi so credulous to talk of “conquering Tehran and overthrowing the Islamic rule”? Did he think that Mojahedin in 1988 were in a better fitted situation than their previous 20 June uprising or the forces had a potentiality above the after-revolution days when they had infiltrated deep into the regime’s political and security institutions? What changes had occurred in Mojahedin’s structure to believe the organization had gained a military potentiality far above the previous guerrilla warfare tactics to form a liberation army able to topple the regime? What ever they were, one thing was evident for Rajavi and other rank cadres; the operation could not possibly succeed. To justify the force inequality, Rajvi gave promises that on the road to Tehran Mojahedin would be warmly received and welcomed by the townsmen and villagers who then would join them.

Before the acceptance of the Resolution 598 by Iran, Mojahedin had been convinced that an imposed peace on Iran would inevitably edge the regime to the brink of collapse. They were, however, overtaken by the acceptance the Resolution 598 that frustrated the prepared third solution of liberating Iran with reliance on the liberation army as they no more could receive the overall protection of the Iraqi army. Talking on the importance of this latter factor, Bijan Nyabati has stated:

The new liberation war was Mojahedin’s proper response to the huge deployment of forces with the aim of invoking a shelling priority powered by Iraqi army potentialities; it had nothing to do with Mojahedin’s previous strategy of the classic guerilla warfare. [3]

In spite of his chanting superficial counter-war slogans, Rajavi preferred the state of war as a good coverage to test war potentialities of the liberation army. In fact, the end of war meant a complete blockade of Rajavi’s tactic:

Overtaken by such unexpected decision (the acceptance of the Resolution 598), Rajavi decided to counteract. Noteworthy, in the strategic order of the liberation army, actually there existed no place for peace and cease-fire. [4]

Mojahedin took advantage of the unstable truce to test their military potentialities once more to topple the regime. Rajavi hoped unexpected outcomes when he let the forces be perished to guarantee his own power hegemony. He was under the illusion that the operation, although a complete failure, from a politically point of view had struck the most crushing blow over the body of the regime. His explanatory comments before and after the operation are in total contradiction.

The ideological revolution was the product of a solution to conduct the organization out of its political stalemate. He impudently declared the individual weakness in forces was the cause of failure and that the leader’s potentiality was far above the understanding and tolerance of the forces. In a later justification in general gathering on the anniversary of the operation in 2001, he talked of the operation’s achievements and that it was a proof of Mojahedin’s being independent of Iraqi’s military, financial, and political aids. Quoting words of a few Iranian authorities, Rajavi concluded that Mojahedin proved to be the sole recognized threatening force against the Islamic Republic.

All these words said, what really peopled Rajavi to commit such an organizational suicide was to shoot his last arrow. Seeing his long-existing dream of succeeding to power coming to nothing, he got ready to sacrifice all his devotees to take his chances. His command calling for the urgency of the operation was a shock to all and Mojahedin were watching restlessly that his decision was parching the remaining chances. He horridly prepared to face with the greatest challenge since the failed 20 June event with the consequent of his expulsion from Iran. His previously stated purpose of “conquering Tehran and overthrowing the Islamic rule” infers he had a hallucination of walking on a red carpet spread from the Iranian border to Tehran. The illusion of grandeur as a result of his authoritarian rule over Mojahedin had left him under the impression that the Iranian people, in no way an equal to Mojahedin combatants, would submit on his pass to Tehran. Alas, the idolized king never reached Tehran.

Notes

[1]. “The tenth anniversary of the Eternal Light”; the first book, Mojahedin’s Publications, 12.

[2]. ibid, refer to back-cover text.

[3]. Nyabaty, Bijan: A look within MKO’s ideological revolution, 70.

[4]. ibid.

mojahedin.ws – Bahar Irani – July 30, 2006

August 5, 2006 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Maryam Rajavi’s false victory

Three years ago, as part of the ongoing investigation into their alleged terrorist activities by the French anti-terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, restrictions were placed on Maryam Rajavi and sixteen of her MKO/NCRI colleagues. The restrictions were essentially that these individuals should not have contact with one another and that travel outside France was forbidden. Naturally, the French prosecution office did not want to jeopardize such a serious investigation by the accused having private conversations and/or travelling to unknown destinations.

Every month after that, the NCRI were in court attempting to overturn the ruling on appeal. Now, after three years, the investigation has progressed, huge files on each of the accused have been prepared and the start of their trials is imminent. Since the restrictions are no longer necessary, they have been lifted. None of the charges against the accused have been dropped or changed. In fact, according to reliable sources, the evidence gathered over the past three years is so damning that the prosecution office are no longer seeking further evidence.

Yet, in spite of this situation, Maryam Rajavi has hailed the lifting of these restrictions as a major victory for the National Council of Resistance (aka Mojahedin-e Khalq). She has done this in the circumstance that Camp Ashraf is on the verge of collapse and dismantlement, and in the realization that no replacement can be found for Saddam Hussein to sponsor and support her mercenary group. Her every effort is geared toward convincing the members of her cult – including some western politicians – that the Mojahedin is still a viable entity and has a future.

For years – since 1997 in fact – Maryam Rajavi has been asking for her organisation to be removed from global terrorist lists on the grounds that she is trying to expose the human rights violations of the mullahs’ regime. In spite of this – which of course every major international organisation is already successfully involved with – she still cannot and will not definitively and unambiguously denounce violence as her only means to achieve power in Iran.

June 19, 2006 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Flight to Iraq, a Pass out of the Impasse

On 7 June 1986 Massoud Rajavi took an unexpected move; he left Paris for Iraq. It was the beginning of a new political phase for Mojahedin organization. Some of Mojahedin’s allies that were dismayed at Rajavi’s earlier publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s deputy prime minister, in January 1983, when Iran-Iraq war was at its most intense, and took a cautious side to join the National Council of Resistance strongly denounced Rajavi’s move to fly to Iraq. It was a crucial move for Mojahedin, for it had sustained overall defeat inside Iran and moved on the verge of total dispersion. It had failed in its attempts to represent as a legitimate democratic alternative and a number of influential allies like Kurdistan Democratic Party detached from the council in objection to Rajavi’s hegemonic predomination. The detachment cost Mojahedin a lot because Kurdistan granted it a potential citadel to shift its warfare tactic of urban guerilla to a region bound tactic.

Successive failures had convinced Mojahedin that urban guerilla warfare was a failed tactic and inapt for overthrowing the Islamic Republic, but Rajavi’s tenacious insist on the tactic led the group to face more challenges besides separation of insiders. Bijan Nyabati, a left member of the National Council of Resistance, talking on Mojahedin’s failure in both internal and external fronts writes:

The year 1983 was the decisive year in all political, military, strategic, and ideological stages. Political, military, and armed resistance cul-de-sac, and the proven inability to overthrow the regime in short-term in late 1982, proved to be impossible through 1983, forced two options on Mojahedin. [1]

Talking on the political dead-ends following the raised tensions inside the resistance he writes:

It was even worse in political stage. Mojahedin’s failure to overthrow the regime in short-term and to integrate, claiming to be the sole democratic alternative, anti-monarch and anti-cleric political parties put heavy pressure from the inside and outside on Mojahedin. [2]

He further explains about the growing number of critics that precipitated Mojahedin into a dead-end:

Out of the council, an increasing process of antagonism against Mojahedin that had emerged through 1982 and had reached its peak in 1983, formed into an overwhelming confrontation with Mojahedin in 1984. [3]

Rajavi’s meeting with Tariq Aziz in 1983 was in fact a preliminary struggle to break an opening out of the impasse which was accomplished by his official flight to Iraq in 1986. Nyabati believes that in Rajavi-Tariq Aziz’ first meeting, they resolved on Rajavi’s transfer to Iraq which was postponed for some reasons. Although Mojahedin abstinently believed that the move to Iraq was the outcome of international pressure and the French government was persuaded to expel Mojahedin as a good-will gesture to improve Franco-Iranian relations, but the move to Iraq was the only solution to overcome all existing problems threatening the body of the organization.

Another crucial challenge Mojahedin had to face was a possible inter-organizational schism. As Nyabati writes:

It was a prepared condition only if one out of many members of the time’s political bureau or central committee moved on a different path and overtly questioned the failed guerilla armed struggle. Among the other lower-rankings, problem-makers like Parviz Yaqubi and Saeed Shahsavandi and so were enough to sound the alarm. [4]

Rajavi’s flight to Iraq was the product of a failed strategy that believed application of terror was the shortest way to succeed to political power. Rajavi’s unrealistic analyses based on false information had raised doubts about Rajavi’s competence and his armed strategy to overthrow the regime:

In fact, in spite of the members’ commitment and devotion and impressive record of heroism among the leading cadres, main members and sympathizers, the issue of overthrow had remained an unsolved problem at the end of the promised three-year period. [5]

Rajavi’s collusion with Iraq frustrated the hops that Mojahedin would reconsider about its failed armed tactic and completely dissolved the remainder of legitimacy among other opposition groups and instigated a new phase of violent, harsh inter-organizational confrontation. It was the beginning of a disparaging retrogression to collaborate with the nation’s enemy. Now it was restricted to take dictated steps according to fluctuating changes in Iraq the region, in general. Operation Eternal Light, acting as mercenary forces for Iraq, especially in suppression pf Iraq Kurds, and more and more were all the cost Mojahedin paid for its collusion with Saddam Hussein. The question is was the cost imposed on Mojahedin or it knowingly consented to bear the heavy price of ambitions to win power struggle?

Of course, well aware of Iraq’s hostile attitude, Mojahedin had anticipated what awaited it in Iraq. However, it never dreamed to be stuck there to face a desperate situation the same as 1983. The internal ideological revolution was devised to assist Mojahedin out of the newly encountered cul-de-sac, a resolution to put an end to challenging crisis of leadership in the organization. That is to say, it is no more the leadership who has to be blamed for the failures but the members and sympathizers have to shoulder the blame of mistakes made by the leadership. While out of the organization Mojahedin poses eager to lean towards the right, inside it moves to radicalize the ultimate left. In other words, the ideological revolution is the last imposed end-product of its move to Iraq.

Notes:

[1]. Nyabati, Bijan; A different look on Mojahedin Khalq’s ideological revolution, 17.

[2]. Ibid, 16.

[3]. Ibid, 19.

[4]. Ibid, 21.

[5]. Ibid, 18.

mojahedin.ws – Omid Puoya – 7 June 2006

June 11, 2006 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi’s gaffe sabotages MKO’s House of Lords push

Thursday February 9, 2006. In a debate on Iran, several members of the House spoke about the immediate problems concerning Iran, and British policy toward that country. But the main thrust of the debate was to lobby for the de-proscription of the MKO from the UK’s list of terrorist entities.

In reviewing their arguments, those who spoke in favour of the MKO could readily be accused of reading by rote from the MKO’s own propaganda material.

As usual, the MKO’s supporters portrayed it as democratic, defenders of human rights, active inside Iran, non-terrorist and the only opposition group of any note. All of which are easily refutable with evidence already in the public domain.

It appears that the MKO’s supporters in the House of Lords are woefully ignorant as to the true nature of that organisation and in particular its leaders.

However this ignorance is not a unique phenomenon, it is also endemic among the neoconservatives’ of the US Government.

Fortunately some members are not ignorant of the Mojahedin. Lord Phillips of Sudbury was able to bring real knowledge to the debate when he said:

"I should remind those who want to bring back the PMOI, give it support and let it loose that it was harboured, supported and sustained by Saddam Hussein scarcely the most benign of patrons. The idea that we could do that and encourage regime change in a way that will really bring about that for which we devoutly hope a fully democratic Iran in which human rights are fully respected is pie in the sky and a dangerous illusion."

Toward the end of the three hour debate, the MKO’s supporters became desperate for any mention of the MKO. Unwilling to leave Maryam Rajavi empty handed, Lord Taverne interjected:

"My Lords, the time allocated for the noble Lord’s speech is running to an end. I hope that he will not ignore the point made by many speakers about the de-proscription of the PMOI."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman) replied:

"My Lords, I have not the smallest intention of doing so. I shall turn to that point immediately.

"It is clear that there is a range of concerns, and I hope that that will not turn into uncritical enthusiasm for groups opposed to the Iranian regime, particularly those calling for the repeal of proscription currently in place. The MeK, or the PMOI, now tends to describe itself as a democratic party working for human rights, but there has been a history of involvement in terrorism. I have looked at the balance of the information available. In 2001 there were two armed attacks for which it accepted responsibility. It was accused of a further armed attack in June 2002, about which it has said nothing.

"Let me bring us right up to date. In an interview with the LA Times in February this year, Maryam Rajavi was asked whether the use of violence was a PMOI option now and answered,

"The tactics and methods have been imposed not by us, but by the mullahs".

"Some may say that that is ambiguous rather than direct, but noble Lords have provided interesting information about the new disposition of these groupsâ€”as they have described it. I am willing to look at this group in particular. Fundamentally, of course, the whole of the question would need to be put to the review commission, although there are regular reviews. That is in the hands of the group itself. If it has things to say about a non-violent trajectory, that must be the way in which it carries it forward."

Iran-Interlink, February 9, 2006

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60209-04.htm#60209-04_head2

February 13, 2006 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

Iranian Mujahadeen said to be in U.S. Custody

Baghdad, 3 Jan. (AKI) – The leader of the Iranian mujahadeen, Massoud Rajavi, who was thought to have been in hiding since the American occupation of Iraq, is under house arrest there, according to the Paris-based website, roozonline. Massoud Rajavi and another 27 leaders of the Iranian movement, who were confined in the Ashraf base, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, have reportedly been shifted to US military custody in the Mercury Camp. The Iranian mujahadeen is a militant guerrilla movement seeking to overthrow the government of Iran and was based first in France and then in Iraq.

The Mujahadeen of the Iranian People is active in Europe under the name of the National Resistance Council, with a declared aim of overthrowing the Islamic republic of Iran. Listed as a terror group by Washington and the European Union, the Muajahadeen were founded in the late 1960s, before the Islamic Revolution in Iran as the armed wing of a religious movement opposing the then monarchy.

Their first action in that period was the murder of several American military advisors in Tehran to train the troops of the Shah. After briefly cooperating with Ayatollah Khomeini, after the 1979 revolution, the mujahadeen went underground to fight the Islamic regime. During the Iran-Iraq war they transferred their base first to the outskirts of Paris and then to Baghdad, under the protection of Saddam Hussein.

Roozonline argues that the arrest of Massoud Rajavi and other senior figures is the result of the first encounter by the American ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmai Khalilzad, who was tasked by the White House with getting Iranian leaders to the negotiation table. "The negotiations are limited to issues regarding Iraq," said the ambassador.

Iran has for some time been calling for the arrest and the extradition of more than 3,000 Iranian Mujahadeen in Iraq.

After the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iranian mujahadeen camps were bombed by coalition forces and the weaponry seized. The personnel initially placed under armed guard in a camp outside Baghdad. In August 2004, despite considering it a terrorist group, the United States granted the mujahadeen in Iraq Geneva Convention protection, making deportation to Iran illegal.

The Iranian mujahadeen maintained an information office in Washington DC, until it was designated a terrorist group. This designation has never been fully accepted – in 2003, more than a hundred members of congress signed a letter calling for the lifting of this designation.

Aki- adnkronosinternational

January 9, 2006 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Where does Maryam Rajavi stand?

When Masud Rajavi found out a risk from the organization’s members, looked for a woman who could save him from that abyss. A woman like “Farah Diba”, the Iranian Shah’s wife. In the meantime he fell in love with Maryam Qajar and after a period of liaison with her, divorced Firouzeh BaniSadr and introduced Maryam as the second person of the organization.

Mujahedin’s people propagandized her character and presented her as an outwardly perfect goddess. They held concerts in which they had publicities to attract western people’s attention.

They made a charismatic character of her in order to draw women’s attention to the organization. Pheminist thoughts published in MKO on one hand caused Masud to use it as his own shield and on the other hand, to be worried about replacing of this modern thought instead of his own idea.

When the women were charged with responsibilities and got the high positions, the supporters got angry and started to critisize, some men separated from the MEK. They considered Masud’s new strategies as abusing the women. But will Masud’s wishes be harmonious with Maryam’s feminine ambitions? In 2003, France police arrested her for two weeks. She was accused of using her residence in “Over Sur d’Oise” as a base to launch terrorist attacks. But police were forced to liberate her since the members set themselves on fire in front of Police Station and Iran Embassy.

In the early eighties, Iran witnessed the terror of its high officials and Maryam Rajavi as Masud’s main abettor was accused she was accused of operating terrorist operations, especially after the establishing of National Liberation Army as the military branch of the organization and Maryam was elected as the vice-commandant of the so-called army.

She fled Iran before her death sentence be issued. She had various positions in MKO, until the NCRI members who are completely absorbed by her personality, elected her as Iran President just when Masud pointed out. Therefore she became the executive manager of Masud’s vague ideology and occupied some positions in the organization. She claimed that one third of the organization members are women. On the other hand Iran has placed Maryam and Masud’s names in the list of wanted people and declared that they would never be forgiven. Nowadays Maryam considers herself as the elected president of Iran and tries to collect funds from her supporters from all over the word. She is in the hope of glossing over the accusations of her involvement in Oil – Food program in Iraq. Maryam encouraged her supporters to act terror operations without paying attention to civilians and she is proud of her suicide policy.

Whenever a member of MKO is willing to return to normal life, they take him to their weekly meetings and repress him under high mental pressure of brain washing and repeat this phrase to him:” You were not created for a normal life! Listen to Maryam Rajavi to find a solution to your problems!”

Maryam is also wanted by the US and since 1997 her organization has been in the FTO list. The EU also followed the American policy In 2000. She repeatedly appears on video tapes and asks Jaque Shirak to return the seized funds of the MKO which were found during her arrest operation. She continually talks about a hundred – twenty thousands martyrs and half a million prisoners who are waiting for Bush to end Iran regime and deliver the government to her. She also has used Ahvaz case in order to have Arabs’ attention.

What method does she use and according to which rules does she control her group? She sometimes addresses the members’ suicidal characteristic and asks them to apply Masud’s ideology. She encourages them to die and considers death as a virtue, even though she talks frequently about democracy and secularism.

It has been told that Maryam is Masud’s chain mail. She is the leader of a self – built cult. She has the characteristics of a cult leader. She enjoys a charismatic character and she believes that “the goal justifies the means.” Besides she has gathered a group of people under the cover name of “Iranian Muslim Students Society” and has controlled their minds. Among them she fusses about sexual inequality, she talks about real sexual delight of what the separated members accuse the MKO. The difference between this cult and the other cults and groups is that the MKO is very ambitious and thinks about controlling the entire Iran!?

When in 1980’s Maryam and Masud were expelled from France, they fed themselves with Saddam’s food. She believed in approaching their (Saddam’s and MKO’s) common enemy –Iran. Saddam also gave them an occasion to continue their aggressions.

Where does Maryam stand after the fall of Saddam? Is she the Washington’s winning card? Is she lobbing one of the rooms of the white House among American congress men?

In her last message, she said:”my belief has approached the reality, the US is going to realize that the main solution to deal with Iran can be organized by an Iranian opposition.” On the other hand, a smoke can be seen from Israel Camp which shows that it plans to keep MKO alive in order to use them against Iran as a pressure axis. There is no need to look for Maryam – Saddam Hussein’s colleague. Bush has answered our question with the following phrase:” my country appreciates Iranian’s efforts for freedom”. In addition, he has allocated 3 million $ to support such groups.

Ansaf Lina Alhurani

January 5, 2006 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts