Translation: Nejat Society Pesnot: I want to talk about Mujahedin-e-Khalq who are probably better spies for George Bush. MEK are the opponents to the Ayatollahs and President
Ahmadinejad of Iran. They claim that they have revealed the Iranian military nuclear programs in 2002. After the American security agencies reported that Iran has interrupted its program for bomb fabrication, MEK refused the report and claimed that Tehran is still seeking nuclear weapon secretly. And this is exactly what Bush claimed after the reports issued. There is a question here: how does the MKO know that Tehran is seeking nuclear weapon while MKO’s intelligence network has been destroyed and has no function now? How could the MKO’s intelligence network understand it but American Intelligence Agencies were not able to find out? united State, contrary to its interests ,use MKO’s misinformation and no one asks if MKO tries to make Americans involved in a battle against Iran, by giving such misinformation. You can’t help thinking about what happened before American invasion to Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s opponents including Ahmad Chalabi didn’t stop saying that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But there was nothing of them in Iraq. These intoxication acts doubled by the American neo-conservatives who had no objective except justifying the American invasion to Iraq. Therefore, Mr. X tries to clarify the issue describing Mujahedin of whom a large number reside in France. The group is still on the FTO list of Department of State that has prevented the American government from helping them or probably contributing them financially. Mr. X: MKO is a cult. In fact they share most of cult-like practices. For example the forced divorce of spouses and their absolute dedication to their favorite leader Maryam Rajavi, the self- assigned president in exile of Iran and also the absolute dependence of fighters on the organization, military cooperation and even members sacrifice so as they self-immolated to protest the arrest of Maryam Rajavi following the French Police raid to MKO’s base in 2003. Of course that was a spectacular, ridiculous and also useless act. MKO was founded in 1969’s by a small group of young students who opposed the Shah’s tyranny and their ideology was inspired by both Islam and Marxism. Pesnot: it’s not simple to mix these two. Mr. X: at least both shared anti-imperialism view. Pesnot: and of course anti-Americanism. Mr. X: Naturally, because the US supported Shah and cooperated to return the Shah to Iran after the coup-d’at against Mosaddeq. The first Mujahedin were the students and intellectuals who entered the armed struggle exploding the electricity lines in the 2500th anniversary of Persian Empire. Pesnot: Ah, Persepolis. Mr. X: Savak was terrified and executed the key leaders of the organization except one: Masud Rajavi who was offered favor and got amnesty. His brother also protested in an international movement. Pesnot: why the others weren’t released? Mr. X: Rajavi accepted to cooperate with the police. After the organization was damaged from head, the activities continued so slowly and the attempts and terrors started in 1972 when the American advisors were assassinated. Pesnot: then the organization recovered its force again. Mr. X: yes, it formed its clandestine units and got close to two other movements: the clerics of Qom and the laics, the former supporters of Mosadeq. Pesnot: and they were mostly left-wing. Mr. X: most of the organization ‘s members were oppressed and defections appeared in the organization. Pesnot: thus the cultism you mentioned existed in the group from the beginning. Mr. X: the defection of Marxists from MKO was a heavy beat for the Mujahedin and Mr. Khomeini did not welcome the case. Pesnot: didn’t he appreciate Rajavi so well? Mr. X: this is the least thing you can say. Rajavi obeyed and accepted the superiority Of Khomeini and called him the leader of the revolution in the early days after the revolution, MEK supported the revolution and pretended that they were not strangers to the hostage taking of American Embassy. But they soon set off for protests. Pesnot: why? Mr. X: because of Khomeini’s absolute power. Pesnot: Rajavi wanted to have a share of the power? Mr. X: well, naturally .Khomeini didn’t like and Rajavi wanted to reach an agreement with Khomeini but following the deposal of Banisadr, they became more isolated until they got refugee in France and MKO’s armed struggle against the ayatollahs started. They burned up the office of Islamic Republic Party and assassinated 74 of high ranking officials of regime. was a real massacre. revolutionary Guard began to fight against MKO and Rajavi’s wife was killed. In 1981,Rajavi fled his country and inhabited in Auversur-O’ise and formed National Council of Resistance but after a time his allies left the council. Pesnot: and soon the MKO was listed as terrorist. Mr. X: yes, by the Americans and the Europeans. Most of MKO supporters remained in Iran gathering intelligence for French intelligence agencies and received French favor until the Iran-Iraq war began. Pesnot: and France was on Iraqi side. Mr. X: France supported Saddam Hussien and Mujahedin fed French Intelligence Service with precious information. Pesnot: Mr. X is talking about a cult-like organization that seems to use bizarre practices. Firstly we’ll discuss the third marriage of Masud Rajavi. I’ve extracted a few lines of the French journalist. Patric Lestruan’s writings:”in 1984, Rajavi who previously had married twice, fell in love with Maryam who was the wife of the man No.4 of the organization. Rajavi could make his dream true due to his power of retorique and following his wedding, his political office published a text. In fact the text talked of a new epical victory and was considered as a qualified mutation in MKO’s history and the husband whose wife was taken to marry Rajavi, even sent public congratulations to Maryam and Masud Rajavi. Under the cover of women’s promotion Mujahedin forbid sexual relations and forced all married members to divorce. And also their daily reports that everybody was supposed to produce on his activities Mujahedin had to write their sexual fantasies and submit to their authorities’’ Mr. X: Jacqe Shirac wanted to normalize the diplomatic relations between Iran and France and to show his good will expelled Rajavi and his supporters out of French territory. Then the French government threw the Mujahedin in hands of Saddam Hussein. It had nothing for the Iranians except treason during Iran-Iraq war. Rajavi went to Iraq and Saddam Hussein was so pleasant because the enemy of my enemy can’t be anything but friend and Rajavi paid a heavy cost for this treason. Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and provided Rajavi with everything to establish his army. In July 1988,Rajavi used the opportunity provided by the ceasefire between Iran and Iraq and sent his army to fight Iranians but after it advanced for only 50 km, the National Liberation Army was demolished by the Iranian Forces and lost too many of its members. Pesnot: It was a terrible failure and an actual humiliation for Rajavi and I guess that Saddam’s delusions were also broken. Mr. X: definitely, he hoped that with the MKO’s operation he could continue the war while respecting the cease-fire. Pesnot: a replacing war. Saddam Hussein’s generosity was without any expectation from the counterpart? Mr. X: Of course not. He asked MKO to oppress Iraqi Kurds what is still causing bad reputation for Rajavi and his group. In any case, France conciliate with MKO in condition that they respect a really neutral policy and let them return to France. Pesnot: and they did so. Mr.X: obviously. Despite all Saddam Hussein’s considerations, the fighters are more comfortable in a Western democratic country. We forget them when it is needed. The French government closes his eyes. Pesnot: did the military confrontation between Iran and MKO finish? Mr. X: no, but after the failed invasion of 1988, they could never find the tranquility yes, Mujahedin went on heir attempts. Despite the first allies’ invasion against Hussein in 1991, MEK maintained their bases in Iraq that allowed them to launch operations against Iranian interests once in a while. Pesnot: around the borders. Mr. X: sometimes the operation led to reactions. For example, in 1992 the Iranian aircrafts bombed MKO’s camps in Iraq and immediately MKO operated a series of attempts against Iranian Embassies in Europe and military industries while some changes were placing in the head of the organization. Pesnot: what changes? Mr. X: Maryam Rajavi became No.1. Pesnot: she took her husband’s position? Mr. X: yes. Pesnot: what happened? Mr. X: no one knows exactly. Some imagine that the couple had no more mutual understanding. Even some say that there were some links between Maryam and Saddam Hussein. But I don’t believe in such things so much. The promotion of Maryam Rajavi to the first position like what Masud was previously is the main objective of a cult of personality! Pesnot: what happened to Masud? Mr. X: this is one of the mysteries of the affairs. No one really knows what happened. Pesnot: from the American view, MEK who were once Saddam’s allies were on the bad side of battle. Mr. X: it really started badly for them but I have to notice that MEK took the wind out of their sail. Pesnot: because they knew that sooner or later the Americans would take over in Iraq. Mr. X: yes. They knew well. they have created secret links with the officials since long ago, so they can keep four of their camps in the South of Iraq and concentrate their forces in the Camp Ashraf, in 90 km. North of Bagdad near Iranian border. A territory with 36 km square that was granted to them by Iraqi surrounded with barbed wire. . Pesnot: an Iranian property in Iraq. Mr. X: Since the beginning of 2003 MEK or in better words their legal front organization NCRI gather together in Camp Ashraf. Pesnot: two weeks after American invasion to Iraq. Mr. X: this is not accidental. They enter a crucial relation with the US. Pesnot: what are they seeking? Mr. X: first of all, they are trying to draw American’s attention to themselves to prove that they are not terrorists but democrat fighters who oppose Mullah’s absolutism, thus they shouldn’t be on the terror list any more. They find 150 of American congressmen to sign an appeal for their cause. From the other side, they also try to demark themselves from Saddam Hussein. Finally there is an MKO’s member who is installed in US and reveals research site of Iranians on nuclear weapons. Pesnot: a kind of gift which is handed to Americans. Mr. X: something like this. Pesnot: therefore the will of Mujahedin requires approaching Americans . Despite all you said, at the beginning, the war stared badly for MEK. Mr. X: yes, because Al Badre Bridges that are formed of devotee Shiites in Iran, attack them at the time the Americans aircrafts bombs the MEK Camps. But nothing more happens. However there are whispers in Bagdad that MEK has WMD in their camps. Pesnot: American forces do not try to get ride of Saddam Hussein’s former allies. Besides, the disarming agreement was signed between Iranian fighters and American officials. Mujahedin deliver their tanks and canons, but they are allowed to keep their light arms. Finally all of them are invited to join Camp Ashraf. They are not considered as war prisoners but as fighters detained in their camp. Pesnot: a normal detain but they are still considered as terrorist by the Americans. Mr. X: yes and they can be imprisoned in Guantanamo. Pesnot: surely, there are some neo-conservatives around George Bush who have already compelled the idea that MKO could be a precious ally for America. Therefore I read a part of Eric Laurent’s writings titles “Bush, Iran, Bombâ€:â€Maryam Rajavi and her movement that has assassinated several Americans in the past and served Saddam Hussein as his oppressors, has become an arm in the hands of Mr. President’s surroundings the only obstacle against the free cooperation between MEK and US is the existence of their name on terrorists list since 1997. The designation that curiously didn’t prohibit the MEK from possessing an office and activities in American capital. John Ashcroft Justice Minister and an extremist neo-conservative supports the group actively. The mere designation of a group as a foreign terrorist organization doesn’t illegalize it and also this organization has been recorded as a lobbyist, the activity in which they are skilled†said a co-worker of Ashcroft to explain the juridical ambiguity . Laurant’s book was published by PLON. Mr. X: I have to say why the Department of State where Powell is ruling, acts so conservatively in confronting MKO. Firstly because it is listed as terrorist and also he doesn’t want to dissatisfy Tehran. Either of these reasons might be true but the contradiction has an important echo for us. In June 2003, under the order of anti-terrorist Judge Brugiere, 1200 policemen and officers of DST raided MKO’s base in Ouver -Sur d’Oise. Pesnot: I remember that usually when such forces mobilize the case is serious. Mr. X: yes. Well, meanwhile this operation with the code name”Teo”, the interrogations were done and a large amount of money was found but that’s all; no arms and no explosives. But it didn’t prevent judge Brugiere from arresting 160 of Mujahedin including Maryam Rajavi, MEK’s Saint Mary. The protestations of Iranian opponents are harsh and some are dramatic. Pesnot: yes, the self-immolations of which we have talked. But what was MKO accused of? Mr. X: because of their clandestine activities and money-laundering in our territory. Pesnot: is it true? Mr. X: well, clandestine activities! But which activities? DST is completely incapable to prove it and couldn’t present any document. About money“laundering yes, it is probable. The organization has a complex network of foreign associations which are so complicated that the experts are not able to distinguish this financial network. In the network the associations are allowed to access each others accounts and pay the members’ salaries from them. The result: Mujahedin are released one after the other. This happened after the visit made by our foreign affair minister in Tehran, two months earlier. Mr. Villepin had been hosted so warmly. The other congratulations were sent by Washington.”Teo” operation was considered as a right line in the war on terror. But in reality, it was only in official speech. In fact the White House showed hypocrisy. Pesnot: but why?because it contradicts the neoconservatives’ plan to use MEK against Tehran? Mr.X: definitely. They turned against France and implicitly suspect France to having the intention to give the green light to Iranian regime in order to sign oil and industrial contracts with Tehran. This is what some American parliamentarians think accusing French authorities appeasing Iran, a terrorist state. Pesnot: therefore Teo operation . Mr.X: and maybe DST tried to fire a counter attack. Pesnot: what do you mean? Mr.X: the publication of a book with the author’s name: Victor Charbinnier. Pesnot: a pseudonym. Mr.X: which includes the names of two authors of whom one is a high ranking international activist. Pesnot: why did they use the pseudonym? Due to cautiousness? Mr.X: Officially, they wanted to protect the two authors. Pesnot: because the book is as explosive as that? Mr.X: it’s not so kind to Mujahedin-e-Khalq. Pesnot: ok, what’s it about? Mr. X : the book is inspired by a group of dissidents and the official version denounces the practices used by MKO seriously physical violence, brainwashing, extra chantage against their own members. Briefly the organization has become a neo-stalinian nest. Pesnot: but you also spoke of sectarist practices of MKO at the beginning and your words were not far from what these dissidents say. Mr. X: yes, I know the group well. That’s right. But I didn’t go further. Well, listen to the conclusion of the two authors:”this Islamist-communist organization is one of the most dangerous terror organizations of the world:” I think that today “Pesnot: and you think that our counter Intelligence Service could intervene in composing the book? Mr. X: DST that didn’t have the power to bring MKO to justice could well give some information to the two authors. Pesnot: the information that came from good sources, therefore it was a sort of revenge? Mr. X: this is what I think of but I’m not sure at all. The Simple coincidence of the book and the operation Teo intrigues me. I have to confess that these terrible Mujahedin live in a perfect harmony with the population of Ouver Sur d’Oise, who were glad to see them again after their short detention. Pesnot: Let’s get back to the case of US-MKO relations. Mr. X: you are right because at the present time this is essential. Although they are still on the famous terror list, MEK are going to make their relations with the US more and more. Pesnot: Explain. Mr. X: following the big mistake made by American security agencies three weeks ago, CIA found out that its intelligence network are completely ruined. Consequently, American services are certain to make themselves closer to MKO, since it seems that MKO is well informed of Iran’s advancements in its nuclear researches on the bomb. Pesnot: yes, but it is a risk to rely on only one source. Mr. X: I completely agree with you. In the world of intelligence as well as the world of press. These opponents to ayatollahs perhaps will launch a large campaign, exaggerating about the threat of the ayatollahs, to intoxicate the atmosphere of Washington what the American neo-conservatives are really desirous to hear. Pesnot: it exactly recalls us what the Iraqi opponents including Ahmad Chalabi did a few years ago. He pretended that saddam Hussein owned WMDs. Mr. X: of course the dictator had already got rid of them under the pressure of UN inspectors. Thus we are seeing a kind of repetition. And we never should forget that they might make the same manipulations and exaggeration when they speak about Iranian bomb. Bush incontestably gave them the green light. For example, in August 2004, the White House leader declared that he will pardon some of Saddam Hussein allies. Pesnot: and one of them is MKO. Mr. X: yes, they are a part of that. He even went further stressing that Mujahidin are under the protection of American forces. Pesnot: you mean those who gathered in Camp Ashraf. Mr. X: about 3800. Pesnot: there is a question here: doesn’t it make the Iraqi government, which is mainly composed of Iranian Shiites, unsatisfied? Mr. X: consequently, the important thing to Washington is the exceptional source of information that MKO represents. And you can even see the role of MKO among the strategists who surround American President, the role that once was played by the alliance of the North in Afqanistan when Taliban took over Kabul. Pesnot: the North Alliance was the movement formed by commandant Masud. Mr. X: and it is in the hypotheses of an American war against the ayatollahs. Pesnot: but what do they do with unpopularity of MKO because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein. Mr. X: I agree totally. But this idea really looks nice in the minds of White house authorities. The last word if I’m allowed. American Intelligence Services should be very suspicious to the information provided by Mujahidin since they sometimes get their information from another source. Pesnot: which source? Mr. X: the Israeli Mossad which has still a severe intelligence network in Iran. And therefore who is more interested than Israel in the intervention of the United States in Iran?
A few months ago, a British court called POAC tried to ask for deproscription of Rajavi’s cult from the terror list. The cult also used the opportunity to launch a lot of propaganda on that ruling and acted as if the ruling was executed and the cult is removed from the list.
While MKO was busy cheering for the ruling, British government didn’t recognize the ruling and the court took the complaint to higher authorities. This act of British government meant as MKO’s stay on the list of the country and disappearance of the cult’s happiness carnival.
A few weeks after the mentioned challenges, the cult went on publishing an article written by Lord Corbette, the chairman of Labour Party. In the article, Corbette accused the British government of appeasing Iranian government since it has refused the ruling of POAC court, asking Straw to apologize to the cult and to dismiss the cult’s illegality. Corbette supported Maryam Rajavi writing that” she struggles for women’s right and a secular government in Iran!”
Now, he needs to consider some points:
1. The honorable Lord Corbette! Why don’t you take a look at women of Camp Ashraf before talking about Maryam Rajavi and her women’s rights? Why don’t you investigate if there is any human doctrine or rhetoric in which women are kept away from their origin and
2. family? Is it a women’s right to be forced to do hard work becoming a stone hearted person?
3. We suggest that Lord Corbette looks for the conditions of the defectors of the cult who are wondering in Iraq or looking for refuge in European countries. Why don’t you listen to former supporters and later dissidents talking about the dictatorship ruling the cult?
4. If Jack Straw should apologize from the cult due to preventing the cult from the activities that lead to the destruction of the members, who should apologize those broken hearts due to wrong policies of Rajavis?
5. Dear Lord Corbette, if the stay of MKO cult on terror list is “ppeasing Iranian government “ who are you appeasing by supporting such a cult?
6. You cry on the bodies of your soldiers who voluntarily or by force attack the innocent people of another country but you consider these spies, traitors and Saddam’s cooperators in killing their own patriots as democratic fighters!? You give the medal of courage to the invaders but you support the enemy’s of their own soldiers?!
7. Dear Mr. Corbette, it’s a scandal for an honorable person like you to support terrorists who are not only hated by Iranians but also by the international community. But the Rajavi’s cult made a big mistake supposing that it can get rid of this cul-de-sac by the support of such people ( like Corbette) since it is nothing but politics and in the politics you are only a bargaining chip against your own nation.
It goes without saying that Rajavi resorted to armed struggle expecting the support of international and foreign powers. Rajavi’s visit to France in early 1981, where he was given a glad hand winning propaganda support and facilities for settlement, was followed with declaration of military phase. It is evident that all such activities on the part of France aimed at exploiting Mojahedin in order to make due political changes in Iran. According to some MKO ex-members (e.g. Lotfollah Meisami), Rajavi was well aware of global transitions and even before initiating the armed phase was willing to make use of leftist parties and USSR-oriented groups whenever necessary. In this regard, Meisami writes:
Rajavi knows that world is divided into the West and the East and for sure is aware of their reciprocal understanding due to his political awareness. When released from prison, he got a formula according to which he had to make the West and the East satisfied to assume power. On the one hand, he makes secret contacts with the Soviets Union to make them convinced to rely on Mojahedin rather than Tudeh party pretending to be the greatest opposition group in Iran, and on the other hand, invited Western-oriented groups and parties for dialogue and negotiation. In fact he had relations with both the U.S. and the USSR. (1)
As such, he tried to recruit some Liberal intelligentsia with capitalism tendency including Hedayatollah Matindaftari, Ali-Asqar Haj Seyyed Javadi, Manuchehr Hezarkhani, Abdolkarim Lahiji, Fereydun Gilani, and later on Jamshid Peyman, some SAVAK members and Moezzi, Shah’s private pilot. An interesting point is that after the annihilation of Socialism camp, Rajavi turned to Western-oriented liberals, some of whom are already in NCR, and Rajavi makes use of their international reputation for attracting the attention and gaining the legitimacy regarding his liberalist mottos. Another instance of such an opportunistic policy is the case of Sa’adatti and delivering the case of General Moqarrabi, former member of Tudeh party, to Russians which had great consequences on armed phase for the organization. In fact, all these actions might be justified under the pretext of the world being divided into two camps of capitalism and socialism with Mojahedin’s pretentious strategic tendency towards the latter at the time. As implicitly stated by Saeed Shahsavandi, MKO made efforts preferably in winning the supports of USSR to assume political power:
In fact the purpose of organization’s contact with the USSR is gaining facilities and being armed as an authorized group. (2)
However, these facts reveal the major policy of MKO regarding the strategic role of the either camps in achieving the political power. But soon after the fall of socialism, the organization made an immediate shift toward the opposite camp.
We are to emphasize the fact that Rajavi’s opportunistic orientation in winning the political power and support of influential figures in international relations as well as world powers has been one of his goals in which his success depended upon the political status of NCR, MKO and also Rajavi’s talent in convincing them of the possibility of overthrowing the Iranian regime with regard to the potentiality of Mojahedin. In fact, the organization recruited members from both leftist parties and liberals as a means for achieving its objectives in due time. The fact that West in general and Europeans in particular, in spite of being aware of the terrorist actions of Mojahedin, supported the organization implies their fostered hope in fulfillment of the promise by Mojahedin to overthrow the Iranian government.
The countries attitude, however, ceased once they realized that the second revolution was not at hand. For instance, the France government, as the main supporter of Mojahedin, changed its stance concerning Mojahedin. It has to be pointed out that Mojahedin’s freedom for political and propaganda activities in France exceeded the supposed rights of refugees in international conventions which resulted in quantitative and qualitative growth of the National Council of Resistance to posture as a liable main opposition. However, the NCR soon proved to be incapable of winning the slightest significant victory and its advocates resolved to look at it with a more realistic and cautious eye and began to withdraw their support. Referring to Mojahedin’s strategies and tactics in the Europe for winning propaganda support Antoine Gessler observes:
The People’s Mojahedin of Iran, as we have seen, are past masters in the manipulative arts. Like many far Left organisations, they know the gears that run the media. And they are very gifted at”smoke screening”reporters. (3)
Additionally, he refers to opportunistic, dualistic and pragmatist features of Mojahedin seeking legitimacy and attention of outsiders and writes:
In addition, the Mojahedin are superb lobbyists,”tracking”down political officials, deputies, senators, etc., to get a signature which is supposed to support the PMOI’s fight and provide recognition to it as the only legitimate opposition. (4)
Bijan Niyabati, a leftist member of NCR, illustrates such a condition affected by the illusionary promise of overthrow and says explicitly:
The strength of military strokes of Mojahedin against top Iranian officials spread the false picture of short-term overthrow of Iranian regime not only among Iranian political activists but also foreign parties. (5)
Therefore, the political supports given to Mojahedin and their militancy were replaced by a logical withdrawal and all those governments that had neglected illegal plots of Mojahedin in their countries, and in France in particular, in the hope of establishing relationship with the so-called alternative of the Iranian government had to limit the group’s freedom. Rajavi’s hopes dashed, he had to seek new approaches to strengthen inter-organizational constancy and adopt a defensive mechanism before reaching unavoidably consequent crises.
Niyabati acknowledges the fact that the pressure of foreign forces exerted on Mojahedin made them make some new decisions, change their external relations and internal structure. According to him, the main changes occurred in the geometrical form of internal structure of both MKO and NCR. Before the change, Mojahedin claimed to be the hegemonic lead of a united front of oppositions through a council leadership, but after being in disgrace with western supporters, they were forced to demonstrate their real anti-democratic nature which Rajavi and his sympathizers tried to conceal under a variety of theoretical justifications:
The sum of internal and international pressures and their political impacts on the National Council of Resistance, the strategic failure of armed struggle and its organizational impacts on MKO, the lack of public support in its real concept, and most important of all, an urging need to take advantage of the Iraqi soil followed by a shift from the strategy of micro to macro, which despite the Mojahedin’s claim to be promoting their previous strategy was an acknowledgement of the failure of their old strategy, necessitated MKO to turn into a full pyramidal organization that had to be absolutely ideological. (6)
As Niyabati justifies, the ideological revolution was, in some respect, an inevitable consequent of dwindled foreign supports and its impacts on MKO and NCR. France ventured to assist Mojahedin at a time when it had taken a hostile stance toward Iran and broadly contributed military and logistic aids to Saddam in his war against Iranian aiming at overthrowing the Iranian government. After a while and due to new circumstances, France had to make a revision in its policy toward Iran. Although Mojahedin had earlier made the grounds for moving to Iraq by inviting Tareq Aziz, then Vice Prime Minister to Saddam, but their destabilized conditions in France and the internal conflicts in NCR were the best justification for such a transfer. In a nutshell, their policy in moving to Iraq may be considered as a result of the loss of support of western governments and France in particular. Moreover, the initiation of the ideological revolution was a precautionary defensive measure aiming at controlling the forthcoming challenges.
References:
1. Meisami, L.; The moral decline of a Mojahed. Raah-e Mojahed journal, (32), 1985.
2. Saeed Shahsavandi interview with the voice of Iran. Part 50.
3. Antoine Gessler; Autopsy of an Ideological Drift, 163.
4. ibid.
5. Niyabati, B. A different look at the internal ideological revolution of Mojahedin. p.12.
6. ibid, p.20.
WAR against IRAN
No Comments
Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) has spared no efforts under the cult-like hegemony of the Rajavis and its innate hypocrisy to conduct a violent regime change in Iran and to destroy chances of rehabilitation of relations between Iran and some other Western countries. For instance, only eight days after the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) summary assured the world that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, MKO’s alias, NCRI, challenged against the report’s findings. No other Iranian opposition group has actively challenged the new NIE’s credibility. Following the organizational tendency of duplicity to escalate the tension whenever it grabs any opportunity, NCRI’s Washington spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, claimed that Iran’s nuclear program is managed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s (IRGC) scientists during a Fox News interview. That is what Rostam Pourzal, heading the U.S. branch of the Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, expands on in his article published in AlterNet. He believes that “NCRI’s scare campaign against Iran is an attempt to overcome its own infamy. The "Council" is a front group based in Paris for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (known also as MEK, MKO, or PMOI), according to the U.S. State Department, which bans both as a single terrorist organization. MEK’s pariah status makes it entirely dependent on the goodwill of the U.S. military, which has since the spring of 2003 sheltered its 3,500-plus fighters in northern Iraq after they disarmed”. The militia has for a quarter-century topped Tehran’s "most wanted" terrorist list and is now sought by Iraq’s government for atrocities it allegedly committed in Saddam’s service. It fled Iran in the mid 1980s and fought on the Iraqi side during the Iran-Iraq war, hoping to overthrow the young Islamic Republic. Its campaign to deepen Western distrust of Iran is motivated primarily by the real possibility that its key figures will face capital crimes charges in Iraq and Iran if a U.S. accommodation with Iran ends the militia’s utility to U.S. strategists as a bargaining chip. The latest sign of MEK’s vulnerability emerged December 16 when Iran asked that the next round of U.S.-Iran negotiations in Baghdad address MEK’s status.
Mojahedin.ws-December 28, 2007
Following Iran’s immediate reacted, declaring it invalid and illegal, to the UN Security Council vote to impose restrictions on Tehran if its uranium enrichment program did not halted immediately, BBC Radio, Five Live, on December 24 arranged a phone interview with Ali Safavi, a member of MKO. The interview aimed to obtain some first hand information, disappointed the reporter as Mr. Safavi had nothing to tell but unrelated answers to clear questions and the same old blathers.
For instance, when he was questioned “Where is the Tehran as far as the nuclear program is concerned? How far is Tehran in their enrichment program?”, he referred to the same previously stated claims concluding with an unrelated comment saying:
I would have to say that in order to meet the increasing threats posed by the Iranian regime not only with respect to its nuclear weapons program, but also its meddling in Iraq and its bellicose attitude to the rest of the Middle East, including in Lebanon, the ultimate solution is democratic change by the Iranian people and their organized resistance movement.
But the reporter’s immediate remark stating “That probably would be a bit of a journey before that is actually likely to happen” reminded him that the group’s “the ultimate solution” is something of the past. You might awake a sleeping man but impossible if one pretends.
mojahedin.ws – 26/12/2006
Unlike many excellent articles approved for postings at progressive Web sites, Julian Edney’s “The Libertarian Threat”, OpEdNews.com (June 27, 2006) is an example of how anyone can claim to be a progressive, libertarian, conservative, liberal, or any other political label. Obviously, progressives do not have a monopoly on brilliant political analyses. Hopefully, Julian Edney will write a sequel “The Progressive Threat”.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_julian_e_060627_the_libertarian_thre.htm
In 1944, George Orwell wrote a book review of Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and of K. Zilliacus’ The Mirror of the Past. Orwell noted that the important lesson to be learned from these authors from opposite ends of the political spectrum is that there is more than one road to slavery. Orwell, who fought for the communists in the Spanish Civil War, wrote Homage to Catalonia to explain how different political groups used lies in their pursuit of totalitarian power. Orwell left communist groups and regarded himself as a democratic socialist. However, Orwell understood that totalitarians can join and take over democratic socialist parties, too.
Professor Paul Sheldon Foote
California State University, Fullerton
pfoote@fullerton.edu
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/
July 2, 2006
_____________________________________________________________
Review:
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus
Taken together, these two books give grounds for dismay. The first of them is an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism, the other is an even more vehement denunciation of it. They cover to some extent the same ground, they frequently quote the same authorities, and they even start out with the same premise, since each of them assumes that Western civilization depends on the sanctity of the individual. Yet each writer is convinced that the other’s policy leads directly to slavery, and the alarming thing is that they may both be right….
Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
Both of these writers are aware of this, more or less; but since they can show no practicable way of bringing it about the combined effect of their books is a depressing one.
Observer, 9 April 1944
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/twobooks.html
___________________________________________________________
While Julian Edney noted briefly that true libertarians do not support neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) or objectivists, his article created the impression that libertarians are a threat. Does the threat include the libertarian left? Edney failed to name or to cite even one true libertarian. Edney failed to praise those on the libertarian right who have exposed and have opposed the totalitarian objectives of the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites).
The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) are not capitalists. They are supporters of Trotsky who aided President Reagan to seek to cause the collapse of the communist leaders who inherited the totalitarian state from Stalin. Irving Kristol did write Two Cheers for Capitalism. However, many of the neo-conservatives support the totalitarian takeover of countries, including of Iran by the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran). Apparently, the neo-conservatives are only anti-Stalin, not anti-communist or anti-totalitarian.
The neo-conservatives are not religious, unless you count worshiping at the altar of Machiavelli. See Michael Ledeen’s book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago. Of course, the chickenhawk neoconservative cowards have no objections to evangelical Christian soldiers marching off to war to achieve their ungodly goals.
Professor Claes Ryn, in his book America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire, classified the neoconservatives as similar to the Jacobins of the French Revolution (and counter to the values of the American Revolution). On page 145, Ryn noted the usage of “democratic capitalism” to have a meaning very different from capitalism. Does Julian Edney regard Communist China’s totalitarian model with some free market elements as communist or as capitalist?
Paul A. Lindahl has claimed to be both a neoconservative and a capitalist. However, he has rejected any suggestion that neoconservatives are Social Darwinists. http://www-tech.mit.edu/V105/N10/lindah.10o.html
Edney needs to support his Social Darwinism claim.
Edney noted correctly that the objectivists are not true libertarians. Ayn Rand was a philosopher, not an economist, whose vague writings can be used to support even totalitarians. For details of the philosophy of objectivism, see The Ayn Rand Institute’s Web site: http://www.aynrand.org/
Claiming to be a capitalist does not make one a capitalist: http://www.capitalism.org/ . How does capitalism lead by extension to “Israel is Moral”? http://www.israelismoral.com/
A good researcher would have found the writings of Murray Rothbard about the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and about the objectivists. Justin Raimondo’s book, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, would be a good starting point for Edney’s future research. He could continue by reviewing the large number of excellent articles by Justin Raimondo on the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and on the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) posted at http://www.antiwar.com/justin . Justin Raimondo is a former Libertarian Party and Republican Party candidate for public offices. Can anyone name even one progressive who has done more than Justin Raimondo to oppose the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites), the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran), and war?
Edney explained poorly also the divisions within the Libertarian Party. There is a big difference between libertarians (left and right) and Libertarian Party factions: http://www.lp.org/ Some members of the Libertarian Party believe that the only way to win elections is to copy the big tent approaches of the Democratic and Republican parties. Other members of the Libertarian Party believe the way to win elections is to be a party of principles.
Edney can attempt to explain how it is possible for both Carol Moore and Neal Boortz to attend Libertarian Party conventions together.
Carol Moore has been a tireless campaigner for peace. Her Web groups include those who are attempting to stop a war with Iran. She has demonstrated against the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists. http://www.carolmoore.net/
By contrast, Edney can research the positions of Neal Boortz on the Iraq War and on other issues. http://boortz.com/
In March 2006, I attended a stop war on Iran presentation in Los Angeles by Ardeshir Ommani, a Workers World Party activist (http://www.workers.org). Ommani quoted favorably only one member of Congress: Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican (and former Libertarian Party candidate for President). Ommani opposed the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran). While many who claim to be progressives support Democrats, who else on the left has been honest enough to admit that libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul is one of the very few members of Congress worth re-electing?
The more than 6,000 signers of the Stop War on Iran Statement include:
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Detroit Archdiocese*, Founding President, Pax Christi*
The Most Rev. Filipe C Teixeira, OFSJC, Diocesan Bishop, Diocese of Saint Francis of Assisi, CCA
Michael Parenti, author
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Howard Zinn, author, historian
George Galloway, MP, Britain
Tony Benn, MP, Britain
Denis J. Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General
Harold Pinter, 2005 Nobel Laureate in Literature
Margarita Papandreou, former First Lady of Greece
Ardeshir Ommani, co-founder of American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)
Ervand Abrahamian, Prof. ME History, Author, Between Two Revolutions
David N. Rahni, Professor and scholar, NY
David Sole, President UAW, Local 2334*, Detroit
Steve Gillis, President, USWA Local 8751*
Fellowship of Reconciliation, Nyack, NY
Thomas Koppel and Annisette, of the Scandinavian Popular Music Band Savage Rose
Paul Foote, Professor, California State University, Fullerton*, Fullerton, CA [Republican Party]
Carol Moore, webmaster, Stopthewarnow.org*, Washington, DC [Libertarian Party]
… and many progressive organizations.
Why is Julian Edney’s name missing from this list?
http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml
For an example of a progressive Web site, Edney needs to study:
American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)
http://www.progressiveportals.com/Default.aspx?alias=www.progressiveportals.com/aifc
By contrast, one of the leading supporters of the totalitarian takeover of Iran by the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) is Bob Filner, the son of a Communist Party candidate for Congress, a Democrat, and a member of the Progressive Caucus in Congress. Where are the real progressives condemning Bob Filner and the other false progressives?
Julian Edney is correct that John Perkins wrote an important book, The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. However, Edney is wrong about claiming that the greedy thieves are capitalists. Why did greedy Wall Street and European thieves give $5 million to Lenin to return to Russian and start a communist revolution? There are more detailed books by authors across the political spectrum on how the greedy thieves operate, such as:
1. Mark Hulbert’s Interlock: The untold story of American banks, oil interests, the Shah’s money, debts, and the astounding connections between them
2. James Perloff’s The Shadows of Power
3. Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope
4. Anthony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
5. Anthony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
Sixty years after the writings of George Orwell, it is unfortunate that so much ignorance and dishonesty remains in political discourse. Orwell was correct that there is more than one road to slavery. Some examples of failures across the political spectrum of persons to understand and to oppose totalitarians are:
1. How could many Republicans and Democrats be duped by the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites)?
2. Which real progressives have done as much as Lew Rockwell, on the libertarian right, (http://www.LewRockwell.com) in opposing totalitarians, including exposing the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) and the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) who support them?
3. Why are real progressives failing to condemn fake progressives and totalitarian Democrats such as Congressman Bob Filner?
____________________________________________________________
The Libertarian threat
by Julian Edney
June 27, 2006
http://www.opednews.com/
We are losing ground against a rhetorical assault.
The Libertarian star, hurled by the upward burst of American business which occurred in the Reagan era after the fall of the Berlin Wall, has risen. This global expansion over the last two decades is capitalism’s second Big Bang, and it still accelerates. Mercantile missionaries have been flying to remote and backward nations in Indonesia, Latin America and the Middle East to show them liberty, democracy and wealth. The message: business is the solution; as your nation gets richer, it will benefit everybody.
The actual sequence is floridly exposed by writers like John Perkins (1). Ostensibly we send bold venture capitalists traipsing from country to backwater country, nailing freedom into place and unfurling banners of abundance. In practice it takes money to get started. First, corporate reps fly in and propose to arrange gargantuan loans for improvements. The lenders include the World Bank, and the loans may be used partly to bribe local officials, but they come with many rules and conditions that the construction work be done by American contractors. It is big money and it is made clear to local politicians they will get a fabulous rakeoff. The paperwork is set. Next the contractors move in and install concrete ports, iron factories, fences, oil wells, roads, telephones and mines. The factories fill with local workers. The big money loans also come with big interest payments (always in American dollars.) If the loans are not paid off quickly (they never are – these improvements take time) they compound into mountainous obligation. This brings whole sectors of the nation under the control of the foreign lenders. This may be used to extort political changes. Obstructing local leaders may be removed.
The pattern is an old one. On a local scale it used to be called carpetbagging. After the American Civil War northern profiteers traveled south taking advantage of Southern chaos and loss, buying property and plantations from devastated landowners, hiring at starvation wages, getting rich, and leveraging themselves into political office, arguing that the employment they brought benefited all. They were hated as exploiters. A poster from the period shows the KKK threatening to lynch carpetbaggers.
Our international version has brought backward nations in Indonesia, Latin America and the Middle East phones, satellite TV, and clinics, while natural resources are taken under the lender’s rules. This was supposed to lead to local wealth but most of the money goes to pay off the contractors and the lenders.
On this side, reports seep back to American shareholders of indigenous people working twelve-hour shifts for five dollars a day in the new concrete sweatshops surrounded by barbed wire and having no standards and no labor laws; walled hells of exploitation – but cheap labor means bonanza profits. Some mansions appear on the hillside. But not everybody is lifted. Years later, there are acres of slums. Instead of gratitude come street demonstrations against Americans.
But challenge the working conditions and you get corporate table pounding: ‘Five dollars a day is much better than the dollar a day they made herding goats.’ And if you object that it doesn’t look like liberty for the workers – ‘but we saved them from communism.’ Perkins goes on to relate how corporate reps, poolside at shimmering hotels, talk about civilizing the savages, the way the colonial British talked a century ago.
Some very wealthy American politicians are entangled in these corporations. When these politicians are interviewed on talk shows or the evening news, it’s a familiar line: we bring freedom and economic opportunity to oppressed nations (if they sit on oil fields).
The better known of these politicians are called neocons, or new (born again) conservatives. The rhetoric they use is that a rise in corporate wealth – and their wealth – benefits all. They sometimes must struggle to make these small countries see sense, as well as liberal doubters at home. They must explain. This is where ideology comes in.
Neocon business ideology is smudged, a mix of market principles with a subtext of Social Darwinism, and more subtext conveyed in TV images, and that all this is prayed on in church; clumsy. So Libertarian principles are used.
The Libertarian Party was invented in 1971 and it has never won any national elections. Actually, true Libertarians are against expansionism. They do not want foreign wars. They hate wiretapping, domestic spying, police powers, and big government. At the Libertarian center is an anarchist’s desire for as little government as possible. New as it is, the Libertarian movement has a towering advantage: a crisp ideology.
Ultimately, policy is steered by ideas. So while neocons and their lobbyists guide huge money around, they must fall back on quoting an ideology that’s not quite theirs. So Libertarians get outsize respect.
Libertarian ideology is both powerful and backward-looking. It is expounded by older authorities like Ayn Rand (2) and new, and its principles may be found in a few quite readable books (3-5). It insists on maximizing personal freedom. It uses ancient concepts like natural law, and its goals are a reversion to the ‘natural state’ – simple communities based on the rightness of inequality, and natural selection among humans. It is not democratic. It does not deal with conscience, nor with justice, nor compassion; its single-minded focus is on liberty, and it embraces concepts like survival of the fittest. It claims Adam Smith’s principle of the ‘invisible hand,’ and it promotes concepts like laissez-faire that businessmen want to use.
Libertarianism is not to be confused with populism, because populism is egalitarian and focuses on the good of the common man. Libertarians avoid anything common; they talk about natural nobilities and elites.
Throw in Libertarians’ insistence that the ‘common good’ is a deception, throw in their exaggerated assertions of the total failure of socialism, throw in their insistence that taxation is theft – and businessmen are ready to do battle at high pitch.
No matter how they press us with this, and expect us to see sense, we never will. Adam Smith’s principles are over two hundred years old. Forcing it on global markets is perverse.
And this is my thesis: Libertarian ideology throws us in jeopardy.
First, their foundation is flawed. They present freedom as shining and obvious, a self-evident good. Actually she is an ambiguous woman, surrounded by a logjam of philosophy. Many, many crimes have been committed in her name.
Second, a point on the nature of democracy. The two basic values of democracy are freedom and equality. They are the wings on which this precious bird flies, and for flying they should be equal. But as de Tocqueville originally pointed out, the two values are in conflict. Especially in big societies, the more freedom, the less equality. It’s like water in a U-shaped tube: as freedom increases on one side, equality drops. But as the equality side goes down, so do things that adhere to it: equity, equal treatment, justice.
Water always seeks its own level. If the Libertarians persist in artificially raising one side, nature will eventually reassert. Sensing this, some Libertarians propose a radical method to preserve this arrangement. Hans-Herman Hoppe demands we dismantle democracy – like dismantling the whole U-shaped tube – and reinstall ancient natural nobilities (6). This is an atavistic proposal. Hoppe (called an "international treasure" by Lew Rockwell) actually states the Constitution was an error (7) – and Ayn Rand was not far behind.
Third, a newly discovered hazard of social inequality.
There is new evidence, collected in the health sciences and published in medical journals, showing hierarchy is a killer. Simply: social inequality (aside from poverty) hurts people’s health and shortens their lives. These are based on correlations in states, countries, and cities: wherever there is marked social inequality, violence is up, health is down, infant mortality is up, and life expectancy is shorter – and this affects all levels within the community. These scientific findings, published over the last ten years in both the United States and Britain, are powerful and clear. They show egalitarian societies are simply healthier (8-10).
So the expansion of free markets under Libertarian principles cannot benefit everybody. A few people get exponentially rich, but at the same time we are exporting threats to both health and justice. If there were truth-in-lending packages attached to these foreign loans, they should include photos of our own skid rows, and statistics on American hunger.
Some of America’s political rights are formulated as freedoms – of speech, of assembly. Another is to select who will govern. By derivation, another – through elections, a slow process – is to select the shape of our society. We should protect this if we are to care for our health.
The Libertarians are up to no good.
And I am not proposing a coercive new program, nor a new political machinery, nor an end to business, nor new social engineering.
I am suggesting we let water find its own level.
Notes
1. Perkins, J. Confessions of an economic hit man. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, 2004.
2. Rand, A. Capitalism: the unknown ideal. New York: Signet Books, 1946.
3. Murray, C. What it means to be a Libertarian. New York: Broadway Books, 1997.
4. Boaz, D. Libertarianism: A primer. New York: The Free Press, 1997.
5. Hoppe, H. H. Democracy, the god that failed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2004.
6. Hoppe, H.H. "Down with Democracy" retrieved at http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe12.html
7. Hoppe, H.H. Democracy, the god that failed. p. 279.
8. Wilkinson, R. The impact of inequality: how to make sick societies healthier. New York: The New Press, 2005.
9. Kawachi, I., B.P. Kennedy and R.C.Wilkinson, The society and population health reader. New York: The New Press, 1999.
10. Sapolsky, R. "Sick of poverty." Scientific American, 2005, 293, 92-99.
Author Julian Edney can be contacted from his website.
http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm
Author: Julian Edney teaches college in Los Angeles. His book Greed: A treatise expands on these themes. He can be contacted through his website.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_julian_e_060627_the_libertarian_thre.htm
Dick Cheney and MEK leaders
Based on the finding that the proscribed Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) has ceased its military and terrorist operations since June 2001, the UK POAC ruled de-proscription of the group. The court puts emphasis on the proof that “There is no evidence relied on by the Respondent that the PMOI has at any stage subsequently sought to obtain weapons of any type or undertaken any type of military operations, military training of personnel or recruitment of individuals for potential military operations”. That is a good idea if a terrorist group has decided to renounce terrorism and dissolve military units. But MKO’s aired TV programs, especially following the court’s judgment, are in absolute contradiction with its claims. MKO’s TV network is repetitively broadcasting clips from its military operations, manoeuvres and marches in which women’s presence seems to have greater significance. Even the music concerts are performed in a militaristic atmosphere with choir and singers in military uniforms. Do these programs broadcasted by the official TV network of a proscribed organization corroborate its claims of abandoning terrorism and militarism? These pictures and clips well indicate that claims and words can never be trusted unless proved by action.