Brown Lloyd James: Lobbying for Backers of a Terrorist Group Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult)
Brown Lloyd James: Lobbying for Backers of a Terrorist Group Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult)
... Brown Lloyd James, a US-British company that specializes in government relations (i.e., lobbying), advertising, and "reputation management," handles the accounts of Al Jazeera English, the government of Qatar, Forbes, and even the composer Andrew Lloyd Webber. But some of its clients are decidedly less savory. In fact, helping MEK supporters isn't necessarily the most controversial thing Brown Lloyd James has done recently: This year, the firm made news for doing business with the Qaddafi regime in Libya and the Assad dictatorship in Syria—in the latter case, $5,000-per-month work that included landing a fawning Vogue profile of Syrian ...
The international PR firm that repped Libya's Moammar Qaddafi and Syria's Bashar al-Assad takes on a new controversial client: supporters of the Iranian opposition outfit Mujahideen-e-Khalq.
Over the years, the Iranian opposition group and State Department-listed terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) has won a bizarro patchwork of high-profile supporters. John Bolton, Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), big-time Republican lawyers Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, Tom Ridge, Howard Dean, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel have all called on the US government to stop treating the MEK, also known as The People's Mujahideen of Iran, as a terrorist group. This obscure Paris-based outfit—labeled a cult by its critics—that has assembled such an impressive roster of backers now also has the help of Brown Lloyd James, a major international PR firm with a track record of taking on controversial clients.
In late August, hundreds of MEK supporters descended on Washington, protesting the group's foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) listing in front of the State Department with attendees yelling slogans like "We want justice, we want peace, we want MEK off the list!" Speakers including former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and ex-Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell held forth on why they believe the group is the best hope for secular democracy and human rights in Iran. (The MEK's FTO status is currently being considered by a court-mandated review.)
The well-organized event and high-profile speakers indicated the kind of large-scale, well-funded MEK lobbying enterprise that has been suggested by various media outlets. Jila Kazerounian, one of the rally's press liaisons, was quick to quash that notion. "There is no MEK lobby, that you read about in these articles," she said. "The closest thing we have to a lobby is the money from grassroots supporters; these Iranian Americans—educated, doctors, businessmen, lawyers, young, old." Nevertheless, in the thick of the crowd was a Brown Lloyd James account executive who told me he was taking notes on the rally for his superiors in Manhattan.
In May 2011, the firm was hired by a Germany-based MEK backer named Ali Taslimi working on behalf of Camp Ashraf, a refugee camp in Iraq north of Baghdad that houses over 3,000 Iranian MEK members and supporters. For an initial fee of $40,000, Brown Lloyd James signed on to provide political consulting services and "a broad range of public relations services for the months of May and June 2011" to Camp Ashraf, which is officially listed as the client.
Brown Lloyd James, a US-British company that specializes in government relations (i.e., lobbying), advertising, and "reputation management," handles the accounts of Al Jazeera English, the government of Qatar, Forbes, and even the composer Andrew Lloyd Webber. But some of its clients are decidedly less savory. In fact, helping MEK supporters isn't necessarily the most controversial thing Brown Lloyd James has done recently: This year, the firm made news for doing business with the Qaddafi regime in Libya and the Assad dictatorship in Syria—in the latter case, $5,000-per-month work that included landing a fawning Vogue profile of Syrian first lady Asma al-Assad. In an ironic twist, Brown Lloyd James was hired to publicize a September 23 New York bash held by the Logo for Human Rights project, a competition endorsed by Mikhail Gorbachev that aimed to crowdsource a fresh logo that would "become as iconic as the peace sign and serve to advance the global spread…of human rights." (After the news broke, which highlighted the firm's work for clients with dubious human rights records, the project said that it would sever its ties with the firm.)
But while the company is obviously no stranger to controversy, lobbying for delisting the MEK presents uniquely tricky legal issues—particularly when it comes to the material support for terrorism statute, which prohibits providing aid or resources to designated terrorist organizations. Brown Lloyd James maintains that it works with supporters of the MEK, not the group itself. However, experts on counterterrorism law say the firm's MEK advocacy may still be problematic.
"Whether the MEK should or should not be listed is one thing, but the law is very clear that third parties and intermediaries don't insulate you," says David Cole, a professor of law at Georgetown University. "Think about how the United States would respond if [American] citizens were actively working with a PR organization to support the legitimacy of Hamas in Gaza? Here, the only thing protecting the people involved is that they include the former homeland security secretary, not the kind of people the government wants to prosecute…If circumstances were different, they would be scrambling for a good criminal defense…And the same goes for any public relations firm."
The language of the material support statute is broad enough to encompass the activity of a PR firm, according to Robert Chesney, a professor and international security expert at the University of Texas School of Law. However, Chesney recognizes that a First Amendment defense might have some traction. "There is a free speech issue here, as we are talking about advocating changes to government policy and that is protected if you are doing it independent of the listed group, even if it aids the group indirectly," Chesney says. "At the end of the day, if I were a lawyer advising a PR firm, I would say you have to be very clear as to who you're dealing with here. As a firm doing this kind of work, you have to know that how the facts appear to you might not be how they appear to those pursuing prosecution."
Brown Lloyd James denies that it's in murky legal terrain. "Iranian-American communities are perfectly within their rights to work with anyone they want," Mike Holtzman, a partner in the firm's New York office, said in an email. "They are exercising their First Amendment rights."
Though the MEK has built up a powerful base of political support in the West, there is still much debate surrounding the group's true nature. The MEK and their supporters say the group is the oppressed, Western-friendly, and pluralistic antidote to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic republic. But there's more to the story. Since its founding in Tehran in the mid-1960s, the group, which began as a synthesis of Islamic principles, left-wing politics, and violent resistance to the Shah, has been accused of grave breaches of human rights, indiscriminate mass slaughter (including the deaths of three Americans in 1976), and a totalitarian, hero-worshipping culture.
Critics claim that the MEK's zigzagging alliances—initially supporting the clerics in the 1979 revolution, then challenging their power, then fighting on the side of Iraq throughout the brutal Iran-Iraq War—have made the group unpopular among Iranians, even those who abhor the current regime. Many also allege that MEK fighters—including current leader Maryam Rajavi herself—were part of a death squad that did Saddam Hussein's bidding during the 1991 Shiite and Kurdish uprisings.
The group's supporters brush off the negative press as rooted in the propaganda machines of the Shah, and later the Ayatollah, and view the continuation of the MEK's 1997 Foreign Terrorist Organizations listing as a cynical, naive sop by the Obama administration to the Iranian government. "Some members of the media have bought all that propaganda wholesale," Ali Safavi, president of Near East Policy Research and an organizer behind the well-publicized State Department rally, said. "The Iranian regime has taken a page right out of Joseph Goebbels' book. [The regime has] spent millions upon millions of dollars in their campaign against the MEK."
Meanwhile, though, vast sums of money have reportedly been paid out to speakers at pro-MEK events. Among the recipients is Howard Dean, who has written in support of the organization and has been a paid speaker at MEK-related events since January 2011. He says that he was hired via the New York-based Harry Walker Agency to appear at events "sponsored by groups in the Iranian American community, not the MEK." MEK supporters and event organizers stress that their advocacy is bankrolled by the "Iranian American community." But what remains a mystery is exactly where the funding that fuels these costly MEK lobbying operations comes from, or what central entity, if any, coordinates the effort.
Brown Lloyd James declined to discuss its pro-MEK work or the firm's relationship with supporters and activists, though Holtzman did offer to field questions on "the humanitarian outrages taking place against the people in Camp Ashraf." Just the same, Holtzman's firm has a decidedly nuanced view when it comes to the MEK's primary oppressor. Peter Brown, the president of Brown Lloyd James, told the FinancialTimes in late August that he would "love to take on Iran as a client" because "there are areas of commonality that ought to be exploited."
Asawin Suebsaeng is an editorial intern at the Washington, DC bureau of Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter. Email tips and insights to asuebsaeng [at] motherjones [dot] com.
Kaleme: Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK); The symbol of Treason, Violence and Terror in Iran
(Support for MEK a reminder of anti-Iranian policies)
... In the modern history of Iran, there is no organization, no party and no cult more infamous than the MEK amongst the Iranian nation. The Iranian people are yet to forget how their beloved children were terrorized and martyred in the worst ways possible. And, thousands of family members and children of those murdered are still alive and witnesses to these crimes. The Iranian nation does not forget how this organization, along with Saddam Hussein, craved for the lives and honor of Iranians and assisted him in the suppression and massacre of the people of Iran and Iraq. Iranians are proud of the years they stood against the MEK and Saddam and ...
I am saying, as someone who cares, the MEK with betrayals and crimes committed are considered dead. You, [the leaders of the government] don’t bring them back to life for the sake of scoring points and taking revenge.” – Mir Hossein Mousavi, Statement no.17
In the modern history of Iran, there is no organization, no party and no cult more infamous than the MEK amongst the Iranian nation. The Iranian people are yet to forget how their beloved children were terrorized and martyred in the worst ways possible. And, thousands of family members and children of those murdered are still alive and witnesses to these crimes. The Iranian nation does not forget how this organization, along with Saddam Hussein, craved for the lives and honor of Iranians and assisted him in the suppression and massacre of the people of Iran and Iraq. Iranians are proud of the years they stood against the MEK and Saddam and on any opportunity possible they praise the hundred thousand martyrs of the Iraq-Iran war. Iranian people know very well that this organization used unlawful and illegal sources, which initially belonged to the Iranian and Iraqi people. They are well aware that the MEK owes its remaining financial power and its limited existence to the support which Saddam Hussein provided them during the war against our country.
Mojahedin-e Khalq is the symbol of “violence and terror” in Iran and the slightest mention of this word [MEK] and the remembrance of this organization is needed to remind the Iranian audience of the violence, terror, and treason they caused. As long as the groundwork of this organization is cult-like behavior, the only solution for them is to submit to foreigners in order to stab its own people in the back. Any country that supports this organization defames itself among the Iranian people and remains infamous for defending violence and betrayal.
Leaders who are deceived into supporting the MEK are only making the wall of mistrust between the nations taller and are bringing back to life the bitter memories of anti-Iranian policies, such as 1953 coup.
Mojahedin-e Khalq are outcasts of the Iranian people; even before being the outcast of the government. To invigorate the ominous name of the MEK is only the wish of sinister enemies of democracy and rule of the people in Iran. Seekers of violence whether by MEK’s side or against them would be happy to see them empowered since violence creates violence.
The presence of this terrorist group in any part of the world could become an excuse for those in power in Iran to have unlawful confrontations with critics and protesters. They [those in power] would be the only group welcoming the official presence, even if they pretend to be their enemies.
Mojahedin-e Khalq is the symbol of violence, animosity, submission, and reliance on foreign powers. Thus, the organization is illegal and is the reminder of the most bitter of betrayals. Today, Iranian people who have become the example for nonviolent resistance, anti-dictatorship and independence for other countries, do not accept “violence and submission” and do not look kindly on the support of any government that relies on violence and submission.
In supporting the great Green Movement, we continue to consider Mojahedin-e Khalq hypocrites who “with betrayals and crimes committed are considered dead.” And we repeat Mir Hossein Mousavi’s warning by saying “No nation should bring them back to life for the sake of rewards and if they do so, they will remain infamous in the memory of the Iranian people
New U.S. approach to Mojahedin-e Khalq (MKO, MEK) in Camp Ashraf overlooks the victims’ human rights
... The problem is not the name of Camp Ashraf or the name MEK. The Rajavi’s cannot simply re-name, re-brand or even relocate their group for political expediency and expect the ‘members’ to continue as their slaves. To solve this problem (before the question of whether they want to work for or against anyone) the residents must be given access to the outside world, to their families, to media, communications, get paid for their work and have access to the post office, cinema, marriage registry, birth registry, police station, legal aid, courts and legal bodies of the country they are living in etc. Nine years after the fall of Saddam ...
Attitudes are slowly crystallising and shifting over what should be done about the MEK, with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey introducing a new and positive approach in U.S. dealings with the group in Iraq. But the July 4 Miami Herald article ‘Iranian dissidents in Iraq want refuge in 3rd country’ , also highlights the danger that various elements are still trying to derive their own benefits from the MEK even though the demise of Camp Ashraf has become inevitable. Of course you would need to ask those involved what they each hope to get out of such a defunct group.
Ambassador James Jeffrey, addressing only MEK leaders, has urged them to “‘dissolve’ their paramilitary organization and become refugees someplace else in Iraq”. In its turn the MEK itself has already threatened tomassacre its own membersif any external body interferes in the camp. Jeffrey added that the group "really believe that the U.N. and the United States will protect them forever." Well, they have good reason to believe that to be so.
Trita Parsi’s timely article Washington's Favorite Terroristsexposed U.S. hypocrisy in dealing with the MEK in Washington. But we may very well see a similar level of support continuing in Iraq. The obvious way this would manifest would be for the MEK to be taken (en masse) inside a U.S. military base and held there until further notice. This would protect the group from Iraqi attempts to expel them from the country, and also obviate the need for the U.N. to enter Camp Ashraf and rescue the individual residents from their enforced imprisonment by the MEK leadership.
The wholesale transfer of the residents of Camp Ashraf would truly be a human rights disaster. The sooner it is acknowledged that Rajavi is nobody’s representative but his own, the sooner the victims of the MEK will be helped.
From the hardliners in Iran who want to keep their dangerous foreign backed enemy, to the neoconservatives in the U.S. who want to keep the hatred between Iran and the west (as the neocon version of Holocaust denial, the fact that the MEK has killed so many Iranians is what feeds this hatred), to Iraqi internal factions which want to use the MEK for attacking other factions, to Europeans who still believe the MEK are a useful bargaining chip with Iran or can be used to influence the internal affairs of Iraq. All these have an interest in keeping the MEK intact. None wants the dissolution of the camp or the organisation. They all want to stop the camp being disbanded because they are using the MEK for their own various agendas.
The problem is that without taking the necessary action to access the individual residents of the camp they are essentially being left in the ownership of the Rajavis and their backers. In this respect where are the human rights organisations which should be directly involved in helping these victims? What attempts have the U.N. made to actually get inside the camp and have free access to the residents? Human Rights Watch published its ‘No Exit’ report in 2005 which was laudable, but what have they done since then? Amnesty International still prefers to think of the MEK as an entity and ignore the existence of the individuals in the camp. What has AI said about the internal problems of the residents; the daily violations and abuses of their basic human rights?
The problem is not the name of Camp Ashraf or the name MEK. The Rajavi’s cannot simply re-name, re-brand or even relocate their group for political expediency and expect the ‘members’ to continue as their slaves. To solve this problem (before the question of whether they want to work for or against anyone) the residents must be given access to the outside world, to their families, to media, communications, get paid for their work and have access to the post office, cinema, marriage registry, birth registry, police station, legal aid, courts and legal bodies of the country they are living in etc.
Nine years after the fall of Saddam and the disappearance of the cult leader it is not acceptable for a U.S. official to simply try to move the group from one part of the world to the other part without the slightest concern about the human rights of the captives there.
"Supporting Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, NCRI ,Rajavi cult), kiss of death for Green Movement"
... First and foremost among such groups is Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an organization that has been designated by the U.S. government as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). But despite its obvious threat to global security, the MEK could be taken off the State Department's Terror List within the next week. If this happens, it promises to spell disaster for the pro-democracy movement in Iran, and will be a devastating setback in the country's attempts to move forward... It is highly unlikely that other U.S.-designated FTOs, such as al-Qaida, would enjoy this astonishing degree of latitude in the corridors of the U.S. military, and within its executive and legislative branches ...
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Right: supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi listen to his speech at a demonstration in Tehran on Thursday June, 18, 2009
(Mohsen Kadivar, left and Ahmad Sadri, right)
As Tunisians and Egyptians work through their respective political transitions, the Iranian government increasingly detaches itself from the realities of its restive population. The longer it resists meeting public demands, the shorter its lifespan becomes.
At the same time, within the Iranian Diaspora, some have sought to usurp leadership of Iran's indigenous pro-democracy movement. This has alarmed the leaders of the Green Movement in Iran. Mir Hossein Mousavi warned against "international surfers" seeking to wield their own axe in the furnace of the Green movement in his last communiqué that was issued before he was put under house arrest on Feb. 29.
First and foremost among such groups is Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an organization that has been designated by the U.S. government as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). But despite its obvious threat to global security, the MEK could be taken off the State Department's Terror List within the next week. If this happens, it promises to spell disaster for the pro-democracy movement in Iran, and will be a devastating setback in the country's attempts to move forward.
The MEK has no political base inside Iran and no genuine support on the Iranian street because it was long based in Iraq under Saddam Hussein's patronage. It lost any semblance of credibility it might have had inside Iran due to its opposition to the Shah's regime when its troops fought on behalf of Iraq toward the end of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Hence, it would behoove U.S. policymakers to be skeptical of the boasts of MEK lobbyists regarding the extent of this group's popularity inside Iran.
Since Saddam Hussein's ouster in 2003, the MEK has been depending almost entirely on the uneven enforcement of existing U.S. laws concerning designated foreign terrorist organizations. Surprisingly, the MEK military compound in Iraq enjoys de-facto "protected persons" status, and its activities at the U.S. congress have long been unchecked. It is highly unlikely that other U.S.-designated FTOs, such as al-Qaida, would enjoy this astonishing degree of latitude in the corridors of the U.S. military, and within its executive and legislative branches.
Countless first-rate analysts, scholars and human rights organizations -- including Human Rights Watch -- have determined that the MEK is an undemocratic, cultlike organization whose modus operandi vitiates its claim to be a vehicle for democratic change.
Most importantly, MEK activities in Washington could be causing irreparable damage to Iran's home-grown opposition. When post-election turbulence commenced inside Iran, the MEK quickly sought to join the frenzy of brewing opposition to the current government. The Ahmadinejad government promptly connected the Green Movement to the MEK in an effort to discredit the pro-democracy movement. Opposition leaders such as Mir Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard and Mehdi Karrubi immediately pushed back. Rahnavard pointedly said, "the Green Movement is a people's movement that is alive and dynamic and holds a wall between itself and the MEK." Opposition leaders in Iran have good reason to erect and maintain such a wall. They see the MEK as an organization capitalizing on U.S.-Iran enmity to shed its terrorist designation and subsequently receive U.S. government funding -- effectively becoming the Iranian version of Ahmed Chalabi's infamous Iraqi National Congress.
As Washington policymakers seek new ways to pressure their counterparts in Tehran to yield on nuclear developments, they must refrain from actions that would harm the long-term prospects of trust and friendship between the two peoples.
Removing the MEK from the FTO at this juncture would embolden Iran's hardliners to intensify their repression and discredit the Green Movement by implying that it is somehow connected to the widely detested MEK terror group. Furthermore, supporting the MEK would provide the Iranian government with the specter of a foreign-based threat that could be exploited to heal key fractures within the system, increase the number of Iranians who would rally around the flag, and facilitate the suppression of the indigenous political opposition.
For all of its mistakes in the Middle East, the Bush administration -- even at the height of its aggressive foreign policy -- understood that delisting the MEK from the State Department's terrorist list would be a dangerous gambit. It would trigger a huge loss of U.S. soft power in Iran, damage Iran's democratic progress and help Iranian hardliners cement a long-term dictatorship. The Iranian people won't forgive or forget such cynical moves. Bitter memories associated with U.S. policies toward the Shah and Mohammad Mossadegh, the prime minister overthrown with covert American assistance in 1953, continue to linger and poison U.S.-Iran relations to this day. We urge the U.S. government to avoid committing this critical mistake at a time when the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people hang in the balance.
Mohsen Kadivar, a leading figure in the Green Movement, is visiting professor of religion at Duke University. Ahmad Sadri is professor of sociology and James P. Gorter chair of Islamic world studies at Lake Forest College.
... Iran-Interlink representative Anne Singleton travelled to Iraq mid April at the invitation of the Baghdad based human rights NGO Baladiyeh Foundation, officials of the Government of Iraq and other NGOs involved in the Camp Ashraf problem. The Baladiyeh Foundation, headed by Mrs Ahlam al-Maliki, provides humanitarian assistance to a wide range of deprived sectors of Iraqi society arising directly from the invasion and occupation of Iraq by allied forces in 2003. Baladiyeh Foundation is concerned by the humanitarian crisis at Camp Ashraf caused by the group’s leaders who are refusing to allow access to human rights organisations to verify the wellbeing of all of the camp’s residents ...
It makes sense for the US to take Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) off its terrorist list
It is no wonder that the savage Mojahedin Khalq is despised in both the US and Iran, but delisting it now looks like the right move
... Opponents of delisting rightly remind us that the MEK has been involved in acts of violence against Americans, Iranians and even its own members, and that the group is a cult-like and anti-democratic force. Founding members of the MEK murdered several Americans in Iran in the 1970s, and the group actively supported taking Americans hostage in Tehran in 1980. The MEK supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in 1980. That war, in which Iraq also used chemical weapons, left some 500,000 Iranians dead and maimed, destroyed about 120 Iranian cities and towns, and ...
The US state department is considering whether to remove Iranian opposition movement Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) from its terrorist list. The MEK has already been taken off the EU's terrorist list, and in the US the group is generally treated as if it were not listed.
Opponents of delisting rightly remind us that the MEK has been involved in acts of violence against Americans, Iranians and even its own members, and that the group is a cult-like and anti-democratic force. Founding members of the MEK murdered several Americans in Iran in the 1970s, and the group actively supported taking Americans hostage in Tehran in 1980.
The MEK supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in 1980. That war, in which Iraq also used chemical weapons, left some 500,000 Iranians dead and maimed, destroyed about 120 Iranian cities and towns, and caused close to $120bn in economic damage. The MEK also helped Saddam suppress the Kurdish rebellion in 1991 following the first US war with Iraq.
It is no wonder that the MEK is despised in both the US and Iran. It is a terrorist group to the Americans, a monafegh ("hypocritically Muslim") group to the Islamic Republic, and a khaen ("traitor") group to most Iranians. Former members of the MEK have charged that it forbids internal democracy and treats members critical of the group's activities quite savagely.
While the MEK is building support among western officials, it is still censured by most Iranians. This was not the case in its formative years in the 1970s when the guerilla group was considered heroic by young Iranians challenging the dictatorship of the shah and American domination. The original MEK included Islamists and Marxists; before long they split violently and the Islamists took over.
The MEK's conversion from a loyalist to a traitor group began in 1979 when it parted with the Islamic Republic, murdered state officials – including a president and a prime minister – and joined Saddam. Ever since those early blows, a tragically vicious cycle of violence has continued between the Islamic Republic and the MEK, resulting in several thousand deaths.
Opponents of delisting believe the group may never become democratic or even pragmatic. However, it is ridiculous to assert, as many of them do, that removing the MEK from the US terrorist list will strengthen the Islamic regime, demoralise Iranian reformers, threaten the freedom of Iranian-Americans and give the MEK the power to impose a US war on Iran.
Delisting the MEK might even be a step in the right direction. As far as the Iranian people are concerned, the MEK has long been a source of extremism, violence and fear but delisting could have a moderating effect. A delisted MEK will have to transform itself from a paramilitary into a political group. If this were to happen, the Iranians would be relieved.
By delisting the MEK the US will lose a useless bogeyman, but gain a redundant anti-Iran propaganda machine. This will not result in a better policy towards Iran unless the delisted MEK is put on a tight leash. This must begin by demilitarising the MEK, which will help to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Camp Ashraf in Iraq where some 3,400 people reside, including children.
Given the MEK's dreadful human rights record and US support for human rights in Iran, delisting could make the US look hypocritical but in combination with other steps it could also advance US-Iran relations.
To achieve that, the US would also have to renounce regime change and the use of force, while incrementally lifting sanctions and easing Iran's security concerns. In return, Iran must gradually address American/IAEA's nuclear concerns. The ball is in the US court of goodwill.
RT: Lobbyist in Capital Hill with pockets stuffed with MEK’s money
(aka; Mojahedin Khalq, MKO, Rajavi cult)
... The Alyona Show on RT – Russian English –Language news Channel suggests the US media focus on the “Lobbyist in Capital Hill with pockets stuffed with MEK’s money”, on July 9th. The show criticizes US officials’ hypocrisy and double-standard sell the cause of terrorists. Comparing MEK with Al-Qaida the show poses the question that how a terrorist designated organization can be debated in a hearing held in the US congress ...
The Alyona Show on RT – Russian English –Language news Channel suggests the US media focus on the “Lobbyist in Capital Hill with pockets stuffed with MEK’s money”, on July 9th. The show criticizes US officials’ hypocrisy and double-standard sell the cause of terrorists. Comparing MEK with Al-Qaida the show poses the question that how a terrorist designated organization can be debated in a hearing held in the US congress.
Wondering at those Americans who stand under the flag of Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, NCRI, Rajavi cult) only to LOBBY for the murderers of their servicemen
... Massoud Rajavi was on the stage and while he had his hands on his waist he began a war cry against the USA, and in his admiration for Osama Ben Laden and his organization, Al Qaeda, he said, ”This was fanatical Islam which trembled and shacked the basis of US Imperialism and they destroyed the twin towers which were the symbol of their power, and successfully reduced it to rubble through their successful mission”. Then he (Massoud Rajavi) with a smile on his face continued his war cry and said, ”What will happen to the USA if revolutionary Islam with our Ideology and Maryam’s leadership comes to power, then this paper tiger (the USA) will be destroyed as a whole.” ...
This documentary takes us beneath the surface of acts of terror against Iran and shows how Iranians have been targeted by various terrorist groups, some of which enjoying the support of human right organizations.