Iran exile group MEK (Mojahedin Khalq, MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) seeks US terror de-listing
... many blame the leadership of the MEK for the predicament facing the residents of Camp Ashraf. In 2005 a Human Rights Watch Report reported that 70% of Ashraf residents were held there against their will, and accused the MEK of torturing its own members. Ali Safavi, a member of the political wing of the MEK, has admitted to the BBC that all the members in the camp have ended their marriages and are staying celibate.Opponents of the MEK warn of the possible fallout if the group is de-listed.Iran's "Green" opposition figures in the US see the possible de-listing as a propaganda gift to the Iranian regime ...
Bahman Kalbasi, BBC, September 25 2011
Despite the release from a Tehran prison of two jailed American hikers, there remain very few issues on which the US and Iran agree.
One is the decision to label the controversial Iranian exile group, Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), as a terrorist organisation.
Following a court order, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now considering whether the group should be removed from the banned list.
Those backing the MEK are staging a very expensive campaign to call for the group to be removed - a move that would enable the MEK itself officially to lobby Congress.
The group's long list of detractors - and many Iran experts - warn against removing them from the terrorist list.
In a 2009 report, Rand, a non-profit Washington think-tank, called the group a "cult" and "skilled manipulators of public opinion".
Based inside Iraq, at a camp called Ashraf, north of Baghdad, the MEK has been on the US list of banned foreign terrorist organisations (FTO) since 1997.
The group carried out many attacks inside Iran after the 1979 revolution, and allied itself with Saddam Hussein's Iraq against Tehran's clerical rulers during the 1980s.
In recent months, though, a series of heavyweight political and military figures in the US have spoken out in favour of the MEK, calling explicitly for the group to be taken off the list of banned organisations.
They include high-profile former US government officials, politicians and retired military officers, often hired to speak for fees beginning at $20,000 a time.
The sources of funding for the pro-MEK campaign remain unclear, although paying former officials for public advocacy is commonplace in the US.
However, one US government official told the BBC that the MEK "trawls the halls of Congress" for support, something he described as "highly unusual" for a banned organisation.
'No terror evidence'
MEK supporters operate through dozens of groups, some of which have placed costly full-page advertisements in The New York Times and Washington Post, and hired powerful Washington DC lobbying firms.
A spokesman for one firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, denied that the company represented the MEK, but said it does lobby on behalf of a group called the Iranian-American Community of Northern California.
The spokesman described the group as "an independent US citizen's group that advocates for a democratic Iran."
But the group is the organiser of at least two events in support of the MEK and its website is focused on the de-listing campaign.
Ahmad Moein, a member of the group, recently told the Financial Times there was no justification for keeping the group on the banned list. He said the MEK was seeking a "democratic, secular, non-nuclear" Iran and "has halted all military activity since 2001".
Among those who have spoken out in favour of the MEK include former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former UN ambassador John Bolton and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
“Start Quote Everyone is free to debate whether MEK should or should not come off the list, but as we speak they are still on the terrorist list”End Quote Elliot Abrams Former White House adviser
Gen James Jones, President Obama's first National Security Adviser and former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani have also called for the MEK to be de-listed.
Howard Dean, a former Democratic presidential hopeful, has gone further, calling on the US government to recognise Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the group, as the legitimate president of Iran.
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Mukasey defended his position, saying there was "no evidence of [the MEK] being involved in any terrorist activity in the last 10 years".
Mr Bolton took a similar line, describing the decision to keep the MEK on the banned list as "a political act" and saying that taking payment for speaking was absolutely normal in the US.
"They should come off the list because when I was in the government, I saw no information that showed they are a terrorist organisation."
'Held against their will'
However, not everyone in Washington is as relaxed about the MEK's lobbying.
Elliot Abrams, an adviser to the White House under former President George W Bush, was also invited to speak at an MEK event, but chose not to attend.
"Everyone is free to debate whether MEK should or should not come off the list, but as we speak they are still on the terrorist list. So frankly, taking money from them to speak in support is worrying," he told the BBC
Reza Marashi, a former state department official, told the BBC he doubted that the group had any support within the US government.
"There is ample classified information that shows the group remains a terrorist organisation. De-listing them would signal that the US does not have a consistent policy towards terrorism," he said.
The Iraqi government wants the group out of Iraq and has recently clashed with the inhabitants of the camp. MEK supporters say the US troop withdrawal from Iraq is leaving the group defenceless in a hostile country.
But many blame the leadership of the MEK for the predicament facing the residents of Camp Ashraf.
In 2005 a Human Rights Watch Report reported that 70% of Ashraf residents were held there against their will, and accused the MEK of torturing its own members.
Ali Safavi, a member of the political wing of the MEK, has admitted to the BBC that all the members in the camp have ended their marriages and are staying celibate.
Opponents of the MEK warn of the possible fallout if the group is de-listed.
Iran's "Green" opposition figures in the US see the possible de-listing as a propaganda gift to the Iranian regime.
"By attempting to claim credit for Iran's democracy movement, the MEK has aided the Iranian government's attempts to discredit the Green Movement and justify its crackdown on peaceful protesters by associating them with this widely detested group," 37 Iranian-American experts wrote in a recent letter to the US government.
But supporters of the MEK disagree entirely.
Ali Jafarzadeh, a key figure in the de-listing campaign, added: "Continuing the terrorist designation sends the signal that the outside world is prepared to preserve the regime."
Inside the US government, officials contend that the MEK does not have popular support and cannot bring democratic change to the country.
The European Union removed the MEK from its list of banned terrorist organisations in 2009.
Faced with a powerful lobbying force, state department officials will spend the coming weeks thinking about the ramifications of following in their footsteps.
Interview with Maryam Rajavi
... · In the first years of the 1979 revolution, young members of the MKO had instructions not to engage with members and affiliates of other political groups. Was this true and is there a similar policy today? · If delisted, does the MKO plan to change its structure and make it similar to other political organizations and be subject to the regulations governing such parties? · Does the MKO see itself responsible to respond to questions such as its cooperation with Saddam Hossein in attacking and invading Iran? · Under what strategy and goal were inexperienced youth asked to respond to the Mersad Operation inside Iran? · Is internal criticism allowed within MKO and can it be reflected outside the organization? ...
Nooshabeh Amiri, Roos online, September 04 2011
Link to the original (Persian)
A few years ago, one of the producers of CBS’s 60 Minutes asked me to arrange for the networks interview with Maryam Rajavi, a leader of Iran’s Mujahidin Khalq Organization (MKO). I told him then that I thought it was not possible to do this, to which he replied, “If the interview is going to be with a non-Iranian network, the response will certainly be different.”
I then recruited the assistance of a person affiliated with the MKO. A few days later he provided me with an email address to contact. When I did, I was given a telephone number to contact, which in all honesty made me feel embarrassed for my initial assumption which was based on hear say. Subsequent events however proved me right.
When I made the first call, I was given another telephone number to call. This was repeated several times in the course of a few months that followed, until the American producer called me and said the issue was over and that there was no need to follow-up.
I concluded that 60 Minutes must have decided to call off the pursuit because of how long it had taken to arrange for the interview. He surprised me when he said that a representative of the MKO had made arrangements with the program’s senior producer and had made a condition for the interview and had written up the questions to be asked….
This was pathetic, something that still continues.
These days, as media reports on MKO’s efforts to be delisted from the US State Department’s terrorist list, reactions and responses have been published too which speak of a contradiction of this possibility with supporting the Iranian drive and movement for freedom and rights. So as a journalist, I once again see it as my duty to request for an interview with Maryam Rajavi to get responses to some basic questions. Here are some:
· In the first years of the 1979 revolution, young members of the MKO had instructions not to engage with members and affiliates of other political groups. Was this true and is there a similar policy today?
· If delisted, does the MKO plan to change its structure and make it similar to other political organizations and be subject to the regulations governing such parties?
· Does the MKO see itself responsible to respond to questions such as its cooperation with Saddam Hossein in attacking and invading Iran?
· Under what strategy and goal were inexperienced youth asked to respond to the Mersad Operation inside Iran?
· Is internal criticism allowed within MKO and can it be reflected outside the organization?
· Is it true that some MKO members have left the organization on the basis of such instructions by the group to take up the responsibility of attacking other opponents of the Islamic republic?
· On what perspective does the MKO pursue the policy of attacking Khatami (carried out since 1997) and Mousavi and Karoubi (since 2009) while at the same time claiming to be supporting the Green Movement?
· From where does the belief “Stay away from the Mujahidin, they are dangerous” come? Is there a consequence on criticizing the MKO? Even asking questions?
As a journalist, I would like to have answers to these questions. Others however tell me otherwise.
- Don’t write, they are dangerous. Instead of a response, you and your family will be attacked with insults. They will present you to be in cahoots with Khamenei, you will be presented as an agent.
They tell me:
- When a young web blogger wrote a few lines in criticism of Mrs. Rajavi, he was attacked in such a manner that his mother, herself a former member of the MKO in Tehran, warned him to stay away from the group as its members were “notorious.”
There is more they tell me.
Yet, I have written my questions to Mrs. Rajavi to see whether we all change in time or ...
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 ...
Kaleme, August 18 2011
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
Iraqis continue to protest MKO camp
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 to massacre its own members if 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 Terrorists exposed 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.
Hillary Clinton's crucial choice on Iran
"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 ...
By Mohsen Kadivar and Ahmad Sadri, March 27, 2011
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.
Camp Ashraf and the Mojahedin Khalq
Iran Interlink Third Report from Baghdad
... 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 ...
Iran Interlink, April 2011
Further information can be found at www.camp-ashraf.com .
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 ...
Hooshang Amirahmadi, Guardian, August 16 2011
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 ...
Alyona show, Russia Today, July 16 2011
Link to the full program on RT
same video on you tube (Alyona Show)
Royals V. MEK
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.” ...
Iran Interlink, January 03, 2011
A documentary about Washington backed Mojahedin Khalq terrorists
Mojahedin Khalq, MKO, MEK, NCRI, Rajavi cult terrorism in Iran and Iraq
Press TV, November 23, 2009
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.
Captain Lewis Lee Hawkins
(Photograph courtesy Annette Hawkins)
Lets create another Vietnam for America(pdf).
(Mojahedin English language paper April 1980)
Letter to Imam (Khomeini) (pdf).
(Mojahedin English Language paper April 1980)
Some questions unanswered regarding the US military invasion of Iran (pdf).
(Mojahedin English Language paper June 1980)
(Izzat Ebrahim and Massoud Rajavi still at large)
(Washington backed Maryam Rajavi in terrorist cult's HQ in Paris)
(In the streets of London with Lord Corbett!!)
(MKO members in European Countries 2003)
(massacre of Kurdish people)
(Abdolmalek Rigi on Voice of America, presented as a democratic alternative)
(Mojahedin's Maryam Rajavi and Jondollah's Abdolmalek Rigi)
(Daniel Zucker, Maryam Rajavi and ALi Safavi)
(Ali Safavi as the commander of Saddam's Private Army in Iraq)