These are our friends!

U.S. Congressional leaders voice support for MEK violence

Share/Save/Bookmark

These are our friends!
by NIAC
13-Jul-2011
 

Congressional supporters of the drive to remove the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the U.S. terrorism list defended the organization’s use of violence while dismissing Iran’s nonviolent Green Movement at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week.  The hearing was also remarkable in that senior leaders of the designated foreign terrorist organization were caught counseling some of the witnesses before the hearing.  It is illegal to coordinate with a foreign terrorist organization to advocate on behalf of the terrorist group.

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, compared the use of terrorism by MEK to violence employed during the American Revolutionary War.  He justified the “cult-like” behavior of the MEK, saying American revolutionaries included "religious fanatics and Christian cults.”

Rohrabacher called for the MEK to be removed from the Foreign Terrorist Organization list, which prevents the group from receiving government funding and makes it illegal for MEK to operate in the U.S. "Any group that chooses to use violence to resist doesn’t make them right or wrong,” Rohrabacher stated.  “Backing people who fight against tyranny is also something the U.S. should be doing.”

Despite the terrorist listing, Ali Safavi, a senior member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, was at the hearing, where he openly counseled witnesses before and during their testimony.  The NCRI is the MEK’s political wing and is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

The hearing’s witnesses included three former U.S. officials who have actively participated in pro-MEK conferences, including former Bush Administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

All three witnesses who previously appeared at MEK conferences unanimously called for the MEK to be removed from the terror list, though none were asked to disclose whether they had received money to support the organization, as have other officials who have advocated for delisting the group.

The lone dissenting voice among the witnesses, former Obama Administration advisor Ray Takeyh, was subjected to an intense back and forth with Representatives on the panel.

Takeyh warned panelists who viewed MEK as a viable alternative to the Iranian regime that the organization has no support in Iran.

“I don’t agree," responded Representative Bob Filner (D-CA).  "Even if you’re right, so what?”

Filner laughed off evidence that MEK President Maryam Rajavi is a cult leader, despite reports from the State Department and FBI of “cult-like” practices by MEK that include indoctrination rituals and torture.  "She is as intelligent, humorous, humane and humble as anyone I’ve ever met," Filner observed, recounting what he said have been numerous meetings he has held in Paris with Rajavi.

Filner accused Takeyh of justifying violence against the MEK by highlighting the group's history of terrorism, and said the U.S. should be supporting the organization as a “third way” alternative in Iran because it opposes the Iranian regime.

“These are our friends!  We should be getting out of their way and de-list them,” Filner exclaimed.  “Let them do what they can!  Why are we helping Iran by not helping the MEK?”

Rohrabacher defended the MEK's history of violence, saying, “This is a territory that’s filled with violence—I would be surprised if there wasn’t any organization that wasn’t in some way involved with using force to protect themselves.”

"Oh I would disagree with that," responded Takeyh.  "Within Iran there are many opposition movements, such as the Green Movement, that explicitly reject violence.”

MEK Hearing Crowd

Individuals wearing yellow jerseys featuring pro-MEK slogans filled the hearing room to capacity.

But Rohrabacher was adamant in his support for MEK.  “I will have to admit the thing that attracts me to this movement is that it is willing to fight," he responded.  “It won’t just be pacifists," Rohrabacher said, referring dismissively to the Green Movement, "it will be people with courage and people who stand up.”

Mukasey, in addition to calling for the MEK to be removed from the terrorism list, urged that MEK members be allowed to resettle in the United States.  Mukasey acknowledged that members of terrorist organizations are legally barred from entering the U.S., and suggested legislation be introduced to change the law for MEK members.

Prior to the hearing, Mukasey was witnessed receiving coaching from Alireza Jafarzadeh, who served as the official spokesman for the NCRI before it was declared a terrorist group and its offices raided by the FBI in 2003.

Meanwhile, many were turned away from the hearing or sent to the overflow room to watch the proceedings because the hearing room was at capacity.  It was filled with individuals in yellow jerseys emblazoned with the slogans, “De-list the MEK,” “Protect Ashraf,” and “Ramp up sanctions.”

Take action: Send a letter to President Obama and the Justice Department to tell them to say NO to Mujahedin

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from NIAC
 
Artificial Intelligence

VPK

by Artificial Intelligence on

Is there direct proof of Lewis's position during the Shah's time that he wanted the Shah removed? I am not trying to be a wise guy here. If they did not like him, that is one thing. Shah said lots of crazy stuff ( and lots or correct ba mantegh stuff) back then that pissed off many in the West.  But was there an actual  "plan" backed by Lewis and friends advocating for his removal?

We all know that the Neocons had an Iraq plan. I know of no Iran plan.  

 Also you refer to "Jimmy Carter Plan". I know that Carter was an idiot and I dislike the man immensly but I don't know of a specific "plan" that you refer to. Carter did give up on the Shah which was a huge mistake but again, I don't think it was by Carter's plan. 


Oon Yaroo

It was only 4-5 years ago where IRGC arrested the British troops

by Oon Yaroo on

in Persian Gulf. The Brits and the Americans could have invaded Iran and annexed Khoozestan right then if they wanted to.

With all due respect Mamad and VPK are non-sensing around.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

OY

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

Your point is irrelevant. I am not supporting IRI. I am just saying that Bernie and his MEK friends want to wreck Iran. IRI was Bernie's child as is MEK. Are we so dumb to fall to it once again.

vildemose

Can NIAC stop MEK from

by vildemose on

Can NIAC stop MEK from de-listing?? I doubt that very much.

Therefore, I agree, we should stop attacking NIAC and think about what to do if and when MEK is used as mecenaries to get the oil-rich Khoozestan?? What do we do next??

 

 


Oon Yaroo

Mamad & VPK

by Oon Yaroo on

And IRI wants to keep the integrity of Iran intact, right!


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

AI

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

Yes, Bernie has wanted to wreck Iran for decades. In fact he was one of those behind the Jimmy Carter plan to remove Shah. Read history please.

Artificial Intelligence

Dear VPK

by Artificial Intelligence on

Question: Did Bernard Lewis & the Neocons advocate what they are advocating now during the Shah's time?


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mammad

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

Has a valid point here. Bernard Lewis and his NeoCon buddies are enemies. That is what they want to achieve. Do you guys really want that: shame on those blinded by pure hate.

Mammad

While arguing over NIAC, consider the following

by Mammad on

Suppose that NIAC and others who are concerned about the consequences of de-listing the MEK Stalinist cult from the terrorist list decide to do nothing. What is going to happen?

(1) MEK is de-listed from the terrorist list, given "legitimacy" by the
neocons/Israel and their supporters and allowed to raise funds in the
U.S. - if not given tens of $billions of Iran's assets since 1980 - and
receive funds from Pentagon/CIA/DIA/ and State.

(2) It then sends their members to, say, Khuzestan to start a clash with IRGC.

(3) IRGC will smash them, of course; no match for IRGC.

(4) The group asks for help from the West, like Libyan "rebels" - mercenaries.

(5) In the name of human rights and humanitarian help to a terrorist
Stalinist cult, the U.S. and NATO, hand in hand with Arabs of the
Persian Gulf, go in and, at the minimum, separate Khuzestan from the
rest of Iran.

(6) Then, that becomes a reason for Kurds, Baluchs, etc., to also want their mini-states.

(7) Hence, the dream of Iran's enemies, from Bernard Lewis to Arabs of PG to Israel, will be materialized - disintegrating Iran.

Anyone who has an iota of brain can see that this is a very plausible
scenario. It is, in fact, the MEK plan, if some of their supporters in
southern California are to be believed. 

So, insted of blinding opposing NIAC and jumping as soon as you see the word, think about the consequences of de-listing the MEK Stalinist cult from the terrorist list, if you really consider yourself an Iranian patriot.Forget about NIACX. Assume that it is everything that you believe it is. But, this is not about NIAC, but about a Stalinist terrorist cult.

Otherwise, keep attacking NIAC and qanyone/any other organization that cares about this critical issue. Rational thinking has abandoned some people.

Mammad


Siavash300

My hypothesis

by Siavash300 on

Supporting MEK by U.S administration is just "short term" stategie. In a short term, all stinky mullahs will be wiped out by MEK soldiers followed by a coup which lead Reza Pahlavi take the office. In this scenario, Trita parsi will lose the battle anyway. The guy is very guilable.


Siavash300

Armchair "revolutionaries" , said mola

by Siavash300 on

That was a good one. I can't stop laughing. lol


Mola Nasredeen

...

by Mola Nasredeen on

To all the Armchair 'revolutionaries'

Who are pushing regime change in Iran

by activating Mojahedeen:

Why don't you acheive your goal at somebody else's expense and not the Americans?

If you live in Canada, Britain, France etc, ask your own government to support and arm Mojahedeen.

We Americans (in our case Iranian Americans) are in deep shit as it is. Financially we are almost bankrupt. Schools are closing in hundreds, teachers are being layed off in thousands, home foreclosures and individual bankruptcies in millions

We don't need a new war, this time with Iran. We can't afford another Afghanistan or Iraq.

That's why we believe recognizing Mojahedeens as 'Freedom Fighters' will escalate the situation towards war with Iran.


Iran 2050

VPK, You need to go back

by Iran 2050 on

VPK,

You need to go back and research and see how much NIAC has been carrying on anti MEK propaganda at the same time they absolutely ignore, or very mildly criticize, the IRI regime. NIAC was dead silent about the atrocities in Iran up until the June 2009 uprising, as if this regime has been a humane democratic one since 1979 and suddenly gone crazy! These are all propaganda tactics and we need to be fully alert about them.

Some Americans support MEK because U.S is lost when it comes to how to deal with Iran and that’s because we Iranians haven’t truly spoke out about IRIs atrocities in this country. Many of us have this blind love for Iran and we think if we talk about IRI the way it really is, we are somehow making not only Iran but ourselves look bad. An average Iranian will tell an American that “things are not as bad as it seems to you guys in Iran”, not knowing we are doing Iran and ourselves no favor. At the same time, MEK, although insignificant, is very loud and active, just like NIAC. That’s why Americans reach out to it thinking they represent a good portion of Iranians or because there are simply no other active or valid resistance movement besides MEK, and that’s partially the Iranian Diaspora’s fault.

If we all organize and speak out and become active, then no one will pay attention to either NIAC or MEK. Those are the two loud ones right now.


vildemose

Moderation in temper is

by vildemose on

Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine


Bavafa

Dear Areyo Barzan: Thanks for the response

by Bavafa on

Although I don't feel my question was addressed, I do see and understand your point of view. It seems sincere and with the best intention.

However here are a few points I was trying to make:

- Many of us who disagree with legitimizing MKO thru this de-listing, our reason is not based on their Marxist/Islamist ideology, it is due to their anti democratic nature AND their treasonous past which continues to the day. When they have a clear record (as a group and not individual) to betray Iran and Iranians and continue with the same mission/strategy they can not simply be trusted to help build the future system. Once the new free and democratic system is built with fairly good foundation, the rank and file of MKO and any other group can and should be free to participate in any form that is available to ALL.

- If we were going to follow a process of openness for all to participate in the future of Iran before the foundation of that system is built, then we MUST in all fairness allow the same access and participation to all other groups, including the very same Islamist (current IRI members, Sepah, Basij, etc) and it would not be an exaggeration that this simply would be a recipe for disaster.

Cheers

'Vahdat' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad


vildemose

All national institutions of

by vildemose on

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine

Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
Thomas Paine

To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not.
Thomas Paine

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true.
Thomas Paine


vildemose

VPK: I concur. We don't

by vildemose on

VPK: I concur. We don't need IRI to be replaced with MEK. We don't need one cult to be replaced by another, more militant, crazies.

I don't know why the US is so much against democracy in Iran.  It seems to me that Bolton et al have convinced Obama and democrats with this asinine argument.

I also think MEK loons are too smart not to know that they are being used...

How do we convince the US democrats that Iran does not need to have a religious government in order to be a viable ally of the US???


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Iran 2050

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

The best way to ignore MEK is for Americans to stop supporting them. It was not NIAC that is bringing them up in congress. It is Bolton and NeoCon types. So I am all for ignoring them; just explain that to US congress. Meanwhile EU is even worse. 

I want IRI replaced with a reasonably sane and secular regime. Not MEK so why are Americans and fake Iranian "Patriots" on IC doing it. I have noticed about half of the so called "Patriotic" Iranians on IC are MEK supporters. So where does that leave me? I don't support IRI or MEK. But I sure lost a great deal of respect for many on IC. It is times like this that people show their real nature.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Well

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

I see the MEK crowd is out in force shilling for their buddies. MEK has nothing to do with NIAC. If you don't like NIAC fine. That does not make MEK good. But we the Rajavi cult twists reality. 

They want us to "support" the "democractic opposition". Who are we fooling anyway? With self declared "President" Rajavi they are no better than IRI. In fact I dare say they are much worse. 

If you want a religious dictatorship you have one already! As for de-listing I could care less. The real judges if MKO of Iranians not EU or US or AIPAC. So go ahead and celebrate your false victory. 


Iran 2050

NIAC cannot fool us!  

by Iran 2050 on

NIAC cannot fool us!

 

The real question surrounding MEK is , why is their name being brought up so often? This is an insignificant group with very little support among the Iranian population, so why does the IRI regime and its ally, NIAC, bring them up so often?

The answer is because IRI wants to make others look bad in order for itself to look good and to, comically, claim itself as “victims of terrorism!!!!” where as they have been the biggest supporters of terrorism since the day they took power.

So in fact, groups like NIAC knowingly work for the benefit of IRI by bringing up the MEK issue, and U.S politicians, unknowingly, make themselves look bad amongst the Iranian people by falling into the IRI – NIAC trap by not only supporting MEK but even talking about them.

The Iranian people do not want to replace the Mullah regime with MEK, that doesn’t mean they do not want to replace the Mullah regime, they just don’t want to replace it with MEK. Simple as that.

So let’s not fall into the trap of IRI and its lobby in the U.S, NIAC, and let’s ignore the MEK issue wherever and whenever they bring it up. That’s the best way to move forward.


Reality-Bites

Regarding NIAC's priorities

by Reality-Bites on

Over the past couple of weeks or so there has been a flurry of articles and plenty of condemnation from NIAC on the dangers of the US supporting the MEK as the main opposition to IR.

I don't like the MEK, what they stand for and did to Iran myself, so no issues there.

However, when was the last time anyone can recall NIAC engaging in a similar flurry of articles and condemnation (in such a short space of time) of what the IR has been doing and continues to do to Iran?


areyo barzan

Dear Bavafa

by areyo barzan on

Thank you for the very important question and I do apologize for the delay in my response

The point I have to emphasise again here is distinguishing between shady individuals who might as well be classified as criminal and should be put on trial on one hand and an ideology which some of our fellow countrymen chose to adopt and follow on the other.

Now please do not get me wrong.

There is no love loss between me and MKO leaders or even its ideology. In fact I have been opposing this group and fighting against their ideology for as long as I can remember, even going back to years before 1357 revolution.

 

But I prefer to have my argument in a fair democratic and level ground. This is because I am sure that their argument has no essence and holds no water against mine and hence I know that I can take then on and win any day. So the last think I need is for them to be portrayed as excluded, misunderstood victims.

 

As far as the individuals such as Rajavis and other senior members of MKO, IRI or other similar organizations are concerned I am all for questioning their fitness for leadership and scrutinizing their past conducts or even putting them on trial if necessary for their crimes of the past. But this can only happen in a transparent democratic level ground so that the ordinary member or believer will not find him/her-self under attack and victimized just because of what they believe in

 

You see? This is the whole point. Normally the leaders of such groups thrive on discrimination and exclusion. That is how they can go back to their followers and tell them: See! People outside are not interested on your logic and reasoning because they know they can not argue against our ideology and that is why they resort to discrimination and exclusion

 

I on the other hand tell them bring it on. Let’s have your argument and let’s hear your “logic” and this is because I know that I can defeat it any day, any time any where and I am confident enough to allow our people to be the final judge and choose the side they think is most fit.

 

This is why in tomorrows democratic Iran I would have no problem even with an Islamic party competing for parliamentary sits or even forming a government if selected, as long as people running it do not have blood on their hands and as long as they comply with the principals of democracy and rule of law.


Hamid Y. Javanbakht

Why the MEK is not worth opposing

by Hamid Y. Javanbakht on

The MEK should be allowed total freedom to do whatever they want to Iran. This way when it becomes apparent that it's not just the government of Iran that cannot be reformed, but the sociological foundation which inspires it, then they'll learn that not all problems have political solutions, sometimes it's not a change in systems, but a change in human hearts, minds, souls and attitudes.


vildemose

Oktaby; you are spot on!

by vildemose on

Last election , on the eve of IRI presidential election, I remember  I was flabergasted when our local NBC news channel anchor was giving the location of the voting district for Iranian who live in the area to go an vote for the presidential election in the IRI.  Has anyone else had the same experience in their city or town??


oktaby

Ari

by oktaby on

Even in a master/slave relationship the two need each other and if it has been generally profitable over time, you work through hard times. The Nokar (IRI) wants to get more time off, salary and more perks. The master needs to enforce some discipline but does not want to lose the slave. At worse wants to find something like it before throwing him out. Nokar has been caught sleeping on duty and also driving masters' car. The master is now interviewing new Nokars.

Another analogy I would use in gang warfare over territory (Say East LA greens and reds)... One gang (IRI-Greens) is seizing opportunity to push drugs in red zone (Iraq). The reds were going to reign in Blues (a 3rd much smaller gang) that are good against greens (same kind of thinking and ruthlessness- say they are both from Medein) as long as greens behaved themselves. Greens did not, so blues (MEK) remains protected. Blue can only be alive as long as it can be used and traded so it has a vested interest in remaining 'useful'. Much the same logic (albeit a much less significant and smaller scale) applies to NIAC.

If you were IRI, how would you play this?

Oktaby


Ari Siletz

oktaby

by Ari Siletz on

What are your thoughts as to how and why the IRI pissed off the US, prompting the push for a final MEK embracing? (earlier MEK embracing by the EU). 


oktaby

Ari

by oktaby on

One can argue what you are inclined to believe but it would be difficult to support by documentable actions. I was asking about  specific actions. Some recent samples from memory:

-The 67/68 massacres were ongoing as U.S. looked away and did nothing. Check U.S. statements before and after; you'll find the connection and wink of endoresement.

-When Khatami started the 'dialogue of civilizations' sharade, all U.S. had to do was to say ok lets talk. But it did not. That action had distinct consequences and U.S. was acutely aware of it

-On the eve of AN's first 's'election it was clear that people will not vote. George Bush went out of his way to say and then repeated (and it was all over IRR TVs) that 'election was a sham ...'. He did not say that 1 month before election or 6. He said it days before that selection and repeated it hours before. It helped bring an extra 10 to 15% to the voting booths. Enough more for IRR to claim legitimacy.

-In the heat of of early days of post 2009 Iranian uprising and Obama kept talked tough, he quietly authorized exchange of IRR 'diplomats' (I recall 5)

Removing Saddam had little to do with IRR smarts but a byproduct of Cheney et al ala McNamara who confessed to the grand sharade of Vietnam only on his last years. Interest of U.S. foreign policies and America are not synchronous.Different discussion.

Despite extremely tough talk U.S. has done very little. Minus lately
tightening the screws which indicates mollas pissed off their bosses and
now U.S. wants islamist light or some other shade of it; hence NIAC, MEK
and Khatami/Mousavi.

Oktaby


Ari Siletz

oktaby

by Ari Siletz on

 

It is not impossible that the US means to keep the IRI in power, but I'm inclined to attribute US behavior to incompetence (or shortsighted greed) rather than design. An alternative conjecture in the same low order of probability is that the IRI is very good at manipulating US behavior, making a sucker out of her at every turn (the removal of Saddam being a highlight).

Why am I inclined to think that the US-IRI hositility is what it looks like?

1. As far back as history goes, sustained harsh words between two nations has turned out to be an indicator of each nation's true state of mind relative to the other. We know this because those harsh words were followed by war. Exceptions were due to causes that had nothing to do with da'vaa ye zargari, say the Soviet Union collapsing on its own or China adopting new policies.

 

2. There are US-Iran conflicts of interest that transcend even the IRI issue, having to do with influence in the gas tank region. One reason the US would prefer a mercenary regime over any patriotic Iranian opposition may have to do with the fact that domestic oppositions will continue to defend Iran's interests after the IRI is defeated.

 

3. Sustained fake fights is playing with fire; it is easy to lose control of the population. The regime's power becomes reliant on the hostility, making it hard to disengage without risking overthrow by a new order that is truly hostile.

 


Anahid Hojjati

I remember Maryam

by Anahid Hojjati on

When she was Azedanlou Ghajar. She used to be cute but now to me, she is just a cult leader.


vildemose

Maryam Rajvi needs to

by vildemose on

Maryam Rajvi needs to dethrone herself once the MEK is de-listed...She is not president-elect of Iranians. I don't see NIAC or Takyeh mentioning how this woman got to be President elect. What a tragedy...