Tag Archive for: MEK

America’s collusion with the MEK, one of the most dangerous terrorist groups, is devious and a blatant double standard

American politicians sometimes wonder why people of other nations show contempt toward America. Perhaps this article will shed some light on the understanding of this enigma.

A few years ago, several high-ranking American and European officials and dignitaries attended an NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran) rally held in Paris.

The invitees included MG Paul E.Vallely, U.S. Army (Ret.), former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and several others. The participants gathered in a conference room supposedly to support the Iranian Opposition Groups.

Here is the problem:

NCRI is not representative of an opposition group; in fact, NCRI is an offshoot of the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) organization, a devout Islamist-Marxist entity known for its ISIS-style terrorism.

Both NCRI/MEK are controlled by Masoud and Maryam Rajavi, a brutal couple who are no strangers to torture, terror, and assassination. They both are both responsible for numerous killings of Iranians and even murdering and abusing members of their own group for trying to defect or escape from the MEK (Camp Ashraf in Iraq).

Leaving Iran

After long and arduous bickering between MEK and Iran’s new leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, Masoud Rajavi, the leader of MEK, started a series of bomb campaigns against the newly formed Islamic government. In 1981, it attacked the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, killing 74 senior officials, including the party leader, and 27 members of Parliament. A few months later, it bombed a meeting of Iran’s national security council, killing Iran’s new president, Mohammad-Ali Rajai, and his Prime Minister.

To save their lives, Masoud and his companions were forced to flee Iran to Paris. But the French government expelled the MEK leader, Masoud Rajavi, in 1986. The group then ran into the arms of Iran’s archenemy, the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. Iraq provided MEK thousands of fighters, artillery, guns, tanks, and then housed them in three camps near Baghdad and along the Iranian border. Baghdad also provided money for the group. Saddam Hussein allowed the Iranian exiles, members of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), to set up their paramilitary base at Camp Ashraf in the 1980s. The dissidents oppose Iran’s theocratic regime.

Human Rights Report

According to Human Rights Watch, which interviewed several former MEK members, the organization is a cult that has kept its members virtually imprisoned in a compound in Iraq and controlled them psychologically. They eliminated anyone who expressed their intent to leave.

A RAND report commissioned by the US DOD found that the MEK is a cult that utilizes mind control and practices mandatory divorce, celibacy, authoritarian control, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and confiscation of assets.

The FBI reported that the MEK’s “NLA [National Liberation Army] fighters are separated from their children, who are sent to Europe and brought up by the MEK’s Support Network. […] These children are then returned to the NLA to be used as fighters upon coming of age.  Interviews also revealed that some of these children were told that their parents would be harmed if they did not cooperate with the MEK.”

In a seminar held in Pari,s ex-MEK members recounted tales of horror from Camp Ashraf, Iraq, where their members are kept without any communication with their relatives for decades, they are ordered to divorce, and Masoud Rajavi had sex with female members of those within the cult.

More evidence of the cultic nature of MEK came to light when, in 2003, the French police arrested Maryam Rajavi for terrorist charges. The group reacted in a manner consistent with its cultic nature. Ten of them set themselves on fire to protest their leader’s detention.

At one point, the US State Department labelled the MEK as cutting a “swath of terror” across the country in the following years and of “violent attacks in Iran that victimize civilians.”

“Since 1981, the MEK has claimed responsibility for murdering thousands of Iranians they describe as agents of the regime,” the report said.
MEK’s Ideology

Ideologically, the MEK initially sought to blend revolutionary Marxism with Islam. That’s why they are routinely referred to as an Islamist-Marxist organization. The group was shaped in the 1960s by leftist Iranians (supposedly) students opposed to the Shah’s regime. The MEK is responsible for the killing of six Americans in Iran during the 1970s. They included three military officers and three men working for Rockwell International, a conglomerate specializing in aerospace, including weapons, who were murdered in retaliation for the arrest of MEK members over the killings of the US military officers.

The MEK was also responsible for the support and seizure of the US embassy in Tehran following the Iranian revolution.  During the 1980s and 1990s, the MEK fought as a private militia on behalf of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein against the Islamic Republic of Iran. (IRI). That angered the Iranian people, and they called them traitors.

US Invasion of Iraq

Interestingly enough, in 2003, the MEK’s position became very weak when the US and its allies won the Persian Gulf War and entered Iraq. They made a 180-degree change in their attitude, and suddenly, these Marxist terrorists declared they would no longer resort to violence (after being disarmed by the American military and not within the camp) and cast themselves as supporters of the democratic opposition in Iran. Not everyone bought the group’s transformation into defenders of liberty, secularism, and women’s equality. Of course, no one believed the cult leader, Masoud Rajavai.
In April 2003, US forces signed a cease-fire agreement of “mutual understanding and coordination” with the MEK. Finally, in May 2003, as a result of negotiations between the MEK and US forces led by General Ray Odierno, the MEK agreed to a “voluntary consolidation” and disarmament of its forces in exchange for US protection of Camp Ashraf and its residents.

In 2003,  New York Times reporter Elizabeth Rubin visited the group’s Iraqi compound at Camp Ashraf and described it as resembling a “fictional world of female worker bees … dressed exactly alike, in khaki uniforms and mud-colored head scarves, driving back and forth in white pickup trucks, staring ahead in a daze as if they were working at a factory in Maoist China.”

US Leaving Iraq

As soon as the U.S. troop pullout of Iraq began in 2008, the pressure began to mount on the MEK. The Iraqi government officially ordered that they needed to take over security at Camp Ashraf because the MEK was a “terrorist organization.” Gen. David Petraeus insisted that they were “protected persons” and U.S. forces would defend them. But Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki declared his intention was to “put an end” to the MEK.
Image

Once all U.S. combat forces had left Iraq, he demanded a joint Army and police attack on the camp. In July 2009, U.S. military observers watched desperately as Iraqi forces overwhelmed and then attacked the camp, killing 11 residents (six were shot, the others beaten to death) and wounding hundreds. The operation was apparently intended to terrify the residents into leaving voluntarily, but instead it steeled their resolve.

Secretary Clinton 

The MEK has a great deal of money and with that, undeniable political connections across the globe, and this is the one thing it has in common with the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI).

The MEK also began a multiyear, multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign to remove itself from the terrorist list.

Regrettably, because of these political networks and monetary support, the MEK and its leadership were able to enlist the support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and have her take them off the list of terrorist groups.  Another reason was that they were reportedly passing information from their supporters within the Islamic Republic on nuclear facilities to the U.S. intelligence community.

Conclusion

Both Americans and Iranians desire regime change in Iran, but for different reasons. While America wants to remove a threat in the region, the Iranians want democracy.  These two are not mutually exclusive, and America would commit an unforgivable sin if it ignores the wishes of Iranians once again.

America’s collusion with the MEK, one of the most dangerous terrorist groups, is devious and a blatant double standard.  This is worse than the installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini by former President Jimmy Carter. It is unfathomable how on the one hand, America claims to be fighting against terrorism and, on the other, supports it by aligning itself with the MEK.  What Iran needs is freedom and democracy, not another MEK-led dictatorship.

It is the democracy-seeking secular Iranians who are thoroughly capable of dislodging the tyrannical Mullahs. The call of the opposition should be resoundingly answered by President Trump and all other nations and leaders, not only for humanitarian reasons, but in furtherance of their own national security interests.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Obama’s Phased Nuclear Deal with Iran: Kicking the bomb down the road?

This column is co-authored with Ilana Freedman who is a veteran intelligence analyst and specialist in counter-terrorism. Ilana is Editor of FreedmanReport.com.

When we posted late Monday night, February 23, 2015, on breaking news about the phased deal resulting from bilateral discussions between U.S. Secretary of State Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif, we knew from our sources that more shoes would be likely to drop. Last night we received information from these reliable sources on the extent to which the Administration had strayed from its original mandate. The information was:

  • Secretary of State John Kerry is poised to sign a secret Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the U.S. and Iran that was completed by negotiators on Saturday, February 14.
  • The State Department has received a decision from Eric Holder’s Department of Justice that the MoU does not require approval by the U.S. Senate in the Constitutionally defined process of Advise and Consent for treaties between the United States and other nations, and that therefore Congress will not be consulted.
  • The agreement does not cover the subject of inspections, removing the requirements of having inspections at any of the sites covered by the memorandum.
  • The agreement will allow Iran to have 10,000 enhanced centrifuges that will increase their nuclear program capacity by upwards of 50%.
  • Of the 10,000 centrifuges allotted, all of Iran’s 6,000 existing centrifuges will be converted to the enhanced, next generation versions. The conversion can begin immediately after the agreement is signed. This will enable Iran to achieve a nuclear threshold state in less than two years. The balance of 4,000 centrifuges will, according to our sources, be supplied by Russia.
Alireza Jafarzadeh Deputy Director of Natioal Council of Reskistance of Iran National Press Club  @-24-15 Source AFP

Alireza Jafarzadeh, Deputy Director, Washington Office of NCRI, National Press Club, Feb. 24, 2015.

It is not known whether other Iranian nuclear sites will likewise fall under this inspection exemption, including military test sites like Parchin and the secret parallel Lavizan site, which was disclosed in Washington on Tuesday, February 24th by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in a National Press Club briefing. At the NPC briefing, Alireza Jafarzadeh, Deputy Director of the NCRI’s Washington D.C. office, reported on a secret test site which has been previously identified in reports of the Washington, D.C. based, Institute for Science and International Security.

“Despite the Iranian regime’s claims that all of its enrichment activities are transparent … it has in fact been engaged in research and development with advanced centrifuges at a secret nuclear site called Lavizan-3,” he said.  Jafarzadeh said the site was hidden in a military base in the northeastern suburbs of Tehran.

According to the presentation, the complex was described as a facility 164 feet underground. The Lavizan-3 site was apparently constructed between 2004 and 2008 and has underground labs connected by a tunnel, and lead-lined doors to seal out radiation leaks.  The facility itself is heavily shielded from radiation and insulated against noise and radiation leaks to avoid detection.

“Since 2008, the Iranian regime has secretly engaged in research and uranium enrichment with advanced… centrifuge machines at this site,” Jafarzadeh said.

The NCRI called the existence of the site “a clear violation” of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as UN resolutions and an interim November 2013 deal struck with the P5+1 group, he said.

When asked about the NCRI findings at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the bi-lateral discussions with Iran, Secretary Kerry commented:

That U.S. officials knew of charges related to the site prior to this week, but that “it has not been revealed yet as a nuclear facility.”

“It is a facility that we are well aware of, which is on a list of facilities we have,” the Secretary of State said during a Capitol Hill budget hearing on Wednesday morning. “I’m not going to go into greater detail. . . .But these things are obviously going to have to be resolved as we go forward.”

Rep. Brad Sherman, ranking Democrat on the House Affairs Committee replied to Kerry:

 “The MEK sometimes gives us accurate information.”

“They are the ones that told the world about the Iranian nuclear program,” Mr. Sherman said. “They now say that there’s a secret facility at Lavizan-3.”

A credible independent expert monitoring Iran’s nuclear program raised questions about the NCRI findings.  David Albright of the Washington, DC-based Institute for Science and International Security commented in a USA Today article, February 27, 2015:

“The basic story raises questions about its authenticity. They may have answers but the questions raise further doubts,” Albright said. “The claims are so controversial that any manipulated evidence casts doubt on the whole story.”

The matter of possible violations of the P5+1 interim agreements, the lack of inspections of military applications facilities like Parchin, the Arak heavy water reactor and the Lavizan-3  site near Tehran underlines the evidence of Iran’s  retention of significant uranium enrichment  centrifuge capabilities under the suggested 10 year phase deal the Administration announced  earlier this week.  It begs the question of why any enrichment capabilities are provided to Iran under the proposed arrangement, given that the principal use of centrifuges is for enrichment of uranium into fissile materials for bomb making.

That was a point made by Dan Diker, executive producer of the Voice of Israel “National Security” program during a Middle East Round Table discussion on 1330am WEBY Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio, “Your Turn” with co-hosts Mike BatesJerry Gordon of the NER and Shoshana Bryen , senior director  of the Washington, D.C. based Jewish Policy Center.

Diker of the VOI noted:

The notion that Iran would be able to enrich any uranium is completely unacceptable.  The civilian nuclear programs around the world hosted by Canada and other western countries have nothing to do with centrifuges.  They are just not part of the nuclear file.  Many countries want to have peaceful civilian nuclear power.  The notion that the Iranians would claim that they need centrifuges to produce peaceful nuclear power is an absurdity.  The fact that the P5+1 have allowed any uranium to be enriched is an extremely dangerous proposition.  That is the message that Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to bring to the American people and by extension to the world community.

As to why President Obama and Secretary Kerry would sanction the phased program, Bryen of the JPC suggested:

“[The President’s] thinking appears to be that ten years from now the Mullahs will have fallen, young Iranian democrats will have taken over, and it will be OK.  The big piece of this that he missed is that the Mullahs only represent one part of the Iranian body politic and that is the religious part. Iran is also Persian and Persians are empire-oriented.  Even if we get rid of the Mullahs, even if we get rid of the religious basis for governance in Iran and we have secular people, secular people in Persia believe in a Persian Empire. If we kick this can down the road ten years and the Mullahs are gone, Obama thinks that will be a good thing. I’m not sure that’s true.”

Listen to the February 24, 21015 1330am WEBY Middle East Round Table discussion on the Iranian nuclear program: Segment 1Segment 2Segment 3Segment 4.

An article based on the 1330am WEBY Round Table program will be published in the March 2015, NER.

The WEBY panel will also be heard on a separate Voice of Israel “National Security” program, Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 1PM Israel Standard Time ( 6:00 AM EST in the U.S.).  A sound cloud of that VOI broadcast will also be available on March 1st.

Iran’s provocative activities during the so-called Great Prophet-9 maneuvers this week raised questions about the untimely demonstrations of force directed at the US Fifth Fleet presence in the Persian Gulf. The first episode was the destruction by Iranian cruise missiles on Wednesday, February 25, 2015 launched at a replica of a U.S. aircraft carrier as a target near the international oil/gas choke point, the Straits of Hormuz, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf.  Watch the video, here.

Then on Friday, February 27, 2015, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy announced the successful launch of a cruise missile from a submerged Ghadir midget-submarine with a range of 150 miles. Watch the video, here.   Sepah news service quoted Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, commander of IRGC-N saying:

The new weapon would be critical in any future naval war against the U.S.

“The new weapon will have a very decisive role in adding our naval power in confronting threats,” he was quoted as stating in Sepah News.

Iran’s latest operations in the Persian Gulf near the Strait of Hormuz raises many questions. Why mount exercises in which a mock US aircraft carrier is destroyed by the Iranian navy? Or launch cruise missiles designed to take out a US naval destroyer just as the US is about to give them everything they want without a shot fired?  It may be a show of arrogance, a finger in the eye of the Obama administration (which it believes to be weak and foolish), or a move beyond the MoU into a new level of saber rattling to show its neighbors the seriousness of its ambitions. Or it might be all three, a typical multi-dimensional Persian chess play by the IRGC.

What the US must learn – and fast – is that this is not an enemy one can toy with. As in most Middle East politics, the weak are despised and the game goes to the powerful. As the secrets of Obama’s secret negotiations are revealed (or leaked), and the truth comes out about our feckless policies of negotiations and appeasement, the outcome is likely to be devastating for the region and the world.  Iran revels in its possible conquest of American might and moves a giant step closer to achieving its nuclear ambitions with America’s assistance – and blessings.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.