Archive | France

Iranian Zionist puppet Annual Convention Calls for Regime Change

NOVANEWS

Image result for Turki al-Faisal PHOTO WITH ZIONIST LEADER

Shameless Saudi Zio-wahhabi Turki al-Faisal with Zio-Nazi Lvni

Iranian opposition held its annual convention 2017 in auditorium in Villepente Exhibition Center, near Paris, on Saturday in a massive expression of support urging the world to adopt a firm approach toward the regime in Iran.
Hundreds of Zionist puppet prominent political figures and activists from all over the world attended the convention.

President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran ( NCRI ), Zionist Maryam Rajavi delivered a speech saying: “the regime’s overthrow is possible and within reach, and a democratic alternative and organized resistance exists that can topple it.”

Participants criticized Iran’s regional and international behavior and announced their support for the opposition in toppling the regime.

CIA Zionist agent Mujahid-e Khalq hoisted Iranian flags with lion and sun logos on it.

Mujahid-e Khalq is one of the CIA agent calling for regime change in Iran. The organization was formed in 1965 and was part of the factions that toppled the former regime.

Zionist Rajavi said that toppling the regime is crucial to ensure security and peace in the region.

“The only solution to free the people of Iran and establish peace and tranquility in the region, is the overthrow of the Iranian regime,”  declared Rajavi.

She said that the ruling regime is in disarray and paralyzed as never before, adding that the Iranian society is simmering with discontent and the international community is finally getting closer to the reality that appeasing the ruling theocracy is misguided.

Speaking about the recent presidential elections, Zionist Rajavi stated in fear of a repeat of the 2009 uprising, Khamenei had to back down from his plan in the presidential election sham to bring the name of Raisi, the executioner in charge of the 1988 massacre.

“The regime is not capable of reform because the so-called reformists who were in office for more than half of this regime’s rule, did nothing but serving the Welayat-e Faqih. This regime cannot be contained, because more than three decades of West’s concessions did not bring about any change in this regime,” NCRI leader said.

Rajavi highlighted the plight of Iran’s population under the current regime, and commended Iran’s political prisoners for supporting the gathering “from the depths of the regime’s torture chambers.”

Zionist Rajavi added that the international community must recognize the resistance of the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs’ religious dictatorship and designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization and evict it from the entire region.

NCRI’s President underlined the Iranian Resistance’s unwavering belief in the people’s free choice, the separation of religion and state, women’s active and equal participation in political leadership, and the autonomy of various ethnic groups in the framework of Iran’s territorial integrity.

She added, “As I have reiterated, repeatedly, we want neither money, nor arms. We urge you to recognize the Iranian people’s right to overthrow the mullahs’ religious dictatorship.”

Image result for Turki al-Faisal PHOTO WITH ZIONIST LEADER

Saudi Zio-wahhabi Turki al-Faisal with Zio-Nazi

Addressing the conference, chairman of the King Faisal Center for Islamic Studies Saudi Zio-wahhabi Turki al-Faisal called for Iranian Supreme Leader and Iranian officials to be brought to justice for their “crimes against the Iranian people,” who he described as the “first victims” of the Iranian regime.

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Turki explained that what made Arabs and Iranians brothers, was “not only geography, but the humanitarian relationships.”

“All the (Gulf Cooperation Council) GCC countries and their neighbor Iran have always been living in harmony until the Khomeini revolution came into being in 1979,”  Zionist Turki added.

He said there was an “external strategy… to replace the concept of stability with the concept of coup and conflict.”

Zionist Faisal stressed that the Iranian elections are undemocratic and illegitimate because Khamenei appoints the candidates adding that the behavior of the Iranian regime does not qualify it to be a democratic system.

Former UN ambassador, Zionist John Bolton said during the Grand Gathering that the outcome of the US policy review will determine that the regime will not last.

Zionist Bolton added that Tehran must not be allowed to control the arch from Baghdad to Damascus to Lebanon. Iran’s regime is not only a nuclear threat but also a conventional threat to peace and security.

Tehran regime does not change its behavior, so the only solution is to change the regime, stated Zionist Bolton, adding that the US declared policy should be regime change and there is a viable opposition in this room.

Former NY Mayor, Zionist Rudy Giuliani said the only way for stability in the Middle East is through a regime change.

“You, I, my government and your leadership, we see Iran in exactly the same way. The regime is evil and it must go. Free Iran,” said Zionist Giuliani.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, France, Iran, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Iranian Zionist puppet Annual Convention Calls for Regime Change

The West must realize that the MKO is not popular (aka Mojahedin Khalq, MEK, Rajavi cult)

NOVANEWS

Mazda Parsi, Nejat Society 

As the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/the cult of Rajavi) is holding its so-called annual grand gathering in Paris, its supporters try to be grateful for their luxurious trip to Paris donated to them by the group. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Department of the United States, Tom Ridge is a well-paid advocate of the MKO. Together with a number of his colleagues … 

مجاهدین خلق فرقه رجوی داعش تروریسم تهرانIran Unites as Tehran Struck by Middle East’s Proxy Wars

Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher lobby for MEK and ISIS
Americans take responsibility for recent joint Saudi/ISIS/MEK terror attacks (Mojahedin Khalq, Rajavi Cult, MKO, PMOI, NCRI …) 

As the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO/the cult of Rajavi) is holding its so-called annual grand gathering in Paris, its supporters try to be grateful for their luxurious trip to Paris donated to them by the group.

Former Secretary of Homeland Security Department of the United States, Tom Ridge is a well-paid advocate of the MKO. Together with a number of his colleagues, Ridge has been paid thousands of dollars for his speeches in support of the group as well as his first class flights to France and his luxurious hotel rooms in Paris every year.

Therefore, the hefty payments have convinced him to forge the truth. In his recent article, published by Arabnews, just two days before the grand gathering he claims that “many Iranians have boycotted the presidential election” in Iran! He claims that the large voter turnout is the “regime propaganda” while the entire world-wide media have admitted that the Iranians’ participation in the recent presidential elections was great. Aljazeera, for instance described the election as “a massive voter turnout”. “Long queues were seen outside polling stations across the country, and voting time was extended by five hours”, according to BBC.

However, Mr. Ridge prefers to neglect the truth and instead call for support for the MKO declaring his plan to attend the group’s rally in Paris, ”which is expected to draw upward of 1000,000 Iranian expatriates from around the world, and will be broadcast live to millions of Iranians.”

He seems to be so naïve that he cannot recognize the huge number of non-Iranians who are bused to the so-called grand gathering from around Europe including college students, African and middle eastern refugees and a lot more irrelevant people who have been promised a free trip to the lovely memorable French capital, Paris.

He claims that millions of Iranians watch the MKO’s masquerade show live while the 80-milllion Iranian population who almost all have access to the Internet and satellite TV channels, hardly ever know the MKO or even if they know the group they do not sound eager to know about it or to follow its news.

Mr. Ridge’s is made forget the violent background of the MKO. Ironically, he advises the international community to “encourage the democratic transformation of Iran by supporting democratic alternatives to the current regime”. This is an alarming sign of his poor judgment about the MKO and its situation among the Iranian public opinion.

Indeed, various sources emphasize that the MKO enjoys very little support in Iranian public because of its cooperation with Saddam Hussein during the eight years of Iran-Iraq war and moreover due to its violent bloody struggle against the government that took the lives of thousands of Iranian civilians.

“The group is wildly hated inside Iran and has almost no support in the Iranian diaspora”, writes Daniel Larison of the American conservative. “It is widely unrepresentative to what most Iranians in Iran and elsewhere want for their country.”

Posted in Europe, France, IranComments Off on The West must realize that the MKO is not popular (aka Mojahedin Khalq, MEK, Rajavi cult)

Terrorist organization: People’s Mujahedin of Iran ‘MKO’

NOVANEWS

Posted by: John Phoenix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emblem of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

سازمان مجاهدين خلق
Abbreviation
MKO, MEK, PMOI
Leader
Maryam Rajavi and Massoud Rajavi[a]
Secretary-General
Zohreh Akhyani[3]
Founded
5 September 1965; 51 years ago
Split from
Freedom Movement[4]
Headquarters
Paris, France(1981–1986;[5] 2003–)
Newspaper
Mojahed[6]
Military wing
National Liberation Army (NLA)
Political wing
National Council of Resistance(NCR)
Membership (2011)
5,000 to 13,500 (DoD estimate)[5]
Ideology
Political position
Left-wing
Religion
Shia Islam
Colours
     Red
Website

www.mojahedin.org

Armed wing of MKO
National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA)[11]
Participant in Black September, Iranian Revolution, Iran hostage crisis, Consolidation of the Iranian Revolution, Iran–Iraq War, 1991 uprisings in Iraq, 2003 invasion of Iraq, 2011 Camp Ashraf raid, 2013 Camp Ashraf attack, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict
Ir-nla.gif

NLA flag used since 1987
Active 1971–1977[12]
1979[13]present[14]
Since 20 June 1987 as NLA[15]
Leaders
  • Maryam Rajavi, deputy commander-in-chief[16]
  • Mousa Khiabani, Commander (1981–1982;KIA)[17]
  • Ali Zarkesh, Commander (1982–1988;KIA)[17]
  • Ebrahim Zakeri, Head of ‘Security and Counter-Terrorism’ (1993–2003)[18]
Area of operations Iran and Iraq[19]
Strength Brigade (at peak)[20]
Allies
Opponents
Battles and wars Operation Eternal Light

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran or the Mojahedin-e Khalq (Persian: سازمان مجاهدين خلق ايران‎, translit. Sāzmān-e mojāhedin-e khalq-e irān‎, abbreviated MEK, PMOI or MKO) is an Iranian political–militant organization[5] in exile that advocates the violent overthrow of the government of Iran while claiming itself as the replacing shadow government.[28][29]

According to a 2009 report published by the Brookings Institution, the organization appears to be undemocratic and lacking popularity but maintains an operational presence in Iran, acting as a proxy against Tehran.[30]

It is designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq, and was considered a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom and the European Union until 2008 and 2009 respectively, and by Canada and the United States until 2012. Various scholarly works, media outlets, and the governments of the United States and France have described it as a cult.[b] The organization has built a cult of personality around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.[33]

It was founded on 5 September 1965 by six Muslim students who were affiliated with the Freedom Movement of Iran;[4] however in a coup-style ideological transformation, leftist members hijacked the Muslim group and adopted a Marxist platform in 1975.[38] The organization engaged in armed conflict with the Pahlavi dynasty in the 1970s and played an active role in the downfall of the Shah in 1979. They hailed “His Highness Ayatollah Khomeini as a glorious fighter (Mojahed)” and urged all to remain united behind him against plots by royalists and imperialists.[13]

Following the revolution, they participated in March 1979 referendum and strongly supported the Iran hostage crisis, but boycotted the Islamic Republic constitutional referendum in December 1979, being forced to withdraw their candidate for the Iranian presidential election in January 1980 as a result. Furthermore, the organization was unable to win a single seat in the 1980 Iranian legislative election. Allied with PresidentAbolhassan Banisadr, the group clashed with the ruling Islamic Republican Party while avoiding direct and open criticism of Khomeini until June 1981, when they declared war against the Government of Islamic Republic of Iran and initiated a number of bombings and assassinations targeting the clerical leadership.[6]

The organization gained a new life in exile, founding the National Council of Resistance of Iran and continuing to conduct violent attacks in Iran. In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and which destroyed the MEK’s appeal in its homeland.[39]

The group says it renounced violence in 2001.[40] However, the MEK has been accused by numerous commentators of being financed, trained, and armed by Israel to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists and educators.[41]

While the MEK’s leadership has resided in Paris, the group’s core members were for many years confined to Camp Ashraf in Iraq, particularly after the MEK and U.S. forces signed a cease-fire agreement of “mutual understanding and coordination” in 2003.[42] The group was later relocated to former U.S. military base Camp Liberty in Iraq[43] and eventually to Albania.[44]

In 2002 the MEK revealed the existence of Iran’s nuclear program. They have since made various claims about the programme, not all of which have been accurate.[45][46]

Other names

The group had no name until February 1972.[47]

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran is known by a variety of names including:

  • Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK)
  • The National Liberation Army of Iran (the group’s armed wing)
  • National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – the MEK is the founding member of a coalition of organizations called the NCRI.[48][49] The organization has the appearance of a broad-based coalition; however, many analysts consider NCRI and MEK to be synonymous[11] and recognize NCRI as only “nominally independent” political wing of MEK.[50][51][52]
  • Monafiqeen (Persian: منافقین‎‎) – the Iranian government consistently refers to the People’s Mujahedin with this derogatory name, meaning “the hypocrites“.[53]

Note: The acronym MEK is used throughout this article, as it is commonly used by the media and national governments around the world to refer to the People’s Mujahedin.

Membership

According to Albert V. Benliot, most analysts agree that MEK members tend to be “more dedicated and zealous” than those of other organizations.[54]

1980s

According to George E. Delury, in early 1980 the organization was thought to have 5,000 hard-core members and 50,000 supporters, with the Paykar faction capable of attracting 10,000 in university areas. In June 1980, at perhaps the height of their popularity, the Mojahedin attracted 150,000 sympathizers to a rally in Tehran.[55] Pierre Razoux estimates MEK’s maximum strength from 1981–1983 to 1987–1988, about 15,000 fighters with a few tanks and several dozen light artillery pieces, recoilless guns, machine guns, anti-tank missiles and SAM-7s.[56] Jeffrey S. Dixon and Meredith Reid Sarkees estimate their prewar strength to be about 2,000, later peaking to 10,000.[57]

Post-2000

The MEK was believed to have a 5,000–7,000-strong armed guerrilla group based in Iraq before the 2003 war, but a membership of between 3,000–5,000 is considered more likely.[58] In 2005, the U.S. think-tank the Council on Foreign Relations stated that the MEK had 10,000 members, one-third to one-half of whom were fighters.[59] According to a 2003 article by the New York Times, the MEK was composed of 5,000 fighters based in Iraq, many of them female.[60] BMI Research‘s 2008 report estimates MEK’s armed wing strength 6,000–8,000 and its political wing around 3,000, thus a total 9,000–11,000 membership.[61] A 2013 article in Foreign Policy claimed that there were some 2,900 members in Iraq.[62] In 2011, United States Department of Defense estimated global membership of the organization between 5,000 and 13,500 persons scattered throughout Europe, North America, and Iraq.[5]

History

Before the Revolution (1965–1979)

Foundation

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran was founded on 5 September 1965 by six former members of the Liberation or Freedom Movement of Iran, students at Tehran University, including Mohammad Hanifnejad, Saied Mohsen and Ali-Asghar Badizadegan. The MEK opposed the rule of Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, considering him corrupt and oppressive, and considered the Liberation Movement too moderate and ineffective.[63] They were committed to the Ali Shariati‘s approach to Shiism.[64] Although the MEK are often regarded as devotees of Ali Shariati, in fact their pronouncements preceded Shariati’s, and they continued to echo each other throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s.[65]

In its first five years, the group primarily engaged in ideological work.[66] Their thinking aligned with what was a common tendency in Iran at the time – a kind of radical, political Islam based on a Marxist reading of history and politics. The group’s main source of inspiration was the Islamic text Nahj al-Balagha (a collection of analyses and aphorisms attributed to Imam Ali). Despite some describing a Marxist influence, the group never used the terms “socialist” or “communist” to describe themselves,[67] and always called themselves Muslims – arguing along with Ali Shariati, that a true Muslim – especially a true Shia Muslim, that is to say a devoted follower of the Imams Ali and Hossein – must also by definition, be a revolutionary.[65] However, they generously adopted elements of Marxism in order to update and modernize their interpretation of radical Islam.[68]

The group kept a friendly relationship with the only other major Iranian urban guerrilla group, the Organization of Iranian People’s Fedai Guerrillas (OIPFG).[69]

Schism

In October 1975, the MEK underwent an ideological split. While the remaining primary members of MEK were imprisoned, some of the early members of MEK formed a new organization that followed Marxist, not Islamic, ideals; these members appropriated the MEK name to establish and enhance their own legitimacy.[70] This was expressed in a book entitled Manifesto on Ideological Issues, in which the central leadership declared “that after ten years of secret existence, four years of armed struggle, and two years of intense ideological rethinking, they had reached the conclusion that Marxism, not Islam, was the true revolutionary philosophy.” Mujtaba Taleqani, son of Ayatallah Taleqani, was one of these converts to Marxism.

Thus after May 1975 there were two rival Mujahedin, each with its own publication, its own organization, and its own activities.[71] A few months before the Iranian Revolution the majority of the Marxist Mujahedin renamed themselves “Peykar“, on 7 December 1978 (16 Azar, 1357); the full name is: Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. This name was after the “League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class“, which was a left-wing group in Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire, founded by Vladimir Lenin in the autumn of 1895.[72]

Anti-American campaign

On 30 November 1970 a failed attempt was made to kidnap the U.S. Ambassador to Iran, Douglas MacArthur II.[73] This was followed by an assassination attack in May 1972 against USAF Brig. Gen. Harold Price. Price survived the attack but was wounded.[74][75] The CIA’s former Chief of Station in Tehran, George Cave, described the attack as the first instance of a remotely detonated improvised explosive device.[76]

In the years between 1973 and 1975, armed operations within the MEK intensified, while primary members of the MEK remained imprisoned.[77] In 1973 ten major American-owned buildings were bombed including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, and Radio City Cinema.[78]

Lt. Col. Louis Lee Hawkins, a U.S. Army comptroller, was shot to death in front of his home in Tehran by two men on a motorcycle on June 2, 1973.[73][74][79][80] A car carrying U.S. Air Force officers Col. Paul Shaffer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner was trapped between two cars carrying armed men. They told the Iranian driver to lie down and then shot and killed the Americans. Six hours later a woman called reporters to claim the MEK carried out the attack as retaliation for the recent death of prisoners at the hands of Iranian authorities.[73][74][81] A car carrying three American employees of Rockwell International was attacked in August 1976. William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard were killed. They had been working on the Ibex system for gathering intelligence on the neighboring USSR.[73][82] Leading up to the Islamic Revolution, members of the MEK, conducted attacks and assassinations against both Iranian and Western targets.[83] According to the U.S. Department of State and the presentation of the MEK by the Foreign Affairs group of the Australian Parliament, the group conducted several assassinations of U.S. military personnel and civilians working in Iran during the 1970s. After the revolution the group actively supported the U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran in 1979.[84]

MEK supporters have claimed that the assassinations and bombings were carried out by the Marxist leaning splinter group Peykar, who “hijacked” the name of the MEK, and were not under the control of imprisoned leaders such as Massoud Rajavi.[77]

“The political phase” (1979–1981)

The group supported the revolution in its initial phases.[85] MEK launched an unsuccessful campaign supporting total abolition of Iran’s standing military, Islamic Republic of Iran Army, in order to prevent a coup d’état against the system. They also claimed credit for infiltration against the Nojeh coup plot.[86]

It participated in the referendum held in March 1979.[85] Its candidate for the head of the newly founded council of experts was Masoud Rajavi in the election of August 1979.[85]However, he lost the election.[85] The group also supported for the occupation the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979.[85] In January 1980, Rajavi announced his candidacy for the presidency, but he was banned, since he was regarded by Ayatollah Khomeini as ineligible.[85] In February 1980, concentrated attacks by Hezbollahi members began on the meeting places, bookstores, and newsstands of Mujahideen and other leftists, driving the left underground in Iran. Hundreds of MEK supporters and members were killed from 1979 to 1981, and some 3,000 were arrested. Ultimately, the organization called for a massive half-a-million-strong demonstration under the banner of Islam on June 20, 1981, to protest Iran’s new leadership, which was also attacked. Following the June 20 protests, Massoud Rajavi formed the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in Tehran.[87][self-published source?]

In the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the MEK was suppressed by Khomeini’s revolutionary organizations and harassed by the Hezbollahi, who attacked meeting places, bookstores, and kiosks of the Mujahideen.[88] Toward the end of 1981, several PMOI members and supporters went into exile. Their principal refuge was in France.[89]

Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield describes this period in an article in The National Interest Magazine “when confronted with growing resistance in the spring of 1981 to the restrictive new order that culminated in massive pro-democracy demonstrations across the country invoked by MEK leader Massoud Rajavi on June 20, Khomeini’s reign was secured at gunpoint with brute force, driving Iran’s first and only freely elected president, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, underground and into permanent exile. This fateful episode was described by Ervand Abrahamian as a “reign of terror”; Marvin Zonis called it “a campaign of mass slaughter.”[90]

Electoral history

Year Election/referendum Seats won/policy References
1979 Islamic Republic referendum Vote ‘Yes’ [6]
Assembly of Experts election

0 / 73 (0%)

[91]
Constitutional referendum Boycott [6]
1980 Presidential election Vote, no candidate [6]
Parliamentary elections

0 / 270 (0%)

[91]

Armed conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)

Protests against the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini (20 June 1981)

Following the 1979 revolution, the newly established theocratic government of Ayatollah Khomeini moved to squash dissent. Khomeini attacked the MEK as elteqati (eclectic), contaminated with Gharbzadegi (“the Western plague”), and as monafeqin (hypocrites) and kafer (unbelievers).[92] In February 1980 concentrated attacks by hezbollahi pro-Khomeini militia began on the meeting places, bookstores and newsstands of Mujahideen and other leftists[93] driving the Left underground in Iran. Hundreds of MEK supporters and members were killed from 1979 to 1981, and some 3,000 were arrested.[94]

On 30 August a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. An active member of the Mujahedin, Massoud Keshmiri, was identified as the perpetrator, and according to reports[by whom?] came close to killing the entire government including Khomeini.[unreliable source?] The reaction to both bombings was intense with many arrests and executions of Mujahedin and other leftist groups, but “assassinations of leading officials and active supporters of the government by the Mujahedin were to continue for the next year or two.”[95]

Following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, MEK called Saddam Hussein an “aggressor” and a “dictator“.[32]

In 1981, the MEK formed the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) with the stated goal of uniting the opposition to the Iranian government under one umbrella organization. The MEK says that in the past 25 years, the NCRI has evolved into a 540-member parliament-in-exile, with a specific platform that emphasizes free elections, gender equality and equal rights for ethnic and religious minorities. The MEK claims that it also advocates a free-market economy and supports peace in the Middle East. However, the FBI claims that the NCRI “is not a separate organization, but is instead, and has been, an integral part of the [MEK] at all relevant times” and that the NCRI is “the political branch” of the MEK, rather than vice versa. Although the MEK is today the main organization of the NCRI, the latter previously hosted other organizations, such as the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran.[48]

Eventually, the majority of the MEK leadership and members fled to France, where it operated until 1986, when tension arose between Paris and Tehran over the Eurodif nuclear stake and French citizens kidnapped in the Lebanon hostage crisis. After Rajavi flew to Baghdad, the hostages were released.[citation needed]

Operation Eternal Light and 1988 executions

Rajavi shaking hands with Saddam Hussein

In 1986, after French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac struck a deal with Tehran for the release of French hostages held prisoners by the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the MEK was forced to leave France and relocated to Iraq. Investigative journalist Dominique Lorentz has related the 1986 capture of French hostages to an alleged blackmail of France by Tehran concerning the nuclear program.[96]

The MEK transferred its headquarters to Iraq. Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam’s Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA), went into action. On July 26, 1988, six days after the Ayatollah Khomeini had announced his acceptance of the UN brokered ceasefire resolution, the NLA advanced under heavy Iraqi air cover, crossing the Iranian border from Iraq. It seized and razed to the ground the Iranian town of Islamabad-e Gharb. As it advanced further into Iran, Iraq ceased its air support and Iranian forces cut off NLA supply lines and counterattacked under cover of fighter planes and helicopter gunships. On July 29 the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal back to Iraq. The MEK claims it lost 1,400 dead or missing and the Islamic Republic sustained 55,000 casualties (either IRGC, Basij forces, or the army). The Islamic Republic claims to have killed 4,500 NLA during the operation.[97] The operation was called Foroughe Javidan (Eternal Light) by the MEK and the counterattack Operation Mersad by the Iranian forces.

A large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups (somewhere between 1,400 and 30,000),[98] were executed in 1988, following Operation Eternal Light.[99][c][101][102][103] Dissident Ayatollah Montazeri has written in his memoirs that this massacre, deemed a crime against humanity, was ordered by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and carried out by several high-ranking members of Iran’s current government. Recently The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed a Special Rapporteur on Human Rights violations for Iran, to take action on such actions since 1988.[104]

According to The Economist, “Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors” for its alliance with Saddam during the Iran–Iraq War.[105] Massoud Rajavi personally identified Iranian military targets for Iraq to attack, an act the New York Times describes as betrayal.[106]

Post-war Saddam era (1988–2003)

In the following years the MEK conducted several high-profile assassinations of political and military figures inside Iran, including Asadollah Lajevardi, the former warden of the Evin prison, in 1998, and deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, who was assassinated on the doorsteps of his house on April 10, 1999.[107]

In April 1992, the MEK attacked 10 embassies, including the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York. Some of the attackers were armed with knives, firebombs, metal bars, sticks, and other weapons. In the various attacks, they took hostages, burned cars and buildings, and injured multiple Iranian ambassadors and embassy employees. There were additional injuries, including to police, in other locations. The MEK also caused major property damage. There were dozens of arrests.[108]

The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) cracked down on MEK activity, carrying out what a US Federal Research Division, Library of Congress Report referred to as “psychological warfare.”[109]

2003 French arrest

Members protesting arrest of Rajavi

In June 2003 French police raided the MEK’s properties, including its base in Auvers-sur-Oise, under the orders of anti-terrorist magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière, after suspicions that it was trying to shift its base of operations there. 160 suspected MEK members were then arrested. In response, 40 supporters began hunger strikes to protest the arrests, and ten immolated themselves in various European capitals. French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy (Union for a Popular Movement) declared that the MEK “recently wanted to make France its support base, notably after the intervention in Iraq”, while Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, head of France’s domestic intelligence service, claimed that the group was “transforming its Val d’Oise centre [near Paris]… into an international terrorist base”.[110]

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas and chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on South Asia, then accused the French of doing “the Iranian government’s dirty work”. Along with other members of Congress, he wrote a letter of protest to President Jacques Chirac, while longtime MEK supporters such as Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Democrat from Texas, criticized Maryam Radjavi’s arrest.[60]

Following orders from MEK and in protest to the arrests, about ten members set themselves on fire in front of French embassies abroad and two of them died. French authorities released MEK members as a result.[32]

Post-US invasion of Iraq (2003–present)

During the Iraq war, the coalition forces bombed MEK bases and forced them to surrender in May 2003.[111] U.S. troops later posted guards at its bases.[112] The U.S. military also protected and gave logistical support to the MEK as U.S. officials viewed the group as a high value source of intelligence on Iran.[113][page needed]

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, MEK camps were bombed by the U.S., resulting in at least 50 deaths. It was later revealed that the U.S. bombings were part of an agreement between the Iranian regime and Washington. In the agreement Tehran offered to oust some al-Qaeda suspects if the U.S. came down on the MEK.[114]

In the operation, the U.S. reportedly captured 6,000 MEK soldiers and over 2,000 pieces of military equipment, including 19 British-made Chieftain tanks.[115][116] The MEK compound outside Fallujah became known as Camp Fallujah and sits adjacent to the other major base in Fallujah, Forward Operating Base Dreamland. Captured MEK members were kept at Camp Ashraf, about 100 kilometers west of the Iranian border and 60 kilometers north of Baghdad.[117]

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared MEK personnel in Ashraf protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They were placed under the guard of the U.S. Military. Defectors from this group are housed separately in a refugee camp within Camp Ashraf, and protected by U.S. Army military police (2003–current)[needs update], U.S. Marines (2005–07), and the Bulgarian Army (2006–current)[needs update].[118]

On 19 August 2003, MEK bombed the United Nations compound in Iraq, prompting UN withdrawal from the country.[119]

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch issued a report describing prison camps within Iraq run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against former members during the period from 1991 to 2003.[120] The report prompted a response by the MEK and a few friendly European MPs, who published a counter-report in September 2005.[121][self-published source?] They stated that HRW had “relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals”, and stated that “a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq” and “conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses.” Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, alleged that Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.[121] In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during the year 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations.[122]

In July 2010, the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal issued an arrest warrant for 39 MEK members, including Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, for crimes against humanity committed while suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.[123]

Iraqi government’s 2009 crackdown

On 23 January 2009, and while on a visit to Tehran, Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie reiterated the Iraqi Prime Minister’s earlier announcement that the MEK organisation would no longer be able to base itself on Iraqi soil and stated that the members of the organisation would have to make a choice, either to go back to Iran or to go to a third country, adding that these measures would be implemented over the next two months.[124]

On 29 July 2009, eleven Iranians were killed and over 500 were injured in a raid by Iraqi security on the MEK Camp Ashraf in Diyala province of Iraq.[125] U.S. officials had long opposed a violent takeover of the camp northeast of Baghdad, and the raid is thought to symbolize the declining American influence in Iraq.[126] After the raid, the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, stated the issue was “completely within [the Iraqi government’s] purview.”[127] In the course of attack, 36 Iranian dissidents were arrested and removed from the camp to a prison in a town named Khalis, where the arrestees went on hunger strike for 72 days, 7 of which was dry hunger strike. Finally the dissidents were released when they were in an extremely critical condition and on the verge of death.[128][129]

Iran’s nuclear programme

The MEK and the NCRI revealed the existence of Iran’s nuclear program in a press conference held on 14 August 2002 in Washington DC. MEK representative Alireza Jafarzadeh stated that Iran is running two top-secret projects, one in the city of Natanz and another in a facility located in Arak, which was later confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.[130]

Journalists Seymour Hersh and Connie Bruck have written that the information was given to the MEK by Israel. Among others, it was described by a senior IAEA official and a monarchist advisor to Reza Pahlavi, who said before MEK they were offered to reveal the information, but they refused because it would be seen negatively by the people of Iran.[131][132] Similar accounts could be found elsewhere by others, including comments made by US officials.[130]

However, all of their subsequent claims turned out to be false. For instance, on 18 November 2004, MEK representative Mohammad Mohaddessin used satellite images to falsely state that a new facility exists in northeast Tehran, named “Center for the Development of Advanced Defence Technology”.[130]

In late 2005, they held a conference and announced that Iran was digging tunnels for missile and atomic work at 14 sites, including an underground complex near Qom. Commenting on the allegations, Mohamed ElBaradei, then head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said “We followed whatever they came up with… And a lot of it was bogus.” Frank Pabian, a senior adviser at Los Alamos National Laboratory, however said “they’re right 90 percent of the time… That doesn’t mean they’re perfect, but 90 percent is a pretty good record.”[133]

In 2010 the NCRI claimed to have uncovered a secret nuclear facility in Iran. These claims were dismissed by US officials, who did not believe the facilities to be nuclear. In 2013, the NCRI again claimed to have discovered a secret underground nuclear site.[134]

In 2012, the MEK were accused by the Iranian government and US officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, of being financed, trained, and armed by Israel’s secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.[41][135][136] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[137]

In 2015, MEK again falsely claimed to have found a secret nuclear facility they called “Lavizan-3”. The site was revealed to be operated by a firm which produces identification documents for Iranian government.[138]

Alleged involvement in Syrian Civil War

According to the official Iran newspaper, in August 2012, a number of MEK members detained by the Syrian government confessed that the MEK is training militants on Turkish soil near the border with Syria. The report also said they cooperate foreign-backed militants in Syria through the Jordanian borders and are stationed at a base called ‘Hanif’, which is “disguised as a hospital”.[139]

On 30 May 2013, Georges Malbrunot of Le Figaro wrote that two members of the organization were found dead in Idlib, citing a “European parliamentarian in contact with the anti-government rebels“.[140]

In August 2013, Qassem Al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad’s government.[141]

In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as “revolutionary forces”. However in April 2015, it called the former an “extremist group” and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran.[142]

Following the 2017 Tehran twin attacks on the Iranian parliament and the Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini, ISIL claimed responsibility but some observers suspected the involvement of different actors, including MEK. It was partly because of the target (MEK leaders had said Ayatollah Khomeini’s tomb would be among their first), in addition to use of a female attacker and cyanide pill, a regular MEK practice. The organization condemned the attacks and denied that it was involved.[143][144]

Relocation from Iraq

On January 1, 2009 the U.S. military transferred control of Camp Ashraf to the Iraqi government. On the same day, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced that the militant group would not be allowed to base its operations from Iraqi soil.[145]

In 2012 MEK moved from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya in Baghdad (a onetime U.S. base formerly known as Camp Liberty). A rocket and mortar attack killed 5 and injured 50 others at Camp Hurriya on February 9, 2013. MEK residents of the facility and their representatives and lawyers appealed to the UN Secretary-General and U.S. officials to let them return to Ashraf, which they say has concrete buildings and shelters that offer more protection. The United States has been working with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on the resettlement project.[146]

On September 9, 2016 the more than 280 MEK members remaining were relocated to Albania.[44]

Ideology

Before the revolution

The MEK’s ideology of revolutionary Shiaism is based on an interpretation of Islam so similar to that of Ali Shariati that “many concluded” they were inspired by him. According to historian Ervand Abrahamian, it is clear that “in later years” that Shariati and “his prolific works” had “indirectly helped the Mujahedin.”[147]

In the group’s “first major ideological work,” Nahzat-i Husseini or Hussein‘s Movement, authored by one of the group’s founders, Ahmad Reza’i, it was argued that Nezam-i Towhid (monotheistic order) sought by the prophet Muhammad, was a commonwealth fully united not only in its worship of one God but in a classless society that strives for the common good. “Shiism, particularly Hussein’s historic act of martyrdom and resistance, has both a revolutionary message and a special place in our popular culture.”[69]

As described by Abrahamian, one Mojahedin ideologist argued

“Reza’i further argued that the banner of revolt raised by the Shi’i Imams, especially Ali, Hassan, and Hussein, was aimed against feudal landlords and exploiting merchant capitalists as well as against usurping Caliphs who betrayed the Nezam-i-Towhid. For Reza’i and the Mujahidin it was the duty of all muslims to continue this struggle to create a ‘classless society‘ and destroy all forms of capitalism, despotism, and imperialism. The Mujahidin summed up their attitude towards religion in these words: ‘After years of extensive study into Islamic history and Shi’i ideology, our organization has reached the firm conclusion that Islam, especially Shi’ism, will play a major role in inspiring the masses to join the revolution. It will do so because Shi’ism, particularly Hussein‘s historic act of resistance, has both a revolutionary message and a special place in our popular culture.”[148]

After the revolution

According to the publicly stated ideology of the MEK, elections and public suffrage are the sole indicators of political legitimacy. Their publications reported that the Word of God and Islam are meaningless without freedom and respect for individual volition and choice. Their interpretation of Islam and the Quran says that the most important characteristic distinguishing man from animals is his free will. It is on this basis that human beings are held accountable. Without freedom, no society can develop or progress. Although its leaders present themselves as Muslims, the MEK describes itself as a secular organization: “The National Council of Resistance believes in the separation of Church and State.”[149][self-published source?]

In more recent years under the guidance of Maryam Rajavi the organization has adopted strong principles in favor of women. Women assumed some senior positions of responsibility within the ranks of the MEK and although women make up only a third of fighters, two-thirds of its commanders are women. Rajavi ultimately believes that women should enjoy equal rights with men.[150][self-published source?]

View on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

In the beginning, MEK used to criticize the Pahlavi dynasty for allying with Israel and Apartheid South Africa,[151] even calling them racist states and demanding cancellation of all political and economic agreements with them.[152] MEK opposed Israeli–Palestinian peace process[153] and was anti-Zionist.[32]

The Central Cadre established contact with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), by sending emissaries to Paris, Dubai, and Qatar to meet PLO officials. In one occasion, seven leading members of MEK spent several months in the PLO camps in Jordan and Lebanon.[154] On 3 August 1972, they bombed the Jordanian embassy as a means to revenge King Hussein‘s unleashing his troops on the PLO in 1970.[155]

After their exile, the MEK changed into an ‘ally’ of Israel in pursuit of its ideological opportunism.[32][156]

MEK leader Maryam Rajavi publicly met with the President of the State of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas on 30 July 2016 in Paris, France.[157]

View on the United States

Before their exile, the MEK preached “anti-imperialism” both before and after revolution. The Mojahedin Organization praised writers such as Al-e Ahmad, Saedi and Shariati for being “anti-imperialist”.[158] Rajavi in his presidential campaign after revolution used to warn against what he called the “imperialist danger”.[159] The matter was so fundamental to MEK that it criticized the Iranian government on that basis, accusing the Islamic Republic of “capitulation to imperialism” and being disloyal to democracy that according to Rajavi was the only means to “safeguard from American imperialism”.[160] However, after exile, Rajavi toned down the issues of imperialism, social revolution, and classless society. Instead he stressed on human rights and respect for “personal property[161] (as opposed to “private property“, which capitalists consider to be identical to “personal property” while Marxists do not).

Following the September 11 attacks, the organization publicly condemned the event but its members at the camps reportedly rejoiced and called it “God’s revenge on America”.[162]

The ‘ideological revolution’ and the issue of women’s rights

On 27 January 1985, Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby ‘would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World’. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this ‘great revolution’. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani‘s younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu’s giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist.[163]

According to Iranian-Armenian historian Ervand Abrahamian, “the Mojahedin, despite contrary claims did not give women equal representation within their own hierarchy. The book of martyrs indicates that women formed 15 percent of the organization’s rank-and-file, but only 9 percent of its leadership. To rectify this, the Mojahedin posthumously revealed some of the rank and file women martyrs especially those related to prominent figures, into leadership positions.”[164]

According to Country Reports on Terrorism, in 1990 the second phase of the ‘ideological revolution’ was announced during which all married members were ordered to divorce and remain celibate, undertaking a vow of “eternal divorce”, with the exception of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. Shortly thereafter, all children (about 800)[32] were separated from their parents and sent abroad to be adopted by members of the group in Europe or North America.[32][165]

In 1994, “self-divorce” was declared as the further phase of the ‘ideological revolution’. During this process all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization and change into “ant-like human beings”, i.e. following orders by their instinct.[32]

Sociologist Eileen Barker has described the MEK’s “metamorphism” as follows:[32]

Years Nature Ideology Strategy Tactics Organization
1965–1978 Guerilla Syncretic, Islam and Marxism Armed struggle Terrorism Democratic centralism
1979–1981 Political Peaceful political Recruiting
Street demonstration
1981–1985 Terrorist Terrorism Terrorism
Lobby abroad
1985–2003 Terroristdestructive cult No public utterance after ‘ideological revolution’, subject to Survivalist doctrine Terrorism / War Terrorism Despotism
Activism
2003–2012 Provocation for military action against Iran Remain in Iraq
Keep members
Lobby abroad

Propaganda campaign

From the very beginning, the MEK pursued a dual strategy of using armed struggle and propaganda to achieve its goals,[166] and its proliftic international propaganda machine has been successful in misleading a considerable portion of the Western media since the 1980s.[167] Their propaganda aims to present them as a “democratic alternative” to the current Iranian government which defends Western values such as secularism and women’s rights. It also to tries erase its history of anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism, as well as totalitarian ideology and terrorist practices. As part of its public propaganda campaign, the MEK distributes numerous publications, reports, books, bulletins, and open letters to influence the media and Western parliamentarians.[168]

Media activity

The organization owns a free-to-air satellite television network named Vision of Freedom (Sima-ye-Azadi), launched in 2003 in England.[169] It previously operated Vision of Resistance analogue television in Iraq in the 1990s, accessible in western provinces of Iran.[170]

The organization is active on social media, most notably Twitter. It runs an isolated cluster of apparently “full-time activists” and spambots, which interact only with each other.[171][172] The cluster makes efforts to position itself as an organisation of human rights defenders. However, these efforts are rarely reciprocated, signaling their insularity.[171]According to digital research by the UK-based Small Media Foundation, the cluster’s “dependence on automated bots to disseminate information demonstrates that although the MEK is taking social media sites seriously as a platform for broadcasting news and propaganda, they lack the supporter network necessary to make a significant impact within the Iranian Twittersphere. As a result, the MEK is making use of automated bots to artificially inflate its follower count, and create an illusion of influence amongst Iranian Twitter users”.[172] National Council of Resistance of Iran, Mohajedin.org, Maryam-Rajavi.com, Hambastegi Meli, Iran News Update and Iran Efshagari are among accounts openly affiliated with the group.[171]

Crowd renting

MEK demonstrators carrying Lion and Sun flags and those of ‘National Liberation Army of Iran’

According to Kenneth R. Timmerman, the group regularly organizes rent-a-crowd protests worldwide and hires hecklers.[173]

Zaid Jilani and Paul R. Pillar have also cited similar observations.[174][175]

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has published diaries of a Kyrgyz student based in Prague who was recruited to travel to Paris for a MEK rally, in which most of the “protesters” were like her.[176] Michael Rubin has found the story “against the backdrop” of MEK.[177]

However according to Cheryl Benard et al, despite impressiveness of the group’s financial and logistical abilities, such mobilizations are unlikely and implausible because all demonstrators cannot be bought in exchange for exhausting rallies and public figures attending may face “vituperation” for supporting the group.[178]

Indoctrination

Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly “ideologic cleansings”.[179]

MEK is known for its long-term lobbying effort, especially in the United States,[2] where it competes against the National Iranian American Council.[180] It spent heavily to remove itself from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, having paid high-profile officials upwards of $50,000 for each appearance to give speeches calling for delisting.[180]DiGenova & Toensing and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld are among the advocacy groups paid by the organization.[181] The actual sum paid is vague, but the total could be in the millions of dollars.[182][183]

According to investigative work by Scott Peterson and acknowledged by Scott Shane, Glenn Greenwald and Joby Warrick, some prominent US officials from both political parties have received substantial sums of cash to give speeches in favor of MEK, and have become vocal advocates for the group, specifically for removing them from the terrorist list. They include Democrats Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, and Lee Hamilton, and Republicans Elaine Chao, Rudy Giuliani, Fran Townsend, Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, and Andrew Card. There are also advocates outside the government, such as Alan Dershowitz and Elie Wiesel.[183][184][185][186]

MEK in popular culture

The organization has been subject to a number of films, including:

Fraud and money laundering

Other than funds provided by foreign states (such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq under Saddam Hussein), the organization raises money through fraud and money laundering.[119]According to a RAND Corporation policy conundrum, MEK supporters seek donations at public places, often showing “gruesome pictures” of human rights victims in Iran and claiming to raise money for them but funnelling it to MEK.[119] A 2004 report by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) states that the organization is engaged “through a complex international money laundering operation that uses accounts in Turkey, Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates”.[196]

French case

In 2003, French judiciary charged twenty four members of the group including Maryam Rajavi for “associating with wrongdoers in relation with a terrorist undertaking”, lifting the probes in 2006 except for nine members still investigated for possible money laundering. All charges including money laundering were dropped in 2014.[197]

Germany

In Germany, a sham charity was used by the MEK to support “asylum seekers and refugees” but the money went to MEK. Another front organization collected funds for “children whose parents had been killed in Iran” in sealed and stamped boxes placed in city centers, each intaking DM 600–700 a day with 30 to 40 people used in each city for the operation. In 1988, the Nürnberg MEK front organization was uncovered by police, and the tactic was exposed. Initially, The Greens supported these organizations while it was unaware of their purpose.[198]

In December 2001, a joint FBI-Cologne police operation descovered what a 2004 report calls “a complex fraud scheme involving children and social benefits”, involving the sister of Maryam Rajavi.[196] The High Court ruled to close several MEK compounds after investigations revealed that the organization fraudulently collected between $5 million and $10 million in social welfare benefits for children of its members sent to Europe.[119]

United Kingdom

It operated a UK-based sham charity, namely Iran Aid, which “claimed to raise money for Iranian refugees persecuted by the Islamic regime” and was later revealed to be a front for its military wing.[199][182] In 2001, Charity Commission for England and Wales closed it down[200] after finding no “verifiable links between the money donated by the British public [approximately £5 million annually] and charitable work in Iran.”[119]

United States

Seven supporters were detained by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for funnelling more than $1 million to the organization through another sham charity, Committee for Human Rights in Iran.[119][201] They were later charged in a 59-count indictment with “providing and conspiring to provide material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization“.[199]

On 19 November 2004, two front organizations called the “Iranian–American Community of Northern Virginia” and the “Union Against Fundamentalism” organized demonstrations in front of the Capitol building in Washington, DC and transferred funds for the demonstration, some $9,000 to the account of a Texas MEK member. Congress and the bank in question were not aware of that the demonstrators were actually providing material support to the MEK.[199]

Assassinations

Bomb debris after assassination of President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar in 1981

More than 16,000 people have been killed in violent attacks conducted by MEK since 1979.[202] From August 26 1981 to December 1982, it orchestrated 336 attacks.[203]

During the fall of 1981 alone more than 1,000 officials were assassinated to take revenge, including police officers, judges and clerics. Their most notorious assassination was the Hafte Tir bombing in June 1981. Later, many low ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards were also targeted. It also failed to assassinate some key figures, including Iran’s current leader Ali Khameni. When the security meseares around officials improved, MEK started to target thousands of ordinary citizens who supported the government and Hezbollahis.[204]

The organization has claimed responsibility for the following assassinations, among others:

Timeline of assassinations

Failed attempts and other attacks
  • October 1971: In the group’s first operation, they failed to kidnap son of Ashraf Pahlavi and the Shah’s nephew Shahram Shafiq.[47]
  • May 1972: U.S. Air Force General Harold price was wounded in attempted assassination. Attacks on Tehran police station, In Hafteh (This Week) journal, U.S. Information Office, Hotel International, Iran-American Society, the mausoleum of Reza Shah, and offices of General Motors, Pepsi Cola, and the Marine Oil Company.[119]
  • 3 August 1972: Bombing of Jordanian embassy in Tehran[119] during King Hussein‘s state visit.[155]
  • September 1972: Bombings of Civil Defense Organization Center, Imperial Club, Municipal Department Store, Dept. of Military Industries exhibition hall, and police armory in Qom.[119]
  • June 1973: Bombing of facilities of Pan-Am Airlines, Shell Oil, Radio City Cinema, Hotel International, and an export company.[119]
  • February 1974: Attack on police station in Isfahan.[119]
  • April 1974: Bombing of offices of Oman Bank and Pan-American Oil and of gates of British embassy; attempted bombing of SAVAK center at Tehran University.[119]
  • June 1974: Bombing of gendarmerie post in Tehran and offices of U.S. company ITT.[119]
  • February 1975: Bombing of gendarmerie post in Lahijan.[119]
  • 5 May 1975: MEK member Morteza Samadiyeh-Labbaf was injured in attempted assassination by fellow MEK members, taken to hospital, arrested by SAVAK and eventually executed on 24 January 1976.[207]
  • June 1975: Failed to assassinate an American diplomat in Tehran.[215]
  • 22 June 1981: A bomb blast at Qom railway station killed eight and injured twenty-three.[216]
  • 1 July 1981: MEK plan to blow up the Parliament building was foiled.[216]
  • 20 July 1981: MEK gunmen failed to kill MP Habibollah Asgaroladi.[217]
  • 2 August 1981: Two explosions in Kermanshah and Tehran killed twenty.[218]
  • 12 August 1981: An overruned attack on IRGC headquarters in Tehran with machin guns and rockets.[218]
  • 21 August 1981: Twelve people died in a Tehran IRGC contingent skirmish.[218]
  • 27 September 1981: Hundreds of MEK members clashed with IRGC near University of Tehran campus. It left seventeen killed and forty wounded.[219]
  • 15 April 1982: Attack on friday prayer Imam in Rasht.[119]
  • 18 February 1983: Assassination attempt on a Khomeini representative in Khorasan province.[119]
  • 2 July 1987: Iranian diplomat in Madrid, Spain, survived a car bomb, as well as an injured bystander.[119]
  • April 1992: Bombing at a Tehran public building killed two children.[220]
  • 16 July 1992: Iran’s FM Ali Akbar Velayati who was visiting Potsdam, Germany was attacked by MEK.[221]
  • 20 August 1992: A MP from Kuhdasht survived grenade explosion at his house.[221]
  • 11 October 1992: Destruction of six IRGC vehicles in Qom; bombing of gas station and office of Tehran IRGC commander.[119]
  • 12 October 1992: Bomb exploded at the mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini.[221]
  • May 1993: Two guards were killed in the attack on communications facility of the National Iranian Oil Company in Kermanshah.[214]
  • 2 November 1994: An Iranian diplomat on mission in Denmark attacked.[119]
  • June 1995: Bombed oil refineries and other sites in west and south Iran.[221]
  • 7 May 1998: Attack on Iran’s deputy FM in Austria.[119]
  • June 1998: Mortar attack on Defense Industries Organization; bombing of Revolutionary Prosecutor’s office and Islamic Revolutionary Court in Tehran.[119]
  • July 1998: Bombing of Islamic Revolutionary Court in Tehran; armed attack on Iranian official in Rome, Italy.[119]
  • 14 September 1998: Attempt to kill Gen. Mohsen Rafighdoost failed.[222]
  • January 1999: Ali Razini, head of Tehran’s judiciary, was wounded after motorcyclist hurled a hand grenade at his car. The explosion killed one and injured three.[223] Mortar attack on Ministry of Intelligence in Tehran.[119]
  • 25 November 1999: Mortar attack at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.[119]
  • 5 February 2000: President Mohammad Khatami was unharmed in mortar attack on his residency in Pasteur Street, which reportedly killed a print shop worker and injured five others.[224]
  • March 2000: Mortar attack on residential housing complex; cross-border mortar attack on Iranian territory; attack on Iranian military forces near border.[119]
  • April 2000: Attempt to assassinate the commander of Nasr Headquarters, interagency board responsible for coordinating Iran’s policies on Iraq.[225]
  • May 2000: In several powerful explosions in Kermanshah, MEK claimed “dozens of agents had been killed or wounded”.[226] Six people were injured in a mortar attack near Tehran’s police headquarters.[227]
  • June 2000: Plot to assassinate Ali Akbar Velayati was foiled.[228] Rocket attack on Ministry of Defense.[119]
  • October 2000: A mortar attack targetting the command centre of special anti-riot forces in northern Tehran, left no casualties.[229]
  • August 2000: Mortar attack on city of Mehran; rockets fired near Salehabad and Khoramshahr.[119]
  • November 2000: Mortar attack near Musian and on Kermanshah.[119]
  • January 2001: Gen. Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf survived a mortar attack on the headquarters of Law Enforcement Force.[230] Five rockets fired at IRGC base in Tehran; mortar attack on Supreme Court and other government buildings in Tehran.[119]
  • March 2001: Rocket attack on Iranian security forces headquarters in Tehran and regional office in Shahr-e ziba, Tehran.[119]
  • 19 August 2003: MEK bombed the United Nations compound in Iraq, prompting UN withdrawal from the country.[119]

Status among Iranian opposition

An October 1994 report by the U.S. Department of State notes that other Iranian opposition groups do not cooperate with the organization because they view it as “undemocratic” and “tightly controlled” by its leaders.[54]

Due to its anti-Shah stance before the revolution, the MEK is not close to monarchist opposition groups and Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s deposed crown prince. Iran’s deposed president, Abolhassan Banisadr, ended his alliance with the group in 1984, denouncing its stance during the Iran–Iraq War.[54]

Rival exiled groups question the organizations’s claim that it would hold free elections after taking power in Iran, pointing to its designation of a “president-elect” as an evidence of neglecting Iranian people.[54]

Designation as a terrorist organization

The countries and organizations below have officially listed MEK as a terrorist organization:

Currently listed
 Iran Designated by the current regime[231] since 1981, also during Pahlavi dynasty[232] until 1979
 Iraq Designated by the post-2003 government[123][233][234]
Formerly listed
 United States Designated on 8 July 1997, delisted on 28 September 2012[228]
 United Kingdom Designated on 28 March 2001,[228] delisted on 24 June 2008[228]
 European Union Designated in May 2002,[228] delisted on 26 January 2009[228]
 Canada Designated on 24 May 2005,[235] delisted on 20 December 2012[236]
Other
 Australia Not designated as terrorist but added to the ‘Consolidated List’ subject to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 on 21 December 2001[237]
 United Nations The group is described as “involved in terrorist activities” by the United Nations Committee against Torture in 2008[238]

The United States put the MEK on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1997. However, since 2004 the United States also considered the group as “noncombatants” and “protected persons” under the Geneva Conventions because most members had been living in a refugee camp in Iraq for more than 25 years.[239] In 2002 the European Union, pressured by Washington, added MEK to its terrorist list.[240]

MEK leaders then began a lobbying campaign to be removed from the list by promoting itself as a viable opposition to the mullahs in Tehran. In 2008 the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied MEK its request to be delisted despite its lobbying.[241]

In 2011, several former senior U.S. officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, three former chairmen of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, two former directors of the CIA, former commander of NATO Wesley Clark, two former U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, the former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a former White House Chief of Staff, a former commander of the United States Marine Corps, former U.S. National Security Advisor Frances Townsend, and U.S. President Barack Obama‘s retired National Security Adviser General James L. Jones called for the MEK to be removed from its official State Department foreign terrorist listing on the grounds that they constituted a viable opposition to the Iranian government.[242]
In April 2012, Seymour Hersh reported that the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command had trained MEK operatives at a secret site in Nevada from 2005 to 2009. According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site until President Barack Obama took office in 2009.[243] Hersh also reported additional names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.[243]

The National Council of Resistance of Iran has rejected allegations of Hersh.[244][self-published source][245]

Removal of the designation

The United Kingdom lifted the MEK’s designation as a terrorist group in June 2008,[246] followed by the Council of the European Union on January 26, 2009, after what the group called a “seven-year-long legal and political battle.”[241][247][248] It was also lifted in the United States following a decision by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton[43] on September 21, 2012 and lastly in Canada on December 20, 2012.[249]

The Council of the European Union removed the group’s terrorist designation following the Court of Justice of the European Union‘s 2008 censure of France for failing to disclose new alleged evidence of the MEK’s terrorism threat.[247] Delisting allowed MEK to pursue tens of millions of dollars in frozen assets[248] and lobby in Europe for more funds. It also removed the terrorist label from MEK members at Camp Ashraf in Iraq.[241]

On 28 September 2012 the U.S. State Department formally removed MEK from its official list of terrorist organizations, beating an October 1deadline in an MEK lawsuit.[43][250]Secretary of State Clinton said in a statement that the decision was made because the MEK had renounced violence and had cooperated in closing their Iraqi paramilitary base. An official denied that lobbying by well-known figures influenced the decision.[251][252]

37 individuals including Ervand Abrahamian, Shaul Bakhash, Juan Cole and Gary Sick among others, published “Joint Experts’ Statement on the Mujahedin-e Khalq” on Financial Times voicing their concerns regarding MEK delisting.[253] The National Iranian American Council denounced the decision, stating it “opens the door to Congressional funding of the M.E.K. to conduct terrorist attacks in Iran” and “makes war with Iran far more likely.”[43] Iran state television also condemned the delisting of the group, saying that the U.S. considers MEK to be “good terrorists because the U.S. is using them against Iran.”[254]

See also

Splinter groups
Installations

References

Notes
  1. Jump up^ Since 1993, they are “Co–equal Leader”[1] however Massoud Rajavi has disappeared in 2003 and leadership of the group has practically passed to his wife Maryam Rajavi.[2]
  2. Jump up^ Scholarly works:[31][32][33][34] Media outlets:[35] France[36] and United States:[37]
  3. Jump up^ In this operation MEK penetrated as deep as 170 km into Iranian soil and very close to Kermanshah, the most important city in western Iran.[100]
Citations
  1. Jump up^ Steven O’Hern (2012). Iran’s Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps. Potomac Books, Inc. p. 208. ISBN 1597977012.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Stephen Sloan; Sean K. Anderson (2009). Historical Dictionary of Terrorism. Historical Dictionaries of War, Revolution, and Civil Unrest (3 ed.). Scarecrow Press. p. 454. ISBN 0810863111.
  3. Jump up^ “Annual Congress elects Zohreh Akhyani as new Secretary General”. NCR Iran. 2011-09-08. Retrieved 2013-01-05.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Houchang E. Chehabi (1990). Iranian Politics and Religious Modernism: The Liberation Movement of Iran Under the Shah and Khomeini. I.B.Tauris. p. 211. ISBN 1850431981.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Aaron Schwartz (April 2014). “National Security and the Protection of Constitutional Liberties: How the Foreign Terrorist Organization List Satisfies Procedural Due Process”. The Penn State Journal of Law & International Affair. 3 (1): 293–323. ISSN 2168-7951.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Peter J. Chelkowski, Robert J. Pranger (1988). Ideology and Power in the Middle East: Studies in Honor of George Lenczowski. Duke University Press. p. 250. ISBN 0822381508.
  7. Jump up^ Eileen Barker (2016). Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements. Routledge. p. 174. ISBN 1317063619. Looking at the original official ideology of the group, one notices some sort of ideological opportunism within their ‘mix and match’ set of beliefs.
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b Mehrzad Boroujerdi (1996). Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism. Syracuse University Press. p. 117. ISBN 9780815604334. …the ideological worldview of Mojahedin rested upon two of the main characteristics of Iranian social thought at the time: nationalism and populism.
  9. Jump up^ Bashiriyeh, Hossein. The State and Revolution in Iran (RLE Iran D). Taylor & Francis. p. 74. ISBN 9781136820892. Thus the Mojahedin’s opposition to Western influence and its call for economic freedom from the West led it to reject the system of capitalism and to present a radical interpretation of Islam. This was also true of the radical Islamic nationalist movement as a whole.
  10. Jump up^ Fred Reinhard Dallmayr (199). Border Crossings: Toward a Comparative Political Theory. Lexington Books. p. 136. ISBN 9780739100431. To provide an Islamic justification for their populist program, Mojahedin often utilized the euphemism coined by Shariati.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b Kenneth Katzman (2001). “Iran: The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran”. In Albert V. Benliot. Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova Publishers. p. 97. ISBN 1560729546.
  12. Jump up^ Stephanie Cronin (2013). Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left. Routledge. p. 191. ISBN 1134328907.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 171–172. ISBN 1850430772.
  14. Jump up^ Mary Ann Tétreault; Ronnie D. Lipschutz (2009). Global Politics as if People Mattere. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 97. ISBN 0742566587. US. military leaders in Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement with the MKO in April 2003 that allowed it to keep all its weapons, including hundreds of tanks and thousands of light arms, as long as it did not attack US. forces
  15. Jump up^ John H. Lorentz (2010). “Chronology”. The A to Z of Iran. The A to Z Guide Series. 209. Scarecrow Press. pp. June 1978. ISBN 1461731917.
  16. Jump up^ Seyyed Hossein Mousavian (2008). “Iran-Germany Relations”. Iran-Europe Relations: Challenges and Opportunities. Routledge. ISBN 1134062192.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b Tom Lansford (2015). “Iran”. Political Handbook of the World 2015. CQ Press. ISBN 1483371557.
  18. Jump up^ “Honoring a Great Hero for Iran’s Freedom, World Peace and Security: Hon. Edolphus Towns of New York in the House of Represetitives, 27 March 2003”. United States of America Congressional Record. Government Printing Office. 2003. p. 7794.
  19. ^ Jump up to:a b Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO); National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA); People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI); National Council of Resistance (NCR); National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI); Muslim Iranian Student’s Society, Global Security, retrieved 5 November 2016
  20. Jump up^ Yaghoub Nemati Voroujeni (Summer 2012), “Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) Organization in the Imposed War”, Negin-e-Iran (in Persian), 41 (11): 75–96
  21. Jump up^ Mark Edmond Clark (2016), “An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq“, in David Gold, Terrornomics, Routledge, p. 65, ISBN 1317045904
  22. Jump up^
  23. Jump up^
  24. Jump up^ Arie Perliger, William L. Eubank (2006), “Terrorism in Iran and Afghanistan: The Seeds of the Global Jihad”, Middle Eastern Terrorism, Infobase Publishing, pp. 41–42, ISBN 9781438107196
  25. ^ Jump up to:a b United States. Dept. of State. International Information Administration. Documentary Studies Section, United States Information Agency, United States Information Agency. Special Materials Section, United States. International Communication Agency (1980). Problems of Communism. 29. Documentary Studies Section, International Information Administration. p. 15. There is evidence that as earlt as 1969 it received arms and training from the PLO, especially Yasir Arafat’s Fatah group. Some of the earliest Mojahedin supporters took part in black september in 1970 in Jordan.
  26. ^ Jump up to:a b Mark Edmond Clark (2016), “An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq“, in David Gold, Terrornomics, Routledge, pp. 67–68, ISBN 1317045904
  27. ^ Jump up to:a b Anoushiravan Ehteshami, Mahjoob Zweiri (2012), Iran’s Foreign Policy: From Khatami to Ahmadinejad, Sussex Academic Press, p. 135, ISBN 0863724159
  28. Jump up^ Frank Bolz, Jr., Kenneth J. Dudonis, David P. Schulz (2016). The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures, and Techniques. Practical Aspects of Criminal and Forensic Investigations (4 ed.). CRC Press. p. 459. ISBN 1439846685.
  29. Jump up^ Jonathan R. White (2011). Terrorism and Homeland Security (7 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 371. ISBN 1133171184.
  30. Jump up^ Kenneth M. Pollack, Daniel L. Byman, Martin S. Indyk, Suzanne Maloney (2009). “Toppling Tehran”. Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran. Brookings Institution. p. 164. ISBN 9780815703792. The group itself also appears to be undemocratic and enjoys little popularity in Iran itself. It has no political base in the country, although it appears to have an operational presence.
  31. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1989, pp. 260-261.
  32. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Eileen Barker (2016). Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements. Routledge. pp. 172–176. ISBN 1317063619.
  33. ^ Jump up to:a b Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer (2016). Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis. Routledge. pp. 99–100. ISBN 1317257375.
  34. Jump up^ Masoud Kazemzadeh (2002). Islamic Fundamentalism, Feminism, and Gender Inequality in Iran Under Khomeini. University Press of America. p. 63. ISBN 0761823883.
  35. Jump up^ Elizabeth Rubin (13 July 2003). “The Cult of Rajavi”. The New York Times. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  36. Jump up^ پاسخ سخنگوی وزارت امورخارجه فرانسه به سوالی در مورد سازمان مجاهدین خلق در کنفرانس مطبوعاتی 13 ژوییه 2016 [Spokesperson of French Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Answer To A Question About People’s Mojahedin Organization In The 13 July 2016 Press Conference] (in Persian), Embassy of France in Tehran, Iran, 13 July 2016, retrieved 1 August 2016, پرسش: موضع فرانسه نسبت به سازمان مجاهدین خلق چیست؟ پاسخ: دولت فرانسه هیچگونه تماسی با مجاهدین خلق ندارد. وجه خشن و غیردموکراتیک این سازمان موجب شده که بسیاری از سازمانهای حقوق بشر بر ماهیت فرقه ای و امتناع این سازمان از چشم پوشی قطعی از خشونت صحه بگذارند.
  37. Jump up^ Owen Bennett Jones (15 April 2012). “An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK?”. BBC News. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  38. Jump up^ Vahabzadeh, Peyman (March 28, 2016) [December 7, 2015]. “FADĀʾIĀN-E ḴALQ”. In Yarshater, Ehsan. Encyclopædia Iranica. Bibliotheca Persica Press. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  39. Jump up^ Afshon Ostovar (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 0190491701.
  40. Jump up^ Kroeger, Alex (2006-12-12). “EU unfreezes Iran group’s funds”. BBC. Retrieved 2013-01-05.
  41. ^ Jump up to:a b “Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News – Rock Center with Brian Williams”. rockcenter.nbcnews.com. Retrieved 2015-02-07.
  42. Jump up^ People’s Mojahedin Of Iran- Mission Report. L’Harmattan. September 2005. p. 12. ISBN 2-7475-9381-9.
  43. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Shane, Scott (September 21, 2012). “Iranian Dissidents Convince U.S. to Drop Terror Label”. The New York Times.
  44. ^ Jump up to:a b “Iranian opposition group in Iraq resettled to Albania”. Reuters. September 9, 2016.
  45. Jump up^ Spector, Leonard. “Iranian Nuclear Program Remains Major Threat Despite Partial Freeze of Weapons-Relevant Activities Described in New U.S. National Intelligence Estimate”. Retrieved 2014-12-17.
  46. Jump up^ Morello, Carol. “Exile group accuses Iran of secret nuclear weapons research”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 September 2015.
  47. ^ Jump up to:a b Vahabzadeh, Peyman (2010). Guerrilla Odyssey: Modernization, Secularism, Democracy, and the Fadai Period of National Liberation In Iran, 1971-1979. Syracuse University Press. p. 100.
  48. ^ Jump up to:a b “DC Court of Appeals Rules Against NCRI Petition for Review of “Foreign Terrorist Organization” Designation” (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. July 9, 2004.
  49. Jump up^ Kliger, Rachelle (January 11, 2006). “Resistance group claims evidence of Iranian bomb ambitions”. The Media Line. Retrieved 2006-12-28.
  50. Jump up^ Ali M. Ansari (2006). Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Roots of Mistrust. Hurst Publishers. p. 198. ISBN 1850658099.
  51. Jump up^ Allison Hantschel (2005). Special Plans: The Blogs on Douglas Feith & the Faulty Intelligence That Led to War. Franklin, Beedle & Associates, Inc. p. 66. ISBN 1590280490.
  52. Jump up^ Middle East Report. Middle East Research & Information Project, JSTOR. 2005. p. 55. ISBN 1590280490.
  53. Jump up^ “Secret memo says Iran’s new president “fired coups de grace””. Iran Focus. 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-06.
  54. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Kenneth Katzman (2001). “Iran: The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran”. In Albert V. Benliot. Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova Science Publishers. p. 104–105. ISBN 1560729546.
  55. Jump up^ George E. Delury (1983), “Iran”, World Encyclopedia of Political Systems & Parties: Afghanistan-Mozambique, World Encyclopedia of Political Systems & Parties, 1, Facts on File, p. 480, ISBN 9780871965745
  56. Jump up^ Razoux, Pierre (2015). The Iran-Iraq War. Hrvard University Press. Appendix E: Armed Opposition. ISBN 9780674915718.
  57. Jump up^ Jeffrey S. Dixon; Meredith Reid Sarkees (2015). “INTRA-STATE WAR #816: Anti-Khomeini Coalition War of 1979 to 1983”. A Guide to Intra-state Wars: An Examination of Civil, Regional, and Intercommunal Wars, 1816-2014. SAGE Publications. pp. 384–386. ISBN 978-1-5063-1798-4.
  58. Jump up^ Brew, Nigel (2003). “Behind the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK)”. Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Group, Parliament of Australia. Archived from the original on 2009-08-05. Retrieved 2007-07-15.
  59. Jump up^ “Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (Iranian rebels)”. Council on Foreign relations. 2005. Retrieved 2006-09-05.
  60. ^ Jump up to:a b Rubin, Elizabeth. “The Cult of Rajavi”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-04-21.
  61. Jump up^ Iran Defence and Security Report, Including 5-Year Industry ForecastsPaid subscription required, Business Monitor International, 2008 [Q1]
  62. Jump up^ Dreazen, Yochi. “Meet The Weird, Super-Connected Group That’s Mucking Up U.S. Talks With Iraq”. Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2013-10-31.
  63. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1982, p. 489.
  64. Jump up^ Ostovar, Afshon P. (2009). “Guardians of the Islamic Revolution Ideology, Politics, and the Development of Military Power in Iran (1979–2009)” (PhD Thesis). University of Michigan. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  65. ^ Jump up to:a b Abrahamian 1989, pp. 81–126.
  66. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1989, p. 88.
  67. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 2.
  68. Jump up^ Maziar Behrooz, Rebels With A Cause: The Failure of the Left in Iran, page vi
  69. ^ Jump up to:a b Abrahamian 1982, p. 491.
  70. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 137.
  71. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1982, pp. 493–4.
  72. Jump up^ Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions, University of California Press (1999), p. 151
  73. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Bill, James A. (1989). The Eagle and the Lion. Yale University Press. p. 181.
  74. ^ Jump up to:a b c Afkhami, Gholam Reza (2009). The Life and Times of the Shah. University of California Press. p. 398.
  75. Jump up^ Borowiec, Andrew (May 21, 1975). “Iran leftists Gun Down Two A.F. Officers”. Washington Post.
  76. Jump up^ Peter Earnest (June 21, 2012). “Our Man in the Middle East (Part 1)”. www.spymuseum.org (Podcast). International Spy Museum. Event occurs at 34:21-35:07. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
  77. ^ Jump up to:a b Bloomfield Jr., Lincoln. “Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK/PMOI) and the Search for Ground Truth About its Activities and Nature” (PDF). The House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  78. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1982, p. 141–142.
  79. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 141.
  80. Jump up^ Hawkins, Louis Lee. “Military heroes”.
  81. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 142.
  82. Jump up^ “Iran Kills Man Accused of Slaying of 3 Americans”. Washington Post. November 18, 1976.
  83. Jump up^ “Chapter 6 – Terrorist Organizations”. U.S. Department of State. 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-07-11. Retrieved 2007-07-15.
  84. Jump up^ Fisher, Max (2 July 2012). “Here’s the Video of Newt Gingrich Bowing to the Leader of an Iranian Terrorist Group”. The Atlantic. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
  85. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Sreberny-Mohammadi, Annabelle; Ali Mohammadi (January 1987). “Post-Revolutionary Iranian Exiles: A Study in Impotence”. Third World Quarterly. 9 (1): 108–129. JSTOR 3991849. doi:10.1080/01436598708419964.
  86. Jump up^ Zabir, Sepehr (2011). The Iranian military in revolution and war. Routledge. p. 125. ISBN 9780415617857.
  87. Jump up^ “Significance of June in the calendar of the Iranian Resistance”. National Council of Resistance of Iran. Retrieved 30 June 2015.
  88. Jump up^ Bakhash, Saul (1990). The reign of the ayatollahs. Basic Books. p. 123. ISBN 0465068901. Retrieved 2014-12-17.
  89. Jump up^ “PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS APPEAL COMMISSION” (PDF). Judicial Office UK. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  90. Jump up^ Sepehrrad, Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., Ramesh. “What Washington Doesn’t Get about Iran”. The National Interest. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
  91. ^ Jump up to:a b Ervand Abrahamian (1989), Radical Islam: the Iranian Mojahedin, Society and culture in the modern Middle East, 3, I.B.Tauris, pp. 195–205, ISBN 9781850430773
  92. Jump up^ Moin 2001, pp. 234, 239.
  93. Jump up^ Bakhash, The Reign of the Ayatollahs (1984) p. 123.
  94. Jump up^ TKB
  95. Jump up^ Moin 2001, p. 243.
  96. Jump up^ Lorentz, Dominique; David, Carr-Brown (November 14, 2001), La République atomique [The Atomic Republic] (in French), Arte TV
  97. Jump up^ Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War (1999), pp. 246–7
  98. Jump up^ “Iranian party demands end to repression”. pww.org. Archived from the original on September 24, 2005.
  99. Jump up^ “1988 massacre”. Mehr. Retrieved 2013-01-05.
  100. Jump up^ “The 1988 Iran massacre crimes”. The American Thinker. Sep 2004.
  101. Jump up^ “Memories of a slaughter in Iran”. Iran focus. 2004-09-05. Retrieved 2013-01-05.
  102. Jump up^ Alavi, Nasrin (2005), We Are Iran
  103. Jump up^ “Khomeini fatwa ‘led to killing of 30,000 in Iran'”. The Telegraph. February 2, 2001.
  104. Jump up^ “Mass Execution of Political Prisoners in Iran Left Unanswered”. Stop fundamentalism. 2011-09-04. Retrieved 2013-01-05.
  105. Jump up^ “Where will they all go?”. The Economist. March 8, 2009.
  106. Jump up^ Rubin, Elizabeth (13 July 2003). “The Cult of Rajavi” – via NYTimes.com.
  107. Jump up^ Combs, Cindy C.; Slann, Martin (2002). Encyclopedia of terrorism. New York, NY: Facts On File. p. 188. ISBN 0816044554. Retrieved 29 October 2015.
  108. Jump up^ Mcfadden, Robert D. (April 6, 1992). “Iran Rebels Hit Missions in 10 Nations”. The New York Times.
  109. Jump up^ Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security: A Profile. A Report Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Washington, December 2012. pp. 26 – 28 [1]
  110. Jump up^ “France investigates Iran exiles”. News. BBC. June 22, 2003. Retrieved January 3, 2010.
  111. Jump up^ Ephraim Kahana, Muhammad Suwaed (2009). The A to Z of Middle Eastern Intelligence. Scarecrow Press. p. 208. ISBN 9780810870703.
  112. Jump up^ Fletcher, Holly (April 8, 2008). “Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)”. CFR. Retrieved 2013-01-05.
  113. Jump up^ Fayazmanesh, Sasan (2008). “The United States and Iran: Sanctions, wars and the policy of dual containment”. ISBN 978-0-415-77396-6.
  114. Jump up^ Mojtahedzadeh, Hajar. “The Real Face of Realpolitik: Camp Ashraf and the U.S. FTO”. Huffingtonpost.com. The World Post. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
  115. Jump up^ Sullivan, John (May 11, 2003), “Armed Iranian exiles surrender; 6,000-member unit accepts U.S. terms”, The Record, Bergen County, NJ: Knight Ridder, p. A.17
  116. Jump up^ M2 Presswire (news briefing), Coventry: US DoD, June 19, 2003, p. 1
  117. Jump up^ Pike, John. “”Camp Ashraf” US Military Occupation Facilities. Global security. Retrieved 2013-01-05.
  118. Jump up^ “Bulgaria: Bulgaria Sends New Unit to Iraq”. Novinite. 2007-01-17. Retrieved 2013-01-05.
  119. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao apaq ar as Goulka, Jeremiah; Hansell, Lydia; Wilke, Elizabeth; Larson, Judith (2009). “The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: a policy conundrum” (PDF). RAND Corporation. ISBN 978-0-8330-4701-4.
  120. Jump up^ “Human Rights Abuses in the MEK camps”. Human Rights Watch. May 2005.
  121. ^ Jump up to:a b “People’s Mojahedin of Iran – Mission report” (PDF). Friends of Free Iran – European Parliament. 2005. Retrieved 2006-08-29.
  122. Jump up^ Tahar Boumedra (2013), The United Nations and Human Rights in Iraq, The Untold Story of Camp Ashraf, ISBN 978-1-909740-64-8, pp. 16–23. “I directed my subordinate units to investigate each allegation. In many cases I personally led inspection teams on unannounced visits to the MEK facilities where the alleged abuses were reported to occur. At no time over the 12 month period did we ever discover any credible evidence supporting the allegations raised in your recent report. (…) Each report of torture, kidnapping and psychological depravation turned out to be unsubstantiated.”
  123. ^ Jump up to:a b Muhanad Mohammed (11 July 2010). Rania El Gamal; David Stamp, ed. “Iraqi court seeks arrest of Iranian exiles”. Reuters. Retrieved 28 December 2016.
  124. Jump up^ العراق يقرر طرد أعضاء مجاهدي خلق من أراضيه [Iraq Decides to Expel MEK Members from its Territory] (in Arabic). Al-Jazeera. January 24, 2009. Retrieved 2011-12-07.
  125. Jump up^ Cohn, Alicia M (September 23, 2009). “Iranian Exiles’ White House Hunger Strike Continues”. Retrieved 2011-12-07.
  126. Jump up^ Londoño, Ernesto; Jaffe, Greg (July 29, 2009). “Iraq Raids Camp of Exiles From Iran”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-12-07.
  127. Jump up^ Abouzeid, Rania (July 29, 2009). “Iraq Cracks Down on Iranian Exiles at Camp Ashraf”. Time. Retrieved 2011-12-07.
  128. Jump up^ “36 Ashraf Residents Hostages Released on 72nd Day of Hunger Strike”. Iran Liberty Association. Retrieved 2011-12-07.
  129. Jump up^ “PMOI on hunger strike”. UPI. August 25, 2009. Retrieved 2012-09-29.
  130. ^ Jump up to:a b c Sasan Fayazmanesh (2008), The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment, Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Politics, Routledge, pp. 120–123, ISBN 9781135976873
  131. Jump up^ Seymour Hersh (2004). Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. HarperCollins. p. 349. ISBN 0-060-19591-6.
  132. Jump up^ Connie Bruck (6 March 2006). “Exiles: How Iran’s Expatriates are Gaming the Nuclear Threat”. The New Yorker. p. 48.
  133. Jump up^ Broad, William J. (2010-01-05). “Iran Shielding Its Nuclear Efforts in Maze of Tunnels”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-12-25.
  134. Jump up^ Nicholas Vinocur and Fredrik Dahl. “Exiled dissidents claim Iran building new nuclear site | Reuters”. reuters.com. Retrieved 2015-02-07.
  135. Jump up^ “Israel’s Mossad Trained Assassins of Iran Nuclear Scientists, Report Says”. Haaretz. 9 February 2012. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  136. Jump up^ Cockburn, Patrick (5 October 2013). “Just who has been killing Iran’s nuclear scientists?”. The Independent. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  137. Jump up^ Borger, Julian (12 January 2012). “Who is responsible for the Iran nuclear scientists attacks?”. The Guardian. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  138. Jump up^ Bibbins Sedaca, Nicole (3 March 2015). “That Secret Iranian ‘Nuclear Facility’ You Just Found? Not So Much.”. Foreign Policy. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  139. Jump up^ “MKO in Syria Under Guise of Medics” (PDF), Iran daily (4498), p. 2, May 5, 2013
  140. Jump up^ Georges Malbrunot (30 May 2013), “Des moudjahidines du peuple anti-iranien combattent en Syrie”, Le Figaro (in French), retrieved 1 December 2016
  141. Jump up^ Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) Organization fights in Syria, 19 August 2013, retrieved 15 September 2016
  142. Jump up^ “Cult Leader Will Tell Congress: Fight ISIS by Regime Change in Iran”, The Nation, 28 April 2015, retrieved 15 September 2016
  143. Jump up^ “Twin attacks strike Iran’s parliament, Khomeini’s tomb”. Deutsche Welle. 7 June 2017. Retrieved 8 June 2017.
  144. Jump up^ Thomas Erdbrink and Mujib Mashal (7 June 2017). “At Least 12 Killed in Pair of Terrorist Attacks in Iran”. The New York Times. Retrieved 8 June 2017.
  145. Jump up^ Hauslohner, Abigail (January 5, 2008). “Iranian Resistance Group a Source of Contention in Iraq”. Time Magazine. Retrieved 2008-01-05.
  146. Jump up^ “Attack kills 5 at Iranian exile camp in Iraq”. CNN. Feb 9, 2013.
  147. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1982, p. 490.
  148. Jump up^ Keddle, Nikki R. Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution, First Edition. New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2006. 220–221.
  149. Jump up^ “National Council of Resistance of Iran”. Iran-e-azad. Retrieved 2013-01-05.
  150. Jump up^ “Maryam Rajavi”. Iran-democracy.com.
  151. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 98.
  152. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 185.
  153. Jump up^ Dennis Piszkiewicz (2003), Terrorism’s War with America: A History, Praeger Security International, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 168, ISBN 9780275979522
  154. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 127.
  155. ^ Jump up to:a b Abrahamian 1992, p. 140.
  156. Jump up^ Thomas Juneau, Sam Razavi (2013), Iranian Foreign Policy Since 2001: Alone in the World, Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Politics, Routledge, p. 124, ISBN 9781135013899
  157. Jump up^ Marian Houk (9 August 2016). “Why Abbas-MEK meeting made waves everywhere but Palestine”. Al-Monitor. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  158. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 229.
  159. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 197.
  160. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 209.
  161. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 245.
  162. Jump up^ Elaine Sciolino (30 June 2003), “Iranian Opposition Movement’s Many Faces”, The New York Times, retrieved 25 June 2017
  163. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1982, p. 251–253.
  164. Jump up^ Abrahamian 1982, p. 233–234.
  165. Jump up^ Anthony H. Cordesman, Adam C. Seitz (2009), Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, pp. 325–326, ISBN 9780313380884
  166. Jump up^ Buchta, Wilfried (2000), Who rules Iran?: the structure of power in the Islamic Republic, Washington DC: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, p. 112, ISBN 0-944029-39-6
  167. Jump up^ Buchta, Wilfried (2000), Who rules Iran?: the structure of power in the Islamic Republic, Washington DC: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, p. 114, ISBN 0-944029-39-6
  168. Jump up^ Buchta, Wilfried (2000), Who rules Iran?: the structure of power in the Islamic Republic, Washington DC: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, pp. 114–115, 218, ISBN 0-944029-39-6
  169. Jump up^ Mehdi Semati (2007), Media, Culture and Society in Iran: Living with Globalization and the Islamic State, Iranian Studies, 5, Routledge, pp. 99–100, ISBN 9781135981563
  170. Jump up^ “Part 4: The Middle East, Africa, and Latin America”, Summary of World Broadcasts (SWB), British Broadcasting Corporation. Monitoring Service, 1993, p. E-1
  171. ^ Jump up to:a b c James Marchant, Amin Sabeti, Kyle Bowen, John Kelly, Rebekah Heacock Jones (June 2016), #Iranvotes: Political Discourse on Iranian Twitter During the 2016 Parliamentary Elections (Publication No. 2016-10), Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, pp. 27–33
  172. ^ Jump up to:a b Ashton Talks, and the MEK Spams – Social Media Monitoring, Small Media Foundation, 24 March 2013, archived from the original on 8 December 2016, retrieved 15 November 2016
  173. Jump up^ “No Second Marriages in Iran”, FrontPage Magazine, 13 July 2007, retrieved 24 November 2016
  174. Jump up^ Zaid Jilani (26 August 2011), “Attendees Bused Into MEK Rally, Some Of Whom ‘Don’t Really Understand What The MEK Is’”, ThinkProgress, retrieved 24 December 2016
  175. Jump up^ Paul R. Pillar (27 August 2011), “The Lobbying that Shouldn’t be Happening”, The National Interest, retrieved 24 December 2016
  176. Jump up^ “Diary Of An MKO Rent-A-Crowd Demonstrator”, RFE/RL, 30 June 2013, retrieved 24 November 2016
  177. Jump up^ Michael Rubin (7 July 2013), “Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult”, Commentary, retrieved 24 December 2016
  178. Jump up^ Cheryl Benard, Austin Long, Angel Rabasa and Eli Sugarman (2015). Breaking the Stalemate: The Case for Engaging the Iranian Opposition. Metis Analytics. p. 115. ISBN 978-0692399378. Third, the organization is able to mobilize substantial support internationally. Its annual rally in Paris attracts thousands of participants every year, including major public figures. Its detractors explain this attendance through the financial incentives it alleges the participants receive and the expensive machinery of preparation (multiple bus convoys ferrying attendees from other European cities and countries, rent of a huge hall, perfect choreography of the day-long event and glamorous speakers) but even assuming this is correct, this hardly diminishes the impressiveness of the group’s financial and logistical abilities, both of which are critical to effective political action. Moreover, it is unlikely that such large numbers of people would attend the rather exhausting day-long rally if they did not feel sincerely supportive of the group, or that all of the highly distinguished American and European dignitaries would compromise their reputations and subject themselves to the borderline slanderous vituperation of their critics if their support of the MEK cause were not sincerely meant. Given their biographies, positions and financial success in life, the accusation that all of these people can be bought for an airline ticket to Paris and a speaker’s honorarium seems implausible
  179. Jump up^ Anthony H. Cordesman, Adam C. Seitz (2009), Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, p. 334, ISBN 9780313380884
  180. ^ Jump up to:a b Andrew Dawson (2016), The Politics and Practice of Religious Diversity: National Contexts, Global Issues, Routledge Advances in Sociology, Routledge, pp. 162–163, ISBN 9781317648642
  181. Jump up^ Elizabeth Flock (6 July 2012), Iranian Terrorist Group M.E.K. Pays Big to Make History Go Away, U.S. News & World Report L.P., retrieved 1 December 2016
  182. ^ Jump up to:a b Daniel Tovrov (29 March 2012). “MEK Pays US Officials, But Where Do The Iranian Exiles Get Their Money?”. International Business Times. Retrieved 28 September 2016.
  183. ^ Jump up to:a b Joby Warrick and Julie Tate (26 November 2011), For Obscure Iranian Exile Group, Broad Support in U.S., The New York Times, retrieved 1 December 2016
  184. Jump up^ Scott Peterson (8 August 2011), Iranian group’s big-money push to get off US terrorist list, Christian Science Monitor, retrieved 1 December 2016
  185. Jump up^ Glenn Greenwald (23 September 2012), Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group, The Guardian, retrieved 1 December 2016
  186. Jump up^ Joby Warrick and Julie Tate (5 July 2012), High-priced advocacy raises questions for supporters of Iranian exile group, The Washington Post, retrieved 1 December 2016
  187. ^ Jump up to:a b David Lesch, Mark L. Haas (2016), The Arab Spring: The Hope and Reality of the Uprisings, Westview Press, p. 187, ISBN 9780813349749
  188. Jump up^ The Strange World Of The People’s Mujahedin, BBC World Service, 8 April 2012, retrieved 13 February 2017
  189. Jump up^ Ian Burrell: It’s time for the BBC to give independent radio a break, The Independent, 7 July 2013, retrieved 13 February 2017
  190. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Nafas” amusement drama which has something to say (in Persian), Tasnim News Agency, 29 May 2017, retrieved 13 June 2017
  191. Jump up^ “Cyanide” about MKO story premieres in Tehran, Tehran Times, 18 October 2016, retrieved 1 December 2016
  192. Jump up^ ‘Cyanide’ intl. screening kicks off in Canada, Mehr News Agency, 19 November 2016, retrieved 1 December 2016
  193. Jump up^ “Mina’s Choice” gives warnings to families about danger of Daesh: director, Tehran Times, 7 February 2016, retrieved 1 December 2016
  194. Jump up^ Political drama ‘Midday Event’ named best at Fajr Film Festival, Mehr News Agency, 11 February 2017, retrieved 13 February 2017
  195. Jump up^ Iran TV uses green screen to bypass headscarf rules, Mail Online, 31 May 2017, retrieved 13 June 2017
  196. ^ Jump up to:a b “2004 MUJAHEDIN—E KHALQ (MEK) CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION” (PDF), Federal Bureau of Investigation, 29 November 2004, retrieved 20 December 2016
  197. Jump up^ John Irish and Chine Labbe (17 September 2014). Ralph Boulton, ed. “France drops case against Iranian dissidents after 11-year probe”. Reuters. Retrieved 28 December 2016.
  198. Jump up^ Mark Edmond Clark (2016), “An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq“, in David Gold, Terrornomics, Routledge, p. 73–74, ISBN 1317045904
  199. ^ Jump up to:a b c Mark Edmond Clark (2016), “An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq“, in David Gold, Terrornomics, Routledge, p. 73, ISBN 1317045904
  200. Jump up^ David Leigh (30 May 2005). “‘Tank girl’ army accused of torture”. The Guardian. Retrieved 28 September 2016.
  201. Jump up^ Benton E. Gup (2007), Money Laundering, Financing Terrorism and Suspicious Activities, Nova Science Publishers, p. 53, ISBN 9781600213878
  202. ^ Jump up to:a b Qasemi, Hamid Reza (2016), “Chapter 12: Iran and Its Policy Against Terrorism”, in Alexander R. Dawoody, Eradicating Terrorism from the Middle East, Policy and Administrative Approaches, 17, Springer International Publishing Switzerland, p. 201, ISBN 978-3-319-31018-3, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31018-3
  203. Jump up^ Qasemi, Hamid Reza (2016), “Chapter 12: Iran and Its Policy Against Terrorism”, in Alexander R. Dawoody, Eradicating Terrorism from the Middle East, Policy and Administrative Approaches, 17, Springer International Publishing Switzerland, p. 204, ISBN 978-3-319-31018-3, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31018-3
  204. Jump up^ Mark Edmond Clark (2016), “An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq“, in David Gold, Terrornomics, Routledge, p. 67, ISBN 1317045904
  205. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Axworthy, Michael (2013), Revolutionary Iran: A History of the Islamic Republic, Oxford University Press, pp. 214, 374
  206. Jump up^ Khatami, Siamak (2004), Iran, a View from Within: Political Analyses, Janus Publishing Company Ltd, pp. 74–75
  207. ^ Jump up to:a b c Mohsen Kazemi, ed. (30 October 2013). Translated by Mohammad Karimi. “Ahmad Ahmad Memoirs (54)”. Oral History Weekly (137). Soureh Mehr Publishing Company (Original Text in Persian, 2000)
  208. ^ Jump up to:a b Monica L. Belmonte, Edward Coltrin Keefer (2013). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969-1976, V. XXVII, Iran, Iraq, 1973-1976. Government Printing Office. p. 560. ISBN 9780160902567.
  209. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Algar, Hamid (December 13, 2011) [December 15, 1998]. “EMĀM-E JOMʿA”. In Yarshater, Ehsan. Encyclopædia Iranica. VIII. Bibliotheca Persica Press. pp. 386–391. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  210. ^ Jump up to:a b Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin (2015), Chronologies of Modern Terrorism, Routledge, p. 246
  211. Jump up^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. p. 190. ISBN 1135043817.
  212. Jump up^ “A New Slaying, More Executions in Iran”. Reuters. The New York Times. 30 September 1981. Retrieved 25 December 2016.
  213. ^ Jump up to:a b Baktiari, Bahman (1996). Parliamentary Politics in Revolutionary Iran: The Institutionalization of Factional Politics. University Press of Florida. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-8130-1461-6.
  214. ^ Jump up to:a b United States. Department of State. Office of the Secretary of State, United States. Department of State. Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (1994), Patterns of Global Terrorism 1993, Department of State publication, p. 22
  215. Jump up^ Maziar, Behrooz (2000). Rebels With A Cause: The Failure of the Left in Iran. I.B.Tauris. p. 174. ISBN 1860646301.
  216. ^ Jump up to:a b Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. p. 189. ISBN 1135043817.
  217. Jump up^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. p. 191. ISBN 1135043817.
  218. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. p. 192. ISBN 1135043817.
  219. Jump up^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. p. 196. ISBN 1135043817.
  220. Jump up^ Martin, Gus (2011). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition. SAGE Publications. p. 405. ISBN 9781412980166.
  221. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Katzman, Kenneth (November 1992). The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Congressional Research Service reports). Washington DC: Library of Congress. Doc. call no.: M-U 42953-1 no.92-824F.
  222. Jump up^ Alaolmolki, Nozar (2001). Life After the Soviet Union: The Newly Independent Republics of the Transcaucasus and Central Asia. SUNY Press. p. 122. ISBN 9780791451380.
  223. Jump up^ “Grenade attack against Iran judge”. BBC. 5 January 1999. Retrieved 25 December 2016.
  224. Jump up^ “Khatami survives mortar attack”. BBC. 5 February 2000. Retrieved 25 December 2016.
  225. Jump up^ Anthony H. Cordesman, Adam C. Seitz (2009), Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, p. 326, ISBN 9780313380884
  226. Jump up^ “Blast rocks Iranian town”. BBC. 14 May 2000. Retrieved 25 December 2016.
  227. Jump up^ “Tehran struck by mortar attacks”. BBC. 22 October 2000. Retrieved 25 December 2016.
  228. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Ben Smith (7 March 2016), BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP 5020: The People’s Mujahiddeen of Iran (PMOI) (PDF), The House of Commons Library research service, retrieved 5 December 2016
  229. Jump up^ “Iranian Mujahideen mortar attacks”. BBC. 23 October 2000. Retrieved 25 December 2016.
  230. Jump up^ “Explosions rock Tehran”. BBC. 7 January 2001. Retrieved 25 December 2016.
  231. Jump up^ Theodoulou, Michael (2011-07-26). “US move to delist MEK as terror group worries Iran’s opposition”. The National (Abu Dhabi). Abu Dhabi Media. Retrieved 2013-12-26. The MEK, dedicated to overthrowing Iran’s Islamic regime and considered a terrorist group by Iran […]
  232. Jump up^ “Three US Civilians Slain By Guerrillas in Teheran”. The New York Times. 29 August 1976. p. 1. the three civilian victims were killed by members of the same self-styled “Islamic Marxist” anti-Government terrorist group that was officially blamed for the assassination of two American colonels in Teheran last year
  233. Jump up^ Abigail Hauslohner (5 January 2009), “Iranian Group a Source of Contention in Iraq”, Time, retrieved 5 December 2016, But when the US military formally transferred control of Camp Ashraf back to the Iraqi government on Jan. 1, the MEK’s fate suddenly became an issue. The group is a source of contention for Iran and the US, Iraq’s two biggest allies, who are increasingly vying for influence as Baghdad’s post–Saddam Hussein Shi’ite government asserts its independence. All three countries label the MEK a terrorist organization.
  234. Jump up^ “Americans Want to Keep the MEK in Iraq: Interview with Hassan Danaeifar, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, on the saga of Mojahedin-e Khalgh terrorist group”, Iranian Diplomacy, 22 February 2012, retrieved 5 December 2016, What the government of Iraq is seeking is sovereignty over its entire territory. Camp Ashraf is an impediment against their goal. Plus, the Iraqi government acknowledges the MEK as a terrorist group and insists on their leaving of Iraq.
  235. Jump up^ “CANADA LISTS IRANIAN OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION AS TERRORIST ENTITY”, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 26 May 2005, retrieved 5 December 2016
  236. Jump up^ “Ottawa drops Saddam Hussein-linked Iranian group from terror list in bid to ramp up pressure against Tehran”, National Post, 20 December 2012, retrieved 5 December 2016
  237. Jump up^ Nigel Brew (5 December 2012), “Delisting the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK)”, FlagPost, retrieved 5 December 2016
  238. Jump up^ United Nations Committee against Torture (2008), Jose Antonio Ocampo, ed., Selected Decisions of the Committee Against Torture: Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment, 1, United Nations Publications, p. 212, Communication N 2582004 section 7.2, ISBN 9789211541854, E 08 XIV4; HR/CAT/PUB/1, The MEK has been involved in terrorist activities and is therefore a less legitimate replacement for the current regime.
  239. Jump up^ “Iranian exile group removed from U.S. terror list”. CNN. September 28, 2012.
  240. Jump up^ Taheri, Amir (June 25, 2003). “France paints an abstract picture to please Iran”. Gulf News.
  241. ^ Jump up to:a b c “EU removes PMOI from terrorist list”. UPI. January 26, 2009. Retrieved 2012-09-29.
  242. Jump up^ “Take Iran opponent MEK off terror list”. CNN. September 12, 2011.
  243. ^ Jump up to:a b Goodman, Amy (April 10, 2012). “Seymour Hersh: U.S. Training Iranian Terrorists in Nevada”. AlterNet.
  244. Jump up^ “MEK/PMOI’s National Council on Resistance in Iran’s Response to Sherwood Ross and Seymour Hersh | UK Progressive”. www.ukprogressive.co.uk. Retrieved 2016-12-26.
  245. Jump up^ “MEK Response” (PDF). MSNBCMedia.
  246. Jump up^ “Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations” (PDF). Home Office. 15 July 2016. Retrieved 27 September 2016. The Mujaheddin e Khalq (MeK) also known as the Peoples’ Mujaheddin of Iran (PMOI) was removed from the list of proscribed groups in June 2008 as a result of judgments of the POAC and the Court of Appeal.
  247. ^ Jump up to:a b Runner, Philippa. “EU ministers drop Iran group from terror list”. Euobserver. Retrieved 2012-09-29.
  248. ^ Jump up to:a b John, Mark (January 26, 2009). “EU takes Iran opposition group off terror list”. Reuters.
  249. Jump up^ Sen, Ashish Kumar. “U.S. takes Iranian dissident group MeK off terrorist list”. Washington Times. Retrieved 2014-12-17.
  250. Jump up^ “Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 193 /Thursday, October 4, 2012 /Notices 60741 10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12)” (PDF). 4 October 2012. Retrieved 2015-02-07.
  251. Jump up^ Quinn, Andrew (September 28, 2012). “US drops Iranian MEK dissident group from terrorism list”. Reuters.
  252. Jump up^ “Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq”. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 20 October 2015.
  253. Jump up^ “Joint Experts’ Statement on the Mujahedin-e Khalq”. Financial Times. August 10, 2011.
  254. Jump up^ “Iran condemns US for ‘double standards’ over MEK terror de-listing”. The Guardian. Associated Press. September 29, 2012.

Bibliography

  • Abrahamian, Ervand (1982). Iran Between Two Revolutions. Princeton University Press.
  • Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. IB Tauris.
  • Abrahamian, Ervand (Oct 1, 1992). The Iranian Mojahedin. Yale University Press.
  • Keddie, Nikkie (1981). Roots of Revolution.
  • Moin, Baqer (2001). Khomeini. Thomas Dunne.
  • Stevenson, Struan (2015). Self-Sacrifice – Life with the Iranian Mojahedin. Birlinn, Edinburgh, ISBN 978 1 78027 288 7.

External links

Official

Other

 

 

Posted in France, IranComments Off on Terrorist organization: People’s Mujahedin of Iran ‘MKO’

Europe’s Terror Blowback: From Charlie Hebdo to London Attacks

NOVANEWS

by Naumann Sadiq

In less than three months, three horrific terror attacks have taken place in the United Kingdom: the Westminster plowing and stabbing incident on March 22 by Khalid Masood, the Manchester Arena suicide bombing two months later by Salman Abedi who was known to be a member of Al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and was also suspected of having ties with the Islamic State, and now another vehicle-ramming and stabbing atrocity has taken place last night at the London Bridge in which ten people have lost their lives including the attackers and 48 people have been injured.

In order to understand the motive that why the Islamic State is targeting Europe in particular, we need to keep the background of the British and French foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent years in mind. The seven-year-long Sunni-Shi’a conflict in Syria that gave birth to scores of Sunni militant groups, including the Islamic State, and after the conflict spilled over across the border into neighboring Iraq in early 2014 has directly been responsible for the recent spate of the Islamic State-inspired terror attacks in Euorpe.

Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in August 2011 to June 2014 when the Islamic State overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, an informal pact existed between the Western powers, their regional allies and the Sunni Arab militants of the Middle East against the Shi’a Iranian axis. In accordance with the pact, Sunni Arab militants were trained and armed in the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan to battle the Shi’a-dominated Syrian regime.

This arrangement of an informal pact between the Western powers and the Sunni Arab jihadists of the Middle East against the Shi’a Iranian axis worked well up to August 2014 when the Obama Administration made a volte-face on its previous regime change policy in Syria and began conducting air strikes against one group of Sunni militants battling the Syrian regime, the Islamic State, after the latter overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, from where, the US troops had withdrawn only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

After this reversal of policy in Syria by the Western powers and the subsequent Russian military intervention on the side of the Syrian regime in September 2015, the momentum of Sunni Arab militants’ expansion in Syria and Iraq has stalled, and they now feel that their Western patrons have committed a treachery against the Sunni jihadists’ cause, that’s why they are infuriated and once again up in arms to exact revenge for this betrayal.

If we look at the chain of events, the timing of the recent spate of terror attacks against the European targets has been critical: the Islamic State overran Mosul in June 2014, the Obama Administration began conducting air strikes against the Islamic State’s targets in Iraq and Syria in August 2014, and after a lull of almost a decade since the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005, respectively, the first such incident of terrorism took place on the Western soil at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in January 2015, and then the Islamic State carried out the audacious November 2015 Paris attacks and the March 2016 Brussels bombings, and now, three horrific terror attacks have taken place in the United Kingdom within a span of less than three months.

Regarding the argument that how the British and French Middle Eastern policy of lending indiscriminate support to the Sunni Arab militants against the Shi’a-dominated regime in Syria has been responsible for the recent wave of terror attacks in Europe, remember that Saudi Arabia, which has been vying for power as the leader of Sunni bloc against the Shi’a-dominated Iran in the regional geopolitics, was staunchly against the invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration in 2003.

The Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein constituted a Sunni Arab bulwark against the Iranian influence in the Arab World. But after Saddam was ousted from power in 2003 and subsequently when elections were held in Iraq which were swept by the Shi’a-dominated parties, Iraq has now been led by a Shi’a-majority government that has become a steadfast regional ally of Iran. Consequently, Iran’s sphere of influence now extends all the way from territorially-contiguous Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast.

The Saudi royal family was resentful of Iranian encroachment on traditional Arab heartland. Therefore, when protests broke out against the Assad regime in Syria in the wake of Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, the Gulf Arab States along with their regional allies, Turkey and Jordan, and the Western patrons gradually militarized the protests to dismantle the Shi’a Iranian axis comprised of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah.

More to the point, the dilemma that the Sunni Arab militants and their regional backers are facing in Syria is quite unique: in the wake of the Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013, the stage was all set for yet another no-fly zone and “humanitarian intervention” a la Qaddafi’s Libya; the war hounds were waiting for a finishing blow and then-Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and then-Saudi intelligence chief, Bandar bin Sultan, were shuttling between the Western capitals to lobby for the military intervention. Francois Hollande had already announced his intentions and David Cameron was also onboard.

Here, it should be remembered that even during the Libyan intervention, the Obama Administration’s policy was a bit ambivalent and France under the leadership of Sarkozy had taken the lead role. In Syria’s case, however, the British parliament forced Cameron to seek a vote for military intervention in the House of Commons before committing the British troops and air force to Syria.

Taking cue from the British parliament, the US Congress also compelled Obama to seek approval before another ill-conceived military intervention; and since both the administrations lacked the requisite majority in their respective parliaments and the public opinion was also fiercely against another Middle Eastern war, therefore Obama and Cameron dropped their plans of enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria.

In the end, France was left alone as the only Western power still in the favor of intervention; at this point, however, the seasoned Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, staged a diplomatic coup by announcing that the Syrian regime is willing to ship its chemical weapons stockpiles out of Syria and subsequently the issue was amicably resolved.

Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf Arab states, the main beneficiaries of the Sunni Jihad against the Shi’a-dominated regime in Syria, however, had lost a golden opportunity to deal a fatal blow to their regional rivals.

To add insult to the injury, the Islamic State, one of the numerous Sunni Arab militant outfits fighting in Syria, overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in 2014, from where, the US troops had withdrawn only a couple of years ago in December 2011, as I have already described.

Additionally, when the graphic images and videos of Islamic State’s executions surfaced on the internet, the Obama Administration was left with no other choice but to adopt some countermeasures to show that it is still sincere in pursuing its schizophrenic “war on terror” policy; at the same time, however, it assured its Turkish, Jordanian and Gulf Arab allies that despite fighting a war against the maverick jihadist outfit, the Islamic State, the Western policy of training and arming the so-called “moderate” Syrian militants will continue apace and that Bashar al-Assad’s days are numbered, one way or the other.

Moreover, declaring the war against the Islamic State in August 2014 served another purpose too: in order to commit the US Air Force to Syria and Iraq, the Obama Administration needed the approval of the US Congress which was not available, as I have already mentioned, but by declaring a war against the Islamic State, which is a designated terrorist organization, the Obama Administration availed itself of the war on terror provisions in the US laws and thus circumvented the US Congress.

But then Russia threw a spanner in the works of NATO and its Gulf Arab allies in September 2015 by its surreptitious military buildup in Latakia that was executed with an element of surprise unheard of since General Rommel, the Desert Fox. And now Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf Arab states and their Sunni jihadist proxies in Syria find themselves at the receiving end in the Syrian civil war.

Therefore, although the Sunni states of the Middle East and their jihadist proxies still toe the American line in the region publicly, but behind the scenes, there is bitter resentment that the US has betrayed the Sunni cause by making an about-face on the previous regime change policy in Syria and the subsequent declaration of war against one group of Sunni Arab militants in Syria, i.e. the Islamic State.

Posted in France, UKComments Off on Europe’s Terror Blowback: From Charlie Hebdo to London Attacks

Macron accuses RT and Sputnik of ‘behaving like deceitful propaganda’

NOVANEWS
Image result for Macron CARTOON

Newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron explained his team’s decision to deny RT and Sputnik, both Moscow-based news outlets, accreditation during his campaign, by labeling the media outlets as “propaganda.”

“They didn’t act like the media, like journalists. They behaved like deceitful propaganda,” Macron told RT France head Xenia Fedorova during a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Versailles.

“I have always had an exemplary relationship with foreign journalists, but they have to be real journalists,” explained Macron, who defeated Marine Le Pen in the second round of the election, earlier this month. “All foreign journalists, including Russian journalists, had access to my campaign.”

Macron described RT and Sputnik as “organs of influence and propaganda,” adding that both “produced infamous counter-truths about him.”

Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow “does not agree” with Macron’s statements about the two news organizations.

RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan said that Macron’s attack on a news outlet he disagrees with is a threat to freedom of speech.

“Despite the numerous accusations made throughout the duration of the French presidential campaign, to this day not a single example, not a single piece of evidence, has been presented to support the claims that RT spread any slander or ‘fake news’ about Mr. Macron,” Simonyan said in a statement. “By labeling any news reporting he disagrees with ‘fake news,’ President Macron sets a dangerous precedent that threatens both freedom of speech and journalism at large.”

Last month’s accreditation delay for RT and Sputnik, which ended up becoming an outright refusal, provoked a heated reaction from Moscow.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova called it “deliberate and bare-faced discrimination against Russian media by the presidential candidate of a state that has historically been vigilant when it comes to free speech.”

Simonyan accused Macron’s team back then of “building electoral campaign on lies about RT and Sputnik.”

Macron’s campaign repeatedly accused Russia of interference in the election, claiming that Russian hackers attempted to gain access to its data, and impede the work of its website. A trove of communication purportedly from Macron’s staff was leaked on the internet a day before the run-off election. Moscow has staunchly denied any interference.

Despite an anticipated coolness in relations, the Russian president is one of the first world leaders to travel to Paris since Macron’s convincing election win.

On Monday, the pair spent three hours in what the French leader called a “frank exchange of views,” which Putin said would lead to a “qualitative” improvement in relations between the two countries.

Posted in FranceComments Off on Macron accuses RT and Sputnik of ‘behaving like deceitful propaganda’

President Emmanuel Macron: Reversing Five Decades of Working-Class Power

NOVANEWS
Image result for Emmanuel Macron CARTOON
By James Petras 

Introduction

Whatever has been written about President Emmanuel Macron by the yellow or the respectable press has been mere trivia or total falsehood. Media lies have a purpose that goes beyond Macron’s election. Throughout Europe and North America, bankers and manufacturers, NATO, militarists and EU oligarchs, media moguls and verbal assassins, academics and journalists, all characterized the election victory of Macron as a ‘defeat of fascism’ and the ‘triumph of the French people’.

Macron and ‘What People’?

First of all, Macron received only 46% of the actual vote. Over 54% of eligible French voters either abstained, spoiled their ballots or voted for Marine Le Pen, the nationalist populist. In other words, 26 million voters rejected or ignored Macron’s candidacy versus 20.6 million voters who endorsed him. This was despite an unremitting push for Macron from the entire French and European mass media, all of the major political parties and the vast majority of academics, journalists, publishers, undertakers and doormen.

In a word: Emmanuel Macron is a minority President, unpopular to most of the French electorate.

There are some very sound political and socio-economic reasons why Macron’s candidacy would be rejected by most of the French people, while receiving full support from the ruling class.

Secondly, there was a phony image of Macron as the ‘novice, untainted by old-line corrupt politics’. The financial and business press busily painted an image of the virgin Manny Macron bravely prepared to introduce ’sweeping reforms’ and rescue France – a sort of banker-Joan of Arc against the veteran ‘fascist’ Marine Le Pen and her ‘deplorable’ supporters.

The reality is that Macron has always been a highly experienced member of the most elite financial-political networks in France. He served as a senior executive in the notorious Rothschild banking conglomerate. In a few short years ‘Saint Manny’ had accumulated millions of euros in commissions from fixing corporate deals.

Macron’s financial colleagues encouraged him to accept the post of Economic Minister under the decrepit regime of President Francois Hollande. Banker Macron helped the ‘Socialist’ President Hollande shed any of his party’s pro-labor pretensions and embrace a radical anti-worker agenda. As Economic Minister Macron implemented a 40 billion euro tax cut for businesses and proposed far-right legislation designed to weaken workers collective bargaining rights.

The Hollande-Macron proposals faced massive opposition in the streets and parliament. With the government’s popular support falling to the single digits, the anti-labor legislation was withdrawn or diluted … temporarily. This experience inspired Macron to re-invent (or re-virginize) himself: From hard-assed rightwing hack, he emerged the novice politico claiming to be ‘neither right nor left’.

The totally discredited ‘Socialist’ Hollande, following the example of France’s financial elite, supported presidential candidate Macron. Of course, whenever Macron spoke of representing ‘all France’, he meant ‘all’ bankers, manufacturers and rentier oligarchs – the entire capitalist sector.

In the first round of presidential voting, Macron’s candidacy divided the elites: Bankers were split between Macron and Fillon, while many social democrats, trade union officials and ‘identitarian’-single issue sectarians would end up voting Macron.

Macron won by default: Fillon, his far right bourgeois rival was snared in a political- swindle involving ‘family’ and his finicky supporters switched to Macron. The Socialists defected from their discredited Hollande to the ‘reconstructed choirboy’ Macron. Meanwhile, the ‘left’ had rediscovered ‘anti-fascism’: They opposed the national-populist Le Pen and slithered under the bankers’ backdoor to vote for Macron.

Almost one-third of the French electorate abstained or showed their contempt by spoiling their ballots.

Throughout the election theatrics, the media breathlessly reported every frivolous ‘news’ item to polish the halo of their ‘novice’ Macron. They swooned over the ‘novelty’ of Macron’s teen age ‘love affair’ and subsequent marriage to his former schoolteacher. The media played-up the charmingly ‘amateurish’ nature of his campaign staff, which included upwardly mobile professionals, downwardly mobile social democrat politicos and ‘off the street’ volunteers. The mass media downplayed one critical aspect: Macro’s historic ties to the big bankers!

Behind the carefully crafted image of a ‘political outsider’, the steely eyed Macron was never influenced by the swooning media propaganda: He remained deeply committed to reversing fifty years of working class advances in France in favor of the financial class.

Macron’s Power Grab : En Marche to Defeat the Working Class

Immediately upon his election, Macron presented his first major piece of legislation: The ‘liberalization’ (reversal) of France’s progressive and socially protective labor laws.

President Macron promised to eliminate industry-wide labor-capital negotiations, in favor of factory-by-factory negotiations. Undermining industry-wide collective power means that each monopoly or conglomerate can dominate and isolate workers in their work place. Macron envisions a complete shift of power into the hands of capital in order to slash wages, increase work hours and reduce regulations on workplace safety and worker health. The proposed anti-labor laws represent a return of capitalist power to the golden age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries – precisely why the financial elite anointed Macron as ‘President of all France’.

Even more important, by destroying a unified, labor movement and the power of workers’ solidarity, Macron will be free to radically restructure the entire socio-economic system in favor of capital!

Concentrating all power and profits in the hands of the capitalist class, Macron’s legislative agenda will free him to fire over 150,000 public employees, drastically reduce public spending and investment and privatize critical public financial, energy and industrial sectors.

Macron will shift the balance of power further away from labor in order to increase profits, reduce middle and working class social, health and educational services and to decrease corporate taxes from 33.3% to 25%.

Macron’s plan will strengthen the role of the French financial elite within the European Union’s oligarchical structure and allow the bankers to impose harsh ‘austerity’ policies throughout Europe.

In the sphere of foreign and military affairs, Macron fervently supports NATO. His regime will back the aggressive US military policies toward Russia and the Middle East – especially the violent breakup of Syria.

President Macron’s reactionary, ‘liberalizing’ agenda will require his party and allies to gain a majority in next month’s parliamentary elections (June 2017). His strategy will consist of ‘diversity in appearance and hard, single-minded reactionary policies in content’.

The ‘diverse’ groups and individuals, allied with Macron, are largely composed of fragmented collections of opportunists and discredited politicos mainly in search of office. Under Macron, the parliament will include everything from old-line rightwing social democrats, as well as single-issue environment and gender opportunists, allied with conservatives looking for a chance to finally savage France’s labor laws.

If successful in the coming elections, Macron’s parliament will legitimize the policies of his far right Prime Minister and Cabinet. If Macron fails to secure an outright majority, he is sure to patch together a coalition with veteran right-wing politicos, which, of course, will be ‘balanced’ with 50% women. Macron’s coalition of dinosaurs and ‘women’ will eagerly smash the rights and living standards of all workers – regardless of gender!

Macron hopes to win sufficient parliamentary votes to negotiate alliances with the traditional conservative parties and the rump of the Socialist Party to consolidate the rule of the Troika: the bankers, the EU and NATO.

President Macron: By the Ballot or the Bullet

There is no doubt that the French working class, the salaried public and private employees, the unemployed youth, students and public health workers will take to the streets, with the backing of 60% or more of the public, including the 33% who voted for Marine Le Pen.

Strikes, general and partial, of long and short duration, will confront the Macron regime and its far right, self-styled ‘transformative’ agenda.

Rothschild’s errand boy, Manny Macron cannot mobilize supporters in the streets and will have to rely on the police. Many parliamentary backers are fearful of both the problem (strikes) and the solution (police repression).

The Corporate Elite: President Macron Adopts Napoleonic Decrees

In 2016 when Macron was the Economic Minister in the President Francois Hollande’s regime, he introduced a new regressive labor policy dubbed the ‘El Khomri’ law (named after the reactionary Labor Minister Myriam El Khormi). This led to massive street demonstrations forcing Hollande to withdraw the legislation. Now as President, Macron proposes a far more rigid and destructive labor law, which his corporate colleagues insist he implement by the ‘ballot’ if possible or the ‘billy club’ if necessary. In other words, if he cannot win the support of the National Assembly, he will implement the labor law by presidential decree.

The President of MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France), the employers’ federation, Pierre Gattaz, has demanded immediate implementation of policies to crush labor. Macron will outlaw labor protests via presidential decree and cut parliamentary debate in order to transform the elite’s ‘El Dorado’ of all (labor) reforms (sic) into reality.

The entire leadership of the capitalist class and financial press backs Macron’s bid to govern by decree as a ‘good idea in the circumstances’, (Financial Times, 5/10/17, pg. 2). Macron’s ‘Napoleonic’ pretentions will inevitably deepen class polarization and strengthen ties between the militant trade unions and Le Pen’s industrial working class supporters.

We face an approaching time of open and declared class war in France.

Conclusion

Reality has quickly cut through the lies about the origin of Emmanuel Macron’s electoral victory. Brutal police truncheons, wielded in defense of Macron’s election triumph, will further reveal the real faces of French ‘fascism’ better than any editorial by the French ‘left’. The fascists are not to be found among Le Pen’s working class voters!

The fools within the French academia, who backed the Rothschild candidate in the name of ‘fighting fascism at all cost’, will soon find themselves wandering among the workers’ street barricade, dodging the clouds of teargas, on the way to their cafes and computers.

The ruling class chose Macron because they know he will not back down in the face of street demonstrations or even a general strike!

The intellectuals who backed Macron as ‘the lesser evil’ are now discovering that he is the greater evil. They are not too late to be . . . irrelevant.

Macron’s grandiose vision is to introduce his hyper-capitalist ideology throughout Europe and beyond. He proposes to transform the EU into a ‘competitive capitalist paradise under French leadership’.

Given the historic role of the French worker, it is more likely that Macron will not succeed in implementing his ‘labor reforms’. His decrees will surely provoke powerful resistance from the streets and the public institutions. When he falters, his parliamentary supporters will fracture into little warring clans. Factory owners will bemoan the workers who occupy their plants and bankers will complain that the farmers’ tractors are blocking the roads to their country villas.

The Germans and British elite will urge their ‘little Napoleon’ to hold firm, for fear the ‘French contagion’ might spread to their somnolent workers.

On the one hand, Macron’s successful decree can open the way for a transformation of capital-labor relations into a modern 21st century corporate state.

On the other, a successful general strike can open the door to a Europe-wide revolt. Macron’s enigmatic (and meaningless) slogan ‘neither right nor left’ is now exposed: He is the “Bonaparte of the Bourse”!

Posted in FranceComments Off on President Emmanuel Macron: Reversing Five Decades of Working-Class Power

French prisons: Secluded camps to hire and train new ISIL fighters

NOVANEWS

Pravda

French prisons: Secluded camps to hire and train new ISIL fighters. 60471.jpeg

AP photo

One of the prime goals for new President of France Emmanuel Macron is to completely eradicate terrorism in the country. The killing of a policeman on the Champs-Elysees shortly before the first round of the presidential election has once again reminded the French: the level of the terrorist threat in their country is extremely high.

French news agencies regularly report about efforts to prevent terrorist attacks in various regions of  France. On April 18, two men were arrested in Marseilles on suspicion of working on a terrorist attack. According to various estimates, at least 2,000 people in France are somehow connected with terrorist cells in Iraq and Syria, the National Office of the Interior of France said. Needless to say that the real figure can be a lot larger.

In today’s France, special services are simply unable to monitor all radicals and predict their actions. For example, the terrorist, who killed the policeman on the Champs Elysees, radicalised  himself during a very short period of time. Special services paid attention to him in December 2016, when he tried to get in touch with an ISIL fighter and acquire weapons. When the police searched his apartment, the police did not find anything suspicious there. The police had not given the man the “S” status which is assigned to particularly dangerous radicals to track their movements.

Paradoxically, the weakening of terrorist forces in Iraq and Syria does not mean that the risk of terrorist attacks in France is declining. ISIL’s retreat only means that hundreds of militants with French passports will return to Europe. Since 2012, more than a thousand French people have taken the side of terrorists. Even if some of them have returned home, it does not mean that they have abandoned their ideas, French journalist David Thomson believes.

Radicals continue their subversive activities even in jail, where they propagate jihad and find new supporters. In late 2016, the French penitentiary service said that as many as 1,500 inmates were “in the process of radicalisation.” It is worth recollecting the Champs-Elysees terrorist here again. The man had spent 14 years of his life in prison. For the first time, he was jailed for an attempt to attack police officers. Four years ago, he found himself behind the bars again, for theft offence.

Many present-day jihadists are former criminals who served sentences in French prisons. The above-mentioned two men, who were arrested in Marseilles, met in a prison cell. According to David Thomson, radicalism attracts those who share aversion to the French political system and state institutions. Prison circles contribute to the dissemination of this ideology, the journalist says. This is what had happened to the Champs-Elysees attacker: the man was despising the French police long before he became a radical.

Emmanuel Macron will have to look for a solution to the problem of prisons that to not actually serve as penitentiary institutions, but virtually appear as camps, where new radicals are hired and trained. Macron will have to raise the efficiency of French special services and prevent the recruitment of people from poor levels of the French population. Those people are deeply dissatisfied with what the French society offers them today, so they prefer to turn to radical movements. One should bear in mind the fact that most French terrorists come from problem areas of the entire territory of France, and those people have no education at all. Yet, to eradicate terrorism, the French will need a lot more time than one presidential term.


France is losing ethnic integrity

Posted in FranceComments Off on French prisons: Secluded camps to hire and train new ISIL fighters

France: Macron’s Election Victory, Will Discrimination against the Muslims Continue?

NOVANEWS

The centrist Emmanuel Macron was elected French president by defeating the ultra-nationalist and far-right candidate Marine Le Pen in the second round of the French presidential election, held on Sunday (May 7, 2017). Macron of the independent En Marche party won 23.75 percent votes and Le Pen of France’s National Front party won 21.53 percent votes.

The election victory of Macron has been hailed by his supporters and the ongoing President of France François Hollande, including various leaders and politicians of the Western World, especially Europe. The US President Donald Trump also congratulated the president-elect Emmanuel Macron and said, “I look very much forward to working with him”

His emphatic victory has brought huge relief to European allies who had feared another populist upheaval to follow Britain’s vote to quit the EU and Donald Trump’s election as US president.

In his victory speech, the president-elect Macron said that he would unite a divided and fractured France. He stated “I will work to recreate the link between Europe and its peoples, between Europe and citizens.”  Macron added that the world was watching and “waiting for us to defend the spirit of the Enlightenment, threatened in so many places”.

While, Macron who favours globalization, sees France’s way forward in boosting the competitiveness of an open economy.

The far-right candidate Le Pen had vowed to defend France against the forces of globalization and declared that now was the time to free the French population from arrogant elite. On April 24, this year, Le Pen had continued to emphasize the anti-immigrant and anti-globalization views and she denounced the efforts of the mainstream parties to keep her out of the presidency. She continuedhostility to the European Union, NATO and wanted to shield French workers by closing borders, quitting the EU’s common currency, the euro, radically loosening the bloc and scrapping trade deals.

It is notable that three days before the first round of France’s presidential elections, held on Sunday (April 23, 2017), a French policeman was shot dead and two others were wounded in central Paris on April 20, 2017 when a gunman wielding a machine gun leapt out of a car and opened fire on the Champs-Elysees, Paris’s most famous boulevard. Via its Amaq news agency, the Islamic State group (Also known as Daesh, ISIS, ISIL) claimed that the attack was carried out by “Abu Yousuf al-Baljiki (the Belgian) and he is one of the Islamic State’s fighters.”

French President Francois Hollande said that he was convinced the “cowardly killing” on the Champs Elysees boulevard was an act of terrorism.

Karim Cheurfi, a 39-year-old French national who was shot dead by the police was identified as the attacker. Prosecutors said that a note defending ISIS fell out of his pocket, although there was no previous evidence of radicalization.

After the shooting, the three main candidates canceled campaign events and instead made televised statements in which they competed to talk tough on security and vowed a crackdown on ISIS.

The incident brought issues of terrorism, the French Muslims, security and immigration back to the forefront of the campaign. Marine Le Pen demanded the closure of all Islamist mosques, repeating her call for Europe’s partly open borders to be closed. Le Pen also called Macron “weak” on terrorism and ISIS, as terror-incident of Champs-Élysées had drawn renewed attention.

The fact of the matter is that the French president-elect Emmanuel Macron will maintain the US-led status quo in the world and will further advance the Israeli agenda against Russia, China, Syria, Pakistan etc, and the Muslims, while further advancing the international forces of globalization, controlled by the wealthy Jews and the elite class at the cost of small countries and the poor class.

In this regard, Gil Hoffman, under the Caption “Emmanuel Macron’s Israeli Ties”, Gil Hoffman and Michael Wilner, under the title Macron Fights for France’s Jewish Vote had already pointed out Macron’s connections with Israel by writing in Jerusalem Post.

In this respect, Haaretz an Israeli newspaper (www.haaretz.com) reported on April, 23 and 24, 2017, “In a race…Macron, a pro-European Union ex-banker and economy minister…received slightly more votes than Le Pen…Speaking on Holocaust Remembrance Day, Moshe Kantor described Le Pen as “dangerous” and added that “the 48-year-old National Front leader recently made comments against the historic record of the Holocaust which makes her no less dangerous than her Holocaust-denying father who she has tried to hide…Le Pen recently called for banning the wearing of the kippah in public and for making it illegal for French nationals to also have an Israeli passport.”

Therefore, three days before France’s presidential elections, shooting at Champs-Elysees-Paris-famous Boulevard was conducted by the Israeli secret agency Mossad through ISIS to ensure the victory of the pro-Israeli Emmanuel Macron in the first round of the election.

It is mentionable that Macron did not mention, as to how he will eliminate ISIS, while all other candidates have vowed to destroy the ISIS. It further creates doubt about her Israeli links.

Unlike several of his opponents on the left and right, Macron has avoided making pronouncements against Muslim dress codes and discriminatory laws which are, in fact, being applied against the Muslims in France.

Regarding France’s Presidential election and the French Muslims, The Washington Post, under the caption, “Anti-Muslim rhetoric permeates French presidential election campaign”, wrote on April 18,2017, “For some, the French presidential election will alter the course of a troubled nation steeped in economic and social turmoil…In a country that remains under an official “state of emergency” following an unprecedented spate of terrorist violence in the past two years, the election also has become a referendum on Muslims and their place in what is probably Europe’s most anxious multicultural society.

Before the election’s first round of voting Sunday, each of the five leading contenders—from across the ideological spectrum—has felt compelled to address an apparently pressing “Muslim question” about what to do with the country’s largest religious minority. Marine Le Pen…has made her answer crystal clear. In February, in the same speech, she decried “Islamist globalization,” which she called an “ideology that wants to bring France to its knees…While Le Pen’s diverse array of opponents do not all share her extremity…each seems to agree that, when it comes to Muslims, something needs to be done…“I want strict administrative control of the Muslim faith,” announced François Fillon, the now-disgraced mainstream conservative candidate, in a January campaign speech.

By contrast, Emmanuel Macron, the popular independent candidate, has spoken frequently of what he considers the urgent need to “help Muslims restructure the Islam of France.” The far-left Jean-Luc Melenchon, who has condemned Islamophobia, ultimately wants to stamp out “all communitarianisms” and has reiterated what he calls the “urgent” need to “put an end to the misappropriation of public funds attributed to private denominational education…With many of the devastating terrorist attacks perpetrated by French or European passport-holding militants affiliated with or inspired by the Islamic State, public opinion has grown increasingly suspicious of the Muslim population that has existed in this country for centuries… Despite the intricate diversity of that population, there is widespread anxiety that if either Le Pen or Fillon is elected, things could get significantly worse.

Both candidates probably would move quickly to advance crackdowns on veils, mosques and Muslim community organizations in the name of state secularism… Few French Muslims see a candidate in the running who would change a status quo that many view as unsustainable… Hakim El Karoui, the author of a widely circulated 2016 report on Islam in France…a Paris-based think tank said, said, “the strict anti-terrorist stance adopted by the Socialist administration of President François Hollande—who famously persecuted the “burkini” last summer has undercut the desire among French Muslims to support the left in the 2017 election…The right has always been against Muslims and immigrants….Chief among the concerns many Muslims harbor is over the so-called state of emergency…Since its imposition, French authorities have been permitted to carry out upward of 4,000 warrantless searches on French homes, and likewise have placed more than 700 people under house arrest. But many Muslims say they have been targeted unlawfully. According to France’s Collective Against Islamophobia (in French, CCIF), an advocacy organization committed to fighting discrimination, more than 400 French Muslims reported having their homes searched for no clear reason in 2016. Approximately 100 of those also were placed under house arrest, while nearly 30 were asked to leave the country.”

Nevertheless, a majority of the Muslims in France and other Islamic country have shown pleasure over Macron’s election triumph, because, they considered him better for the French Muslims than the fanatic Le Pen. However, it is wishful thinking of the Muslims who do not know the secret strategy of the US and Israel and their anti-Muslim war.

Remember that when Barack Obama won the presidential election on November 4, 2008; a wave of wishful thinking prevailed over the Muslims, including the Islamic countries that he is Muslim and would protect the interests of the Muslims. Since his campaign for the US Senate in 2004 and during the presidential election, his political opponents raised questions about his citizenship. Some said that Obama secretly practices Islam.

These claims in the public expanded during Obama’s pre-presidency and according to the Pew Research Center, 17% of Americans believed him to be a Muslim in a 2012 poll.

A wave of jubilation had been noted all over the world on January 20, 2009 when American President Barack Obama took oath. His first address had indicated a positive change in the US foreign policy. In this respect, most of the political experts had hoped that he would rectify the blunders, committed by his predecessor in the name of phony war on terror.

Addressing a crowd at Cairo University on June 9, 2009, while speaking optimistically in relation to the issues of Muslims like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, President Obama had said, “To the Muslim World, we seek a new way forward, based upon mutual interest and mutual respect”, and “based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.” Several times during the hour-long speech, members of the audience shouted, “We love you.”

A majority of the Muslims hoped that President Obama would resolve the issues which were affecting the Islamic World.

Similarly, while accusing President Bush’s policies in South Asia and recognizing interrelationship between war on terror in Afghanistan and dispute of Kashmir, Obama had stated on September 25, 2008, that if elected, he would encourage India and Pakistan to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and resolve the Kashmir problem to reduce nuclear dangers in South Asia—so that Islamabad could fully concentrate on fighting terrorism.

Quite contrary to his commitments, Obama not only set aside the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, but also the Kashmir issue. Instead, during his first visit to New Delhi, on November 6, 2010 President Obama announced the measures, America would take regarding removal of Indian space and defence companies from a restricted “entities list”, and supported Indian demand for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, including membership of four key global nuclear nonproliferation regimes.

Ignoring the solution of Kashmir dispute which like Syria, remains a nuclear flashpoint between Pakistan and India, America started backing Indian hegemony in Asia to counterbalance the presumed threat of China.

And as part of the double standards, while preferring New Delhi at the cost of Pakistan—despite, Indian violations of various international agreements and its refusal to sign Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), CTBT and Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Washington signed a pact of nuclear civil technology with New Delhi in 2008. During President Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US and India announced a breakthrough on the pact which would allow American companies to supply New Delhi with civilian nuclear technology.

Following his predecessor’s fake global war on terror and his anti-Muslim policies in its worst form, President Obama who created ISIL, used it and Al-Qaeda, including their affiliated outfits through CIA and Israeli Mossad to secure the illegitimate interests of Israel. If the double game of President Bush (The Senior) and George W. Bush franchised Al-Qaeda on global level, President Obama’s dual policy franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS as part of the anti-Muslim campaign and left no stone unturned in advancing the agenda of the Zionists, Israeli lobbies and the neoconservatives.

However, the September 11 tragedy was fully manipulated by Israel who had joined the Bush’s anti-war terrorism enterprise so as to target Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan in particular and other Muslim countries in general. For this purpose, extremist Jews also got the services of some radical Hindus to continue their anti-Muslim campaign. In this connection, by availing the international phenomena of terrorism, Indo-Israeli lobbies which are collectively working in America and other European countries have been exploiting the double standards of the US-led West regarding terrorism and human rights vis-à-vis China, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen etc.

Overtly, like Bush, President Obama had repeatedly stated that Muslims are moderate and Islam is a religion of peace, but covertly, he followed the agenda of the Bush to secure the Zionist-shaped policies.

Learning no lesson from the US and NATO’s longest war in Afghanistan, facing defeatism in that country, Obama continued state terrorism and extrajudicial killings of the Muslims through illegitimate drone attacks, CIA-torture cells, sectarian divide and violence on the basis of Shia and Sunni—assisting undemocratic forces such as the return of a military strongman in Egypt by toppling the elected government, and like Iraq, his policies created more collapsed states such as Libya, Syria, Yemen etc., which opened the door for Al-Qaeda and ISIL activists, coupled with total failure to convince Tel Aviv to abandon “settlements,” or to end delaying tactics in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the perennial humiliations of the Palestinians.

Since September 30, 2015, various unexpected developments had frustrated Israel and America. In this respect, Russian successful airstrikes on the ISIS targets in the northern Syria and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, its coalition with Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, retreat of the CIA-supported rebels and mercenaries after their failure to topple the Assad government, proving links of Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and ISIS with America and Israel, Putin’s clear-cut statement, indicating the Zionist regime in the US and  Israel for their “phony war on ISIS” surprised the Israel-led America and some European countries who wanted to oust the Assad regime.

As a matter of fact,  the agents of Mossad who are in collaboration with the CIA sympathizers, Syrian rebel groups and the ISIL militants arranged terror attacks in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, San Bernardino, Nice, Munich, London, St. Petersburg (Metro train) and in Stockholm. While, a gunman who went by the nickname Black Jesus was identied—39-year-old Kori Ali Muhammad, making militant comments on social mediakilled three white men in downtown Fresno, California, on April 18, 2017 and fired at another before he was taken into custody while shouting “Allahu Akhbar,” as the Fresno police stated.

All these were false flag terror attacks, as the US and Israel wanted to obtain their covert aims against Russia and the Muslims. Mossad had also provided the US President Donald Trump with an opportunity to exploit various terror assaults to win the US presidential election and to reunite America and Europe, as a rift was created between America and its Western allies, especially Europe on a number of issues, including NATO.

And, President Donald Trump had left no stone unturned in implementing anti-Muslim policies, while speaking openly against the Muslims and Syrian immigrants.

Earlier, taking note of various developments and some other ones such as reluctance of NATO countries to support America’s fake global war on terror, acceptance of Syrian refuges by the European countries, especially Germany and the EU rule to boycott goods produced in Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Israeli Mossad which was in collaboration with the vulnerable CIA operatives arranged terror attacks in Paris on the night of November 13, 2016. As part of the double game, these terror assaults were conducted by these secret agencies, particularly Mossad which was in connivance with the ISIS terrorists who used the home-grown terrorists of France.

French President Francois Hollande who declared emergency in the country had said, “It is an act of war that was committed by a terrorist army, a jihadist army, Daesh against France…France would act with “all the necessary means, and on all terrains, inside and outside, in coordination with our allies, who are, themselves, targeted by this terrorist threat.”

Israel succeeded in its sinister designs, Europe was put on high alert and Paris attacks were being taken as assaults on the whole continent. Afterwards, France started airstrikes on the ISIS targets in Syria.

ISIS which is being driven out of its areas of territorial control in Iraq and Syria by the Russian-led coalition and the so-called Western-assisted alliance has hundreds of French-speaking fighters, which have claimed responsibility for several terrorism-related assaults.

France which has lived under a state of emergency since 2015 and has suffered a spate of Islamist militant attacks mostly perpetrated by young men who grew up in France have killed more than 230 people in the past two years.

In France, around five million Muslims are living—roughly 7.5 percent of the population—the largest share of any country in Europe.

At least two million Muslims have French citizenship. The Muslim community is made up of immigrants from Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and a small population from South Asia

Historically, the immigration started in 1960-70s and consisted mainly of “economic migrants,” who filled the blue collared jobs which the native French did not want. However, their second and third generation is educated, but ostracized from the mainstream French society.

Muslims came to France following France’s colonization of North Africa. The current relationship between the French state and its Muslim population is based upon discrimination, because Muslims are being considered as an underclass—was conditioned by the twin legacies of imperial history and economic exploitation.

Unlike other colonies, Algeria was officially considered a part of France, meaning that Algerian Muslims could come freely to France to live. Once there, however, they faced systematic and often brutal repression.

Antagonism with a subject Muslim population is written into France’s political structure: the current constitution—which established the Fifth Republic — was designed to resolve the state crisis provoked by Muslim resistance to colonialism.

When General De Gaulle called for constitutional reform in 1958, he did so precisely in order to shore up presidential authority, weakened by the upheavals of the Algerian war of independence.

There are also some other purposes behind creation of xenophobia against the Muslims in France.

Firms sometimes made prayer rooms available to their employees, a startling difference from today, when the private sector is collaborating with the state to eradicate manifestations of Islam in every sphere outside the home.

French perceptions of Muslims and Islam changed significantly over the past decade. Since 9/11, a number of terrorist attacks in Europe and in France in particular led to an increase in debates, such as “Clash of Civilizations”, “Islamisation of Europe” and the “Islam problem.” It has, thus resulted in dividing the French society between “us” and “them.”

In the pretext of the fear of Muslims and Islam, growing in Europe, France has enacted a number of laws to maintain the so-called “secularism” of the French society. In this context, the controversial ban on the traditional veil, worn by Muslim women is notable. France has banned the traditional veil in public areas, considering it to be a symbol of “oppression” against women. Consequently, women, wearing veils cannot enter universities, banks, hospitals, offices etc., thus making it difficult for Muslim women to avail public facilities.

Head scarves and other religious traditional dresses have been banned in schools. This has, mainly, affected Muslim children, while, proposals for discontinuation of substitute for pork and “Halal” (Permitted in Islam) food in school cafeterias are also being voiced.

Many Muslims, however, find these laws part of discrimination, which have further broadened the divide between the Muslim community and the Christians.

Besides, the Muslim youth is facing discrimination in employment opportunities. In this regard, “Muslim Diaspora” is twice more likely to work in factories than the rest of French force. They are also underrepresented in executive positions.

It is noteworthy that another false flag terror operation-the Charlie Hebdo incident has also put Muslim population under greater scrutiny. Violence against Muslims increased twofold after the incident. As regards the incident, on January 7, 2015, two Islamic militants attacked the office of French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris, and killed 13 people on January 9, 2015, two brothers namely Said and Cherif Kouachi suspected for the incident were killed in a shootout with Police—in a hostage-taking situation, at a signage company in Dammartinen-Goele where some people were also targeted.

Thus, the gunmen killed total 17 persons. Mossad manipulated the anti-Muslim approach of France, and indirectly used these Algerian Muslims for the terror attack through ISIS. Afterwards, Mossad’s connections with Charlie Hebdo episode had been proved by many senior writers, analysts and social media bloggers—a video titled “Did Mossad Do Charlie Hebdo” prepared/uploaded by www.brothernathanaelchanne.com is worth-watching. In fact, besides creating differences between Christians and Muslims, Zionist groups and Mossad used the episode to punish France on recognizing Palestinian state and to desist other EU countries to avoid such approach on Palestinians. However, the magazine had continued to print anti-Muslim publications, under the pretext of freedom of speech, thus creating resentment in the Muslim community. Similarly, one of the most confrontational debated books of 2015 has been, “Submission” by Michel Houellebecq, which portrays France being ruled under Islamic law by 2022. The book thrives on paranoia of the European society towards Islam and Muslims.

As part of discrimination, radicalized Muslim inmates are detained separately from the rest of the inmates. The second and third generation Muslim youth which has been brought up and educated in France, is faced with an “identity crisis,” despite being a French Muslim in a society which is unwilling to accept them as truly French. This lack of identity which has been exploited by the Mossad and some CIA agents, forced a number of the French citizens (Muslims) to fight in Syria against the Assad regime.

As regards the discriminatory treatment with the Muslims,  Under the title, “French police abuse Muslims under emergency laws-Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report physical and psychological abuse as raids target Muslim minority”, Aljazeera multimedia network wrote on February 4, 2016,  “France has carried out abusive and discriminatory raids and house arrests against Muslims under its current state of emergency…stigmatising those targeted, including children and the elderly…Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International published separate research…pointing to cases where excessive force had been used, leading to human rights violations including violence…Those targeted said the police burst into homes, restaurants, or mosques; broke people’s belongings; threw Qurans on the floor; terrified children; and placed restrictions on people’s movements so severely that they lost jobs and income, or suffered physically…ISIL’s claim[For terror attacks] triggered a backlash-not just in France, but across Europe and elsewhere- as Muslim communities were collectively punished…France has a responsibility to ensure public safety and try to prevent further attacks, but the police have used their new emergency powers in abusive, discriminatory, and unjustified ways, said Izza Leghtas, Western Europe researcher at HRW, calling for an immediate end to warrantless searches and house arrests…This abuse has traumatised [Muslims] families and tarnished reputations, leaving targets feeling like second-class citizens…In one house raid, HRW said, police broke four of a disabled man’s teeth before they realised he was not the person they were looking for…In another case, a single mother’s children were transferred to foster care following a raid…Freedom, equality and fraternity have been badly damaged in the weeks since the November attacks.”

On August 29, 2016, Nick Riemer, under the caption, “The Roots of Islamophobia in France” wrote on the website https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/burkini-ban-islamophobia-valls-france-secularism-islam/, “Children have watched as their parents are dragged from their beds by heavily armed police…Mosques have been violently ransacked by the police. Worshippers are humiliated and degraded, including through the use of police dogs. Around twenty mosques have simply been closed, and more will soon be shuttered. Political organizations with Muslim links have also been threatened with closure; demonstrations, including, including pro-Palestinian ones…Muslims appealing for asylum find themselves even more vulnerable than residents. The government delivers anti-Islamic broadsides while destroying refugee camps in Calais and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the French have blessed the European Union’s deal with Turkey on refugees, under which Syrian refugees arriving by boat on Greek islands are deported to Turkey.

In pursuing these policies, French politicians have knowingly ignored the fact that long-standing and state-sponsored Islamophobia, combined with military activity in Muslim countries, has only encouraged extremism. The political classes have refused to recognize how their economic and social policies fuel the alienation that drives people to join groups like ISIS. A ferocious escalation of Islamophobic propaganda from all quarters of French culture and politics accompanies these measures. According to Abdellali Hajjat and Marwan Mohammed, the construction of the ‘Muslim problem’ over recent years constitutes one of the main vectors for French and even European elites’ unification” across the political spectrum.”

A website http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/muslim-and-french-2084594508 pointed out on August 8, 2016Laïcité went from being a constitutional principle to becoming an ideological weapon used to justify the social death sentence against Muslims in France…Several primary school children were either physically assaulted by their teachers or school principa…such a story did not move the minister of education, Mrs Najat Vallaud Belkacem, who not only refused to condemn the school personnel’s violence against a child but further stated that they had acted according to the procedures in place. This cynical position was confirmed a few weeks later when the international media turned its attention to a new witch hunt against Muslim students…Western Muslims, and particularly French Muslims whose country has become the laboratory of Islamophobia…are the clear indicator of how well our democracies are doing.

The recent drift toward authoritarian regimes, the rise of fascist discourse in not only US politics but also in most of Europe, the acceptance of regimes of exception like the current state of emergency in France, pre-emptive prosecution in the US or the capacity for the UK government to deport a person or stripping citizenships while people are abroad should worry us; not because they are applied against people we may disagree with but because we leave it to the state to decide alone without any accountability and look away when minorities are being put under increasing pressure. But once you create a precedent, you seldom go back. In the case of France, a concept keeps steering violent debate about Muslims.Laïcité is a constitutional principle granting the French state’s religious neutrality and that there is no official religion in France. Proclaimed in 1905, it put a clear separation between the state and the church. Laïcité was seldom debated until Muslim immigrants who were once invisible sociological subjects reduced to mere statistics became a visible part of French society.”

Recall, just after the September 11 tragedy inside the United States, chauvinism and extremism were deliberately developed among the Americans through media and statements of high officials of the Bush Administration. President Bush used the words, “crusade against the evil-doers”, adding to the perception that the ongoing ‘different war’ against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim countries. Inside the US, suddenly, every Muslim found himself divested of his nationality. Arrests, detentions and harassment of the Muslims by the CIA and the FBI were other steps which still continue. Israeli atrocities on the Palestinians were brushed aside.

Learning no lesson from the drastic aftermath and the implications of the post-9/11 tragedy, some irresponsible politicians, rulers, writers and think-tanks of the Western countries, especially Europe, including their media are repeating similar anti-Muslim chauvinism which has, particularly, been accelerated in France after the Paris attacks of November 13, 2016 and those occurred afterwards. They have been misguiding their general public by creating prejudice against the Muslims.

They are propagating the so-called threat of Islamophobia. In one way or the other, the Muslims are being persecuted in the US and other Western countries, particularly in Europe. Especially, France shows the anti-Muslim phenomenon of the post 9/11 tragedy in its worst form.

In this regard, scholars of international affairs agree that “foreign affairs are too foreign” to the citizens of a country. Renowned scholar Prof. Hoslti opines that “issues and situations” have “influence on public opinion” which in turn “influences the objectives and actions.”

So, fault cannot be laid on the general masses, a majority of whom does not have much time to go in-depth. Hence, they are swayed by emotions, stereotypes and prejudices created by the political leaders who keep on manipulating any crisis for their own self-interests with the sole aim of getting their sympathies to increase their vote bank. There are equal strong pressures from religious and nationalist forces in wake of global war on terror which is dividing the world on religious lines.

Nonetheless, owing to the irresponsible approach of the Western leaders, far right-wing parties and “Stop Islam” movement in the West, especially in Europe are becoming popular by largely attracting their people. Amid a migrant crisis, sluggish economic growth and growing disillusionment with the European Union, right-wing parties in a growing number of European countries have made electoral gains. The right-wing parties range across a wide policy spectrum, from populist and nationalist to far-right neofascist.

But, some other developments such as criticism of the controversial Turkish-EU refugee deal by a number of human rights groups, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union (EU), after the referendum (Brexit) on June 24, 2016, prospects of Scotland and some other countries for separation from the EU, and the divide between the elite class which run multinational companies with the direct or indirect control of the Jews and the general masses who are suffering from multiple problems in wake of differences on the refugee crisis, Syrian war, Greece’s weak economy, violent protests and strikes against the labour laws in France in 2016 in favour of the employers at the cost of the employs etc.—the chances of European Union’s disintegration which will give a greater blow to the US-Europe alliance against Russia the “Stop NATO protests” in Europe were quite opposite to the Israeli secret interests.

Besides revival of the fake global war on terror, Israeli-led America also got the support of its Western allies (NATO) against Russia in relation to Syrian civil war, and as part of the double game and secret strategy, American jet fighters and those of its Western coalition started targeting the ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

Notably, backing out from his earlier statements, American President Trump has changed his policy regarding Europe and NATO. In this connection, he stated on April 13, 2017 that US relations with Russia may be at “an all-time low” and declared a new-found faith in NATO, suggesting the alliance was “no longer obsolete”. Besides, the White House said on May 21, this year, that US President Donald Trump will attend a summit of leaders of NATO nations on May 25 in Brussels.

Undoubtedly, international terrorism is the by-product of the US-led Western intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the proxy war being waged in Syria.

We may conclude that despite the victory of Emmanuel Macron in the presidential election of France, discrimination against the Muslim will continue in France in particular and other Western countries in general.

Posted in France, Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on France: Macron’s Election Victory, Will Discrimination against the Muslims Continue?

What Will Happen to France Now that Macron is Elected?

NOVANEWS

Global Research strives for peace, and we have but one mandate: to share timely, independent and vital information to readers across the globe. We act as a global platform to let the voices of dissent, protest, and expert witnesses and academics be heard and disseminated internationally.

We need to stand together to continuously question politics, false statements, and the suppression of independent thought.

Stronger together: your donations are crucial to independent, comprehensive news reporting in the ongoing battle against media disinformation.  (click image above to donate)

*     *     *

French Presidential Election 2017: Nothing Succeeds Like Success. Macron “Selected”. Billionaires and Bankers Rejoice

By Diana Johnstone

The list is long of billionaires, bankers and establishment figures who have a right to rejoice at the extraordinary success of a candidate who got elected President of the French Republic on the claim to be “an outsider”, whereas nobody in history has ever been so unanimously supported by all the insiders you can name.

France Chooses Banker Macron as President

By Jack Rasmus

Today France elected Emmanuel Macron, the former banker, as its next president. The voting result was 65% for Macron, a newcomer in the election cycle who didn’t even have a political party, but who did have the massive business backing and traditional political elites united behind him, providing unlimited media and financial assistance to his campaign.

Macron and Le Pen: Two Faces of the Same Con

By Gilbert Mercier

Macron’s trajectory is similar to that of Trump in the sense of pretending to be anti-establishment and not to belong to the conventional political class. Like Trump, Macron’s recipe for success is the made-up charm of the fake political outsider. Of course Macron is purely an establishment tool, a company man just like Trump, and he will be France’s next president, handpicked by the Rothschild family.

France: A Nation’s Conscience and the Question of Terror

By Adeyinka Makinde

One constant in these episodes of national meditation has been the matter of re-asserting pride in La Grande Nation. The restoration of national pride as well as the reassertion of national independence formed the backdrop to President de Gaulle’s resistance to the irresistible rise of the American empire which saw de Gaulle evicting Nato from its original headquarters in Paris, removing France from the military command hierarchy of the United States dominated Nato and maintaining a nuclear deterrence capability independent of America.

Posted in FranceComments Off on What Will Happen to France Now that Macron is Elected?

French Presidential Election 2017: Nothing Succeeds Like Success. Macron “Selected”. Billionaires and Bankers Rejoice

NOVANEWS
 

There is great rejoicing tonight in places accustomed to rejoicing. The best champagne must be flowing in places that have plenty of it, chez Bernard Arnault, for example, first fortune in France (eleventh in the world), owner among so much else of the newspapers Parisien, Aujourd’hui France and Echos, all fervent supporters of Emmanuel Macron. The glasses should be clinking also wherever the peripatetic billionaire Patrick Drahi finds himself, born in Morocco, double French-Israeli nationality, resident of Switzerland, owner of a vast media and telecom empire, including the epitome of post-May ’68 turncoatism, the tabloid Libération, which ran a headline calling on voters to cast their ballots for Macron a day after the public campaign was legally over.

The list is long of billionaires, bankers and establishment figures who have a right to rejoice at the extraordinary success of a candidate who got elected President of the French Republic on the claim to be “an outsider”, whereas nobody in history has ever been so unanimously supported by all the insiders you can name.

There should also be satisfaction in the embassies of all the countries whose governments openly interfered in the French election – the U.S. of course, but also Germany, Belgium, Italy and Canada, among others, who earnestly exhorted the French to make the right choice: Macron, of course. All these champions of Western democracy can all join in gloating over the nonexistent but failed interference of Russia – for which there is no evidence, but part of the fun of a NATOland election these days is to accuse the Russians of meddling.

As for the French, abstention was nearly record-breaking, as much of the left could not vote for the self-proclaimed enemy of labor law but dared not vote for the opposition candidate, Marine Le Pen, because one just cannot vote for someone who was labeled “extreme right” or even “fascist” by an incredible campaign of denigration, even though she displayed no visible symptom of fascism and her program was favorable to lower income people and to world peace. Words count in France, where the terror of being accused of sharing World War II guilt is overwhelming.

Surveys indicate that as much as 40% of Macron voters chose him solely to “block” the alleged danger of voting for Marine Le Pen.

Others on the left voted for Macron vowing publicly that they will “fight him” once he is elected. Fat chance.

There may be street demonstrations in coming months, but that will have little impact on Macron’s promise to tear up French labor law by decree and free labor and management to fight it out between themselves, at a time when management is powerful thanks to delocalizations and labor is disorganized and enfeebled by the various effects of globalization.

As Jean Bricmont put it, outgoing French President François Hollande deserves a Nobel Prize for political manipulation.

At a time when he and his government were so unpopular that everyone was looking forward to the election as a chance to get rid of them, Hollande, with zealous assistance from of the major media, leading banks and oligarchs of various stripes, succeeded in promoting his little-known economic advisor into the candidate of “change”, neither left nor right, a totally fresh, new political star – supported by all the old politicians that the public wanted to get rid of.

This is quite an amazing demonstration of the power of “communications” in contemporary society, a triumph for the advertising industry, mainstream media and the billionaires who own all of that.

France was perceived as a potential weak link in the globalization project of eliminating national sovereignty in favor of the worldwide reign of capital. Thanks to an extraordinary effort, this danger has been averted. At least for now.

Posted in FranceComments Off on French Presidential Election 2017: Nothing Succeeds Like Success. Macron “Selected”. Billionaires and Bankers Rejoice

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930