Ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Iranian MEK (short for Mujahedeen-e Khalge) has been a thorny spoil of war for the United States. Originally an armed anti-Shah movement, they came to fight the clerical regime they helped impose only to move on to supporting Iraq in its war against the ayatollah and his minions. Having targeted and killed several prominent Americans during their heyday in the 1970s, they are on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. Now, about three thousand members of the group—seasoned in fighting the Iranian regime and stationed by Saddam in a place called Camp Ashraf—are American captives in Iraq. In the last few years, their fate has been the subject of constant squabbles in Washington and between Washington and Baghdad. With an apparently endless supply of funds at their disposal, MEK members have repeatedly and unsuccessfully petitioned the federal government to have their names taken off the terrorist list. In a few days, Secretary Clinton will have to decide how to answer their pleas.
And so their remarkably well-oiled machine of PR firms, powerful American politicians (all handsomely paid for services rendered) and other pressure groups is now at it again. These advocates repeat what the MEK and its many front organizations claim: The group has jettisoned its violent past and is now, in its new incarnation, a key component of the democratic movement.
At the same time, another equally well-oiled machine, this one even including lobbyists paid for by the clerical regime in Tehran, is working against delisting MEK, calling the group a dangerous cult with Iranian, Iraqi and American blood on its hands. Many in Iraq (either taking their cues from the current leadership or with an eye toward the days when MEK was an enforcer for the Saddam regime) are opposed to the group’s continued residence in their country.
MEK was formed in opposition to the Shah in the mid-sixties, and before long virtually its entire leadership was arrested and sent to the firing squad. The only early leader to survive was Masud Rajavi, who continues to rule the group to this day. In the seventies, the remaining members sent a representative to Najaf to work with Khomeini, then living in exile. Khomeini’s supporters in Tehran, including Rafsanjani and Montazeri, convinced the ayatollah to allow the use of religious funds to support the families of those MEK members who had been imprisoned or executed. Yet Khomeini never fully trusted the group; its ideology seemed a dangerous combination of Marxism and its own interpretation of Shiism. As one Iranian critic put it, MEK is “Stalinism minus the vodka.”
After the revolution, MEK was amongst the most stalwart supporters of the clerical regime. It grew in number and stature rapidly, soon becoming the most formidable organization in the country. The MEK used its increasing power to pressure the government into increasingly radical action—from more summary trials and executions to the occupation of the American embassy. Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran.
But eventually MEK fell afoul of the regime and began to fight the power holders in Tehran. Young men and women were sent in droves to armed street demonstrations. Khomeini’s regime responded with remarkable brutality, slaughtering thousands of the organization’s members. The group returned the favor and killed, by its own claims, more than two thousand regime leaders. MEK was in fact the first group in Iran (and arguably in the region) to use suicide bombers.
Eventually the group had no choice but to take its surviving cadres out of the country. On January 7, 1986, in a letter to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, the MEK requested the Soviets “give temporary asylum” to any member of the organization that fled across the border into the Soviet Union. Concurrent with the request for asylum, in another letter to the “Dear Comrades” of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, MEK asked for a loan of three hundred million dollars to continue their “revolutionary anti-imperialist” actions (see: anti-Americanism). This request came on the heels of a twelve-page letter from Rajavi to “Dear Comrade Gorbachev” in which he began by praising the Soviet Union’s efforts “against imperialist adventurism.” To support his organization’s loan application, Rajavi informed Gorbachev that the MEK “has faced the most concentrated efforts of officials from the United States” and offered supporting documents in an appendix.
It is not clear how the Soviets responded, but MEK soon settled in Iraq, helping Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran. In 1988, the group—lead by Rajavi and his wife, Maryam—engaged in three operations, conducted with the help of the Iraqi army, against Iranian forces. By all accounts, all three were badly bungled. Several thousands were killed on both sides. Moreover, in Iranian prisons, on Khomeini’s direct order, about four thousand MEK prisoners, who were serving time on earlier charges, were summarily executed lest they help the invading MEK units.
Comments
This article does not follow any journalistic norms or standards. It has made the most unbelievable and unfounded claims about MEK links with KGB and Sovjet, quoting a supposed letter which no one have ever heard of its existence without even trying to provide a source. For a US based respected professor to suggest Secretary of State should make her decision on terrorist-designation not based on facts and proves as required by law, but rather arbitrary, is something very questionable. Does the ideology of a group or its leader make it more reasonable to be designated a terrorist or should the decision actually be made on merits of law: whether a group IS engaged or NOT in terrorism. It also fails to mention a word about the consequences of the terror designation on lives of 3400 unarmed innocent people at camp Ashraf who could be slaughtered by the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government has repeatedly stressed it seen the US terror designation of MEK as a green light for their harassment. The article is indirectly calling for their annihilation. Although the author makes a pathetic attempt to distance himself from the Regime Lobby camp, but by all the aforementioned, the article falls in the pattern of Iranian regime tactics to demonize the MEK and prevent their delisting, not by providing proofs but by propaganda and rumors.
And for those who might be confused on how to digest all this together, please read an example how the regime has attempted to pay $80.000 to independent experts to write a defamatory piece on Mujahedin-e Khalq. http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/05/14616126.html That was then; one could assume the ante is much higher now with a potential imminent delisting ahead.
This article only serves the Iranian regime with its indoctrinated propaganda! Only the Iranian regime and its lobbies oppose delisting of MEK. They need the designation to justify execution of MEK supporters in Iran. They need it to justify attacking 3,400 unarmed and civilian members of the MEK living in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. No more bloodshed. Delist them from the FTO list now!!!
I expect a fact-based article from an academic. Where did you get the information about MEK contacting the former Soviet Union, and on MEK using its forces against insurgents in 2003?! Did you have access to secret Soviet and American files? It is amazing how these days anti-MEK "academics" and Iranian regime's apologists have been given the green light by certain media outlets to publish all sorts of nonsense. This article is partially a fictional spy novel and partially a personal vendetta against MEK and its leadership by Dr. Milani.
Abbas Milani says: "Having targeted and killed several prominent Americans during their heyday in the 1970s, "
The above statement is false. Most importantly, it tells how uninformed Milani is about the Mojahedin.
Not only have the Mojahedin repeatedly denied this allegation, they published entire books about these events back in 1979 (shortly after the Iranian revolution).
One expects a person who claims to be knowledgeable about Iran to be at list marginally knowledgeable about the main Iranian opposition.
Practically every Iranian scholar knows about the Mojahedin, the splinter group that became known as Peikar) killed the Americans. The splinter group also killed several members of the Mojahedin. The changed the organization name and changed its logo, etc.
Abbas Milani either knows all those details and is intentionally making falsified statements or else is so ignorant and thus no one should respect any thing he would have to say about Iran.
The above said, his comments about the KGB etc is only laughable (and rather comic).
I am not surpried by this article amd Mr. Milani. he is co author and very close allies to NIAC. Iranian regime's lobby in Washington and regardless of his education and background has been sold cheap.http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/reaction_2632.jspNIAC IS AN Iranian regime lobby. Trita parsi, rey Takeid, ahmadi and anybody affiliated to them are. as clear as that. mr milani shame on. it is blood of 120000 of Mojahedin and their martyrs on your hands http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/04/25/trita-parsi-bob-ney-and-iran%E2%80%99s-oil-mafia-penetrating-the-us-political-system/
by the way Mr. Milani why you are so quiet about Iranian regime killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afganistanor that is OK because it is done by Iranian regime which you lobby for. Mojahedin have been house arrest for the last 8 years and being investigated by CIA, FBI and Pentagon, that is why they got protection and status of protected people and according to a very strong verdict by the FRENCH COURT that killing mullahs and fighting them is the right of Iranian nation and democracy, fighting against a dictator that is killing its own people there is no other way Dr. in political science and traitorism.
This article lacks credibility from so many angles. The fact that Mr. Milani has attempted to take a crack at the FTO designation at this time is very interesting. Failing to mention the lives of 3400 innocent people shows that he is embarking on a mission to justify why the Secretary should not de list the MEK. The prior relationships with NIAC and repeated interviews supporting the Iranian regime puts him in a catagory of bias. Another point is the so called facts about the Soviets and KGB and failing to produce any source. On top of all this Milani talks about the secret documents which was unearthed after the US invasion of Iraq showing orders by Saddam to kill the Kurds. Do you really think if what you say is true Houshiar Zibari would have written a letter clearing the MEK from ever killing any Kurds. This article has no substance and no facts it is just trying to exert pressure on the Secretary no to de list MEK.
I am sorry Mr. Milani I think you should stick to teaching whatever it is you are teaching. It is obvious you are not a journalist even though I am sure you may think that you are a darn good one. Usually when writing an article you should stick to facts or if you have none to offer try to point out that it is heresay. There are so many points that you have mentioned which require links or refrences but you obviously are not familiar with any of them. Another point is when you are known for your cooperstion with the Iranian regime it may be a good insurance policy, writing anything to smear their opposition. There is only a small issue of credebility and integrity when weighed against the insurance policy of being on the good side of the Mullahs can be overlooked. I am just curious have you ever written anything that dealt with the violation of human rights, torture, executions and stoning in Iran? or is it just when the Mullahs need help you come into the ring?
I had some doubts about Professor Milanis's remarks and comments regarding the Islamic Republic in the past, but at this time I am sure that he is simply a mouth piece for the regime. Lets see, who has been killing Americans in Iraq within last 9 years Dr. Millani???? Road side Bombs? Hostage crisis? oh, you gonna be kidding me. Lets say that Mojahedin are what you say you are and I say they are even worse but what about you? NIAC? Money? Lobby for Islamic Republic? well, it is not a co incident. Dr. Millain where is the evidence ??? Killing of several Americans in the 70'S??? any names? Positions? A professionl report or a decent one, would show the sources of information and the originality of the articles mentioned. Unlike Dr. Millani, I spent over 20 years of my life within the revolutionary (so-called) Iran and from the get go, I was interested in the development of the vents regarding all parties and organizations involved in anti government activities. I have never believed in violence nor have I sympathized with those who propagated violence. Having said all that, the accusations that Dr. Millani has made of Mr. Saadati's relationship with Russians and or the 800 million dollar contract that Dr. Millani has referred to are simply that. I would like to see one piece of credible evidence to that. The Islamic republic has executed thousands simply to scare people off and in order to revenge the actions of their constituency. Apparently Dr. Millani has chosen to simply ignore the basics of report writing and has resorted to propagate the allegations and what the Islamic Regime in Iran has to say. I am beginning to think that Dr. Millani is in cooperation with NI AC while campaigning for Islamic Republic. One would anticipate that any individual with slightest interest for human rights would be more than happy to see that the unarmed humans in Iraq would be freed or sheltered but I I have to second guess my understanding about the author. Money is a powerful tool even with those who may not necessarily be in need. That is a shame.
The Inside Story of America's Favorite Terrorist Group" by Abbas Milani (National Interest, August 18, 2011) seems not to have achieved its goal, which is to paint a relatively precise picture of the MEK (Mujahedeen-e-Khalq) organization, the group that "has fought the clerical regime in power in Iran more effectively than any other group", according to the author himself. A renowned expert of Iranian affairs, Mr. Milani seems to be tempted by the known position of the National Interest on the US administration’s policy, thus trying to present the MEK as the US' favorite terrorist group as an extra negative point for the group. It simply won’t stick: The whole article is full of allegations about the so-called anti-Americanism of the MEK. A lengthy letter to Sovient Union’s Gorbachev allegedly written in 1986 is a new invention to further stress how anti-American the MEK is. Apart such "inventions” by the author, the group has been placed, and remains on State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) since 1997, so one can hardly see how can it be called the latter’s favorite in any way. Although familiar with Iranian political affairs since three decades, I have no intention to enter a long discussion about the nature of neither the MEK nor that of the clerical regime in power in Iran. That can be done in the future, if Mr. Milani or the National Interest show an interest for such a debate. What I want to underline here is the FTO listing of the MEK, which the author insists should be maintained, until, “and only after a new, fresh leadership is freely and democratically elected” by the group. Mr. Milani claims that "in cults, leaders remain unchanged," so he presumably considers the MEK a cult, and a terrorist group. However, although he seems to consider the long leadership of the Rajavi's in the group the viable criteria for calling it a cult, he does not present any evidence as to why the group should be considered a terrorist organization. The word “terrorism” has apparently been defined more than any other political term by different parties, governments, institutes, etc according to different political, social and even literary interests. Alex Schmit and Berto Jongman have listed 109 different definitions of the term in 1988. But the general meaning for the term, not entering into judicial details, is the use of violence to political ends and especially against unarmed civilians. If ever anyone other than Mr. Milani has included cultish behavior as new criteria in those definitions, I am not aware of it. More important, State Department's criteria hardly include such a definition. So his recommendation to the State Department would not cut much ice. A more relevant story for listing the group is however available in the author’s own article. He writes that a "well-oiled machine, (...) including lobbyists paid for by the clerical regime in Tehran, is working against delisting MEK, calling the group a dangerous cult with Iranian, Iraqi and American blood on its hands." As an expert for whom this author has great respect, Mr. Milani should take care to clearly distance himself from this well-oiled machine. Then of course every detail on the issue can be discussed. The point that merits to be addressed in National Interest’s columns, is the how and why of MEK’s listing by the United States. The MEK was blacklisted in Washington in 1997 on a political decision, as a "goodwill gesture" to Iran in the hope that the clerics could be placated to abandon terrorism and repression. The Clinton administration was looking for a way to establish "special” relations with Mohammad Khatami, then newly-elected president in Iran and pretending to incarnate “those who stand for reform" inside that regime. A senior White House official said to the Los Angeles Times on October 9, 1997, that the listing was a “goodwill gesture" towards Iran’s new president. Martin Indyk, then Assistant Secretary of States for Near East Affairs, was quoted in September 2002 by Newsweek confirming that the listing was part of Clinton administration’s policy of rapprochement with the Iranian regime. Putting Iranian political considerations parallel to those concerning foreign terrorist organizations was unethical in the first place, and is proving detrimental to US anti terrorist policy in the second. The MEK was thus included in the FTO list because it is alleged that in the 1970s, a handful of American military attachés under the Shah were assassinated by the group. The MEK says those killings were done by a splinter group. But those details are to be studied in courts. Apparently DC Appeals’ Court studied relevant material provided by the State Department, and recommended that the Secretary of States reconsider her decision to list the group. The same evidence had not proven satisfactory in British, French and European courts which delisted the group in 2009. Ms. Clinton is taking her time to thoroughly study the case. In the meantime, groups like Moqtada al-Sadre’s in Iraq, directly supported by Tehran, are not on that list in spite of the fact that hundreds of American troops have been killed by them in Iraq since 2003. So what the US State Department is doing to this group is, far from being “friendly”, a great injustice which needs to be corrected as soon as possible. National Interest should write about this. Those recommending continuing this unethical and dishonest political bargaining with the ruling clerics in Iran are not only offering them service, but are also undermining any sound anti-terrorist policy by the United States.