Table of Contents:
Paris and Washington told of Rajavi's war
Editorial, November 2005
News in Brief
- MEP's assistant is from National Council of Resistance,
Iran-Interlink, Oct 2005
"Guns and bombs are not speech",
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 20 (Reuters)
Terrorist MKO paid British MP to visit UN,
From Hansard & IRNA, Oct 12, 2005
Fighting for its Future,
IRNA, October, 13 2005
former MKO veterans return to Iran,
Nejat Association, October 13, 2005
Iranian Dissidents Square Off in DC
By Sherrie Gossett and Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writers, October 25, 2005
MKO dissidents demand that Mas'oud Rajavi also be put on Trial
By Safa Haeri, Iran Press Service, October 19, 2005
Human Rights Watch: 'We weren't duped.'
By LEIGH BALDWIN, WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 (UPI)
Coalition Forces remind MKO members they are free to leave
Autopsy of An Ideological Drift
Antoine Gessler, Chapter 24/Low Profile
Personal Experiences: Anne Singleton
BBC Radio Four/Woman’s Hour, October 6, 2005
Open Secrets - Did you know...
why there have been no births among Mojahedin-e Khalq members since 1989?
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paris and Washington told of Rajavi's war crimes
orders from the Iraqis and against receiving a monthly sum of 27 million US
Dollars, not only would we fight, kill and arrest the Kurds and the Shi’a
insurgents, but any ordinary Iraqi suspected of opposing Saddam and hand
them to Iraqi intelligence, of which the MKO was a special unit. We would
even arrest Iraqi soldiers who would desert the army.”
Behzad Alishahi, Paris, October 18, 2005
The trial of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was marked by press
conferences in Paris and Washington, DC in which former members of the
Mojahedin-e Khalq demanded that Massoud Rajavi, the organization's
self-appointed leader, also be brought to justice alongside Saddam Hussein,
for war crimes, crimes against humanity and terrorism.
The meetings, held in Paris on Tuesday October 18th, and in
Washington, DC on Monday October 24th broadcast films which
depict MKO leaders in talks with Saddam's security service officials
discussing operations planning, logistical co-operation and haggling over
financial reward. The films were retrieved from Saddam's security services
buildings after coalition forces invaded Iraq in 2003. Meetings in these
buildings had been secretly videotaped by Iraqi Security chiefs for their
own records, and provide incontrovertible evidence of Saddam Hussein's
support for international terrorism, with the Mojahedin as his main
Behzad Alishahi, the most senior MKO member to escape the clutches of the
cult in recent years, spoke in Paris of Rajavi's involvement in Saddam
Hussein's reign of terror in Iraq and his complicity in the suppression of
the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings in March 1991 which arose out of the Gulf
War. In Washington, DC, Karim Haghi alerted western lawmakers to the history
of the Mojahedin, its cult nature and its absolute reliance on violence to
achieve its aims, and warned people not to be fooled by the MEK's propaganda
which portrays the Rajavis as a democratic, secular and feminist leaders.
Mojahedin made attempts to prevent and then to disrupt both meetings. In
Washington, the organization, which is listed as terrorist under all its
pseudonyms including the NCRI, was forced to use its lobbying agency, the
Iran Policy Committee led by Professor Raymond Tanter, to issue the MEK's
official rebuttal of the accusations.
American-Iranians were greatly interested in the visit for the first time of
former members of the MEK who could talk about the organization with inside
knowledge. The Washington based 24 hour Iranian satellite television channel
www.rangarangtv.com hosted a live program with Karim Haghi. The program
attracted a flood of phone calls and was prolonged for three hours. It has
since been repeated four times by popular demand.
spite of obvious set-backs - the fall of Saddam Hussein, the terrorist
listing - for long enough the Mojahedin had felt impregnable in its three
'safe-houses' of Auvers-sur-Oise, Washington, DC and Camp Ashraf in Iraq.
They believed that these places were theirs and that no-one could dare to
expose them there. How wrong they were.
The Mojahedin itself compared the visit to Washington, DC, by former MKO
members to the similar 'invasion' of Auvers-sur-Oise earlier this year.
Rajavi should be aware by now that we intend to 'invade' all of these
'safe-houses' and lift the lid on the MKO's crimes.
The MEK's past and present involvement in war crimes, crimes against
humanity and terrorism are now indisputable matters of public record. What
is interesting is that when confronted with these facts, the MEK's only
defence is to create a diversionary smokescreen by accusing everyone
involved in exposing the crimes of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi of working for
the Iranian Intelligence Ministry. And of course, some people, whether paid
by the MEK or not, will be willing to be diverted by this. Should we be
satisfied with this defence? Is this a reasonable answer to counter the
facts? Can a group gain credibility simply by discrediting its critics?
In a 'debate' conducted on Traitors USA blog, Ali Safavi, the MEK's
unofficial spokesman in the USA, gets cornered by such facts and has only
in the final analysis, one has to make a choice between the mullahs and the
MEK. There's nothing in between. Indeed, the MEK is the mirror image of
everything that the mullahs stand for. Since the mullahs are all evil, the
MEK must inevitably be good."
does not silence the questions and challenges, Safavi retorts:
"I see no further point in continuing this dialogue. I guess, your response
only proves the point I made to your friend: Anyone who shows enmity to the
MEK is either a paid agent or de facto agent of the Iran's Intelligence
So, Mojahedin thinking can be reduced to this simple black and white view of
the world. Massoud Rajavi famously told his followers 'ideology is what you
do, not what you say.' For once, we agree with Rajavi, that the MEK's
ideology can easily be discerned through its actions and not its nice words.
News in Brief
MEP's assistant is
from National Council of Resistance
Paulo Casaca, member of the European Parliament, visited Camp Ashraf in
September. Based on this visit he claimed that Human Rights Watch had been
duped by the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, and that its May 2005 report was
"devoid of any truth."
Mr Casaca, an MEP for Portugal, has an Iranian born parliamentary assistant
named Firouz Mahvi.
Googling this name reveals that Mahvi is a well-known member of the National
Council of Resistance of Iran (aka Mojahedin-e Khalq) which is listed as a
terrorist organization in the USA.
and bombs are not speech"
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 20 (Reuters)
- The United States can designate foreign organizations as terrorist groups
and bar Americans from financially backing them, a federal appeals court
ruled on Thursday.
"Leaving the determination of whether a group is a 'foreign terrorist
organization' to the executive branch ... is both a reasonable and a
constitutional way to make such determinations," Judge Andrew Kleinfeld
wrote for a three-judge panel.
"The Constitution does not forbid Congress from requiring individuals,
whether they agree with the executive branch determination or not, to
refrain from furnishing material assistance to designated terrorist
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was made in a case
involving people who raised money in California for Mujahedin-e Khalq, or
MEK, an Iranian opposition group designated as a terrorist organization by
the U.S. government since 1997.
The defendants argued the MEK was not a terrorist group and they had First
Amendment rights to contribute to the group.
The court disagreed, saying contributing money was not the same as
exercising a right to free speech. "Guns and bombs are not speech," Judge
The 9th Circuit ruling was a rehearing of the same panel's decision in June.
Both 9th Circuit decisions overturned a district court's dismissal of the
indictment in the case.
The "Committee for Human Rights" had solicited contributions at the Los
Angeles International Airport and sent them to the MEK in Turkey.
...The ruling acknowledged geopolitical changes could change the perception
about the MEK, but said the U.S. government should be the entity that
"Defendants could be right about the MEK. But that is not for us, or for a
jury in defendants' case, to say," the decision read.
"The sometimes subtle analysis of a foreign organization's political program
to determine whether it is indeed a terrorist threat to the United States is
particularly within the expertise of the State Department and the executive
paid British MP to visit UN
From Hansard and IRNA
October 12, 2005
A parliamentary debate on Iran on Tuesday October 11, was sponsored by
Conservative MP David Amess, a self-confessed supporter of the front group
for the Mojahedin-e Khalq terrorist group.
The debate concentrated on Britain's
relations with Iran and recent issues including Iran's nuclear programme and
allegations of interference in Iraq.
David Amess was unable to get any support
for his favoured group. The Chair of the all-party Iran parliamentary group,
Phyllis Starkey totally disassociated herself from Amess and his
Conservative colleague Brian Binley, whom he accompanied on a paid trip to
the UN General Assembly last month to rally support for the so-called
National Council of Resistance.
"It is a sect, not a political party, and
has virtually no support in Iran. It is a diversion from the real issues,"
she said and repeated that the UK Government should be "clear, consistent
and transparent" in engaging in dialogue with Iran and its people.
Group Fighting for its Future
IRNA, October, 13 2005
The German weekly magazine “Focus” has published an
article on the issue of MKO defectors’ return to Iran.
“Now the group is fighting for its future,” the
Carrying some photos, which showed former MKO members’ families welcoming
their loved ones, the article added that “the families of these people
welcome their lost boys and girls with indescribable happiness”.
“15 years ago in the deserts of Iraq, Faramarz Massouri was trained to kill.
He used to shout slogans against Islamic Republic values, but now he is now
returning to Iran,” Andrea Claudia Hoffman wrote.
“Massouri and several other former members said to International Red Cross
representatives that they want to return to their country voluntarily.”
Quoting these people, Focus added: “We stopped our activities and want to
start a new life in Iran.”
“To date, 340 out of 3800 MKO members have returned to Iran.”
Reflecting MKO’s fear from defection of its members, the BBC also reported
last week that 90 former members of the organization have warned European
countries, the U.S. and Canada in a letter that the group (by its agents)
wants to harass former members.
In the letter, they said that a number of MKO agents, trained in urban
warfare, security and intelligence courses, have been smuggled to the West
to identify critics and former members in order to harass or even
More former MKO veterans return to Iran
Nejat Association, October 13, 2005
According to the correspondent of Nejat Association, another group of 13
former members of Rajavi’s terrorist group arrived at Mehrabad International
Airport with a Red Cross plane on October 13 and joined their families.
The report suggests that most of these returnees had been in the MKO for
18-20 years and left the group because of torture, horror and choking
situation in the cult.
The names of returnees are as follows:
1. Mohammed Reza Barati - Tehran
2. Marzieh Ghorbani Moghaddam - Tehran
3. Jamal Amiri - Tehran
4. Behrooz Nazarian - Nahavand
5. Jabbar Ghaderi - Kamyaran
6. Mohammed Ebadi - Mahshahr
7. Shanbeh Kalantari - Ahwaz
8. Hussein Farah Bakhsh - Rasht
9. Nasser Ravayee - Tehran
10. Ali Ekrami - Mahshahr
11. Saeed Nasseri - Abadan
12. Siavash Daryapeima - Minab
13. Gholamreza Yousefi - Dargaz
Dissidents Square Off in DC
Gossett and Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writers
October 25, 2005
- A news
conference conducted by self-described Iranian dissidents descended into
chaos on Monday as audience members and two journalists accused the speakers
of spreading disinformation and being agents of Iranian intelligence.
As supporters of the rival dissident groups vied for media attention, one
group accused the other of being imposters. An hour and a half into the
National Press Club event in Washington, D.C., organizers halted it and
Capitol police were called in to keep order.
Monday's news conference, titled "Saddam and Terrorism," was sponsored by
the Iran Peyvand Association and was supposed to focus on Iraq as it was.
Speakers argued that after fleeing Iran, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization
(MEK) operated out of Iraq as a terrorist group. For that reason, its
leader, Massoud Rajavi, should be brought to justice just as Saddam Hussein
was, the Iran Peyvand Association insisted.
The MEK was expelled from Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Starting
in the late 1980s, its main support came from Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime.
While it conducted terrorist attacks against the interests of the religious
regime in Iran, it also mobilized to suppress the 1991 Shiite and Kurdish
uprisings against Saddam, a point the presenters emphasized.
According to U.S. government terrorist group profiles, the MEK advocates the
overthrow of the Iranian regime and its replacement with the group's own
leadership. Currently, over 3,000 MEK members live in Camp Ashraf, north of
Baghdad, where they remain under the Geneva Convention's "protected person"
A press release for Monday's event promised that attendees would see a
documentary film exposing the MEK's role in the suppression of the 1991
Iraqi uprising and "video evidence, secretly filmed by Saddam's own security
services," showing the "financial, spying and terrorist relationship between
the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization and Saddam's regime."
Anti-war activist Carol Moore warned that if the U.S. attacked Iran, the
result could be world-wide nuclear war.
A flier distributed by the organizers echoed the "catastrophic"
repercussions of an American attack and argued that Iranian officials could
deploy "millions of troops and enter Iraq," as well as attack Israel's
nuclear sites and cities, American bases and troops in Iraq and U.S. ships
"They could cut off much of the world's oil, which comes through the
Straight of Hormuz," read the flier, which was produced by StopTheWarNow.net,
DawnDC.net and UnitedForPeace.org.
Karim Haqi, introduced as a former member of the MEK, followed Moore's
speech. After a video was shown, he addressed the meeting in Farsi while
Marukh Haji translated.
Shortly into Haqi's speech, audience members began interrupting, including
one unidentified young woman who said she spoke Farsi and complained the
translation being given to the audience was erroneous.
Another woman who refused to be identified except to say she was an
immigration attorney, stood up and complained that the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security had allowed a former "terrorist" into the country.
A man who described himself as a "freelance journalist" asked Haqi whether
it was true, as alleged, that he had worked with Iranian intelligence. He
was escorted from the meeting by organizers. But the charge was echoed in
questions by a British-Israeli journalist.
Haqi later denied any such ties to Iranian Intelligence, and through
translator Marukh Haji, added that he and his supporters had spent years in
Iranian prisons and were the "first ones" the government attacked.
"We put all our hopes in [the MEK]" said Haqi. "They betrayed us."
Two individuals carrying materials from the Committee Against Ahmadinejad
(Iran's new president) repeatedly interrupted Haqi and his translator.
Later, members of the group gave reporters copies of a document accusing the
organizers of Monday's news conference of being in the employ of Iranian
dissidents demand that Mas'oud Rajavi also be put on Trial
By Safa Haeri, Iran Press Service
October 19, 2005
19 Oct. (IPS) On the eve of the trial of the toppled Iraqi president Saddam
Hussein, some former members of the Mojahedeen Khalq Organsation (MKO)
demanded that the leader of the outlawed Organisation and some of his close
associates be also tried for “crimes against both the Iraqi and Iranian
“The toppled regime of
actively supported international terrorism and committed crimes against
Iraqi and Iranian peoples and the Mojaheedin Khalq Organisation, led by
were at the top of the list of these terrorist organizations”,
a former member of the group said in a press conference held in Paris on
Tuesday 18 October 2005.
Created in the sixties, the MKO, a mix of radical Islam and Stalinism, took
an active part in operations against the regime of
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and is suspected
to have assassinated at least six American military advisors.
Mr. Rajavi sided with
Grand Ayatollah Rouhollah
Khomeini in the Islamic Revolution of 1979, but was declared
outlaw after he attempted a coup against the leader of the Revolution and
along with Mr.
Abolhasan Banisadr, the first president of the Islamic
Republic, fled to Paris.
In 1886 and at the height of Iran-Iraq War, Mr. Rajavi and his Organisation
left France for Baghdad, where he started an active cooperation with the
Iraqi army and intelligence not only against Iran, but also the Kurds and
“The Mojahedeen, as part of Saddam's military establishment, played a
decisive role in the suppression of the internal uprisings in Iraq in 1991,
and are responsible for the massacre of many Iraqi Shi’ites and Kurds who
opposed Saddam. The best documented of these being the massacre of the Kurds
in their uprising in March 1991”, the dissident claimed.
Alishahi said he is in possession of some of the “crimes” the MKO committed
against both the Kurds and the Shi’ites, adding that he had sent the
documents to Mr.
Jalal Talabani, the former leader of the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) who is now the
President of Iraq.
“Acting as Saddam's Private Army, the Mojahedeen have actively participated
in the war which Saddam Hussein waged against Iran between 1980 and 1988,
engaging themselves in intelligence gathering for the Iraqi army as well as
participating in joint operations with them”, the former MKO members said.
“On direct orders from
better known as
Ali the Chemical, (then Governor of the province of Basra
and latter Saddam’s Representative in Kuwait after the occupation of the
oil-rich country by Iraqi forces), we organised military maneuvers in Basra
and paraded with tanks for days just to frighten the Shi’a population of the
town, known for their hate of Saddam”, Mr. Alishahi recalled.
“Each and every military and terrorist operation carried out by the
Mojahedeen in Iran has been ordered directly by Saddam Hussein and his
intelligence and secret services in Iraq”, he went on, adding that on
occasions, the Organisation would carry espionage operations in Iran, mostly
from Ahvaz, the capital city of the oil-rich Iranian province of Khouzestan.
“On orders from the Iraqis and against receiving a monthly sum of 27
million US Dollars, not only we would fight, kill and arrest the Kurds and
the Shi’a insurgents, but any ordinary Iraqi suspected of opposing Saddam
and hand them to Iraqi intelligence, of which the MKO was a special unit. We
would even arrest Iraqi soldiers who would desert the army”, another
dissident told reporters.
Mr. Rajavi of “murdering” several members of the group suspected of “not
sharing his views”, Mr. Alishahi said of the 3.000 to 4.000 mojahedeen now
living in Camp Ahsraf near Baghdad, “all except a very few would leave if a
plane from the International Red Cross would land there”.
An anchorman of the MKO’s television that would broadcast from both Baghdad
and Basra, Mr. Alishahi said had been jailed for five months and tortured on
orders from Mr. Rajavi some eleven years ago, but was latter pardoned and
stayed with the group until the Americans toppled the Iraqi regime.
Then, he said, he took refuge at the huge Ashraf Camp, which is now under
American protection and went to Iran with the help of the International Red
Cross (ICRC), but had to leave the country because of the pressures he
endured from the Revolutionary Guards and other Iranians. From Turkey, Mr.
Alishahi came to France where he enjoys political asylum.
As the MKO dissidents were talking to correspondents and showing films
about Mr. and Mrs Rajavi, the so-called “co-leaders” of the MKO, Afshin
Molavi, a spokesman for the Organisation sent e-mails, describing Mr.
Alishahi as “a member of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry”.
Rights Watch: 'We weren't duped.'
By LEIGH BALDWIN
Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Human Rights Watch reasserted claims of abuses by an
Iranian dissident group Wednesday even after a report compiled by a European
Parliament delegation denounced its initial report as "devoid of any truth."
Earlier this year, the global watchdog group published a report alleging
serial abuses at Camp Ashraf, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq headquarters, six miles
north of Baghdad. The report described the MeK as an extremist sect, whose
leaders had exerted a manipulative psychological influence on their
followers, as in the case of the 1980s mass divorces enforced to ensure
total loyalty to their cause. Members who wish to leave the organization
suffered from beating and prolonged solitary confinement, resulting in a
number of fatalities, the report said.
The MeK denies the allegations, claiming an Iranian conspiracy to discredit
A report by the parliamentary delegation, based on a visit to Camp Ashraf in
September, backed the MeK's claims. In its report, the delegation said that
the watchdog group had gone "far beyond the mandate of a human rights
organization." The delegation heard counter-testimonies from MeK members,
supporting this view and vilifying Human Rights Watch.
"We found the allegations contained in HRW report unfounded and devoid of
any truth. We also came to the conclusion that the HRW report was
procedurally flawed and substantively inaccurate."
The HRW has been criticized by the delegation for not visiting Camp Ashraf
and for basing their report on testimony gathered in 12 telephone
But HRW's Joe Stork Wednesday fiercely defended his conclusions, throwing
his own accusations back at the EU delegation.
"They're fine ones to talk about methodology," he told United Press
International. "The counter-testimonies are all from people high up in the
MeK. Most of the criticisms in the delegation's report are from MeK
Asked why HRW did not visit Camp Ashraf, despite invitations from the MeK,
Stork explained that his organization's allegations dated back before the
occupation of Iraq led by the American coalition. "We were invited during
the Hussein era. No human rights organization could credibly take up that
HRW had sought permission to visit the camp since the fall of Saddam, he
said. But "U.S. forces did not respond positively to later requests. In
hindsight, I regret not including that in the report." Coalition forces in
Iraq were unable to confirm that these requests had been made, according to
The MeK was designated a terrorist organization by the Clinton
administration in 1997. But the group has since won favor in the United
States by providing information on the Iranian nuclear program. In 2004, MeK
members were given 'protected status' by coalition forces in Iraq.
The group's seemingly contradictory status, at once a source of valuable
intelligence and an acknowledged terrorist organization, is fuelling a
fierce propaganda war between the MeK and the Iranian regime, in which HRW,
the European Parliament and the United States Government have become
Stork is a target of an elaborate deception by the Iranian Ministry of
Intelligence and Security, claims Raymond Tanter, a Georgetown University
academic and founding member of the Iran Policy Committee, which advises the
United States government, citing a June White Paper issued by the IPC that
describes HRW as "victims of a world class intelligence operation."
According to the IPC paper, many of the witnesses interviewed by HRW were in
fact Iranian agents. These included Hossein Sobhani, "whom HRW cites as a
"credible" victim but who, in fact, runs an intelligence ring in Europe that
works under the direct supervision of MOIS deputy chief Mohammad-Reza
"Human Rights Watch has been duped," said Tanter.
Terrorists or indispensable friends? Uncertainty over the true personality
of the MeK has prompted debate over the U.S. administration's relationship
with the group. In an October report by Foreign Policy magazine, freelance
writer Erik Saas suggested that MeK intelligence might not be quite as
indispensable as their advocates claim:
"The group has a record of exaggerating intelligence or sometimes simply
making things up. U.S. officials have learned to take MeK claims with very
large grains of salt," wrote Saas.
Nevertheless, there is, according to Saas, increasing co-operation between
the MeK and the United States. (Although they remain on the U.S. State
Department's terrorist list.) Saas even claims MeK fighters have been
deployed in Pakistan and Afghanistan, although this has not been confirmed.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, President of Strategic Policy Consulting and former MeK
leader, says he sees no reason why the terrorist designation should not soon
be lifted. MeK was placed on the terrorist list in 1997 as a conciliatory
gesture aimed at Iran's president at the time, Mohammed Khatami Jafarzadeh
told UPI. "The designation came weeks after Khatami was elected," he said.
But with the election this summer of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a shift
in policy was likely. "With the new regime, the situation will change."
Tanter gives credence to the suggestion that the terrorist list has more to
do with political expediency than human rights. "The designation is a
diplomatic football tossed around to gain various diplomatic benefits," he
Asked if, in the light of the HRW allegations, co-operation with the MeK
could damage the image of the United States, Tanter said: "American
credibility is damaged if it doesn't take sides with the Iranian resistance
in general. The U.S. has to stand with the dissidents. That doesn't mean
picking a group."
"Regime change is the implicit policy of the Bush administration," he said.
"Diplomacy has failed and the number of nuclear installations makes military
action unfeasible." If Tanter is right, alliance with dissident groups,
however unsavory, is one of increasingly few options.
Coalition Forces remind MKO members they are free to leave
Coalition General Command in Iraq has written a letter addressed to each of
the residents at Camp Ashraf to remind them of their individual rights under
the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Part of this letters reads as follows:
“It is important that all Camp Ashraf residents know their rights and how
they can exercise their rights. It is also important that all Camp Ashraf
residents understand that they are free to leave Iraq at any time they want
and that Coalition Forces, international organizations and humanitarian
groups are ready to help them.
All Camp Ashraf residents who want to return to their homeland are entitled
to receive help from Coalition Forces, the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights
and the International Committee of the Red Cross, who have already secured
the return of 300 former members to Iran and other countries.
All those [Camp Ashraf] residents who do not want to return to their
homeland, and instead want to get individual or family refugee status from a
third country, can ask for their case to be referred to the UNHCR.”
Also, article 10 of the rights given to Camp Ashraf residents by the Fourth
Geneva Convention says that “they have the right to leave, at any time, the
land of conflict to go to their homeland or a country for which they have
During the past two years, and particularly after Coalition Forces granted
Fourth Geneva Convention status to the members, the Mojahedin-e Khalq
organization has prevented its members from becoming aware that they are
free to leave Iraq at any time they desire.
During the past two years, they have repeatedly forced the members to pledge
not to leave Iraq, in direct contradiction to their rights: “Residents of
Camp Ashraf are subject to the measures of control and security against
danger, violence, obligation and special protection is provided for women’s
Coercing people to stay in Camp Ashraf against their will is a violation of
The second article of the rights given to these people according to
humanitarian and international laws is their right to request to meet their
families who are outside the camp. The MKO leaders systematically violate
this law by banning the members from meeting with families who have come to
the doors of Camp Ashraf to see their loved ones.
According the 3rd and 4th articles, of which it has been necessary for the
Coalition General Command to remind the MKO, “they have the right to receive
help from the International Committee of the Red Cross, UNHCR and other
humanitarian organizations. They can enjoy freedom of thought, religion,
speech, formation of associations inside their society and freedom of
political views as well as freedom from harassment and servitude.”
The Mojahedin-e Khalq systematically violates these rights. The members are
prohibited from contacting the Red Cross or UNHCR, and these agencies in
turn are not permitted to contact the members either.
In addition the MKO, using its well documented cult manipulation techniques,
deprives these people of freedom of thought and forces them to work (without
reward) and occupies them in such a way as to deprive them from exercising
political and/or religious freedoms.
Other aspects of the Convention, reiterated by the Coalition General
Command, are that the privileges applied during past year and the
continuation of their application should not encourage or allow misuses by
distribution of the Coalition Forces letter, the MKO responded by claiming
the large number of families who come to Iraq with the assistance
of Nejat Association to visit their loved ones [in Camp Ashraf] proves that
there is democracy in the cult and that they [the MKO] allow such meetings.
This response, announced by the MKO’s European spokesman, Mohammed
Mohaddessin, who is awaiting trial on terrorism charges in Paris, has been
forced by the circumstance of the Coalition letter. Otherwise, the potential
of the Fourth Geneva Convention to expose the MKO's internal suppression is
After the Coalition General Command in Iraq announced that all residents of
Camp Ashraf have the right to meet their families and to be in touch with
them - and only after experts on the cult have revealed that the MKO leaders
have systematically deprived the members of their rights and described how
they isolate the members politically, emotionally, intellectually and
theologically – the MKO cult leaders (under heavy pressure) issued
permission for such meetings and have claimed through this that Camp Ashraf
residents do enjoy enough freedom.
Internally, the cult leaders continue to tell members that family meetings
are “family bombs”, and have described the family as “the core of
corruption”. Using the pretext that the visiting families all have links to
the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, they have been able to coerce some
members into insulting their parents. Families who have gone to Iraq to
visit their family in Camp Ashraf can readily testify that prior to this
permission, they were denied contact with their children for years and that
the MKO still does not allow its members to be in touch with the outside
would appear that, in order for Coalition Forces to properly apply the
conditions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Camp Ashraf, it will be first
necessary to act to dismantle the MKO cult mafia which illegally governs the
Camp, and which threatens the lives and the human rights of all members.
Only at that point will the residents be able to enjoy the intellectual
freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of association which comprise their
basic human rights.
Autopsy of An Ideological Drift
Chapter 24/Low Profile
Little remains of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran after the
difficult Summer of 2003. They have been hit by a criminal judicial
proceeding in France, where they have been officially designated a
“terrorist group that is dangerous to public order’. An official ban stops
all NCRI activities in the United States and the European Union has no
intention of lifting its condemnation of Saddam Hussein’s former servants.
Deprived of its rear bases by the fall of the Baghdad tyrant, its militants
are rotting away in camps under guard by the US Army.
The National Liberation Army is no more.
But, even more important, the European media are looking closely at them,
underlining their contradictions and its sect-like nature. All the French
newspapers are unanimous in describing the cult of personality, iron
discipline, internal oppression that characterize the PMOI. It is impossible
in these conditions to have easy entry, as in the past, to editorial offices
and to solicit support statements from elected officials. Moreover, most of
those who allowed their names to be used by the Mojahedin have kept
carefully away from any statements or any petition supporting them now.
These are friends who have “Gone With the Wind” when the wolf blows outside
their doors: to combine Margaret Mitchell with the children’s story about
the wolf and the 3 little pigs:
“Today, Saddam Hussein’s former guests have never kept a lower profile..
.The glory days of the People’s Mojahedin seem gone forever. The
organisation, supervised by the National Council of the Iranian Resistance
in Auvers-sur-Oise recruited most of its fighters in days following the 1979
Revolution. From the outset, they based their support on an intense
communications campaign, targeting Western media, and systematically
denouncing the mullah’s policies. “We are for democracy”, insists Massoud
Rajavi. But the nice words of the Mojahedin have disenchanted many of their
The big danger for the PMOI is inside. The organisation is risking implosion
which would be their death warrant. Its militants, cut off from their
source, could start questioning the leadership. We can see that their
powerful role is still there in the immolations. But criticism is
increasing. What damage will it do?
Their Iranian political adversaries in the West are sharp tongued and they
are leaning hard on the Mojahedin’s contradictions:
“The Massoud and Maryam sect calls for creating another Islamic Republic.
Their Islamic Republic is accompanied by the word ‘democratic’. They want to
give Khomeini’s office and now Khamenei’s post to Massoud Rajavi. Apart from
the name, there is no difference between Khomeini’s Islamic Republic and the
Democratic Islamic Republic of Massoud Rajavi. If, at least in words, the
Islamic Republic’s regime calls itself anti-imperialist, Rajavi’s
organisation feels no shame in now making public its dependence on
imperialism and reaction. For this organisation, photos taken after
thousands of intrigues with no matter what American Senator are claims to
Contrary to their flat claims, the People’s Mojahedin do not have the
support of Iranians. They report a 65 per cent, solid support. This has no
basis in fact. They now find themselves isolated without any hope of setting
off a popular uprising inside Iran:
“Iranians, including opponents to the regime, are hostile to the movement
which carries the memory of a ‘terrorist organisation’ which, in addition,
was assisted, financed and armed by Iran’s worst enemy: Saddam Hussein’s
The day after the election of President Khatami in 1997, the Fedayin
Organisation (Minority) stated the irony: they declared baldly that the
Mojahedin were finished as a representative force:
“The Islamic Republic has not been embarrassed to publicise exaggerated
figures from the ballot boxes. It mobilised all its efforts to misrepresent
the relatively massive turnout, concluding that the people’s vote was one of
confidence in the system, in the velayat e-faghih (the leadership of the
Supreme Religious Guide for Life) and the Islamic Republic. Other Islamists
who dream of an Islamic democracy’ (!) have taken initiatives in the
opposite direction! These other islamists cannot bear any reality that runs
against their desires, which themselves are completely contradicted by the
facts. The Mojahedin Organisation refutes the relatively massive
participation of the people in these elections. According to this group and
the National Resistance Council they completely invented, if the State
apparatus gave out such figures, it was to compete with the Mojahedin and
their President of the Republic. According to a survey made by the
Mojahedin, two thirds of the people support the President of the Mojahedin’s
Republic, Mrs Maryam Rajavi.
Mojahedin analysts saw things simply that way! The Islamic Republic inflated
the vote for its own President in order to compete with those voting for the
Mojahedin! Obviously this kind of analysis, if this is an example of their
work, is worthless and does not deserve our attention. They are so infantile
that they are only for the Mojahedin and their worshipers.
In the thinking of the Mojahedin, any time Massoud or Maryam Rajavi get on
an airplane or land somewhere, a new phase and a new step forward are
beginning. The last trip of Mrs Maryam Rajavi ‘near home soil’ was thus
translated into a new phase for the Mojahedin’s paralysed armed forces.
Without this kind of analysis, how can the Mojahedin make their troops hope
that the ‘Planetary Hope’ and ‘the President of Iran’ will lead them to
Teheran? The Mojahedin and all the forces that want to take decisions for
the people without consulting them and without giving any importance to
their opinions will only fall into the shameful state in which they now find
themselves. The Mojahedin boycotted the election and have activities
designed only to overthrow the regime. Their analyses are not based on any
knowledge of the existing situation and how to change it, but on their own
situation and needs”. (242)
The Beginning of the End
The long decline which seems irreversible can now be seen to be irrefutable
as well. But, in the course of future months, of future years, the Mojahedin
will keep a fragment of their ability to annoy. They can still break lives
and mislead a youth which will suffer the damnation of believing in their
promises. This will be so, even if very many Iranians now know what they are
‘This attachment to the home country and the absence of resentment toward a
regime which pushed them into exile (giving them the opportunity to find
success) also explains the scant success of the opposition in exile.
Only the People’s Modjahedin mobilise a part of the youth in exile,
especially in Europe. Yet, their sectarianism and their use of terrorism and
armed action frighten the large majority of the diaspora’. (243)
The PMOI, naturally, protests, swears on its good faith and insists on the
free will of its militants:
“It is impossible to imagine that the mass f Mojahedin or their supporters
who live in the different cities of’ Europe, the United States or Asia could
be forced to do anything.. .At the very least, the authors of the report
suggest that the Mojahedin carry out... propaganda of such breadth that they
hypnotise tens of thousands of their compatriots and lends, body and soul,
and force them to come out for large scale demonstrations throughout the
Hollow words indeed when held up to rigorous analysis:
“The Mojahedin are strange. They speak to no one. They don’t mix”, says
Hamed Kadam, a shepherd in the Arab village of Beyukhara near Camp Ashraf.
The armed opposition group to the Iranian regime also suffers from an
extraordinary lack of credibility within the Iranian population, even if its
leaders claim 65 per cent support in Iran.
Teheran’s youth (most supporters of a change in regime there) see the
Mojahedin as a form of extremism that promotes sexual segregation, and make
references to Communist values with a tinge of fundamentalism (their female
fighters. without exception, wear the scarf).
In order to clean tip its image in foreign countries, the organisation
bought half pages of advertising in the American press last January, even
getting 150 signatures of Congressmen. This media operation did not work in
preventing the American military intervention in Iraq”. (245)
Without some dramatic intervening event, Maryam Rajavi has to face French
justice. But where is her husband, Massoud? According to the Interlink
Website, run by former members of the PMOI who broke with the movement and
try to assist those who would do the same, Rajavi planned the worst possible
fate for his people.
A Ray of Hope
“Iran-Interlink revealed last year a plan laid out by Massoud Rajavi if
American forces attacked Iraq. This resulted in the arrival of ‘useful’
members of the Mojahedin in Europe: three hundred, according to estimates,
Rajavi anticipated perfectly the fact that the Mojahedin could not survive
in Iraq without Saddam Hussein’s support. Thus, he smuggled his most useful
members to Europe to reconstruct the organisation in the West.
The other part of the plan was to abandon the other members in Iraq and use
them as propaganda tools, carrying out suicide attacks against Iran. But the
American bombing raids forced the Mojahedin to surrender and accept their
own detention and disarmament.” (246)
Supposing that the People’s Mojahedin of Iran stop recruiting? Would those
hundreds of militants who gave their existence to a lost cause continue
despite this disaster?
Nadere Afshari knows quite well how Maryam and Massoud keep their followers
“By the power of repeating the legends of Abraham and Ismena, as well as
mystical poetry, the organisation’s members, men and women, end up killing
their own instincts and repressing their feelings. This is the way they
establish a disciple-teacher relationship with Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. .
. Massoud pretends to have a relationship with God and the Saints of Islam.
He considers himself a Saint. He wants the members to believe that all who
remain at his side will go to Paradise”. (247)
How can we not complete this thesis without citing Chairman Mao Tse Tung one
last time. He was an expert in manipulation, and in the science of
alienating a whole nation:
“In what concerns us, whether it involves an individual, a party, an army or
a school, I consider the lack of an enemy against us to be a bad thing. It
means we are in league with the enemy. If we are attacked by the enemy it is
a good thing because it proves that we have drawn a line of demarcation
between ourselves and the enemy. If they attack us violently, in portraying
us in the darkest colours and in denigrating what we do, that is even
better. It proves not only that we have made a clear demarcation between the
enemy and us, but have also won important successes in our work”. (248)
Where will other members come from? From among those abandoned in the sands
of Iraq without any place to turn to. They number less than 4,000 and could
easily return to their home country. Figaro reports:
“From its own side, Iran has just officially announced the amnesty of the
Mojahedin. ‘The Iranian Government is ready to welcome them on its territory
and pardon them’, announced Abdollah Ramezanzedeh, spokesman for the Iranian
Meanwhile, children, the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers, even
sometimes abandoned spouses and children have taken the road home, moved by
the hope to finally be reunited:
“Some three hundred families of Mojahedin members, recently arrived in Iraq,
assembled in front of the Mojahedin’s offices in Baghdad to demand the
liberation of their children from Rajavi’s organisation”. (250)
For the luckiest, perhaps the nightmare is ending.
The Mojahedin Expelled
During 2003, which, without doubt, would be the People’s Mojahedin’s year
leading to the end of the road, the wheel of destiny did turn against
Rajavi. The man saw the net tighten around him.
And his final destiny will probably be like that of this old ally, Saddam
Hussein. The latter was finally arrested on Saturday, 13 December 2003,
hidden in a two square metre dug out; a rat hole in a modest house in
The Rais will now have to stand trial for his crimes. His accomplices are
This is all the more so for Rajavi. Press agencies reported in
November-December 2003 that: “The Governing Council for the Iraqi Transition
has decided to expel the remaining 4,000 members of the Iranian People’s
Mojahedin in Iraq by the end of 2003. It considers it a ‘terrorist
organisation’. The announcement reads:
“The Governing Council voted unanimously to expel by the end of the year the
People’s Mojahedin present in Iraq because of their black history as a
The Governing Council indicated that it had decided to ‘close down the
movement’s offices and prevent its members from undertaking any activity
prior to leaving’. It also decided to confiscate the arms and money of this
organisation and create an indemnity account for the victims of the former
fascist regime’, according to a press release. ‘The Iraqi individuals and
institutions have the right to bring charges against this organisation for
its crimes and demand damages from the funds which the organisation holds
inside and outside the country”. (AFP, 9 November 2003)
For his part, Iraqi acting Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi explained the
decision as one based on the role of the Mojahedin in the repression of
Shi’ias and Kurds under Saddam Hussein”. (AFP, 11 November 2003)
The question is one of international law and is difficult to resolve.
Labeled terrorists by Iraq and the Americans who control the country, the
PMOI has few options.
A terrorism specialist thinks that: “The leaders of the PMOI have decreed
what they call a phase of patience’ and ‘judicial mobilisation’. This is to
add the help of lawyers in assisting the PMOI members obtaining political
refugee status so that they can enter Europe legally.
By small groups of five or six, they move into host countries under the
cover of charitable organisations. The PMOI is reorganising to turn itself
into a machine for political combat. It would like to appear to have given
up armed struggle, but it is truly incapable of thinking in any other way.
For now, they want people to forget the shadow of Saddam Hussein”.
In any case, there is no sanctuary for the PMOI and governments who do open
their borders to them will have to exert a constant vigilance. If not, their
national territory could become bases for action in violation of host
“The members of the Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin,
will not be expelled to Iran, according to Paul Bremer, the American Civil
Administrator of Iraq. Three host countries have been chosen by the UN High
Commission for Refugees and the Iraqi Governing Council.
‘We wanted the HCR to participate in the resettlement of [the Mojahedin] in
three countries’, declared Paul Bremer on Coalition-controlled Iraqi
television. We are working in cooperation with the Governing Council to
determine how their departure will be organised and where they will go’, he
added”. (AFP, 20 December 2003)
On 23 December sixty members of the PMOI demonstrated in Geneva against the
“The demonstrators, as they had on Friday, protested in front of the UN High
Commission for Refugees (I-ICR) to demand its intervention. HCR’ s
spokesman, Kris Janowski, nonetheless indicated that it was not in the UN
agency’s mandate because these people had no refugee status in Iraq...
When questioned, the International Committee of the Red Cross’ spokesman,
Juan Martinez argued that the Mojahedin were protected under the IVth Geneva
Convention. This stipulates that an occupying power cannot deport people
against their will, unless they are a threat to State security”. (AFP,
Soldiers of Saddam Hussein’s dirty war against their own country, the
soldiers of Massoud Rajavi’s “Liberation Army” used their arms against the
Iraqi people, too. The Iraqi Governing Council has brought very detailed
charges against the PMOI. These are accusations that bring together many of
the analyses and references presented in this work. Terrorists and
sectarians, the People’s Mojahedin will end by history’s forgetting them,
just as so many movements of their kind before them. Iran’s future will
inevitably be decided without them.
239.- Delphine Minoui, op. cit.
240.- Kar, op. cit.
241.- MounaNaIm, op. cit.
242.- “L’opposition, les elections et Ia perspective des evolutions
futures”, Contre-courant, organ of the Foreign Section of the Fedayin
Organisation (Minority), 16 october 1997
243.- Farhad Khosrokhavar and Olivier Roy, op. cit.
245.- Delphine Minoui, op. cit.
246.- “Massoud Radjavi abandonne les membres des Moudjahidin en Irak”
Nadéré Afshari, op. cit.
248.- Mao TsC-toung, “To be attacked by the enemy is a good thing”, 26 May
249.- Delphine Minoul, op. cit.
250.- www.iran-interlink.org, September 2003
Personal Experiences: Anne Singleton
Four/Woman’s Hour, October 6, 2005
When we hear about young people who’ve become involved in
terrorism we often wonder how did they get drawn into it and what makes them
take part in violent acts that most people would find utterly repulsive.
Well, Anne Singleton from Leeds became involved with the group which has
been declared a terrorist organization in recent years, the Iranian
Mujahideen. She was at University in Manchester in the late 1970s, then
spent a time in their military training camp in Iraq and eventually
struggled to leave. She now helps others who want to get away. I spoke to
her earlier this morning, how did she get involved in the first place?
I was very much interested in
changing the world. I was a very idealistic young person and very passionate
about justice and injustice in the world and it happened that I came across
this group who were very, very serious about what they were doing and they
held a lot of meetings and they held demonstrations and I went along and was
Murray: So, how did it intensify? I mean you started on the periphery of
it but then really became involved in it?
Singleton: They would use techniques such as being very, very friendly
towards you, making you feel that you perhaps are understanding a little bit
more than other people, a bit of flattery and a bit of guilt, and they will
say 'well, how can you sit around doing nothing when all these people are
suffering'. And then they will, little by little, take things from you, such
as your money. They start with that, 'can you make a contribution? Would you
mind helping out? We are desperately in short of funds can you please help
us out', and I would because I was working and I could give them sums of
money which made me feel good about helping. I would give them quite large
amounts of money. Then, it didn’t stop there and they would say 'well it’s
ok but can you just please take some time off work and come to a
demonstration because we really, really need the support, we really need the
help'. So I would give up my time and it gradually escalated from there.
Murray: And how were your family and friends involved this?
Singleton: I tried to get my friends involved because I thought it was
such a good cause and I felt very strongly about it. They were practically a
bit more cynical than I was…. I was involved emotionally. So, yes they were
aware, but they didn’t try to stop me because I don’t think they felt there
was any problem with it.
Murray: How aware were you of things like attacks on US civilians in
Tehran and that they’d supported the take over of the American embassy in
Singleton: I think those are things which I became aware of in passing,
and I read the literature from the time before the revolution, but of course
the history of the organization had changed quite a lot in 20 years it had
Murray: Why did you go to military training in Iraq?
Singleton: Because I underwent a process of psychological manipulation
which didn’t allow me to think properly and really numbed my critical
faculties to the point where I would have followed them to the ends of the
earth if they’d asked me to.
Murray: You were young when you started. Were you naïve getting involved
Singleton: Will these recruitment methods work on young people, will
they work on old people, will they work on rich people, poor people? Yes, is
the simple answer. I don’t think you can say that because somebody is young
they’re more vulnerable. I actually became fulltime in that organization
when I was thirty. And I gave up my job and my home and my car and I gave
everything up and gave it to them when I was thirty. The reason I did that
is because of the psychological techniques which they used on me and it
wouldn’t have mattered at what age I was, they work on anybody at any stage.
Murray: So, what were you doing in military training?
Singleton: The military training, it was kind of an inevitability. I
went to Iraq because everybody went. It was just a standard for that
organization, for the Mujahideen-e Khalq that they take people to Iraq and
give them basic military training; marching, information, you learn basic
skills, handling a gun, crawling under the barbwire, assault courses, it’s
really just quite basic military training.
Murray: Would you have taken part in a violent attack if they asked you
Singleton: You know this is the point where I very recently decided I
had to talk more about my experience because when I heard about the London
bombings and I saw these three young men who were brought up in the same
area that I was and I thought about them going off , I can’t remember if I
heard that they’d gone, but I thought they must have gone off to training
camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and it suddenly hit me that that was me,
that was exactly what I did, what was the difference? What on earth was the
difference between them and me? I had gone to Iraq, to a terrorist training
camp and I hadn’t thought about it. I had not given it one thought about
where that might have led at the end of the day. At that point I started to
question myself, this was just a few months ago, and I thought well surely,
surely, surely I would not have ever, ever got involved in violence because
I personally, deeply don’t believe in that, you know, I catch flies and put
them out of the window rather than kill them. But being very honest with
myself, I realized that I would have gone along with it because I would have
not had the will to resist at that point. I was so completely under their
influence that I would have just gone along. If they had said that 'well OK,
we’re going to start an armed operation into Iran', I would have probably
felt scared and doubtful but I’m sure I would have found myself swept along
with it, I’m sure I would.
Murray: How difficult was it for you to actually free yourself?
Singleton: Very, very difficult. Very difficult. Although I was failing
in the organization, and I had the sense that I just could not bring myself
to conform fully and I was struggling, I was under so much stress I stopped
eating for a long time and then because of this kind of inability to conform
they, from Iraq, they sent me back to Paris and then from Paris they sent me
back to England. And I think it was in England where, because it was my
homeland that I had the possibility to make little escape routes.
Fortunately my mother had never lost contact with me. She always kept in
contact, and that was a lifeline, definitely, knowing that they were there,
knowing that they hadn't given up on me. But the other thing was also being
back home, feeling that there’s a social security system, I had somewhere to
go, I could find a flat and get housing benefit. I knew these were escape
routes but those are the physical escape routes. The actual ability to get
out of the cult is much, much harder because you are brainwashed. It is
simple as that.
Murray: I was talking to Anne Singleton.
Did you know… why there have been
no births among Mojahedin-e Khalq members since 1989?
In 1989, Rajavi ordered every member of his organization to divorce their
spouse. From that time, all sexual relations as well as any kind of family
life or raising children became forbidden and was stopped. Since then there
have been no births among the rank and file of the Mojahedin. The few who
have broken this 'law' have been severely punished.
Rajavi convinced Saddam to let him use the last opportunity of attacking
Iran in a joint operation just after the ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq war in
1988. The operation, named Forough-e Javidan (Eternal Light) by the
Mojahedin, or Mersad by the Iranian regime, was the bloodiest operation ever
carried out by the Mojahedin in which they lost more than half their forces.
Rajavi, who had anticipated this bloodshed and in fact looked forward to it,
announced that "the blood of the martyrs from this operation will be the
insurance for our future existence". In desperate need of blood, from either
his own people or the Iranians, he banked on the escalating antagonism
created by this bloodshed to ensure that there would be no grounds for a
peaceful solution to Iran's problems in the near future.
To convince his own people that it was they who had failed in this
operation, rather than have them question his decision in ordering it, he
started a new wave of psychological manipulation sessions which is known as
the 'Second Phase of the Ideological Revolution'.
The main shock tactic in these sessions was the 'Ideological Divorce'.
Rajavi ordered all members of the cult to divorce their spouse and never
again to think of family, spouse, children, or for that matter sexual
intercourse. The members were ordered to hate their spouses and children as
obstacles in the way of devotion to the leader. Since this order, the
members are checked through submitting daily written reports about their
thoughts in this respect and attending weekly sessions to confess their
The concept of the 'Second Phase of the Ideological Revolution' was
announced by Massoud and Maryam Rajavi in this way:
"the conclusion is that we did not win this war not because the leadership
did not do enough, but because every member of the organisation has had
something except the leadership in their minds [i.e. family, children,
etc.], hence members were not devoted enough to the ideological leadership".
This divorce order never covered Massoud and Maryam Rajavi as the heads of
the cult. To encourage and guide the members, Maryam Rajavi announced that
every man should consider all women to be the property of the ideological
leader, so that even thinking about a woman is an act of betrayal against
Massoud Rajavi. And every woman should consider herself as the slave of
Massoud Rajavi who has the right to ask them to have sexual relations with
whoever he wishes. This was aimed at derailing the hearts and minds of
members away from their families toward the cult's ideological leader.
Massoud has said in public repeatedly, "once you give me the key to your
bedrooms, you will feel the freedom you have always been after".
For the past two decades, Rajavi has claimed that although members are on
the right path, no one has yet been able to give the key whole heartedly. He
has even compared himself with the Prophet Mohammed, alleging that a man who
saw Mohammed looking at his wife would divorce her straight away so as not
to stand in the way of the Prophet's having her. This, of course, was the
way he explained Maryam Rajavi's duty to divorce her previous husband so
that he would not stand in the way of the ideological leader.
When Mohtaram Babaee became pregnant, she and her husband, Karim Haghi (a
high ranking commander in the Mojahedin), were excluded from others in Camp
Ashraf. Mohtaram afterwards related that they told her she would be kept in
the furthest corner of the Camp, and denied her every facility so that she
would "give birth like a dog". This is exactly what happened. After she ran
away from the camp with her child and husband and arrived in Europe, doctors
in the Netherlands tried to reduce her trauma. But when she found she was
pregnant again she committed suicide, leaving behind her daughter who has
been raised by her father.
On 20th February 1996, Ms. Zahra Rajabi's (commander in the MKO's army and
member of the National Council of Resistance) body was found together with
that of Mr. Abdul Ali Moradi (a supporter of the cult in Turkey) in Mr.
Moradi's flat in Istanbul. They were both murdered in cold blood.
Rajavi blamed the Iranian government for the assassination. But details
emerged of a personal relationship between Ms. Rajabi and Mr. Moradi.
Turkish police announced that at the time of the assassination, Ms. Rajabi
was heavily pregnant and that also, according to the investigators, the
assassins were known to Ms. Rajabi and Mr. Moradi. There was no sign of a
struggle; they had opened the door themselves to the assassins and received
and entertained them in their flat. Experts on the Mojahedin believe that
Rajavi could not have allowed Ms. Rajabi, as a leading member, to discredit
the 'Second Phase of the Ideological Revolution' and she had to be
The Mojahedin have, until now, refused to comment on these and similar
cases. They rarely agree to talk about the implications of the forced
'Ideological Divorce' order which has left the Mojahedin with no children
for more than a decade. They do not want to talk about the Ideological
Courts and the punishments carried out against the people who have broken
this cult 'law'.
In a rare interview, Maryam Rajavi, in answer to Craig S. Smith reporting
for the International Herald Tribune, September 24, 2005, tried to bypass
such a question, but nevertheless admitted the factual basis of the
question. The International Herald Tribune writes:
"…In discussing the mass divorces ordered by the group's leadership, which
split the movement's families in 1989 and sent their children into foster
care abroad, she said the policy focused energy on the cause instead of
Researchers can contact Iran-Interlink for further information on Rajavi's
'Second Phase of the Ideological Revolution'.