A Court Victory for the Enemy of the Mullahs
An Iranian opposition group called the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), also known as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), scored a major victory on July 16 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declared that the State Department must review its designation as a foreign terrorist organization. However, the MEK is the most controversial Iranian opposition group, with advocates of regime change in Iran divided on whether they should be considered terrorists or democratic freedom fighters.
The U.S. court ruled that the State Department violated due process by refusing to allow the MEK to defend itself against the allegations made against it. The State Department says it has classified intelligence to show that the MEK has not ended military operations, still intends to use violence, trains female suicide bombers, and has provided false intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. However, the court expressed doubts about these allegations, saying: “Some of the reports included in the Secretary’s analysis on their face express reservations about the accuracy of the information contained therein.”
The MEK previously won lengthy legal battles in Europe. On June 24, 2008, the United Kingdom removed the group from its list of terrorist organizations on court order. In its ruling in November 2007, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission ordered the British home secretary to revoke the ban on the MEK, describing the group’s proscription as “perverse.” The English Court of Appeal upheld that decision, noting that the examination of the classified material had “reinforced” its view that the MEK is not engaged in terrorism and has no intention of doing so in the future.
In October 2008, Court of First Instance ruled that the EU’s “statement of reasons is manifestly insufficient to provide legal justification for continuing to freeze the PMOI’s funds.” The European Union subsequently de-listed the MEK in 2009.
The MEK is the cause of a fissure in the ranks of those calling on the U.S. government to support the Iranian opposition in trying to overthrow the regime. One of the most prominent groups in favor of the MEK being de-listed is the Iran Policy Committee, which includes Professor Raymond Tanter, General Paul Vallely, and General Thomas McInerney, among others. Also on the side of the MEK are Dr. Daniel Pipes and Jed Babbin. Opponents of the MEK include Kenneth Timmerman, Michael Rubin, Michael Ledeen, and Jacob Laksin.
Kenneth Timmerman, best-selling author of the 2005 book Countdown to Crisis and executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times criticizing members of the House of Representatives who have put together a pro-MEK resolution. Timmerman says that the MEK continues to assassinate members of the Iranian regime, despite the group’s claims that it has abandoned violence, and sets off bombs “in urban areas that have randomly killed civilians.”
He also claims the group has a history of terrorism, even though the MEK claims past attacks were carried out by a group that splintered from the main organization when its leaders were in prison. Timmerman says that eyewitnesses have told him that throughout the 1980s MEK members celebrated its murdering of U.S. military and civilian personnel in Iran in the period before the shah’s overthrow. He says that the MEK should remain on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in the U.S., but another group listed by the Treasury Department in 2009 as a terrorist entity called the Free Life Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PJAK) should be removed instead.
“U.S. lawmakers would be wiser to demand that the Treasury Department drop its restrictions on PJAK … than to waste time on the MEK, a Marxist Islamist organization that not only uses terrorism as a political tactic but is widely discredited among ordinary Iranians because of its support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War,” Timmerman wrote.
Ali Safavi, president of Near East Policy Research and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which describes itself as Iran’s “parliament in-exile” that includes the MEK, has written several articles in the Huffington Post challenging allegations against the group, including one that responds to Timmerman’s piece.
Safavi told PJ Media that the MEK is “the number one target of Iranian disinformation.” Safavi admits that the MEK engaged in violence against the Iranian regime prior to 2001 but insists that the only targets were regime elements like the Revolutionary Guards. The MEK members in Iraq handed over their weapons to U.S. forces in 2003 and have since been held at Camp Ashraf.
He also said that the MEK does have a large amount of support in Iran. “If the MEK has no support, then why has the number one diplomatic agenda of Iran’s dealings with foreign countries for the past 30 years been to crack down on the MEK?” he asked.
Mike Gapes, the British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, said in June 2008 that when his committee went to Iran the previous November, they were struck by the regime’s “absolute obsession” with the MEK. However, he conceded that it is “probably” true that the group “has no influence in Iran.”
To support his claim that the MEK has substantial support in Iran, Safavi sent PJ Media a series of articles about a rally near Paris in June that the NCRI claimed brought out 100,000 supporters (the New York Times wrote 30,000) and included speeches by Maryam Rajavi, the “president-elect” of NCRI (pictured in this article’s thumbnail); former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton; and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar.
“Can you tell me what other opposition group can bring this many people to an event?” he asked. Timmerman has questioned the reliability of the group’s numbers in the past and claims many attendees are paid to show up.
Dr. Raymond Tanter, president of the Iran Policy Committee and author of President Obama and Iran: Engagement, Isolation, Regime Change, agreed with Safavi, saying that the wealth of intelligence the MEK provides shows they have support.
“When scientists are willing to risk their lives to reveal nuclear and other secrets of the Iranian regime, it is a bellwether of the support for the PMOI and NCRI in Iran. And when the regime cracked down on the demonstrators on the Iranian street in 2009, most of the persons persecuted and hanged were supporters of these two organizations,” he told PJM.
Two Iranian opposition figures disagreed with Safavi and Tanter about MEK’s support in Iran.
“The MEK has no legitimacy among the Iranian people. Their ideology which is a concoction of Marxism and Islamism is considered dangerous. They have already determined their ‘elected president’ and ‘elected leader’ and hence I personally recommend that they acquire a remote piece of land where they can form their government,” Amir Abbas Fakhravar, the secretary-general of the Confederation of Iranian Students, told PJM.
Reza Kahlili, author of A Time to Betray, is a former member of the Revolutionary Guard who decided to spy for the CIA. He told PJM: “Even though the MEK has many supporters here in the U.S. and many more in Europe, their support in Iran is minimal and it would be a big mistake for the West to support MEK as a legitimate opposition to the Islamic regime.”
He also warned that directly supporting the MEK would backfire.
“This would be a turn off to the majority in Iran who are aspiring for their freedom and it will solidify support from those disenchanted in the Guards for the mullahs.”
In response, Safavi said: “The idea that somehow, the MEK has tens of thousands of supporters outside Iran but none in Iran defies logic. The Iranian exile community is a microcosm of the society in Iran. Virtually every one of those outside Iran who support the MEK have relatives and friends in Iran. The difference is, outside of Iran they can speak their mind without fear of persecution. In Iran, any expression of sympathy with the MEK would result in arrest and execution as a Mohareb (warring against God), according to Article 186 of the Islamic Punishment Act.”
Others take a more neutral stance, arguing that such disagreements can be settled after the fall of the regime.
Roozbeh Farahanipour, one of the leaders of the 1999 student uprising in Iran and executive director of the Marze Por Gohar Party, secretly entered Iran in July 2009 to take part in anti-regime demonstrations. He did not make a determination on the MEK’s level of support in Iran, but said that the issue could be settled in free elections after the regime falls. He also stated that he felt neither the MEK nor PJAK should be listed as terrorist groups by the U.S. government.
“If anyone should be listed as a terrorist group, it’s the Revolutionary Guards, the intelligence services, the Basiji, and the other parts of the regime,” Farahanipour told PJM.
The MEK’s legal battle with the State Department is not over, and neither is the debate about its qualifications as an Iranian opposition group. It is important for the U.S. to make an accurate assessment of who can be counted upon to be fruitful allies in fighting the Iranian regime, but first, the decision to help the Iranian people to pursue regime change must be made.
Viva Maryam Rajavi….we support PMOI
can we ask these people who call themselves opponent of PMOI : Kenneth Timmerman, Michael Rubin, Michael Ledeen, and Jacob Laksin
what are their logic to keep PMOI in the black list?
I am sure they have nothing to say or show … and we have to see what is behind their words and their position in this regard… and in other hand they have no deep study about PMOI and they have been under false information about PMOI…. At least they should go and talk to those who know PMOI very well like Professor Raymond Tanter, General Paul Vallely, and General Thomas McInerney …. they have deep study, very well informed and have talked to PMOI members and know them very well and I am sure none of those opponent have right information about PMOI as we have read their articles …..and the information in their articles are what the mullahs say always about PMOI…. Therefore our request from Kenneth Timmerman, Michael Rubin, Michael Ledeen, and Jacob Laksin is to go and study and know PMOI better, because all of your information are totally false…. I hope your readers can realize that ….. and I am sure if they are wise enough they will realize it….
My only comment is that there is no way to know exactly how many people support the PMOI in Iran because you would be jailed and maybe even executed for openly supporting them. So I really don’t understand how Mr. Timmerman and the other could claim that they have no support inside of Iran. That is absurd. I have to agree with Mr. Safavi when he says that when this organization can gather thousands of people in a rally, this is definitely a reflection of how many supporters it has inside of Iran. These allegations are of course nothing new against the PMOI and have been used time and again in a slander campaign by the Iranian regime trying to blacken the image of its main opposition. The PMOI and its supporters only want one thing for Iran and that is freedom. Saying that the PMOI are secretly advocating tyranny and Marxist ideas is nothing more than ridiculous. It seems that Mr. Timmerman and others see Iranian history through the eyes of the mullahs ruling Iran and unfortunately are actually working in the interests of the Iranian regime. Maybe knowingly and maybe unknowingly.
The last thing that I want to say is that by writing these lies without any evidence, they are damaging their images as journalists and Iran experts.
Since many people and even reporters write about PMOI as ‘Marxist-Islamist’, I think who ever doesn’t know about the root of this issue is better read the below text to know more about it:
The label of ‘Marxist-Islamist’ on PMOI
The root:
Before entering the challenge as whether this is a right or wrong label or why isn’t PMOI’s ideology ‘Marxist-Islamist’ we first need to know the root of this allegation as this is not a new one. PMOI was accused of being ‘Marxist-Islamist’ both in Shah’s era and in Khomeini’s.
As to from where did this label come from we need to go back to Shah’s time.
During Shah’s time when PMOI announced its existence in 1971 because of its tolerant Islamic ideology and the new vision of Islam that it presented exactly opposite to the fundamentalist Islam that mullahs represented it was swiftly and broadly welcomed amongst different sectors of the society including intellectuals, students, academics, government employees, middle class, people of Bazaar and etc.
The leaders of PMOI were then arrested. They were executed in less than a year not yielding to Shah. This fact affected the society very much. Different sectors of society rose to support PMOI.
When Shah saw that even execution of the leaders of this organization, its suppression and torturing of its member could not only disintegrate the organization but also raised its popularity amongst people it decided to strike on it by labeling it as ‘Marxist-Islamist’; having in mind that Iran has been a religious country for centuries this labeling could well have affected commons.
By this Shah’s regime wanted to confront the vast and broad popularity of PMOI though it wasn’t successful.
Financing and conducting a huge propaganda, Shah tried to tangle PMOI with this label.
Khomeini’s regime was faced with the same popularity of PMOI after Shah’s downfall.
After Shah was gone and PMOI had the opportunity to express itself and its ideals and people had the opportunity to know PMOI’s beliefs and ideology and because they disgusted mullahs’, in less than a year after the freedom of PMOI’s leadership from prison PMOI forces passed millions in number.
Despite the suppression of regime and its Pasdars PMOI gatherings included more than hundred thousands people.
For example in Rasht, north of Iran, 300000 gathered in Mr. Rajavi’s speech. The same was in other cities such as Tabriz and especially Tehran.
This showed Khomeini that if he doesn’t fully suppress PMOI he will not be in power for long.
At that time the number of ‘Mojahed’ publication the official publication of PMOI was half a million; though regime has banned printing-houses from printing it.
Khomeini from his fear of the vast support of people for PMOI banned Mr. Massoud Rajavi, then candidate for presidency from participating in the presidential elections by a decree. Mr. Rajavi was supported by different sectors of the society especially minorities, Kurds and Arabs, women and youths.
To take advantage of people’s emotions and for giving religious aspects to his accusations against PMOI it needed to show that PMOI lies that it is a Moslem organization so the regime used the tag ‘Monafegh’ (Hypocrite) for PMOI; a word in Koran which was used for those who showed themselves Moslems and with profit Mohammad but they really were not.
As for the tag of ‘Marxist- Islamist’ it is very well known that Islam and Marxism have fundamental differences in philosophy and in social, political and economical issues and they cannot be merged together.
PMOI has a history of 46 years of existence and an organization cannot survive on a mixed ideology that long.
Only during Khomeini’s regime PMOI has lost 120000 of its members for gaining freedom and democracy for Iran.
PMOI has stood firm in front of Khomeini and Khamenei and their regimes for more than 30 years and these two have well tried and plotted to eradicate PMOI as their main opposition but have always failed.
Comment for Temmerman
I think you really need a reality check. Your whole article is made up of a bunch of slanders that the PMOI is actually very familiar with. Slanders by the Iranian regime made throughout the years and unfortunately, I do not know why you seem to be repeating what the Mullahs have said about their most feared enemy and still say. You have said a lot of things without actually checking out the facts and it seems that the PMOI and its members are villains and the Iranian regime the victim. This is while, the PMOI have only fought for freedom and democracy in Iran and nothing more. I think you need a history lesson on Iran from the perspective of the Iranian people and not the Iranian regime.
Is fighting against the mullahs who are religious dictators ruling Iran with an iron grip terrorism? If so, one would have to conclude that fighting against Hitler or even the American Revolution was terrorism.
I really do not know what your motives are for writing such lies but I would advise you to check your facts with credible sources before endangering your own credibility.
If PMOI was a terrorist group why did it need to enter long legal battles in Europe and US? Wasn’t it easier to blast some US embassy or take some hostages as regime did in Lebanon; or had US forgot the blast in Marine base in Lebanon that the clerical regime said about it: “both the ideology and the explosive were provided by us”?
No sir; these are just false allegation for enchaining the most effective opposition of the mullahs. They are nothing other than the result of a dirty appeasement policy which has led to the loss of not only Iranians’ lives but also US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it is time to stop that. We, the people of Iran do not want this regime in its entirety and we have proved it to the world during last year. Stand with us.
I think Mr. Timmerman has no knowledge of the history or he is benefiting a lot by these allegations via the clerical regime. OK let PMOI defend itself on these allegation and you Mr. Timmerman can stand in the witness stand and swear to the Bible and then repeat your allegations. Then we will see what the truth is.
Proving is always hard since it needs documents to prove, but PMOI can prove it how about you Mr. Timmerman. Challenge PMOI in the court if you are so sure about yourself and the allegations you speak about.
I think those who claim that PMOI has enjoys no or very little support amongst Iranians should answer this question put forward by Mr. Ali Safavi: “If the MEK has no support, then why has the number one diplomatic agenda of Iran’s dealings with foreign countries for the past 30 years been to crack down on the MEK?”