SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97187)5/2/2003 2:09:03 AM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
re: Mujahedeen Khalq:

Realism wins again.
We want to put pressure on Iran.
So we support all and any groups who oppose Iran.
Even if they are terrorists.
Even if they have killed Americans, military and civilian, in the past.
Once again, as we have so often,
we set aside our ideals,
forget all the talk about fighting terrorism,
forget about upholding the rule of law,
forget about respecting other nation's sovereignty.
Forget the past.
Forget the future, when today's proxies may turn on us,
just like Saddam turned on us after we worked together to contain Iran,
just like Bin Laden turned on us, after we called Afghan Freedom Fighters
"the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers", when they were fighting the Soviets.
Realism.
Realism = short-term expediency
Realism = action unguided by any principles other than self-interest.
Realism = forgetting that the most important consequences, are likely to be the
secondary and tertiary effects,
which cannot be predicted.
Realism is not what the NeoCons promised, when they made the case for this war.
I wonder if any of the NeoCons are going to say,
"hey, shouldn't we be fighting terrorists........all of them?"



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97187)5/2/2003 2:28:15 AM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
State Department list of international terrorist groups October 8, 1999:

Abu Nidal Organization, possibly based in Iraq, operating internationally.
Abu Sayyaf Group, Islamic separatist group in southern Philippines.
Al-Qaida, believed headed by Osama bin Laden, who is based in Afghanistan.
Armed Islamic Group, Islamic extremists aiming to overthrow Algerian government.
Aum Shinrikyo, Japanese cult.
Basque Fatherland and Liberty, aimed at establishing independent homeland in Spain's Basque region.
Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egypt's largest militant group.
Hamas, concentrated in the Gaza Strip, responsible for attacks on Israel.
Harakat ul-Mujahedeen, Islamic militants based in Pakistan.
Hezbollah, radical Shia group formed in Lebanon.
Japanese Red Army, aims to overthrow Japanese government and foment worldwide revolution.
Al-Jihad, Egyptian Islamic extremist group.
Kach, radical Isaeli group opposed to Israeli government.
Kahane Chai, offshoot of Kach.
Kurdistan Workers Party, Marxist-Leninst insurgent group in Turkey.
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers), most powerful Tamil group in Sri Lanka.
Mujahedeen Khalq, Iraq-based group opposed to Iranian regime.
National Liberation Army, pro-Cuban, anti-American guerrilla group based in Colombia.
Palestine Islamic Jihad-Shalqaqi Faction, militant Palestinian group.
Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction, militant Palestinian group.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Marxist-Leninist group that has hit both Israeli and Arab targets.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, opposes Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, largest insurgent organization in Colombia.
Revolutionary Organization 17 November, radical leftist group in Greece.
Revolutionary People's Liberation Party, Marxist, anti-American, anti-NATO Turkish group.
Revolutionary People's Struggle, strongly anti-American group in Greece.
Shining Path, largest Peruvian insurgency.
Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, Marxist-Leninist movement in Peru.
cnn.com



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97187)5/7/2003 10:16:56 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 281500
 
US terror tactics in Iran
By Hooman Peimani

At the end of its military operation in April, the US military reached a ceasefire agreement with an Iraqi-based Iranian group, the Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization (MKO), a group declared by the US and British members of the "coalition of the willing" as terrorist. While the Americans described the agreement as a step toward the MKO's surrender, the group's backing by many members of the US Congress and its own claim of a rapprochement suggested a deal between the two sides.

Until the April agreement, designating a terrorist status to the MKO was the only common view of Tehran and the United States. In its efforts to normalize estranged US-Iranian ties, the Bill Clinton administration added the MKO to its list of terrorist organizations in the late 1990s. It also conducted an inquiry into the group's fundraising activities in the US. Notwithstanding these developments, the MKO, also operating under the name of the National Council of Resistance, has enjoyed the backing of many members of Congress. Viewing the MKO as an acceptable alternative to the current Iranian regime, on many occasions they have demanded the US government's support of the group to overthrow the Iranian regime.

While the US seems to have changed its policy toward the MKO, the European Union, which declared it a terrorist group last year, insists on its stance despite the MKO-US agreement. The official Iranian News agency, IRNA, reported Cristina Gallach, spokeswoman for EU foreign-policy chief Javier Solana, as stating on April 30, "For the EU, the MKO continues to be a terrorist group. There has been no change in the decision. This consideration continues to be the policy of the EU regardless of what has been going on in Iraq in recent weeks."

The MKO emerged as an underground anti-Shah-regime group in the early 1960s. Subscribing to Islam as its ideology, its political and economic views drew heavily from Marxism. Its advocacy for armed struggle resulted in bombing of government buildings and many assassinations of mainly low-level pro-government civilians and police and military personnel, as well as a few US military personnel stationed in Iran in the 1960s and the 1970s. The Iranian authorities' systematic crackdown of the group resulted in its paralysis. By the time of the 1979 Iranian revolution, most of its cadres had been killed, were imprisoned or lived abroad.

A few months prior to its collapse, the Shah regime's release of political prisoners and a significant relaxation of its authoritarian grip on society helped the MKO revitalize itself. After the 1979 revolution, the politicization of Iranian society and a growing dissatisfaction of Iranians with the Islamic regime helped the MKO mushroom rapidly as an opposition group.

In its effort to ascend to power, the MKO sided with Iranian president Abolhassan Banisadr, who, ironically, became critical of the Iranian regime. His sudden removal by the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1981 and a subsequent government crackdown on all major opposition groups was followed by the MKO's resort to arms to topple the regime. Its launching a campaign of assassination and bombing resulted in the deaths of many pro-government civilian and military/security personnel at different levels, including a president (Mohammad-Ali Rajaei) and a prime minister (Ali-Akbar Bahonar) and many high-ranking figures of the then ruling Islamic Republic Party. However, the MKO failed to destabilize the regime, which instituted a massive crackdown on its members and supporters. By 1983, it practically ceased to exist as a group inside Iran capable of posing a serious threat to the Iranian government.

Many MKO members, including its leaders, fled to Western countries in the early 1980s, only to reorganize their group in Iraq, a neighboring country at war with Iran, which opened its doors to the MKO rank and file. Seeking to weaken the Iranian regime to achieve its expansionist objectives, the Saddam Hussein regime armed the MKO and provided it with bases from where it launched many attacks on the Iranian military at war with Iraq. It also conducted many assassination and bombing operations inside Iran, mainly in neighboring provinces, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).

At the end of the war, the MKO became an Iraq-based group with a limited number of sympathizers among Iranians abroad and a small and ineffective underground organization inside Iran. Its cooperation with the Iraqi regime led to its complete loss of popular support inside Iran as the war left about 1.5 million Iranians dead and wounded and caused massive destruction of its oil and other industries, agriculture, and infrastructure estimated at about US$1 trillion. The Saddam regime used the MKO until its collapse to pressure Tehran as well as in the suppression of Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites who rose after the 1991 Gulf War, as confirmed by their respective political groups.

Like many other Iranian high-ranking officials, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned last month's agreement as a clear case of hypocrisy in the US war on terrorism. Citing the US government's declaration of the MKO as terrorist, he stated on April 30, "Now, America supports them. It shows terrorism is bad if terrorists are not America's servants. But if terrorists become America's servants, then they are not bad. It's a test, showing how America ridicules fighting terrorism and democracy."

In response to such remarks, on the same day the US State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Cofer Black, rejected the characterization of the April agreement as a cooperation pact. "The US government does not negotiate with terrorists. The MKO's opposition to the Iranian government does not change the fact that they are a terrorist organization. We understand the agreement on the ground, in the field, is a prelude to the group's surrender. Commanders make tactical decisions in conflict with enemy combatants."

He added, "This is a pretty special group. They're a foreign terrorist organization. They are not well liked in Iraq. They could not be put with a general prisoner population. They are following the orders of the coalition commanders, and their situation will be addressed in the coming days and weeks."

Despite Black's denial, evidence suggests otherwise. In spite of its status as a terrorist group in the United States, the MKO operates freely in that country and holds an office in Washington. For more than a decade, many US politicians have backed the group. Last November, 150 members of Congress signed a petition urging the administration of President George W Bush to remove the MKO from its terrorist list.

The MKO representatives abroad claim that last month's agreement provides for their group to maintain its bases, fighters and weapons in Iraq and to continue its operation from Iraq to overthrow the Iranian regime. Its claim of fighting with Iranian "infiltrators" suggests its freedom of action in Iraq after reaching agreement. In its April 30 statement, the group claimed two clashes with Iran's Revolutionary Guard units allegedly crossing into Iraq during which two MKO fighters were wounded and three attackers were killed. No evidence has been provided so far to that effect and the Iranian government has denied the claim.

In the post-Saddam era, the US government's fear of Iran's capability to expand its influence in Iraq through pro-Iranian Iraqi Shi'ite groups capitalizing on the Iraq Shi'ites' politicization seems to have convinced it of the utility of the MKO. Although it is too weak and isolated to become an alternative to the Iranian regime, its Iraq-based fighters could be used to dissuade Tehran from backing the Iraqi Shi'ites. Washington's apparent intention of using the MKO to pressure the Iranian government demonstrates an expanding state of hostility toward Iran in the United States that could potentially lead to major conflicts of a political and military nature.

Dr Hooman Peimani works as an independent consultant with international organizations in Geneva and does research in international relations.

(©2003 Asia Times Online
atimes.com



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97187)5/7/2003 10:32:00 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 281500
 
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)

a.k.a. The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People's Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI), National Council of Resistance (NCR), Muslim Iranian Student's Society (front organization used to garner financial support)

Description
Formed in the 1960s by the college-educated children of Iranian merchants, the MEK sought to counter what it perceived as excessive Western influence in the Shah's regime. Following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam, has developed into the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group. Its history is studded with anti-Western activity and, most recently, attacks on the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad.

Activities
Worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence. During the 1970s the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran and killed several US military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. Supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In April 1992 conducted attacks on Iranian embassies in 13 different countries, demonstrating the group's ability to mount large-scale operations overseas. Recent attacks in Iran include three explosions in Tehran in June 1998 that killed three persons and the assassination in August 1998 of Asadollah Lajevardi, the former director of the Evin Prison. In April 1999, Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, the deputy joint chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, was killed in Tehran by a MEK operative.

Strength
Several thousand fighters based in Iraq with an extensive overseas support structure. Most of the fighters are organized in the MEK's National Liberation Army (NLA).

Location/Area of Operation
In the 1980s the MEK's leaders were forced by Iranian security forces to flee to France. Most resettled in Iraq by 1987. In the mid-1980s the group did not mount terrorist operations in Iran at a level similar to its activities in the 1970s. In the 1990s, however, the MEK claimed credit for an increasing number of operations in Iran.

External Aid
Beyond support from Iraq, the MEK uses front organizations to solicit contributions from expatriate Iranian communities.

(from U.S. State Dept. 1999 "Patterns of Global Terrorism")
state.gov



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97187)5/7/2003 10:43:57 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 281500
 
Real American agenda now becoming clear

HAROON SIDDIQUI, Toronto Star, May. 4, 2003

A superpower like the United States does not invade a pipsqueak power like Iraq — outside the framework of international law and against worldwide opposition — only for its publicly stated reasons, in this case, fighting terrorism, liberating Iraq and triggering a domino effect for the democratization of the Middle East.

The real American agenda is only now becoming clearer.

The conquest of Iraq is enabling a new Pax Americana that goes well beyond the much-discussed control of oil, as central as that is to the enterprise.

America is redrawing the military map of the region with amazing alacrity. It has pulled its bases out of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in favour of less-demanding hosts.

Its relations with Egypt have been placed on the back burner.

It is no accident that those three nations are the region's more populous. And that America's newest partners — Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates — are thinly populated and tightly controlled monarchies.

People are a problem for America in the Arab and Muslim world. They are bristling with anti-Americanism, principally over the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

The pullout of 10,000 U.S. troops from a Saudi air base was long overdue, not just because it was a favourite target of Osama bin Laden. It so embarrassed the ruling House of Saud that the Americans had to be kept in purdah, away from the public at a remote base in the desert.

The base is obviously no longer needed since Saddam Hussein is gone. But its closure, in fact, is America's answer to Saudi resistance to the war and the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were bin Laden Saudis.

As the two nations begin a new chapter in their 50-year relationship, America will be less dependant on, though not free of the need for, Saudi oil.

The kingdom with the world's largest oil reserves and the highest output will lose clout as America controls the second-largest reserves in Iraq.

Turkey, too, has to renegotiate its relations with Washington.

America now has a vise grip on the region, with 14 new post-9/11 bases, from eastern Europe through Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the two Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

The singular feature of all those new allies is that they are weak states. Most are undemocratic, if not repressive.

So, America is replicating its failed model of using unrepresentative regimes to suppress the people, but doing it on new turf.

This short-term gain, therefore, may come at the expense of long-term pain. And even that will depend on how well America does with its "road map" for peace in the Middle East, so inextricably linked are Muslims to the plight of Palestinians.

Within Iraq itself, the dawn of a democratic era is not unfolding as advertised.

In the name of stopping the emergence of an Iranian-style theocracy in favour of what the White House has called an "Islamic democracy" (whatever that means), America seems determined to install its own puppet regime in Baghdad.

The majority Shiites are being shunted aside.

Those protesting the American presence, including the minority Sunnis in the cities of Falluja and Mosul, are being shot and killed by American troops.

The distance between American words and deeds is nowhere more evident than in George W. Bush's triumphalist declaration that he has licked terrorism in Iraq.

It turns out that he has a very selective dislike for terrorism.

Appallingly, he has quietly cozied up to a most notorious terrorist group, the leftist Mujahideen-e-Khalq in Iraq.

Prior to the 1979 revolution in Iran, the Khalq was accused of killing Americans there. Post-revolution, it reportedly supported the student takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. But frozen out of the spoils of power, the group turned against the Islamic regime, killing scores of civilians.

Routed out of Iran, it set up guerrilla bases in Iraq from where to harass and attack Iran.

On the diplomatic front, the Khalq took full advantage of America's antipathy to Iran and convinced 150 members of Congress to blindly sign petitions in its favour. But the U.S. and the European Union eventually caught up and branded it the terrorist organization that it has long been.

In the early days of the war on Iraq, American planes started bombing its bases. But the Khalq PR machines swung into action in Washington to get the guerrillas spared.

In a secret ceasefire deal, signed April 15 but not released until Wednesday, the Bush boys agreed to let the Khalq be. The group even gets to keep all its weapons.

So the Khalq moves from Saddam's patronage to Bush's.

So much for wiping out terrorism and terrorists.

Taken together, these American moves do not reflect the high principles of Bush's rhetoric. Rather, they bear an uncanny resemblance to the British colonial enterprise of nearly a century ago, the price of which is still being paid by the people there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haroon Siddiqui is the Star's editorial page editor emeritus.



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97187)5/10/2003 3:16:15 AM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 281500
 
U.S. Troops in Iraq Begin Disarming Iranian Opposition Group
By MICHAEL R. GORDON with DOUGLAS JEHL
May 10, 2003 New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 9 — Acting on a decision by President Bush, American commanders in Iraq have begun efforts to disarm an Iranian opposition group whose status had been the subject of weeks of review at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

American military officials have been meeting in recent days with leaders of the group, the Mujahedeen Khalq, to work out arrangements for taking the group's weapons and ensuring that it can no longer operate in Iraq.

The Mujahedeen Khalq has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, but the terms of an April 15 cease-fire agreement with the military let the group keep most of its weapons. The group maintains camps near the Iranian border, and before the war it operated with the support of Saddam Hussein's government.

The cease-fire deal was supported by American military commanders in Iraq, who were looking for a practical way to deal with the group without saddling already burdened American forces. At the same time, the agreement provided an opening for civilians at the Pentagon who argued that it should be followed by a decision to amend or eliminate the group's terrorist designation. Then, the argument went, it could be used by the United States as a check against potential Iranian meddling inside Iraq.

Administration officials and military officers in Baghdad said today that the issue was not completely resolved until this week, when the question of the group's status was debated by the so-called principals' committee of Mr. Bush's top security advisers and was then ultimately decided by the president himself.

State Department officials said the question of whether to disarm the Mujahedeen Khalq had been the subject of sharp debate with Pentagon officials. But Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said tonight that the "characterization was not accurate." He said the Pentagon's position has consistently been that the group "is a terrorist organization and should be disarmed."

Since they were first disclosed by the military's Central Command late last month, the terms of the cease-fire agreement has raised questions about the consistency of American counterterrorism policy. The Mujahedeen's designation as a terrorist group, which dates back to 1997, sets the organization in the same category as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In the debate, State Department officials argued that any accord that allowed the Mujahedeen Khalq to keep its weapons would make the Bush administration vulnerable to charges that it maintained a double standard on terrorism, with exemptions available to groups battling targets like Iran, which the White House has called part of an "axis of evil."

"The United States government does not negotiate with terrorists," Cofer Black, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, said in expressing that view late last month. The Mujahedeen's "opposition to the Iranian government does not change the fact that they are a terrorist organization," he said.

The Iranian group has no known ties to Al Qaeda, but its members killed several American military personnel and civilian contractors in the 1970's and supported the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. It has carried out dozens of bombings that were aimed at Iranian military and government workers but that also killed civilians.

Still, the group has dozens of supporters on Capitol Hill who have suggested that designating it a terrorist organization, first done by the Clinton administration in 1997, was a political decision meant as a gesture to Iran that could legitimately be reversed given new concerns about the situation in Iraq.

The role being played inside Iraq by Iranian-backed forces, most notably a group called the Badr Brigade, has been the subject of much attention within the administration. Pentagon officials have described it as an attempt by Tehran to project influence among Iraq's majority Shiite population.

The Mujahedeen Khalq numbers about 10,000 people in Iraq, including about 3,000 who are believed to be fighters. They have been stationed in five camps near the Iranian border.

According to administration officials and American officers, the group has generally been complying with the terms of the cease-fire negotiated last month and has presented no threat to American troops. All of its tanks and heavy weapons were shifted to the east toward Iran. The cease-fire has been monitored by Army helicopters and American Special Forces.

American military commanders originally intended the cease-fire to be followed up with a "capitulation" agreement that would entail taking away some, but not all, of the Mujahedeen Khalq's weapons. Under that plan, now discarded, the idea had been to create a balance of power so that the group could fend off attacks by Iranian agents and the Badr Brigade, the Iranian-backed group of Iraqi exiles. This, American military commanders hoped, would avoid a situation in which American forces would have to be deployed in the area or interposed between the Mujahedeen Khalq and the Badr Brigade. But they were overruled in Washington.

Under the new arrangement, the Mujahedeen would be required to hand over all its weapons and move to designated safe areas, officials said. The American military will then take on the responsibility of guarantee the group's security and stabilizing the region.

Military officials in Washington said today that the April 15 cease-fire had always been regarded as nothing more than an interim step, and that the United States had always held out the option of forcing the group to surrender completely.

"It was one of those situations where we told them, `There could be further action down the road, like surrender, and if you've committed atrocities in the past few years, we'll get you for that, too,' " a military official said.

A Defense Department official said the initial American goal had been to ensure that the group would not pose a threat to allied troops.

But in the long term, this official said, "you can't have an armed belligerent force, which is also a terrorist organization, operating in a free Iraq."

The military officials said that many details about the surrender are yet to be resolved, including who exactly surrenders, whether it be all 3,000 fighters and their 7,000 dependents, or just the leaders, and whether the group is to be disbanded.

Over the past several days, Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of the Army's Fourth Infantry Division, has been meeting with the group to work out details, American officials said.

nytimes.com