AT A SENATE Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iran’s nuclear program in October 2013, more than a dozen men and women in yellow rain jackets sat in the gallery seats of the wood-paneled room, a bright presence amid the standard-issue dark suits of Washington. It wasn’t raining.
They were supporters of the Iranian exile opposition group the Mojahedin-e Khalq, often referred to as the MEK, but known to most Iranians as the Mojahedin. Activists distribute all manner of yellow paraphernalia at the group’s demonstrations: hats, banners, flags, inflatable rubber clapper sticks, and, most of all, the jackets. The yellow jackets — often emblazoned with portraits of the group’s two co-leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi — have become its calling card.
During the hearing, the powerful then-Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, spoke out for the Mojahedin. About an hour and a half into the proceedings, Menendez issued an explicit threat to Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman over attacks against the group’s members in Iraq.
Another assault had been lodged against a camp in the Iraqi desert where former Mojahedin fighters were holed up — dozens of the unarmed, expatriate Iranians had died in the raid, with conflicting accounts of who was responsible. Menendez, a hard-line opponent of the Iranian regime and skeptic of nuclear negotiations led by Sherman, blamed Iran’s allies, the Iraqi government, for letting the attacks happen. He expressed preparedness to use his clout as chairman of the committee to pressure the Iraqis.
“One thing that this committee can do,” Menendez said, wagging his pencil at Sherman, “since it has jurisdiction over all weapons sales, is that I doubt very much that we are going to see any approval of any weapons sales to Iraq until we get this situation in a place in which people’s lives are saved.”
The threat sounded like a hypothetical, but it wasn’t: as Menendez spoke, he was blocking a major weapons deal with Iraq — a sale that would eventually be worth more than $6 billion in Apache helicopters and associated equipment and support, marking, perhaps, the first major Capitol Hill achievement for the Mojahedin since being removed from the U.S. list of designated terrorist organizations the year before.
On Capitol Hill, Mojahedin sympathizers clad in yellow jackets frequently appear at hearings dealing with Iran — or Iraq, where thousands of the groups’ fighters ended up in the 1980s, and where, beginning in the late 2000s, they came under a series of attacks that killed dozens. “You couldn’t show up at an Iraq hearing without lots of people wearing yellow jackets,” one former Congressional staffer said.
The group’s supporters try to arrive early to take their seats in hearing rooms, but “because people didn’t want every Iraq hearing to be a U.S. Ambassador with 40 people in yellow jackets sitting behind them,” the former staffer recalled, offices would dispatch interns to arrive before the Mojahedin followers “to fill those seats and push the MEK back.”
In the intervening years, even while constrained by their terrorism designation, the group and its affiliates poured millions of dollars into a sophisticated effort to rehab their image, creating an influential lobbying effort on Capitol Hill. Via an opaque network of Iranian-American community organizations, supporters circumvented anti-terrorism laws to garner many fans in Washington, at least in some quarters, where they quietly pressed their case for hard-line policies against the Iranian regime through meetings with sympathetic members of Congress. “It’s their Hill outreach strategy that accomplishes nearly everything they’re able to do,” the former staffer explained. “Given how small they are and how marginal they actually are, the amount of influence they wield is actually kind of amazing.”
Congressional hawks like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and the frequently eye-roll-worthy Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas, could be counted on to bring up the Mojahedin again and again. But not everyone on the Hill was initially convinced. As long as the terrorist designation was in place, many influential members of Congress wouldn’t speak out for the group. In 2012, after that steady drumbeat and an intense public relations effort, the Mojahedin successfully overturned the terrorist designation.
Since being legitimized, the Mojahedin’s influence on Capitol Hill spread from the fringes of Congress to include more mainstream and respected Republicans and Democrats. Most of the group’s lobbying focuses on its members’ well-being in Iraq, said a current Hill staffer, who works in foreign policy. But, the staffer added, “undergirding this is all this neocon-friendly warmongering, this intense push for regime change, this intense hatred for [Iranian president Hassan] Rouhani — they’re not subtle about this at all.”
Menendez’s advocacy for the Mojahedin at the October hearing wasn’t new, but it signaled that by 2013 the group had come full circle: from an outlaw terrorist outfit to a player on Capitol Hill. How that happened is a classic story of money, politics and the enduring appeal of exile groups promising regime change.
THROUGHOUT ITS 50-YEAR struggle, the Mojahedin has operated by the principle that the enemy of its enemy is its friend, giving rise to a past littered with ill-conceived alliances, tactical missteps and eventually, its designation as a terrorist group.
The group’s origins date to the mid-1960s, when a small circle of mostly middle class university students pored over revolutionary and religious tracts, creating a unique Islamo-Marxist ideology and eventually forming the Mojahedin-e Khalq, meaning “Holy warriors of the people.” After recruiting among young intellectuals, the Mojahedin sent some of its members to train in desert camps in Jordan and Lebanon belonging to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In 1971, the group sought to launch its revolution by bombing a major power plant that supplied Tehran with electricity. But the Shah’s notorious security services foiled the plot, and around half the group’s early membership ended up in the Shah’s prisons. The next year, nine leaders were executed.
Yet the group continued its small-scale strikes against the monarchist regime and its allies. Between 1973 and 1976, the Mojahedin assassinated six Americans in Iran: three military men and three civilian contractors with the American manufacturing conglomerate Rockwell International. “Widely credited in Tehran for these attacks at the time, the Mojahedin themselves claimed responsibility for these murders in their publications,” said a 1994 State Department report on the group’s activities.
Initially, a “leadership cadre” ran the Mojahedin by committee, according to a 2009 Rand Corp. report about the group. By the late 1970s, however, the Mojahedin rallied around Massoud Rajavi, a charismatic figure sporting a thick mustache and coiffed black hair who was one of the group’s only surviving early leaders. YouTube videos of his old speeches capture a rousing orator, with thoughtful, soft-spoken passages punctuated by intense stem-winding that brings the crowd to applause, often chanting “Rajavi, Rajavi!”
With unrest percolating in Iran, Rajavi sought to cooperate with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the revolution’s leader, but shortly after the Shah fell, Khomeini, a conservative cleric not fond of lay radicals, carried out a ruthless crackdown against the group. Rajavi and his followers fled into exile, initially to Paris, where his sway grew more authoritarian and he married his third wife, Maryam, appointing her co-leader.
After the First Gulf War, Hussein reportedly used the Mojahedin as a militia to quell sectarian and ethnic uprisings, alienating many Iraqis. “Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,” Maryam Rajavi told her followers during the attacks, according to the The New York Times Magazine.
In the meantime, the Mojahedin turned to attacking the Iranian regime abroad. “In April 1992 the MEK carried out attacks on Iranian embassies in 13 different countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas,” said a 1997 State Department report.
That year, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright designated the Mojahedin a Foreign Terrorist Organization, among 29 other groups, barring it from fundraising in the U.S. “We are aware that some of the designations made today may be challenged in court,” Albright said. “But we’re also confident that the designations are fully justified.”
Under pressure, Maryam Rajavi eventually sought to remake the Mojahedin’s image by renouncing violence; after being linked to 350 attacks between 2000 and 2001, according to Rand Corp., the group has not claimed responsibility for any subsequent violent offenses. That about-face did little good, at least in the eyes of the U.S. government. In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the White House cited the group’s presence in the country to buttress claims that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists.
But when the U.S. arrived at the Mojahedin’s camps, after conflicting reports of an initial skirmish, the group’s leadership waved a white flag, then signed a ceasefire — paving the way for its members to receive protection under the Geneva Conventions. Massoud Rajavi has not been publicly seen since, and Maryam Rajavi became the sole face of the group to the outside world.
For years, the Mojahedin languished at Camp Ashraf — guarded by U.S. forces — and refused to be moved, except en masse. The U.S. military eventually handed over control of its perimeter to the Iraqi government, and in July 2009, Iraqi security forces raided the camp, resulting in the deaths of at least nine refugees, according to Amnesty International. Dozens more were allegedly detained and tortured. Another raid took place in April 2011. The Mojahedin claimed 34 were killed and more than 300 injured. “With the threat of another Srebrenica looming in Ashraf, intervention is absolutely essential,” Maryam Rajavi said at the time. But no intervention came.
In September 2012, the U.S. agreed to remove the Mojahedin from the terrorist list; a key factor would be the group’s cooperation in relocating to a former U.S. military base called Camp Liberty, closer to Baghdad. The United Nations facilitated the move to Liberty, with plans for eventual third-country resettlement. Most of the few thousand remaining ex-fighters relocated, but about 100 stayed behind. In September 2013, according to Foreign Policy, Iranian-backed Shia militias reportedly killed at least 50 unarmed Mojahedin, about half of those still at Ashraf.
Pro-Mojahedin activists were outraged. Their exact numbers can be hard to divine: the Mojahedin themselves often won’t declare their membership. In the U.S. today, an umbrella organization of groups declaring allegiance to Maryam Rajavi — the innocuously named Organization of Iranian-American Communities — claims its network covers over 30 states. That does not include a bevy of small Washington-based pro-Mojahedin groups, or the organization’s official office, which, long-dormant, reopened near the White House after the 2012 de-listing. After the slaughter at Ashraf, the activists sprang into action.
“I remember the day of the attack at Camp Ashraf,” said Shirin Nariman, a pro-Mojahedin activist based in the Washington area. “Three of us, we just went to the Senate. We started going door to door. Nobody told us to do it. We were upset.” Not all the offices welcomed the activists. But “Menendez responded very well,” Nariman said, adding that Sen. John McCain, R-Az., also gave them time. “At least they are opening their ears and hearing us. But [the] White House is closing its ears and doesn’t want to hear.”
Not all Capitol Hill overtures by the group’s supporters have worked, however. In late 2013, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., returned $2,600 from a supporter of the Mojahedin in Virginia. “During routine due diligence by campaign staff, it was discovered that a few donors had associations the campaign was uncomfortable with,” a spokesman for Graham’s campaign told Politico. “In an abundance of caution, the contributions were refunded.”
And some Hill staffers, while sympathetic to the Mojahedin’s plight in Iraq, remain wary of their broader agenda. “We should be concerned about human rights violations anywhere,” explained the Congressional staffer who works on foreign policy. “But a key tenet of President Obama’s foreign policy has been de-escalating our relationship and to get a peaceful resolution to the nuclear issue with Iran. And the MEK has been working against that agenda on the Hill.”
The staffer went on: “They lead with Camp Ashraf. Back in the day it was an immediate pivot to lets get them off the terrorist list.” Now, he said, they segue from the group’s situation at Camp Liberty into regime change in Iran.
While many Congressional aides may have viewed the yellow vest-wearing activists as shrill voices for regime change in Iran and an annoyance at hearings, the Mojahedin, over the course of nearly two decades, had cultivated a valuable relationship with Menendez, one of the Senate’s most influential foreign-policy voices.
IN THE EARLY days of the group’s efforts to be removed from the U.S. terrorist list, the most vocal support came from a few members of Congress who viewed the Mojahedin as a cudgel to use against the Islamic Republic, such as Poe and Rohrabacher, who joined longtime stalwart Ros-Lehtinen. (In 2011, a Congressional delegation chaired by Rohrabacher was reportedly asked by the Iraqi government to leave the country after raising the massacres against Mojahedin members in a meeting.)
Menendez remained largely silent on the Mojahedin while it was on the State Department’s terrorism list; during his first term as a Senator, from 2006 through 2012, he rarely, if ever, brought the group up.
In June 2014, Menendez delivered a video address to a Mojahedin rally in Paris. He reassured Maryam Rajavi and her followers that aid to Iraq would depend on the country’s treatment of the several thousand former Mojahedin fighters left stranded there. “I told [then-Iraqi] Prime Minister Maliki in person last year that his commitment to the safety and security of the MEK members at Camp Liberty is a critical factor in my future support for any assistance to Iraq,” he said in the video, to the cheering, yellow-clad Mojahedin throngs.
The outspoken advocacy for the group coincided with the rise of campaign contributions from Mojahedin supporters to Menendez, according to an analysis conducted by The Intercept. Assisted in part by the work of independent researcher Joanne Stocker, The Intercept compiled a cross-section of political giving by supporters of the organization in the U.S. between 2009 — when the campaign to de-list the Mojahedin ramped up — and the present. The Intercept’s study examined giving by people listed by the pro-Mojahedin OIAC network, as well as supporters and activists identified by other news articles, and a former Congressional staffer who has tracked the group.
Never a pronounced player in campaign donations, Mojahedin supporters have nonetheless put hundreds of thousands of dollars into American electoral politics. Since 2009, those included in The Intercept study sent around $330,000 into politicians’ and election committees’ coffers.
Before de-listing, from the start of 2009 until September 2012, John McCain and Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., topped The Intercept’s survey of Mohajedin-related campaign contributions, receiving $11,350 and $11,150, respectively.
Menendez only received two donations from supporters tracked by The Intercept before September 2012, but after the State Department removed the group from the terrorist list, the money started to flow. In the past two years, Menendez took in more than $25,000 from donors with ties to the Mojahedin, making him the largest recipient in the study over this period. (The next two top recipients received less than half of Menendez’s total during the same period. McCain, still top recipient of the study’s Mojahedin-related donations after de-listing, received $10,800, and Rohrabacher received $10,300.)
But the campaign contributions alone don’t explain Menendez’s advocacy for the Mojahedin. The first former Hill staffer, who described efforts to move the Mojahedin back at hearings, said some Congressional offices were wary of the group, but described an alternative approach where “even if your constituent is crazy, you take the meeting and you listen carefully and you try to help them.”
The former staffer said of Menendez, “Sometimes it gets him into trouble when his staff doesn’t vet people well enough.” He also noted another dynamic at play: “Menendez is sort of known for these immigrant minority groups. He has a special place in his heart for them, based on his Cuban background, and I think sometimes it clouds his judgment — sometimes he doesn’t make the best decisions.”
EVEN BEFORE THE group was put on the terrorist list, another prominent senator got involved with the Mojahedin. During the 1990s, first as a Democratic House member and then a Senator from New Jersey, Robert Torricelli had been an outspoken opponent of Iran’s Islamic regime and a supporter of the Mojahedin, hoping the latter would deliver a deadly blow to the former, an enemy government of the United States.
The advocacy attracted the attention of a Congressional staffer named Kenneth Timmerman, who had followed Iran issues before his time on the hill. “Torricelli was already one of a handful of people who were notorious for their support of the MEK,” Timmerman told The Intercept. “Torricelli’s involvement as a supporter of the MEK was very well known, certainly to people who work on the Hill.”
Timmerman described a robust Mojahedin lobbying operation at the time. “They would come to Congressional offices in a very intimidating fashion, to young staffers who were inexperienced and didn’t know who they were,” he said. The support they received rested on three pillars, Timmerman added: ignorance about the group, a handful of campaign contributions, and “a kind of widespread view that we really don’t like the Iranian regime, so let’s help anybody that’s against the Iranian regime.”
Timmerman’s description of yesteryear matched that of the current Congressional staffer who works on foreign policy. “They’ll send grassroots staffers to meet with you and then just wait in your office to ambush you,” the current staffer said. “They’d basically filibuster you for an hour.” He added that the “the lack of institutional knowledge on the Hill and turnover in staffs” left an opening for the group’s supporters.
Timmerman, for his part, wholeheartedly supports regime change in Iran, but nonetheless rejects the Mojahedin, whom he considers terrorists. When he left the House, Timmerman launched a foundation dedicated to democracy in Iran and wrote extensively on the subject, mostly for right-of-center outlets (his other writing has included raising questions about President Obama’s birth certificate). One of his pieces, published in 1998 in The American Spectator, focused on contributions to Torricelli’s campaigns from “MEK officers, supporters and sympathizers.” Using FEC records listing campaign contributions, Timmerman recalled, he compiled his own database and then queried it for people known to be affiliated with the Mojahedin, as well as those named by his sources.
According to Timmerman’s analysis, Torricelli received some $136,000 between April 1993 and November 1996 — before the Mojahedin was designated as a terrorist group. (In a 2002 Newsweek report, Torricelli’s aides dismissed the alleged amount as exaggerated.)
“In his House days,” Timmerman wrote in the American Spectator, Torricelli “sponsored more than a half-dozen resolutions and letters of support for the organization.” Timmerman also cited Mojahedin promotional materials that claimed Torricelli introduced several of the group’s members to President Bill Clinton during a fundraising dinner in late 1997.
Support for the Mojahedin caught up with Torricelli during his failed 2002 bid for reelection to the Senate. His Republican challenger, Douglas Forrester, attacked Torricelli during a debate for supporting the group’s removal from the terrorist list, and for taking money from the Mojahedin’s supporters. The embattled incumbent defended himself — justifying his support for “Iranians who oppose the Iranian government” — but backed down the next day. Torricelli told the New Jersey newspaper, The Star-Ledger that he wouldn’t continue to advocate for the group’s de-listing. “If the organization is engaging in activities against civilians that are of terrorist nature, the State Department has every right to ban their activities and have no contact with them,” he told the paper.
In an interview the following day with The New York Times, Torricelli elaborated. “Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” he said.
Timmerman responded dryly when asked by The Intercept about Torricelli’s change of heart: “I’m not sure how sincere it was.”
By 2011, the law firm Mayer Brown retained Torricelli as part of the team working on the Mojahedin’s legal challenges to its place on the terrorist list. And Torricelli again took up vocal and active support for the Mojahedin, calling for the group to be de-listed at public forums organized by pro-Mojahedin American groups. “Does it have benefit that we continue to ostracize and label opponents of the regime as terrorists, when the facts say otherwise?” Torricelli said at a 2011 event on U.S. policy toward Iran. “Is it even possible to oppose a terrorist state, and be a terrorist yourself?”
The Intercept made several attempts to contact Torricelli for this article. When reached by phone, Torricelli declined to answer any questions about his relationship with the Mojahedin, and hung up the phone.
Dozens of former American officials, ranging from politicians to bureaucrats, have spoken at events organized by Mojahedin supporters. Some received staggering sums — as much as $40,000 — to give an address, and many called for the Mojahedin’s removal from the terrorism list, praising the organization as a viable democratic government in exile of Iran. According to data collected by the Huffington Post, the pro-Mojahedin roster included former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Bush White House chief of staff Andy Card, former Vermont governor Howard Dean and former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., among many others.
By early 2013, after the Mojahedin was wiped from the terrorist list, Torricelli found new employment with the group — as its Washington lobbyist. Rosemont Associates LLC, the ex-Senator’s consulting firm, took up a contract with the Mojahedin’s Paris-based political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. According to federal filings, Torricelli’s Capitol Hill lobbying for other clients ended between 2012 and 2013; only the Mojahedin were left. Disclosures for foreign lobbies indicate his firm planned to take in $35,000 per month for its work on behalf of the organization.
Most of Torricelli’s interactions with Washington, according to the filings, involved State Department offices that dealt with the Mojahedin or its areas of interest, frequently revolving around the refugees’ security in Iraq. But Torricelli also, however, made contact on Capitol Hill on the group’s behalf, though he didn’t cast a wide net: the lobbying disclosures reveal that as of late 2014, Torricelli had only reached out to a single Congressional office about the Mojahedin: that of former Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Menendez.
“For 20 years,” Menendez said at a recent Senate hearing, “I have been working on the issue of Iran, when people were not paying attention.” Back in 1998, the two New Jersey politicians appeared at a Mojahedin demonstration at the U.N.’s New York headquarters, a year after the group was designated a terrorist organization. Torricelli was still in the Senate, and Menendez held a seat in the House. “At the rally,” the Associated Press reported at the time, Torricelli, Menendez and another lawmaker “supported the group’s call for a new democratic regime in Tehran.”
Between April 2013 and January 2014, Torricelli reached out to Menendez’s then-Chief of Staff Dan O’Brien seven times. Three separate contacts, however, were with Menendez himself: phone calls in April and August of 2013, and an in-person meeting last January — at the same time Menendez was coming under administration pressure to release his hold on the Apache helicopters.
DURING THE SUMMER of 2013, the Iraqi government faced growing sectarian strife. The militant group Islamic State — a Sunni radical outfit formed during the spring, and still going by the moniker Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — organized camps in Iraqi territory to expand their presence in the country and regroup for the fight in Syria.
The Mojahedin, perhaps chastened by their own labeling as terrorists, rely heavily on the word “extremism” in conjunction with ISIS, warning that the Iranian regime, with its “puppet” government in Iraq, represents the most significant terrorist threat.
Iraq, meanwhile, had been pushing its main military supplier, the United States, for more weapons to combat ISIS, specifically advanced attack helicopters called Apaches. The Obama administration advanced a proposal to supply Iraq with the Apaches — a deal that would eventually involve 24 by a sale and six by a lease that would allow the Iraqis to field the equipment more quickly.
When it comes to foreign military sales, the executive branch gives the Senate Foreign Relations and the House Foreign Affairs committees advance notification, and chairs and ranking members can object. After Obama officials apprised the relevant committees of its proposal, in July, several members blocked the sale over skepticism of then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The administration launched a back-room offensive on Capitol Hill to clear the way for the deal. Officials from the Departments of State and Defense “in their briefings before Congress made it very clear that sending these Apaches to the Iraqis was crucial to beating back the threat coming from ISIS to Iraq from Syria,” said another former Hill aide, who attended the briefings. “State was terrified that without these helicopters,” the Iraqis “didn’t have the capability to kill these guys.”
Most would eventually be convinced to lift their holds, but Menendez held firm, creating palpable tension with the administration. Anonymous sniping between the Senator’s aides and White House officials appeared in the press, with Senate staffers telling Defense News the administration was failing to make Iraq a priority, and an administration official calling the accusation “offensive and incorrect.” Menendez’s public explanation centered around Maliki’s record of attacks against civilians and tacitly allowing Iran’s use of Iraqi airspace to support the Syrian regime; many in Washington at the time were sour on Maliki’s growing authoritarianism, sectarian patronage and failure to professionalize the Iraqi military.
“There are a lot of good reasons they” — Congress — “might have held up a sale,” said Sam Brannen, recently a fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Pentagon employee. But Brannen, who said he has no special insight into Menendez’s reasoning, added, “That there might be some more parochial reasons, that aren’t as good, would not surprise me.”
A U.S. official, who also wouldn’t speak to Menendez’s motivations, confirmed Congress’s focus on the Mojahedin. “The MEK issue was clearly a concern for members of Congress,” the official said. “Whether that played a role holding up the arms sales, I don’t know. But it was certainly an issue for Congress.”
Senators “raised lots of issues — among them the MEK — with the Apaches,” Lukman Faily, the Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S., told The Intercept. “The issue of the MEK,” Faily said, “came up in most of my meetings with the House and Senate, especially the Foreign [Relations Committee].”
Six months into the hold on the helicopter sale, in January 2014, ISIS forces swarmed Iraqi cities in the Sunni west, at least briefly holding two major urban areas. It’s doubtful the Apaches could have been in action soon enough to stave off ISIS’s territorial gains. “It would have taken months and months to train the Iraqis to use them,” said Brannen, the former CSIS fellow, of the helicopters intended for lease.
Michael Wahid Hanna, an expert at the Century Foundation with extensive experience on Iraq, explained, “I don’t know if [the Apaches] would have had a strategic effect, maybe a tactical one. Hitting, basically, IS camps obviously would’ve helped.”
After ISIS’s battlefield successes, Menendez consulted with the administration and received a letter from the Iraqi government. “He was looking for an out,” recalled the former Hill aide who attended the briefings. Menendez said he got assurances from the Obama administration promising oversight of the Apaches — and lifted his objections on January 25, leaving the Mojahedin in Camp Liberty under the ultimate control of the Iraqi government.
Adam Sharon, a spokesman for Menendez, did not respond to any questions about the senator’s relationship with the Mojahedin. “The direct concern with the Apaches was what safeguards were in place to ensure that minorities weren’t being attacked,” Sharon said.
The Apache deal, however, eventually stalled. The ISIS advances amplified Maliki’s largely self-induced political crisis. A State Department official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak officially, cited fiscal and capacity issues on Iraq’s end, and said the U.S. was working it over with the new Iraqi government. (In August, Maliki’s party ousted him as prime minister.) “While we’re still supportive of the sale,” the State Department official told The Intercept, “Iraq hasn’t been in a position to accept the sale.”
ISIS took over more Iraqi cities starting last June, and the United States began its own air war to beat the group back in August. In October, the U.S. military ended up using its own Apache attack helicopters in raids against ISIS positions.
FOR THE MOJAHEDIN, stalling the Iraq Apache deal was just a small victory. The real goal has always been regime change in Tehran. Last September, the moderate Iranian president Hassan Rouhani arrived in New York for his second U.N. General Assembly, accompanied by nuclear negotiators to engage in another round of the now-extended talks. Mojahedin supporters organized a protest against Rouhani’s appearance.
Several hundred braved a sporadic rain in yellow ponchos distributed by organizers, holding aloft yellow umbrellas. (Mojahedin supporters have been known to recruit volunteers on expense-paid trips for such events.) The pro-Mojahedin demonstrators — some of them non-Iranian, with cursory knowledge of the group — listened to a morning of speeches at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, nestled between demonstrations against the ouster of former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, and by devotees of the persecuted Chinese spiritual movement Falun Gong.
Along the barricades that sectioned off the protesters from the dignitaries on stage — which included former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, a frequent speaker at Mojahedin events — demonstrators held up a pair of cut-out placards. One, in black, read, “No 2 Rouhani”; the other, naturally in yellow, said, “Yes to Rajavi.” Massoud Rajavi still hasn’t been seen publicly since 2003.
For his part, Torricelli’s advocacy for the Mojahedin has only become more fervent. “My name is Bob Torricelli and I am a soldier in the liberation of Iran,” he thundered at a Mojahedin conference in Paris during the summer of 2014, to a huge crowd of yellow-clad supporters who interrupted his speech with applause and chants.
“First we gathered in Frankfurt, in London and Paris and New York by the hundreds. Then we came to Paris by the thousands. Hear me well, Mullahs: soon we will come to the streets of Tehran by the millions, and take back the future of the people of Iran.”
“The mullahs may talk to Merkel, or Obama or Hollande,” Torricelli continued, referring to three of the heads of state — Germany’s Angela Merkel, Obama and France’s François Hollande — now in nuclear negotiations with Iran. “They can talk all they want. We as a people of those nations know: There’s nothing left to say. The regime must go.”
Photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP; Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/Landov; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Ali Gharib and Eli Clifton are reporting fellows with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.
Bob Menendez is a piece of work. See also: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/world/americas/ecuador-isaias-obama-campaign-robert-menendez-hillary-clinton.html
Ali, I would love to suck your big hairy Persian cock.
If the writers claim that the MEK has been friendly with Iraq since Saddam, well they should really look into the several attacks that Iraqi security forces carried out against them killing over 100 of the residents in camp Ashraf in Iraq. The US had made a promise in writing to each individual resident of that camp to protect in exchange for taking all their weapons and FAILED to live up to it. Instead Obama handed that protection foolishly over to the Iraqi government. This was an order they carried out from the Iranian regime which uses Iraq as its puppets.
Also during this time when no other reporter from any news agency (except those who support the regime) was allowed anywhere near the camp, a group of people set up base just outside the gates and put up many huge loudspeakers to shout abuse out to the residents trying to cause some sort of mental breakdown.
Ive seen many comments about people saying that the MEK is worse than the regime, well let me tell you that during the revolution of 1979 it was 120,000 supporters of the MEK that were killed by the the murderous reign of Khomeini not the other way around.
So before anyone decides to judge the MEK based on this one article, do your research and look into the hardship this group has gone through to get to this point in the goal to achieve a democratic Iran.
The MKO/MEK or whatever they call themselves these days are traitors period! They cooperated with Sadam of Iraq against Iranians and the people of Iraq. Their ideology is an extreme form of pseudo Islamic Marxism, worse than ISIS. They murdered US military personnel and supported the hostage taking of the US diplomats. They are a million times worse than the Mullahs. They would be the worst possible option for Iran, the US and the area in general. Any US politician who backs them is making a grave error.
Interesting article on MEK:
“Indictment of Iran for ’94 Terror Bombing Relied on MEK”
By Gareth Porter
“WASHINGTON, Aug 7 2013 (IPS) – Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman based his 2006 warrant for the arrest of top Iranian officials in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 on the claims of representatives of the armed Iranian opposition Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK), the full text of the document reveals.
The central piece of evidence cited in Nisman’s original 900-page arrest warrant against seven senior Iranian leaders is an alleged Aug. 14, 1993 meeting of top Iranian leaders, including both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and then president Hashemi Rafsanjani, at which Nisman claims the official decision was made to go ahead with the planning of the bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA).
But the document, recently available in English for the first time, shows that his only sources for the claim were representatives of the MEK or People’s Mujahideen of Iran. The MEK has an unsavoury history of terrorist bombings against civilian targets in Iran, as well as of serving as an Iraq-based mercenary army for Saddam Hussein’s forces during the Iran-Iraq War.” [snip]
………
“The record of MEK officials over the years, however, has been one of putting out one communiqué after another that contained information about alleged covert Iranian work on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, nearly all of which turned out to be false when they were investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “[snip]
Sorry, link:
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/indictment-of-iran-for-94-terror-bombing-relied-on-mek/
I do not care about the politics of this. But this group is a cult. They worship their leader that was spooning at bed with not other than Saddam Hossein. True that they are against bad guys of Iran, but it does not make them good, and Iranian people do not like them at all, for all the terror they created in that country.
I wrote a comment when this first posted. Where did it go? I said some nice things about the article then asked why the authors neglected to mention MEC’s connections with Israel or the fact that most of their support in the US comes from the same people that support AIPAC.
Why? Why did they not cover this and where did my comment go???
Menendez;A mendacious POS probably being blackmailed by the Zionist MSM,who’ll threaten to reactivate his Dominican trysts with under aged and unwilling partners,ala the now defunct story of Prince Andrew and his pervert buddy.I wonder if there is a connection?The MSM won’t go there,maybe we need the Enquirer to step up ala John Edwards.
Sorry, this group sounds like any other of hundreds of groups of violent people around the globe who may or may not be of use to Daddy Violence, the US government.
When they are useful they’re lavished with weapons paid for by the US taxpayer. When they are a threat to Daddy Violence they are destroyed by weapons paid for by the US taxpayer. Do you get the idea of who really wins here?
What Nuclear Program? Their nuclear reactors which they have every right to operate? The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty that they signed while Israel, who is pushing for a war with Iran, refuses to sign? There is no absolutely no evidence that they have a nuclear program. According to the UN Iran had ‘looked into’ building a nuclear weapon 15 years ago. They shut down the inquiry in 2003.
Reporters who repeat the ‘Iran’s Nuclear Program’ meme (even inadvertently) are acting as propagandists for neo con policy wonks who wants us to believe that Iran (who hasn’t attacked anyone in 250 years) is a danger to the US and should be punished.
Though this article is well written & the writer has tried very hard to remain bias & only states his findings after much investigations & studying different written articles pertaining to this group (MEK), I can only speak of my personal experiences in dealing directly with them in the early 80’s during the war, in the Kurdistan region of Iran.
They were fighting against us (Iranian Soldiers) who were sacrificing our lives to protect our borders against foreign invaders. They used & abused local Iranian
Kurds for their devious purposes in order to help Iraqi forces to prevail only with the vague hope of gaining power through the victory of foreign invaders of their motherland. Thanks goodness they failed, because we were brave enough to withstand & resist their foolish & feeble efforts against all odds (they along with the Iraqis had much outsider supports behind them than we did).
In my opinion & those of the vast majority of Iranians (of all ethnical groups), MEK cult is nothing but an opportunistic traitor.
Who is funding MEK these days? Gulf Arabs? Mossad?
“Who is funding MEK these days? Gulf Arabs? Mossad?”
Definitely MEK, though probably to some extent Mossad as well, have access to U.S./West “frozen Iranian assets” held/used by Wall Street financial institutions since the financial elites of the corrupt Pahlavi regimes fled Iran in the late 1970s.
One particular part of this very nice article seems, when names are interchanged, to apply quite handily to many state and non-state players these days. For simplicity’s sake a country was chosen entirely at random:
“Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump
MEK is really a foreign supported and sustained organization for Iranians. They are loathed by the Iranians of all stripes inside and outside Iran. They are a cult like organization that has aligned itself with the enemies of Iran such as Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Currently, Israel and Saudi Arabia are the biggest supporters of MEK. Isarel uses them as a front for reporting on nuclear “violations” of IRI. Pro-Israeli supporters in the US are the biggest supporters and enablers of MEK. Before, the MEK yellow jackets accuse me of being agent of IRI, I absolutely dislike the criminal regime that has brought nothing but misery, oppression, poverty, and chaos to Iran. The struggle against IRI will be long but most Iranians do not want to have a cultish Islamist group such as MEK replace IRI. Both are equally hated.
US and it’s henchmen Israel and Saudi Arabia have hired the services of Violet criminal groups for decades this is nothing new. They have used these type of groups to topple many governments and will go as far as they need to such as in Syria to achieve their goals. This group is exactly what US needs in dealing with Iran/Russia. We live in a violent world where men with money and power will wreak havoc on the innocent. There are no good guys left. Move out of the cities and off the grid and turn off the news, that may be the only solution to marginal happiness.
Anti-MEK material are supplied and paid by the Iranian lobby.
Iranian government is paying for anti-MEK article since 1992. They spend 100 Million dollar for anti-MEK campaign. Here is one example
Sources:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/05/14616126.html
Thompson, who is often called on by media outlets to offer up analysis, says he was offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada.
“They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e khalq,” he said. “Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.” Thompson says he turned down the offer.
Another example of Iranian government paying CASH:
Iran’s cash for Karzai buys years of loyalty
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/14/ex-afghan-minister-iran-paid-karzai-early-2003/?page=all
These two clowns are well connected to the Iranian lobby network and their article has nothing new, thousands of similar articles has been written in the past 20 years from the same playbook.
If anybody interested to know about the MEK visit http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/
Excellent article but it left out the financial support that the MEK gets from the Mossad.
If you say that the likes of Torricelli and Menendez are in it for the money, have you ever considered that the Iranian regime (who are the real terrorists) have a LOT more money that they could dish up for their support??
What a yawner. Ali Gharib and Eli Clifton have been peddling this story for years, even after it was disproved and the MEK was taken off the terror list. In Europe, France acted as well after finding charges made against the group had no basis and came from sources with close ties to Iran, just as Mssrs. Gharib and Clifton have written long and loudly in favor of Iran. Never have either of them taken the Iranian regime to task for the 1,200 executions conducted over the past year and half, most by barbaric public hangings. Neither have they condemned Iran’s long time support of terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, nor its most recent funding and arming of the Houthis as they overthrew Yemen’s government and installed an Islamist regime. They’ve never advocated for the release of Americans, Christians and political prisoners and journalists now held in Iran’s prisons. They’ve never called for censure of Iran for support Assad in Syria after he used chemical weapons on his own people. They’ve never argued for an opening of Iran’s internet and a lifting of the bans on social media. Yet, they dutifully bring up material from 20 years ago that has been broadly discredited. Why? We should be asking them where they are getting their money.
It’s interesting to read articles written by these folks working for the NIAC, an organization which regards the MEK as a “terrorist group”. The NIAC, which basically functions as the unofficial mouthpiece of the Iranian government in the United States, must also recognize the fact that the Iranian government since 1979 has been the biggest exporter of state terrorism worldwide. Some brief examples of IRI-sponsored terrorism include the bombing of the US and French barracks in Lebanon (1983), the bombing of a Jewish cultural centre in Argentina in 1994, the funding of militant groups such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Taliban (which is supposedly their ideological enemy), the indirect funding of the FARC in Colombia through Hezbollah agents involved in the international drug trade, etc.
With the NIAC being an Iranian government-sponsored lobby group in the United States, they are directly entangled with and working on behalf of a government which is deeply involved with international terrorism which has claimed the lives of arguably tens of thousands of victims around the globe. Since the original aim of Ruhollah Khomeini was to export the “Islamic Revolution” to the wider world as any Iranian or non-Iranian history book might tell you, the only way to pursue this objective in his strategy was the forced export of these ideologies, hence his support for militant movements such as Hezbollah and others. Additionally, Khomeini’s rigid intepretation of Shia Islam means that he and his republic were (and are) staunchly opposed to anybody they perceive to be “kafirs” whether they be Westerners or non-Muslims in the Islamic world (e.g. the targeting of the Bah’ai in Iran, Hezbollah’s war on Lebanese Christians in the 1980s, Shia death squads murdering Sunni Muslims in Iraq, etc).
While the Iranian government to this very day continues to support terrorist activities through its subsidiary organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, or numerous Shiite militant groups in Iraq, the MEK on the other hand has not only denounced violence but they have also been disarmed. Therefore, while the Iranian government could claim up until a certain period in time that the MEK was a “terrorist” organization, this can actually no longer be the case since officially the MEK is no longer pursuing its agenda through violent methods. In conclusion, the writer of this article may want to think twice about applying labels without considering the implications of those labels, when he himself is publishing an article that is in essence promoting the agenda of a regime which has been proven to be one of the foremost sponsors of terrorist activities in general. Ah, the irony.
I
So has the PKK, a group that Turkey considers to be a “terrorist” group. The US must figure that all is fair in love and war. Even if some things are fairer than others.
Killing innocents including Americans across the globe to effect regime change of both the Shah and then the ayatollahs, allied with Saddam, helping ISIS and necessitating a re-intervention by the US in Iraq, in bed with all those super trustworthy politicians accepting huge speaking fees and campaign donations with no accounting for the source of the funds, and with a “leader” who hasn’t been seen in 12 years who they want to rule Iran (which tells us democracy isn’t an actual goal)…
… who made the decision to de-list?
… what were they paid or promised?
… why was the US military protecting them in Iraq while they were still on the list?
… why were there no prosecutions of the pols taking their money while they were still on the list?
… and why is there no mention that most Iranian Americans think this group is a bunch of untrustworthy loons?
How? It’s easy. Sign cyrograph with “Great Evil” and collect paycheck from CIA. That’s all. Those fringe religious sect of people have ZERO support in Iran. Remember “Syrian Opposition”, figment of Washington’s imagination that never was. It’s worse. Curious who at TI may want to please US establishment. Take wild guess.
Are you referring to the US establishment types taking MEK money or the ones who took them off the terror list?
I can’t see how either would be pleased with this article.
This piece should be an inspiration to any group which feels they have insufficient influence in Washington. MEK is poorly funded (relatively speaking), has no electoral power base and started under the handicap of being designated as a terrorist organization by the US Government. Now they exercise significant influence in Congress. How did they achieve this?
The first goal is to make yourself visible. Dressing in yellow raincoats may be whacky, but the speaker in a small room is sure to notice you. In general, Washington is only vaguely aware that a world exists outside its own boundaries, so establishing a physical presence there and being noticed is essential.
Next, align yourself with a primary US policy goal – in this case delegitimizing the Iranian government. This automatically creates some powerful natural allies, who can serve as a fulcrum for you to gain more leverage.
You should also build bridges to other, more powerful, lobbying groups, who can provide you with venues where you come into contact with other potential allies. However, never hire a professional lobbyist to work on your behalf – they just take your money in exchange for the illusion of access.
Then you must secure a source of funding so you can reward the friends who support you. The actual amount doesn’t have to be that large. What’s important is to make it contingent on specific acts of support, to get more bang for the buck.
Before long, you are off the Terrorist list and onto the A-list, enjoying the rewards of being at the center of decision making in the world’s greatest democracy.
Amen to that ! we needed a new refreshing statements as such
I believe that to Iranian people it makes no difference who and whom will take the first step to make a threat against this regime in Iran will be supported ,they are waiting for a small spark .
It’s not for lack of trying that USraeli terrorUSt$ have not started a conflagration in Iran. Zionazi zealots like U.S. Senator Menendez have been stoking their isrealHell tinderbox, striking their flint incessantly throughout the Middle East for decades. His Arrogance, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (fear-mongrel assassin by proxy of Yitzhak Rabin) invested his morning lecturing fascUSt$ to His left and apologUSt$ to his right on His current campaign swing through Washington, D.C.
Wow. This story of the MEK & its obscene bedfellows makes The Exorcist look like a garden variety childhood fairy tale.
This is a very detailed history of the MEK. I am however, extremely interested to find out from the authors why there was no mention of the MEK’s relationship with Israel and AIPAC?
Follow the money! Where is NCR’s source of money?! This is another dangerous ideological group that has hired the same group of shady characters to push for another regime changes. The guns for hire in political office don’t care as long as they get paid. And, like any cult, the NCR folks go to martyrdom to push their ideology. But, who is paying for this?! A minute fraction of the money this group spends comes from member donations – the rest is being financed by whom?
Sounds like you are faed on! Follow the money. No Islamic country should be allowed to fund their political and religious ideologies in our country.
Jay,
The money for terrorUSt$’ Mojahedin is just a miniscule fraction of the billions stolen from the people of Iran by the Pahlavi plutocrats who, by early 1979, had fled Iran for the West taking with them their stolen wealth. The U.S. confiscated Iranian government assets in the West following the exodus from Iran of Shah Reza Pahlavi.