Is it Right to Rebel Against Authoritarianism?

I appreciate the Professor's efforts here to define the negative qualities of the PMOI (the Peoples' Mujahadeen of Iran). It should be noted that the reference to MEK is documented with it's own motivation: Monafiqeen-e-Khalq (MEK) - the Iranian government consistently refers to the People's Mujahedin with this name, meaning "traitors of the people".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran   Many of those who founded it did so after their opposition to the Shah was perverted into a theocratic, anti-democratic regime. The internal opposition to the Iranian regime may have qualities that "progressives" are uncomfortable with. It is indeed consistent that we require adherence to the recognition of human rights to be recognized by all resistance forces. That does not mean that there are not some urgent attention needed on behalf of the Iranian people currently residing within the Islamic Republic of Iran, or in exile.

Teachers in Iran are currently enduring repression for their willingness to speak and organize on behalf of their liberties. University students and professors have likewise been forced to endure this repression as well. If one looks at their website there is more included on the issue of women's rights that stand out. If one tracks their public statement they are consistent going back years. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920428-terror-pmoi.htm

It should not be forgotten that many forces exist along with MEK and PMOI, that include Kurdish constituencies such as PJAK http://www.turks.us/article~story~20070301131112913.htm and others with a more revolutionary perspective, such as the WCP-I http://www.wpiran.org/English/english.htm .

There should always be a willingness to address issues of concern in establishing whether certain groups deserve international support. We do know how maligned Nelson Mandela was during his imprisonment. Despite the intentions to discredit the struggle against apartheid, these criticisms were not successful in that regard. We should be just as wary at the comments by some against the Iranian Resistance, if they prove to be false. The MEK has publicly opposed US military intervention in Iran while opposing the strategy of the current regime regarding denial of human rights and nuclear proliferation. On this they should be praised and lauded without any obfuscation regarding the implications of current Iranian actions and the threat they present to regional peace and nation-to-nation interactions based on mutual recognition.

Regarding the PMOI, there is not agreement regarding their intentions and their political character as a force for change. I for one would encourage continued investigation into the matter include Ron Jacob's piece in CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs04102004.html , as well as other sources that document the perspective regarding PMOI actions and history. http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pe/people's_mujahedin_of_iran.htm

In regards to the accusation of PMOI being a cult of Maryam Rajavi that is something that those who are working with that organization can honestly answer. When she makes a presentation, it is brief and to the point without self-adulation. http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/3035/69/ Her leading role as a woman in the resistance struggle is worth acknowledging as a positive aspect of the movement in Iran for equality and democracy, not a negative one.

by Martin Zehr (36 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 77 comments) on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 12:44:33 PM
 

Editing glitch

My apologies for not editing out the references to "MEK" in my response to appropraitely be "PMOI".

by Martin Zehr (36 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 77 comments) on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 12:48:03 PM
 

Neoconservative and Rajavi Cult Lies

Paul Sheldon Foote

 

March 26, 2007

 

For more than a decade, the neoconservatives and the Rajavi Cult have been very successful in publishing lies and disinformation in the major American media.  Finally, the Federal government closed the MEK’s press office (National Council of Resistance of Iran) in the National Press Building in Washington, D.C.  Former Attorney General John Ashcroft arranged for a raid of the home of Alireza Jafarzadeh in order to confiscate his documents.  When will the American government post all of these documents for the world to see?  Alireza Jafarzadeh went on to become a foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.  In the eyes of the leaders of the Rajavi Cult, America is truly a land of opportunity.  Where else in the world can you find so many dupes?

 

The Rajavi Cult has experimented with sending its press releases and articles and with providing supporters for interviews across America’s entire political spectrum.  To their amazement, the Rajavi Cult has learned that there are dupes across the entire American political spectrum.

 

Their problems have come at Web sites permitting comments.

 

On March 24, 2007, OpEdNews.com published:

 

Detente or Appeasement?

by Jubin Afshar

click here

 

Jubin Afshar, is Director of the Near East Project at Near East Policy Research in Washington, D.C. http://www.neareastpolicy.com/

 

The Web site of Near East Policy Research lists their successes in placing articles and in securing interviews in America.

 

Unfortunately for supporters of the MEK, OpEdNews.com permits readers to post comments and rebuttal articles.

 

On March 25, 2007, OpEdNews.com published my rebuttal article, “Can the Rajavi Cult Dupe Progressives?”

 

click here

 

The same day, a reader posted support for the MEK (PMOI) under the title,

“Is it Right to Rebel Against Authoritarianism?”

 

Claims made by supporters of the MEK are easy to refute.  Americans should focus upon using Web sites, such as OpEdNews.com, that permit readers to comment.  Dupes can continue watching the Fox News Channel and the other major television networks or reading newspapers permitting only supportive comments.

 

The following are examples of easy refutations to the lies and disinformation campaign of the neoconservatives and of the Rajavi Cult.

 

1.       Iranian supporters of the MEK prefer to use PMOI.  As any search engine search will reveal that Western writers, including supporters of the PMOI, prefer to use MEK or MKO.  The U.S. government document cited used both PMOI and MEK.

2.       Religious leaders in Iran use Monafiqeen (two-faced) for good reason.  The Shah of Iran jailed both Massoud Rajavi (and other MEK leaders) with religious leaders.  In jail, they knew each other well.  The Muslim religious leaders understood quickly that Massoud Rajavi was using the liberation theology approach to gain supporters in Iran.  Rajavi was not a Muslim.

3.       The MEK started in 1965, not in 1979.  The MEK’s goal was to overthrow the Shah of Iran and to expel Western imperialists.  Today, Rajavi Cult supporters want to dupe others into believing that the MEK was started to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran.  In 1979, the MEK was a major force working with Islamic leaders to overthrow the Shah of Iran.  The MEK demanded the executions of America’s hostages in the American Embassy.  From 1979 to 1981, the MEK and the Islamic leaders fought with each other to determine who would govern Iran.  Even Maryam Rajavi discloses at her Web site that the Shah of Iran was responsible for the death of one of her sisters and the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the death of a second sister. 

4.       There was repression in Iran during the reign of the Shah.  China has 20 million political prisoners and executes 10,000 prisoners per year.  Writers should express opposition to all repression everywhere.  Iran does not have a monopoly on political repression.  The West has rewarded China with tens of thousands of factories and massive foreign trade following the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.

5.       Which Iranian revolutionary groups refused to join the MEK’s National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)?  Why?

 

Saeed Salehinia (salehinia@aol.com), a Workers-Communist Party of Iran activist, has criticized the MEK on his Persian-language television programs and in his writings.  The following is his March 25, 2007 email to me confirming his position:

 

“I agree with you about the strategy of wright wing to censor and fool the people.Also I agree with you about "Mojahedin". As I mentioned many times in my programs, Mojahedin are part of Political Islamic movement with the same fanatic foundations of Islamic regime.They are part of dark senario in future Iran and the U.S government is using them as tools to push Islamic Regime , the same way the so caled "Afghani Mojahedins"were used to fight against Taleban.

 

The movement in Iran is far ahead from Mojahedin. This movement is secular and for freedom and equality.These concepts are against the Islamic movements, including Mojahedin.

 

In workers communist movement we do our best to marginalize this sect.”

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/message/19322

 

Please note the names of the initial signers of the Stop War on Iran petition:

Initial Signers (add your name)

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Detroit Archdiocese*, Founding President, Pax Christi*
The Most Rev. Filipe C Teixeira, OFSJC, Diocesan Bishop, Diocese of Saint Francis of Assisi, CCA
Michael Parenti, author
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Howard Zinn, author, historian
George Galloway, MP, Britain
Tony Benn, MP, Britain
Denis J. Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General
Harold Pinter, 2005 Nobel Laureate in Literature
Margarita Papandreou, former First Lady of Greece
Ardeshir Ommani, co-founder of American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)
Ervand Abrahamian, Prof. ME History, Author, Between Two Revolutions
David N. Rahni, Professor and scholar, NY
David Sole, President UAW, Local 2334*, Detroit
Steve Gillis, President, USWA Local 8751*
Fellowship of Reconciliation, Nyack, NY
Thomas Koppel and Annisette, of the Scandanavian Popular Music Band Savage Rose

Dirk Adriaensens, coordinator SOS Iraq, exec. committee Brussells Tribunal)
Fatemeh Abdollahzadeh, Professor, Central Conn State University*, New Britain, CT
Dirk Adriaensens, coordinator SOS Iraq, exec. committee Brussells Tribunal
Amir Hossein Afrassiabi, Architect/poet, Rotterdam, Netherlands
Moji Agha, Founder, Universal Coalition For Interfaith And Intercultural Knowledge And Action (UCIIKA)*, Tucson, AZ
Sima Aprahamian, Asst. Prof. & Fellow, Sociology-anthropology & Simone De Beauvoir Institute*, Montreal, Canada
Hani Y. Awadallah, President, Arab American Civic Organization
Axis of Logic
Dr. Barbara Nimri Aziz, Executive producer of RadioTahrir-WBAI-NY
Afshin Babazadeh, Poet, London, United Kingdom
Brian Barraza, AMAT, Association of Mexican American Workers
Sharon Black, All Peoples Congress
Hamid Bonyadi, Legal advisor/Advocate, Attorney At Law, Teheran, Iran
Jean Bricmont, Brussels Tribunal
Brookline PeaceWorks
John Catalinotto, Editor – Metal of Dishonor
Ed Childs, Chief Steward, Unite Here Local #26*
Michel Collon, writer, publicist, Stop USA
Gerry Condon, Vietnam war deserter/antiwar activist, Director, Soldier Say No / Project Safe Haven
Heather Cottin, Freeport Community Worklink Center*
Tiphaine Dickson, attorney
LeiLani Dowell, Queers for Peace & Justice
Gregory Elich, author, researcher
Elena Everett, Chair, NC Green Party*, Co-Chair, GPAX (Green Party Peace Action Committee)*
Leslie Feinberg, Nat'l Lgbt Caucus Co-chair, National Writers' Union/UAW*, Jersey City, NJ
Sara Flounders, International Action Center
Lenora Foerstel, Vice Pres. Women for Mutual Security*
John Bellamy Foster, Editor, Monthly Review*, Eugene, OR*
Tiokasin Ghosthorse, First Voices Indigenous Radio
Peter Gilbert, FIST – Fight Imperialism, Stand Together
Farrukh Sohail Goindi, Foundation for Democracy-Pakistan
Teresa Gutierrez, NY Committee to Free the Cuba 5
Samia Halaby, Defend Palestine, NYC
Bagher R. Harand, Upper Grandview, NY
Klaus Hartmann, Chairman, German Freethinkers Association
Jesse Lokahi Heiwa, QueerJustice.org
Imani Henry, Playwright/Performer
Nellie Hester Bailey, Harlem Tenants Council
Sherif Hetata, MD, novelist,International Coordinating Committee of the Mediterranean Social Forum*
Connie Hogarth, director, Connie Hogarth Center For Social Action, Manhattanville College*, Purchase, NY
Larry Holmes, Troops Out Now Coalition
Eric Hooglund, Editor, Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, Hamline University*, St. Paul MN
Yoomi Jeong, Korea Truth Commission
Berta Joubert-Ceci, Philadelphia International Action Center
Charlotte Kates, NJ Solidarity – Activists for the Liberation of Palestine
Khadouri al-Kaysi, Committee to Support the Iraqi People
Nada Khader, Director of WESPAC* Foundation
Beth Lamont, NY Humanist Society*
Dustin Langley, No We Wont Go counter-recruiting network
The Audre Lorde Project
Robert Merrill, Ph.D.,Professor, Maryland Institute College of Art*, Baltimore, MD
MLK, Jr. Bolivarian Circle, Boston
Morteza Mohit, Glendale, CA
Monica Moorehead, Millions for Mumia
Milan Neuberg, President, The Party of Democratic Socialism, Czech Republic
New England Human Rights for Haiti
Erik-Anders Nilsson, Jersey City Peace Movement
Eleanor Ommani, American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)
Goli Ostadiar, Stop War with Iran, Tehran, Iran
John Parker, LeftBooks.com
Pam Parker, shop steward, Washington/Baltimore Newspaper Guild(WBNG) #32035
Rostam Pourzal, Iranian Cultural Association*, Washington DC
Ralph Poynter, New Abolitionist Movement*
Minnie Bruce Pratt, Lesbian Author/activist, National Writers Union*, Jersey City, NJ
Anne Pruden, 1199 SEIU delegate*
Milos Raickovich, composer, New York
Sami Ramadani, Senior Lecturer, London Metropolitan University*, London, United Kingdom
Mohammad Reza Rasaei, PhD, Univerity Of Tehran*, Tehran, Iran
Gloria Rubac, Steward, Houston Federation of Teachers, Local 2415*
Nawal El Saadawi, Writer and Psychiatrist, President, Arab Women's Solidarity Association*,
Nader Sadeghi, Associate Professor of Surgery, George Washington University*, Washington, DC,
Roudabeh Shafie, Founder, Action Iran, London, United Kingdom
Njeri Shakur, Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement
Reza Shirazi, Radio Producer, Fairfax Public Access TV*, Fairfax, VA
Nana Soul, Artists and Activists United for Peace
Annie & Buddy Spell, Covington Peace Project, Covington LA
Lynne Stewart, attorney
Lynne Stewart Defense Committee
Johnnie Stevens, Peoples Video Network
Brenda Stokely, New York City Labor Against the War
Kambiz Sur Esrafil Jahangir, Founder/Secretary General, Iranian Diaspora Against Defamation And Aggression, San Diego, CA
David Swanson, Co-Founder, After Downing Street, Charlottesville, VA
Mark Lewis Taylor, Professor of Religion & Culture, Princeton Theological Seminary*
Nadje Tesich, Author, Playwright, Poet
Usavior, Artists and Activists United for Peace
Tony Van Der Meer, Prof. Univ. of Massachusetts*, Boston, MA
Saeed Vaseghi, Professor, Brunel University*, London, United Kingdom
Klaus von Raussendorff, Association for International Solidarity*, Germany
Michael Tarif Warren, attorney
Dave Welsh, Delegate, San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO*
Walter Williams, People Judge Bush

http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml style="color: blue">

The signers include a wide range from communists to Republicans who were not duped by the neo-conservatives and by the Rajavi Cult.

You will find my name among the thousands of additional signers:

Paul Foote, Professor, California State University, Fullerton*, Fullerton, CA

Can you find even one MEK organization or supporter on this petition?  The MEK lies continually.  The MEK supports the military invasion of Iran because the MEK’s leaders believe that the neo-conservatives will impose the MEK’s totalitarian rule on the people of Iran.  In June 2003, Elizabeth Rubin reported in the New York Times Magazine:

“This past winter in Iran, when such a popular outburst among students and others was still just a dream, if you mentioned the Mujahedeen, those who knew and remembered the group laughed at the notion of it spearheading a democracy movement. Instead, they said, the Rajavis, given the chance, would have been the Pol Pot of Iran. The Pentagon has seen the fatal flaw of hitching itself to volatile groups like the Islamists who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and, more recently, the Iraqi exile groups who had no popular base at home. It seems dangerously myopic that the U.S. is even considering resurrecting the Rajavis and their army of Stepford wives.”

 

--Elizabeth Rubin, “The Cult of Rajavi”, New York Times Magazine, July 13, 2003.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/magazine/13MUJAHADEEN.html?ei=5007&en=6b6a11b0fdb450b1&ex=1373428800&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=

 

6.       Massoud Banisadr’s 1992 representations placed in the Congressional Record are a poor choice for defending the MEK.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920428-terror-pmoi.htm

 

In 2004, Masoud Banisadr’s book revealed in great detail the bizarre practices of the Rajavi Cult:

Masoud: Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel (Paperback)
by Masoud Banisadr

click here

You will find Masoud Banisadr’s book being promoted on a leading Web site opposed to the Rajavi Cult, Iran-Interlink.org:

 

• The Iranian Mojahedin (E.Ebrahimian,Yale University Press)
• Riekcross investigates
• Resistance in the rise (MKO publication)
• Mojahedin Terrorist Oporations
• Saddams Private Army Author: A. Singleton
• Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel by Masoud Banisadr
• Burned alive in the name of Marx and Mohammed byAlain Chevalierias
• A Shared Pain
• Autopsy of an Ideological Drift (By Antoine Gessler)
• Secret of Fire
• Books on Cults and Cult Culture
• Survivors Report

click here

7.       The viewers of the Fox News Channel and the voters for hundreds of Democrats and Republicans in Congress who support the Rajavi Cult are the biggest dupes in America.

   Biography: Alireza Jafarzadeh

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the president of Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc. He is also a FOX News Channel Foreign Affairs Analyst. Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of “The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis” (Palgrave Macmillan, January 2007).

 

click here

 

 

 

 

of the neoconservatives and of the Rajavi Cultto the MEK'sews.com which permit readers to comment.  Dupes can continue watching

by Paul Sheldon Foote (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments) on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 8:14:38 PM
 

Can the US Once Again Overthrow the Shah?

Opposing the PMOI and supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran is like supporting Turkey's plans against the Kurdistan Regional Government. It's a neo-con maneuver..

 Since the mid-1980s, the MEK has not mounted terrorist operations in Iran at a level similar to its activities in the 1970s.  Aside from the National Liberation Army's attacks into Iran toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war, and occasional NLA cross-border incursions since, the MEK's attacks on Iran have amounted to little more than harassment. The MEK has had more success in confronting Iranian representatives overseas through propaganda and street demonstrations.

http://www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=889

 

by Martin Zehr (36 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 77 comments) on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 9:04:42 PM
 

Neoconservative Support for the Rajavi Cult is Overwhelming

This list of neoconservatives supporting the Rajavi Cult is a very long list.

You can start with researching:

Congressman Tom Tancredo

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Iran Policy Committee (former CIA and military employees)

This list of neoconservatives opposed to the Rajavi Cult is a short list:

Michael Rubin

Kenneth Timmerman

If you can identify other neoconservatives who oppose the Rajavi Cult, please post the list.

 

 

by Paul Sheldon Foote (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments) on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 10:15:49 PM
 

Iran-Interlink's Documentation on Rajavi Cult Terrorism

 Iran-Interlink noted the source of the document posted at the cited link:

http://www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=889

It is:

click here should study Iran-Interlink's Web site for thorough documentation of the Rajavi Cult's terrorist acts updated to the current operations inside Iran.  Anyone who watches the Fox News Channel on a regular basis has heard military analysts bragging that America has "boots on the ground" operating inside Iran now.  

On January 15, 2003, supporters of the Rajavi Cult placed a full-page advertisement in the New York Times with the title:

"150 Members of U.S. Congress Declare Support for the People's Mojahedin (PMOI), Call for an End to Iran's Terrorist Regime"

Over a long period of time, the Rajavi Cult has enjoyed strong support from hundreds of members of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans). 

Under pressure from former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) in the American government closed the office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in the National Press Building in Washington, D.C.  Alireza Jafarzadeh needed a new job.  He found one as a foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.

click here (Neo-Trotskyite) support for the Rajavi Cult is very strong. See, for example, the efforts of the Iran Policy Committee (former CIA employee, former military officers, and a professor) for the extent of resources being devoted by a single organization for promoting the Rajavi Cult in Congress and in the media.

http://www.iranpolicy.org/

Do real progressives support the positions expressed by Alireza Jafarzadeh on the Fox News Channel and by the positions posted by the Iran Policy Committee?

 

 

by Paul Sheldon Foote (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments) on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 10:58:37 AM
 

Workers-Communist Party of Iran Does NOT support PMOI

An activist in the Workers-Communist Party of Iran has sent to me proof that the founder of the Workers-Communist Party of Iran did NOT support the PMOI (MEK, MKO, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, Pol Pot of Iran):

________________________________

From: salehinia@aol.com [mailto:salehinia@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 4:07 PM
To: pfoote@cox.net
Subject: Saeed to Paul# 5 (3/26)


Dear Paul,
 
Here is Mansor Hekmat(The Founder of Workers communist party)'s Article on "Mojahedin"in 1994.
Please read it carefully :
 

       Mujahed's Forbidden Dreams


Why a Mujahed Government stands no chance of Coming to Power



The People's Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran (Mujahedeen) leadership seems peculiarly fascinated by governmental power and its rites, ceremonies and accessories. Obviously any serious political party strives after power as an instrument which allows it to put its goals and programme to practice. The Mujahedeen's interest in political power, however, is not of the same metal. It is not earthly or political. It is a semi-religious, semi-infantile obsession. It is as if attaining the state of power is the final stage of the exaltation of the organisation or the fulfilment of the destiny of its leaders, or that the presidential palace is the earthly equivalent of heaven itself. Governmental power for the Mujahedeen is an enchanting dream. In their midst, words such as president, leader, prime minister, cabinet, minister, commander, and so on have an extraordinary ring. And just like kids who arrange their dolls and play out their dreams, the Mujahedeen are usually engaged in a 'government game'; 'now I am president', 'now you are prime minister'. The end of the game is not known. The recent round, in which 'now Maryam' is the president with a number of dolls in the form of artists, poets, writers, and athletes, playing guests in Europe, will certainly not be the last. The way these people pay tribute to their own surname the whole thing would probably end up in Tehran or in an oasis somewhere in southern Arabia, with a declaration of monarchy and a private coronation ceremony.

If this was a simple game, if it was entirely childish, we would all become its audience and amuse ourselves at the players' gambols and stunts. But the stage is that of politics and a struggle for power, which in the world as it is has assumed horrendous undertones. It is serious, even if the Mujahedeen themselves are not. It has actual consequences for real people, even if the Mujahedeen themselves are rambling about in their dream world. The gist of the matter is that by virtue of the objective social and political conditions in Iran, by virtue of the characteristics of this specific period, and by nature of the attributes of the Mujahedeen organisation and its strategy for action, governmental power is a forbidden fruit for this organisation. Circumstances cancel out the possibility for the Mujahedeen and their 'National Resistance Council' to assume power. Let us see why.


After the Islamic Republic In Which Scenario can the Mujahedeen be the main Character?

Up until now, there has been a common and crucial assumption in the explications of all Iranian opposition forces concerning the future course of political events which must now unfortunately be questioned. All existing forces from Right to Left, irrespective of their policy and strategy in countering the Iranian regime, present the future course of events as one of a change of the central government in Iran, and the replacement of the Islamic regime with another government. One of them might regard this shift as the result of the people's revolution, and the other as the outcome of a military coup or a gradual change in the existing regime. One visualises the future government as Leftist and free and the other as Rightist and autocratic. One anticipates a modern and secular political system, and the other an ethnic or religious one. At any rate, however, in all these 'explications' one government gives place to another. According to this explication, crisis, conflict, revolution and coup d'etat would be a link between two 'non-critical' and 'ordinary' state of affairs. At the end of this process, society, the government, and economic life are firmly in position. The government, the people, and Iran are as ever. In light of the political and economic situation in Iran, and the important ongoing international events, this assumption is increasingly turning out to be unjustifiable. Another course is becoming feasible according to which the process of the disintegration of the Islamic Republic of Iran would result in an extended, almost permanent state of conflict, a complicated mixture of military squirearchy, foreign invasion, and geographical, and to some extent ethnic disintegration of the country. The course of political events in various countries in the post Cold War period from Yugoslavia and Afghanistan to Rwanda, Somalia and the previous Soviet states, display the unbelievable dimensions of the hardships imposed on millions of people by the alternative scenario. If we call the first scenario ordinary or 'white', the second scenario can, charitably, be labelled 'black'. This is a virtual nightmare which becomes more likely as time passes. The approach of various political forces to this second probability or more specifically, having a clear policy to prevent the black scenario in the course of the downfall of the Islamic Republic, is as important a criterion in judging various parties as their programmes and goals.

Moreover, a broad spectrum of political forces and currents, both in the government and among the opposition, each fit into one or the other scenario according to their political and organisational attributes, their social standing, their relation to social classes, and their strategy, goals, and methods - just as their existence and activities serve to fulfil one or the other scenario. Looked at carefully, the Mujahedeen can only become a personage, and a minor one at that, in the second, i.e. the black scenario.


The Mujahedeen's Strategy

The Mujahedeen's own strategy to obtain power and form government is infantile and illusory. This strategy is predominantly inspired by the model of the coming to power of Khomeini - the only problem being that it seems to ignore the crucial differences between nearly all the factors involved in the downfall of the monarchy in Iran and present day circumstances.

The key concept for the Mujahedeen is the word 'alternative'. The informing principle in the Mujahedeen's strategy is to establish themselves in whatever suitable organisational wrapping such as the National Resistance Council, etc. as the practical and political alternative of the existing regime. 'Alternative' thus turns into a term which is contrived to replace discarded concepts and formulae such as 'organisation and leadership of the Revolution', 'obtaining hegemony', 'military victory', and so on. The Mujahedeen do not aim at starting a revolt, uprising, coup, etc. against the Islamic regime, as the means of assuming power. Their assumption is that the people themselves will get their fill of the Islamic regime, that the economic and political crisis will in time paralyse the Islamic Republic and cause its downfall. The Mujahedeen's task in the interval is regarded as that of having to establish itself as the natural and obvious 'alternative' of the crumbling regime. The process of the downfall itself would put power at the disposal of the major opposition force. The Mujahedeen will not have to defeat anyone, but to become the first name in the list of candidates for the next government. This, of course, is similar to the process that brought Khomeini and the Islamic trend to power. The Muslims of the Khomeini faction were marginal to the entire anti-monarchic opposition up until a few months before the uprising. They did not play a substantial role in starting the 1979 revolution, and more specifically, in the political struggle in the previous period. But they managed, in a manner that we shall discuss a bit further down, to establish their slogans, personalities and political trend as the alternative to the Shah's regime and even to lay hands on the outcome of the uprising that they themselves had tried to forestall.

But how to become an alternative? Which office bestows the title? Who is the authority that underwrites one's credentials? The Mujahedeen's answer is modelled on the Khomeini trend. The main political Mecca is the West and Western governments. It is these powers that have the propaganda, material, political and diplomatic capabilities to represent and display their trend as a political alternative. The Khomeini regime was the product of the Guadeloupe meeting. They transferred a relatively obscure Mullah (obscure in comparison with the reputation of the Fedaii and Mujahedeen guerrilla groups, the Tudeh Party, the National Front, Left liberal intellectuals, etc.) from Iraq to France, and under their projectors, they represented the revolution as Islamic and the Iranian people in their entirety as the disciples and followers of His Holiness, the Ayatollah. They declared, tacitly and explicitly, that they consent to the reign of this trend and regard it as the real alternative to the Shah's government. They gave their self-concocted army and docile National Front to understand that they should fall in with them, and finally, they sent their people there to take power over from the Shah and hand it to the Islamists before the people's onslaught. The Mujahedeen has similar hopes and expectations. From their point of view, becoming an alternative means receiving this go ahead from Western governments.

This Mujahedeen strategy, however, also has a dimension aimed at inside the country. To begin with, from their point of view, the Iranian people and their image of the place of political parties and trends in the future structure of power, also play some role. Further and more importantly, establishing oneself in Europe and the US involves being able to present oneself as an active opposition force inside the country, with an actual base among the people, and some leverage for political intervention there. By virtue of this fact, however, this 'internal' activity will have to be resounding, propagandistic, theatrical, and to the taste of the media. What the Iranian people themselves think of this organisation and to what extent they come in contact with its activities are secondary to what these very people might hear about the Mujahedeen from the Western media. According to the Mujahedeen, again as the Khomeini experience has supposedly proven, the approval of the US, France, and Britain is itself the most effective means of attracting public opinion in Iran itself. The Iran-directed activity of the Mujahedeen should therefore have an orientation and content facing abroad. Khomeini could for instance show that he had a base inside the country; and that there were still religious prejudices, a certain strata that could be provoked by religion or the existence of the widespread network of mosques, mullahs, and Friday prayer sessions, which could be used as a machinery for political activity. Moreover, the West had for long recognised the potential of Islam and the religious hierarchy in Middle Eastern countries in stirring up reactionary and anti-communist movements.

To become an alternative, the Mujahedeen must also prepare its credentials from inside the country. The Mujahedeen activities inside Iraq and its various military gestures are supposed to serve this purpose. The Mujahedeen Organisation itself knows that a number of units made up of relatives and sympathisers dispatched from Europe, with 13 borrowed helicopters and 11 tanks which cannot even be serviced would, in today's world, not stand up to the forces loyal to the elder of the first village on the way. But the Mujahedeen also knows that this is the world of armed opposition at borders, and of the rhetoric of 'occupation', 'aggression', 'cease-fire', and so on, and such gestures are effective in obtaining appointments in European capitals and attracting scandal mongering and malleable journalists. This is the objective followed by the Mujahedeen in various periods resulting in the Rambo-like exclusion of Banisadr and its declaration of the Iranian army's support for it, pretending to have the support of the Kurds who fight for self-determination, or that of various opposition parties in Iran, or engaging in 'military operations', and so on. These activities are in essence propagandistic-theatrical, and their purpose is to gain recognition for the Mujahedeen as the main opposition force and a ruling alternative by Western governments and public opinion.

Contradictions and Discrepancies

The problems with the strategy of the Mujahedeen and its inconsistencies with objective reality are manifold. The fact is that this strategy is based on a schoolboy concept of politics. Let us list some of these contradictions:

1. The times have changed. Western governments that, maybe for the few middle decades of this century, had a relatively free hand in setting up political regimes in some dominated countries lack effective leverage in the political scene of even the most backward and dependant country at this moment in history. The very rise of the Islamic Republic and the Islamic trend in the Middle East and North Africa indicated the beginning of a change in the practical relations of superpowers with bourgeois states and trends on a local level. From the occupation of the American embassy in Iran to the recent events in Somalia, Iraq, and now Haiti, things point to the fact that Western powers do not command a considerable manoeuvring capability even as regards the chummiest, most dependant, a