Leading MEK members squirm under the knowing gaze of Michael Ware. Watch the shifty looks and glances as the MEK representatives try to lie about their true intentions. They admit to wanting regime change, but claim to be pacifists. Ware asks ‘Why does a political organization still need to have a para-military organization?’ He then cleverly gets them to admit that their while their army is now defunct they do still believe in the use of violence to achieve their regime change goal. No wonder Ware looks puzzled.

Mohammad Mohaddesin – Head of National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) foreign affairs section, Pentagon contact during the Saddam era.

Shahin Ghobadi – Frequently presented as the spokesman for the NCRI, Mojahedin Khalq and or Maryam Rajavi.

Farzin Hashemi – Long serving MEK member, frequently used as translator for Maryam Rajavi as well as behind closed door meetings, at one time the liaison officer with the Saudi agents and Mossad agents in Paris. Served as a commander of Saddam’s Private Army also alleged to be one of the torturers for Saddam’s Mokhaberat.

Sarvenaz Chitsaz – Head of the NCRI Women’s Committee.]


Members who have given this post a Boost with their Coins
Writers, creators, commenters and curators get paid when people like you Boost their content. Learn More...


Best   /  Newest   /  Oldest
MashGhasem MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) Pinned comment
One question that comes to mind after watching this video would be: Is armed struggle against mullahs' regime in and of itself incorrect?
This query is closely connected to another one: What are the paths or possibilities of non-violent political change in mullahs regime?
Based on mullahs violently dark track record (especially their savage and cruel repression of 2009) we all could safely conclude that mullahs have consciously and willfully blocked all attempts for a non-violent, peaceful transformation in Iran.
With the extent of population living at or below poverty line (estimated to be anywhere from half to 80% of the people
-toptopic.com/posts/the-iranian-titanic-one-out-of-seven-iranians-live-below-the-poverty-line-42479) mullahs are practically sitting on top of a very combustible entity, which needs only a few sparks to explode; more or less the same way Iran exploded in 1979.
Shah's regime was focused on armed urban guerrilla forces as his strongest opponents, but at the end it was a mass armed insurrection that toppled him.
In the same way mullahs obsession with MEK is unwarranted. MEK has close to zero credibility with Iranian people; morally and politically MEK is marginalized, sterile and worthless.
However, keeping all these factors in mind if the path of non-violent politics in Iran is blocked (which with 100% certainty we could say it will be blocked by mullahs) the equation for Armed Struggle will still be in play; not so much from isolated cults like MEK or such, but by millions of people living in poverty and having no recourse but Mass Armed Insurrection à la 1979.

حدث سنگرهاي خياباني توسط مردم در قيام بهمن 57 فيلمي كه نظام نميخواهد مردم ببينند

See More
3 +
Massoud.khodabandeh Massoud.khodabandeh (@Massoud.khodabandeh) replied to MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) Pinned comment
1. At this point in time, the MEK face a dilemma. Publicly they must continue to say they have abandoned armed struggle. Internally, to keep the members on message, they have to say they do believe in it.
2. On the subject of armed struggle, we should be careful about the definition. During the Revolution some people carried arms, but it succeeded as a popular mass uprising which included women and children pouring into the streets, rather than an armed insurrection. The MEK took up arms before the Revolution with the justification that they would assassinate Americans and the Shah’s officials in order to break the atmosphere of fear and encourage people to resist. After the Revolution the MEK changed the definition – if we kill enough security forces all over Tehran and in other cities that will break the regime’s back. They placed bombs in official buildings to destroy the ruling regime. Then, in Paris, they changed again – armed struggle means sending terror teams to kill shopkeepers displaying pictures of Khomeini or who have a beard, instructed directly from Paris. Then in Iraq they said armed struggle means creating an army with Saddam’s backing and joining Iraq against Iran in the war. Now in Albania – at least internally – they tell the members that armed struggle goes through Syria and toppling Assad’s regime.
With all these changes, you can see how difficult it is to promote armed struggle and maintain a proper nationalistic line. In my experience, armed struggle starts with arms and has some kind of governmental backing. That doesn’t usually go well. If there is a popular uprising in Iran and the people choose to take up arms all very well and good. But Baluchi or Kurdish or Arab groups who kill and run away cannot result in regime change. It is an annoyance but not a threat to Iran’s government. That’s what I think anyway.
See More
7 +
Parsa Parsa (@Parsa) Pinned comment
Thanks again for the report. This re-enchantment with the MEK is due to the changing political landscape in the world especially between U.S. and Russia and their allies. History has chosen MEK to be the losers, pawns and ultimately mercenaries. The sooner their members defect the better. They can still have a decent life free of control, manipulation and empty promises hopefully before it’s too late.
See More
2 +
Massoud.khodabandeh Massoud.khodabandeh (@Massoud.khodabandeh) Pinned comment
Original Video:
See More
2 +