Massoud Khodabandeh, Fourth Report from Baghdad

Iran Interlink Fourth Report fromBaghdad

First Published October 2014 by Iran Interlink

Iran Interlink, October 26 2014: … Massoud Khodabandehfrom Iran Interlink visited Baghdad over ten daysduring October 2014 to gather the latest informationpertaining to the Mojahedin Khalq presence in Iraq.Events in Iraq have been changing rapidly with theIraqi army and militia mounting an effective offensivecampaign against Daesh*. This report …

Link to download   pdf file

Iran Interlink

 Fourth Report fromBaghdad

Camp Liberty and the Mojahedin Khalq

October 2014

Contents:

Introduction

1. Situation of the MEK in Iraq

2. MEK activities in relation to ISIS

3. Methodology behind MEK terrorism

Conclusion

Aerial map of Camp Hurrieyh – Camp Liberty occupies asmall section

in the north of this camp

First Report (February 2008) – (PDF version)

Second Report (September 2009) – (PDF version)

Third Report (April 2011) – (PDF version)

Fourth Report (October 2014) – (PDF version)

Introduction

Massoud Khodabandeh from Iran Interlink visited Baghdadover ten days during October 2014 to gather the latestinformation pertaining to the Mojahedin Khalq presencein Iraq. Events in Iraq have been changing rapidly withthe Iraqi army and militia mounting an effectiveoffensive campaign against Daesh*. This report istherefore something of a snapshot of conditions on theground at that time. No doubt the situation will havechanged as the report is published. However theintention of the report is to provide significantinformation about the situation of the MEK and anyinfluence it has on these events regardless of how theyunfold.

It is hoped that an understanding of the role of theMojahedin Khalq (MEK) and its relation with Saddamists*and Daesh will inform efforts to confront the violence.

Although some observers may think the MEK isirrelevant, finished, or too small to make adifference, the fact it still features in the narrativeof those who seek to influence American foreign policyand the fact it has had enough Western support toremain in Iraq, are strong signs that this group is farfrom irrelevant. This report seeks to explain why.

My thanks to Othman H. al-Bustan, Ebrahim Khodabandeh,Maryam Sanjabi and others in Baghdad. Without theirhelp the investigations, meetings and the reporting ofthem could not have taken place.

The report was compiled, edited and published by myselfand Anne Khodabandeh (Singleton) in the UK.

* Daesh is al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham,also known as ISIS, ISIL and IS. For the purposes ofthis report I will refer to them by the Arabic Daesh.

* Saddamists are people associated with and loyal tothe ousted regime of Saddam Hussein and who areactively opposed to the current government andconstitution of Iraq.

1. Situation of the MEK in Iraq

Rajavi’s combatants are nearing retirement age.

Who will pay for their healthcare and pensions?

Inside Camp Liberty

Residents of Camp Liberty who have chosen to escape thecamp rather than wait for relocation by the UNHCR havebeen able to report on conditions inside Camp Liberty.Since early 2012 when most Camp Ashraf residents wererelocated to the Temporary Transit Facility also knownas Camp Hurriyeh, tens of individuals have managed toget themselves out of the camp and take refuge with theUN and Iraqi authorities. The International Committeeof the Red Cross (ICRC), has independent oversight ofthis. Reports by these individuals indicate thatconditions inside Camp Liberty are worsening month onmonth, and that suppressive measures are increasing totry to keep a lid on the rising discontent. MEKcommanders are instructed by Massoud Rajavi how tocontrol the residents and how to behave toward them.This means an almost total gender separation, with onlycommanders able to meet with members of the other sex.Under the same conditions of gender separation, membersof the same family, siblings and parents for example,are not given access to visit one another, and areobliged to treat one another as comrades rather thanrelatives if they do meet. Other, local curfews existto separate and control people. Residents areaccommodated in dormitories and are confined to theirquarters for most of the day when they are not activelyengaged in work or meetings. Association betweenresidents is strictly controlled, and monitors areposted to listen to conversations between residents.

In addition to work, daily schedules include bothconfessional and indoctrination meetings. Residents areobliged to report their activities and thoughts andfeelings in public, with ‘sins’ against Rajavi’s edictsbeing punished through humiliation and sometimesbeatings by other attendees, who are also subjected tothis treatment. According to the reports of escapees,most residents no longer accept such sessions willingly

as part of their conditions for membership in theMojahedin Khalq. This has resulted in widespreaddisaffection. Arguments and physical fights are nowcommonplace. This can be between residents and betweenthe various ranks.

This is by far the most volatile aspect of thesituation inside the camp. Residents who challengeorders and/or ask questions are automatically singledout and taken for questioning by commanders. However,spontaneous arguments often escalate and residents willnow challenge the commanders directly. Questionsinclude: where is Massoud Rajavi (who has not been seensince March 2003 and is only heard in audio messagesbroadcast in the indoctrination meetings); why is justabout anyone who leaves the MEK labelled an agent ofthe Iranian regime, why were they not identified asagents while they were in the camp; what are we doingto overthrow the Iranian regime.

Residents who have left in the past few months are nowreporting that even the commanders are beginning toaccept that they have no answers to these questions,and as a result some of them are beginning to askquestions of their own.

Two actions have taken on highly controversial aspectsfor the residents.

One is the conduct of visitors who are brought insidethe camp by the MEK. These are, for example, Americanor European advocates of the MEK who are paid to speakat various rallies and lobby in parliament. Visits arearranged to stage manage a demonstration of conditionsin the camp. So, to back up MEK claims of mistreatment,food, water and medicine shortages are manufactured asare hygiene issues. However, residents are neverallowed to even approach the visitors without prior

arrangement, and any permitted conversations aremonitored by both the commanders and the MEK’s Westernfacilitator, handler and English language translator,Ali Safavi. (UK resident Safavi escorts the visitorsfrom North America and Europe via the MEK’s bases inJordan.)

There is a great deal of grumbling among residents thatthey are not allowed to speak to such visitors who areamong only a handful of people from outside the campthat many residents have actually seen for over adecade. Other visitors from outside are officials fromagencies of the UN or various embassy staff. Againresident contact with these officials is almost non-existent and is always subject to MEK control. (Thefamilies of camp residents have, of course, been deniedcontact with their loved ones since 2003 opened thepossibility of their travelling to Iraq to find them.The MEK describe families as ‘poison’.)

The other event which has caused controversy concernsthe 42 survivors of the Camp Ashraf massacre ofSeptember 1, 2013. The survivors were transferred bythe UN to Camp Liberty in November 2013 and handed overto MEK commanders at the camp. According to escapees,they were immediately taken to separate accommodationand were essentially held incommunicado, not only fromthe outside world, but from the rest of the camp’sresidents also, including most commanders.

Under pressure from Iran-Interlink for the MEK to allowinvestigators into the massacre to have access to thesesurvivors, the MEK finally brought them out to havelunch in the refectory with other residents. The 42 hadvisibly been instructed not to talk to anyone at all,not even one another. Photographs were taken of thesurvivors having their lunch in this public place. Not

one single resident was fooled that this was anythingexcept a PR exercise to demonstrate to the outsideworld and MEK advocates that they are free andaccessible. However, no outside visitors such as UN orRed Cross officials were present during this stunt.

These actions have caused dissent to escalate almost tocrisis point. Only the severity of existing controlshas kept a lid on the atmosphere of discontent andrage. Loyal commanders are now extending their controlto their peers. Massoud Rajavi’s latest instruction tothe residents relayed via the commanders isencapsulated in the slogan that ‘from 1 to 100 percentof everybody’s time must be spent in saving theorganisation’. Rajavi has said that although thesituation in Iraq is tense because of the presence ofDaesh, ‘the regime’ is attacking from the other sideand making people want to run away. The task of everyresident is to watch every other resident to preventanyone from escaping. Rajavi says, and believes, thatthere is a psychological war being waged on the camp bythe Iranian regime. He cannot, or will not, acknowledgethat both the insupportable conditions of absolutecontrol and the unanswered questions of the residentsare fuelling internal dissent.

Iranian supporters of the MEK in the West, known asinternal critics because they are loyal to the MEK buthave many criticisms of the group’s aims and tacticsand other behaviours, are filling the Farsi languageblogosphere and social media with open letters andarticles addressed to Rajavi simply asking him toacknowledge the validity of their questions and provideeven the simplest or even impenetrable answers, ratherthan attacking all and any questioners as ‘agents ofthe Iranian regime.’ Thus the Camp Liberty residents’questions are reportedly (by internal sources willing

to speak) being echoed in MEK bases throughout theWest, even at the highest levels in Auvers-sur-Oise.

(Interestingly, several MEK members have made internetcontact with Ebrahim Khodabandeh – a former member – inTehran, and divulge their misgivings and discontentopenly to him as an old friend and colleague. Some ofthe MEK’s closest supporters regularly visit Iran, anact which is deemed a sin inside the organisation.)

Iraq Perspective

Iraqi officials continue to work with UNAMI tofacilitate the process of removing all MEK from Iraqwhich began in 2011 when the American army formallyhanded over responsibility for the MEK to thegovernment of Iraq.

After the formation of the new government of Iraq, theMEK claimed that they had been instrumental in theouster of al-Maliki. During the time of my visit,officials from the ministry of Human Rights, Defenceand Interior Affairs that I spoke with said thatcontrary to MEK and Saddamist propaganda, and in spiteof differences in other areas of policy, the new PrimeMinister al-Abadi is totally on the same page as al-Maliki about the MEK and Saddamists. They emphasisedthat the officials dealing with this issue have notchanged and the policy has not changed either.

A source from inside the al-Abadi faction related thatduring his meetings with Western governmentrepresentatives in Paris and in Baghdad, al-Abadi madeit clear for the Americans that Iraq will not curtailher relations with Iran, and that it is in Iraq’sinterests to work even more closely with Iran. If Iraqis pushed to choose between Iran and America, it willbe unfortunate but Iraq will choose Iran. This message

was conveyed to American officials, who reportedlyacknowledged it. The official said this shows where theMEK’s place is in Iraq; they have no hope of remaining.

Some MPs I spoke with have related that parliament hasresumed passing laws which had been delayed due to thecrisis caused by Daesh. This will mean that anyoneinvolved in supporting the MEK and/or Saddamists can beimpeached. A law has been drafted to banparliamentarians from taking money for lobbying for theMEK or Saddamists. Parliament has evidence againstseveral individuals who fit this category.

Dr Adnan al-Saraj, from al-Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Partycoalition and head of the Centre for Media Development,went into detail with us about how the policy of bothal-Maliki and al-Abadi toward the MEK is the same. Heidentified the main problem for the government inexpelling them humanely as the lack of cooperation fromWestern countries. He said, “They tell us one thing,but in reality they don’t cooperate and do what isneeded”.

Adnan al-Shahmani, the MP in charge of theParliamentary Committee overseeing the situation of theMEK, talked in detail about what the government isdoing to resolve this situation in a positive way. Hesaid three aspects are being pushed together and areslowly getting results. One is the humanitarian aspect,especially toward those who have been tricked into thegroup, and pushing for family access – upholding thehuman rights of the residents and their families. Thesecond part is pursuit of the legal aspect of thesituation; some MEK members have been accused oftorture and murder and they need to be taken to courtand tried. Iran has also asked for the extradition ofaround 100 individuals so that it too can pursue legal

cases against them. The third aspect is that ofsecurity. This is an ongoing issue because the MEK areactively working with the Saddamists and Daesh. Thistrio represents a security threat to the whole country.However, al-Shahmani reported that Iraq’s securityforces are now on top of this issue and are determinedto resolve it.

In his visit to Iran, Prime Minister al-Abadi met withIran’s top leaders. During his visit with the head ofthe Judiciary he described the MEK as a problem imposed[by America] on Iraq. Iran pledged to do everythingpossible to help resolve the situation, and in turnasked for the extradition of around 100 leading membersaccused of murder and terrorist acts.

UN Relocation Process

In March 2013, Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha hadannounced that Tirana was ready to host 210 members ofthe MEK “for humanitarian reasons.” Since then, over200 residents have already been transferred to Albania.In early October this year, the UN High Commissionerfor Refugees in Albania was able to announce it hasprovided the necessary measures for the transfer of afurther 210 Camp Liberty residents to Albania. Localreports indicate that several apartments are ready toaccommodate the newly arrived individuals.

Although it is now been made possible to transferanother 210 residents to a place of safety, the MEKinitially refused to allow anyone to leave CampLiberty. (This may be linked to news that over half ofthe MEK members who now reside in Tirana have renouncedthe group and have begun to speak out about humanrights abuses inside Camp Liberty. The MEK leaderMassoud Rajavi cannot afford to allow more of thecamp’s residents the freedom to decide their own

futures, and would prefer to keep them locked up inIraq under his direct control.)

The MEK leadership has not permitted the UNHCR toselect suitable individuals for transfer and hasinsisted on submitting its own list of people it iswilling to let go. Half the list comprises residentswho are either disabled or chronically ill – some evendying. The rest are commanders and suppressive agentsof the MEK which it wishes to transfer in order toreplicate the cult conditions in Tirana. Word frominside Camp Liberty is that this will not work becausethe commanders themselves will defect once they arefree of the controls of Camp Liberty.

During my visit, UN and Red Cross (ICRC) personnel leftBaghdad and went to Arbil and Jordan because of thesecurity threat posed by Daesh. However, a few of thesestaff have now returned to Baghdad as the situation hasbecome less volatile. UNHCR personnel have begun theinterview process for 210 Camp Liberty residents priorto their transfer to Tirana, Albania.

As well as these transfers, American personnel areinterviewing for up to 80 people in both Iraq andAlbania who will be accepted by the US. According toparticipants, these interviews are aimed at finding themost harmless individuals, those willing to signbunches of papers renouncing their past and agreeing tohave no further involvement with the MEK. If they arenot prepared to sign these documents they are notcalled for interview.

A third interview process takes place in the MohajerHotel in Baghdad which is provided by the UN for CampLiberty residents who have escaped and who have askedthe Iraqi authorities to give them refuge. The UNHCRdoes conduct interviews with these individuals with a

view to transferring them out of Iraq. In theseconditions they are able to contact their families andstart the process of rehabilitation.

Escapees from Liberty

Over the fortnight leading up to my visit, sixresidents of Camp Liberty individually took the braveand extraordinarily difficult step of escaping from thecamp. The lockdown imposed by Mojahedin-e Khalqcommanders is so intense that residents are unable toleave their accommodation blocks without permission,are not allowed freedom of association, not even amongrelatives, and of course a strict gender applies whichseparates men and women. Every moment of their lives isscheduled and observed. Residents are obliged to attenddaily confessional meetings in which ‘sinners’ arehumiliated and sometimes beaten.

After two decades of these conditions (eleven of themspent unable to even pretend to be a military groupafter being disarmed by the US army), residents arefinding it harder and harder to submit to the bizarrestrictures of cult culture. But submit they must ifthey are to avoid severe punishments for transgressingthese rules. The first rule being total, unquestioningobedience to every dictate under the totalitarian ruleof Rajavi.

Since 2011, over two hundred and fifty residents haveescaped from the MEK. Around twenty percent of thesehave returned home to their families in Iran. Theothers have found ways to travel to Europe or are stillin Baghdad awaiting UNHCR transfers.

During my visit I met with several escaped Camp Libertyresidents living in Hotel Mohajer. Six of these hadrequested repatriation to Iran and were eventually able

to go. (Jane Holl Lute thanked Iran for acceptingthem.) Seven more had undergone UNHCR interviews andwere waiting for places to go to. Three had alreadybeen accepted by Western countries because of priorconnections there.

Of the six most recent escapees, one asked to beallowed immediately to join his family in Iran. Therest are being kept safe in accommodation.

Iranian Perspective

Since announcing an amnesty for “repentant” MEK membersin 2003, Iran has allowed escapees to return home totheir families, in particular former POWs and thoseeconomic migrants who had clearly been deceived by theMEK in recent years. More contentious figures includinglong term members have been dissuaded from returningand have mostly found a way to reach Europe insteadwhich circumvented the UN refugee transfer route.Following the Presidential elections in 2013, Irancalled a moratorium on voluntary repatriations. Forseveral months Iran did not accept any new transfers.Now, after undertaking a review of its policies andpractices concerning the process of repatriating formermembers of a terrorist entity, the IRI has again begunto accept vetted individuals who wish to return totheir families. Certainly Iran has been understandablycautious about allowing any MEK to enter Iran under anypretext. However, Sahar Family Foundation which worksin Baghdad with the families of MEK members reportsthat Iranian embassy officials describe this as “anobligation toward their families”.

With a new government in place, Iraq is working withIran to expedite the return of ‘pardoned’ MEK to Iranas quickly as possible. Iran has drafted newlegislation to allow this. Iraq has also said it has

formulated plans to speed up the process which it hashanded to UNAMI for approval.

The IRI has compiled a list of around 100 MEK memberswhich it says it will prosecute for crimes againsthumanity and war crimes if they return to Iran. Arrestwarrants have been lodged with INTERPOL for severalleading MEK members. The government of Iraq has alsocompiled a list of 150 MEK members which it saysparticipated in illegal activities in Iraq, includingthe massacre of thousands of Kurdish civilians in March1991. The Iraqi police and judiciary will pursue thearrest of all named persons.

Clearly for the past twenty years Iran has consideredthe MEK to be an irritant rather than an existentialthreat. As a pseudo-political force acting to publicisea regime change agenda and with a defunct terroristforce the MEK has no potency. However, the IRI doesregard the MEK as a social problem. Along with Westernagencies, including the US Department of State and theauthors of the 2009 RAND report, Iran has identifiedthe MEK as a dangerous, destructive mind control cultwhich engages in violence to achieve its political aimsand which believes that the ends justify the means sothat it is not bound by legal, moral or social laws.Former members have described these practices in detailand there is a huge body of evidence behind thisassessment. The danger therefore is to its own memberswho have been effectively enslaved and abused by theleaders, and to any potential new recruits.

Western Support for the MEK

In September the MEK held what it called an‘International Conference’ in Paris with the title:“First Anniversary of Ashraf massacre, Middle East incrisis, threats and solutions”. The MEK assembled

around fifty of its paid lobbyists and advocates toaddress an audience also assembled from paid refugeeand student populations in Europe. Among the issues tobe denounced by the speakers was the “inhumane siegeimposed on Camp Liberty”.

In Iraq, UNAMI has had to deal with constant complaintsfrom the Mojahedin commanders about “siege conditions”at the camp. On 31 August, UNAMI reported that “theprovision of life support systems such as water,electricity and food continue to be well in excess ofbasic humanitarian standards”. In addition, MEKadvocates in Europe, such as MEPs Julie Ward and JudithKirton-Darling, also insist that the MEK be protectedfrom further attacks like the events at Camp Ashraf onSeptember 1, 2013 and for them to be moved as soon aspossible to third countries to prevent furtherviolence. Yet when Jane Holl Lute, Ban Ki-Moon’sSpecial Representative, negotiated 210 refugee placesin Albania, the MEK refused to allow any residents toleave the camp. It was only after grinding negotiationswith the camp’s commanders that the MEK submitted itsown list of people it was prepared to let go.

It is apparent that the MEK have no achievements toboast of in their gatherings, and can only celebratethe anniversary of some disastrous event or other intheir history. The only ‘achievement’ has been that in2012 then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton removedthe MEK from the US terrorism list. This allowed theMEK to be paid to act as an adjunct to that branch ofAmerican foreign policy which is covertly workingtoward violent regime change, hardly something toendear the MEK to the Iranian people.

Reports from a variety of sources have revealed thatthe MEK has invited a number of its American lobbyists

to visit Camp Liberty. Their route takes them viaJordan where they are also in contact with theSaddamists. The trace of their movements show that theyhave stayed in the compound of Saddam’s daughter,Raghad Hussein, with the knowledge of Jordanianintelligence. The handler for these trips is Ali Safaviwho has an American travel document but who is mostlyresident in an MEK base in London. From Jordan theytravel to Baghdad and Camp Liberty. On the way theystop in Falujah where they are accommodated in abuilding belonging to some of Daesh’s top personnel.Entry into Camp Liberty is highly restricted andmonitored by the Iraqi security forces who are taskedwith guarding the camp. However, it is understood thatthe foreign visitors are taken in by MEK vehicles andby US embassy staff. While inside the camp, residentsare made to stand back and not approach the visitors.Ali Safavi and other English speaking commanders act astranslators who are able thereby to monitor and ifneeded to censor conversations.

These visits are designed to convince the lobbyiststhat all is well inside the camp and that rumours ofdiscontent are untrue. However, they are also used toconvince residents that Western powers support the MEKand their future is thereby assured and if they trusttheir leader Massoud Rajavi, all will be well. One ofthe difficulties for the MEK leader is that whileadvertising this American support he cannot afford tolet the Camp Liberty residents near them even to saythank-you because of fears they will speak out of turnand reveal their desperation or even despair. On theother hand the carefully selected visitors have hadtheir visit micro-managed by MEK handlers and are notin any frame of mind (or are not even interested) toengage with their environment sufficient to undertake

an investigation into actual conditions – mental orphysical – for the residents.

To attract sympathy among Western policy makers the MEKmaintains the permanent pretence of victimhood. Yet forthis sympathy to be converted into actual financial andpolitical support the group must also still maintainthe fiction that the Iranian regime is afraid of them.

It is true that the Islamic Republic is sensitive tothe issue of the MEK. Western politicians who see thisthink they know why. But they don’t. The IRI recognisesthe majority of Camp Liberty residents and in the basein Paris as victims of a destructive cult. Iran’sgovernment regards the MEK not as a threat to itsexistence, but as a danger to the health and welfare ofall the citizens of Iran. As a pernicious cult, the MEKis a social not a political danger.

2. MEK activities in relation to ISIS

Screen shots of MEK websites showing support for Daesh

Since 2003 MEK has been active in helping what areknown in Iraq as Saddamists. That is, people associatedwith and loyal to the ousted regime of Saddam Husseinand who are actively opposed to the current governmentand constitution of Iraq. Such Saddamists are currentlyled by his daughter, Raghad Hussein, and by Saddam’sformer second-in-command Izzat Ibrahim Al-Douri, bothof whom are based in Jordan. The MEK has alsomaintained its bases in Jordan. Jordanian intelligenceand authorities are fully aware of these groups andtheir activities.

While still under American protection, the MEK usedCamp Ashraf to gather Tribal leaders and Saddamists andcrucially al-Qaida affiliates. There were variousmotivations behind this activity. With regard to theTribal leaders the MEK were keen to bribe them toaccept the MEK in the Diyala Province. The residents ofCamp Ashraf (as then) were obliged to organise lavishdinner parties for these guests. During a time of warand privations, the guests were treated to some of themost sumptuous feasts possible in those conditions,while the MEK provided slave labour to run the events.This ploy was partially successful and Tribal leaderstolerated the American-backed presence of the MEK formost of the decade. The Saddamists were of courseformer employers of the MEK. They have beeninstrumental in facilitating payments and politicalsupport for the MEK in so far as the MEK furtheredtheir cause against the new government. This wasparticularly the case when the Iran-leaning Nouri al-Maliki became Prime Minister. The Saddamists have alsobeen allies of the Saudi backed al-Qaida. Theinsurgents attended Camp Ashraf for training in thebomb making and guerrilla warfare which the MEK had

learned while pursuing their terrorist activities inIran in the 1980s. Al-Qaida were also potentialprotectors should the insurrection prove successful.

The creation of Daesh in Iraq has been linked to themove by Bremmer and Rumsfeld who agreed to disband400,000 Iraqis with military training, including thefull officer corps, after 2003. Many of theseunemployed soldiers went on to create an insurgency assome joined various resistance groups against theAmerican military. Some have gone on to join Daesh attop levels of leadership. Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is nowhelping coordinate Daesh attacks. The MEK seeks toprovide training and logistical support in return forprotection from Daesh.

Officials close to the security services in Iraqdivulged that they are in possession of tapedconversations, documents and films which show the MEKhave on occasion carried money for Daesh and theSaddamists, including Ezat Ibrahim. The same sourcessay they have documents from inside Camp Libertyconcerning what Massoud Rajavi announced to hiscommanders as Daesh approached Baghdad in July 2014. Hetold them then, ‘don’t worry, they will arm us whenthey reach the camp’.

During the duration of my stay in Baghdad, Daesh inFalujah were very close to the airport and it wasuncertain how that assault would unfold. It is clearnow that Daesh have been repulsed and forced toretreat. However, Rajavi was very hopeful. Camp Libertyis close to the airport and a Daesh victory there wouldhave meant the camp coming under their control. Asource inside Camp Liberty revealed that Massoud Rajavisent a message to loyal commanders at the camp sayingthat he has been reassured (he didn’t say by whom),

that ‘Daesh will not interfere with our camp when theyoverrun the area’. This was surprising because no onein Baghdad has any doubt that Rajavi’s endgame is tokill all the residents of Camp Liberty.

While these events unfolded, the MEK websites remaineduncharacteristically silent. The sites stopped givingnews and only talked about the nuclear issue betweenIran and the Americans. It was as though Rajavi waswaiting in anticipation of how events would unfold.Certainly he was hopeful of a Daesh victory since,according to his announcement above, this would meanthe MEK remaining in Iraq. It cannot be emphasisedenough that the MEK is not a militant force. It wouldbe incapable of joining in any military action.Instead, Rajavi wants to maintain a ‘bank account’ ofpeople to expend at his will and for some gain.

Information gleaned from various sources in the Iraqigovernment and agencies concerned with Camp Liberty andthe MEK can be interpreted in this way. The MEK’s linkswith the Saddamists are financial and political. TheMEK facilitate activities inside Iraq and trafficpeople and money between Daesh and the Saddamists. Inreturn they have benefitted from political lobbying toprevent or delay the expulsion of MEK members fromIraq. The MEK’s links with Daesh sprang from theirlinks with al-Qaida operatives. The MEK have providedtraining in terrorism, logistics including moneyhandling, and most significantly consultation in publicrelations, manipulation of public image and in therecruitment and brainwashing of recruits.

3. Methodology behind MEK terrorism

Since the mid-1980s, disaffected members of the MEK wholeft have spoken about their experiences and revealedthe secretive inner workings of the organisation. Humanrights agencies collected hundreds of personaltestimonies from former members at all levels whodescribed gross violations of human rights includingtorture and murder. Until the 2005 report ‘No Exit’ byHuman Rights Watch was published, these agencies alsofound hundreds of reasons not to expose or act tocurtail the blatant human rights abuses carried on bythe MEK against its own members. The silence was sodeafening it was interpreted as clear bias in obeisanceto a virulent Western anti-Iran agenda.

In Europe, as these testimonies accumulated and formermembers gained support and understanding from oneanother it became clear to them and anyone else who hadan interest in really understanding the inner workingsof the MEK, that the organisation was using culticabuse to recruit, maintain and control its members.Once it became possible to identify, name and analysethe underlying behavioural and ideological factorswhich govern the MEK, it became possible to effectively

challenge the organisation. As well as exposing thegroup’s deceptions to public scrutiny the formermembers sought to rescue the MEK still trapped in thegroup.

It became apparent that MEK who left and returned to asupportive family and/or community very quickly shedtheir cult personality and were able to re-integrateinto normal society. An important, though notexclusive, factor in this recovery was the non-judgemental understanding and support of the family andthe local community. This view was compounded when, in2003 after the MEK were disarmed by the American armyand corralled into Camp Ashraf, several of theirfamilies took the extraordinarily courageous – perhapswe can say desperate – step of travelling through a warzone to try to make contact with their loved ones.

When the MEK denied them this contact, they turned tothe various Associations and Societies formed by formerMEK in Europe for help and advice about how to proceedand how to talk to the MEK to get contact. When severalMEK were released from prison in Iran after servingsentences for terrorist acts, they also joined with thefamilies and former members to launch an internationalcampaign to rescue loved ones from Camp Ashraf. As wellas the European and Canadian groups, a non-governmentalbody called Anjoman Nejat (Rescue Society), wasestablished in Iran with over 700 families from allover the country.

With expertise gained through knowledge and activism,these groups have, over the past decade, beensuccessful in exposing the MEK in every possible wayand in every forum. There is nobody now who can claimthey have no knowledge of what the MEK is, and any

support it has – political or otherwise – is given withthis knowledge.

An examination of MEK behaviour over thirty years canbe instructive in understanding how the methodologyused to deceptively recruit and to brainwash the peoplein its ranks can be traced in newer terrorist groupslike al-Qaida and Daesh. There will be people whoreject the concept of brainwashing because they do notunderstand it and believe it to be a fiction. There aremany others who have invested in their owninterpretation of how and why young people are beingrecruited. Many of these believe they are radicalisedby extreme interpretations of religious texts aspreached by extremist clerics or that there is aromantic pull attraction for the Jihadi lifestyle asadvertised on internet sites and social media. Theseinterpretations however, lead us toward Islamophobiaand increasing curtailment of civil freedoms andrights. They do nothing to stem the threat of terroristrecruitment and the fear of a backlash.

For experts, a fundamental precept in identifyingcultic abuse is that people do not join such groups,they are recruited. That is, a relationship isdeliberately sought and established through a deceptivemessage and behaviour which is then exploited usingmanipulative methodology designed to deliberately andcynically alter the mindset of the victim. The aim isto, as quickly as possible, switch off a person’scritical thinking and leave them susceptible topsychological manipulation. If a victim does notrealise this is happening, the chances are this will besuccessful; though for many this process does not work.But groups like al-Qaida and Daesh are becoming evermore sophisticated in applying these techniques to thepoint that they are now able to initiate recruitment

via the internet. Families of young people recruited byterrorist groups talk about the inexplicable change intheir children’s behaviour and beliefs.

Once the recruit comes under the hegemony of theleaders they undergo further processes of manipulationand brainwashing. From there, individuals can beselected to perform different tasks. From hundreds ofrecruits only a handful will be able to be convertedinto the kind who will die or kill to order. The restfulfil support roles. The brainwashing process worksbest if a person is isolated from normal society, fromtheir previous life and family. The MEK used theircamps in Iraq and bases in Western countries. Butrather than attach the descriptor ‘organisation’ to theMEK it is useful to use the onion analogy todemonstrate how this works, how a person becomesincreasingly isolated and unreachable even whileoperating in what appears to be normal society.

At the very heart of the onion are the leader, thelieutenants and recruiters and the most brainwashedmembers, the actual terrorist forces; these are themost inaccessible group. Just outside this is a layerof financial, logistical and political support whichholds this inner part in place; ironically perhaps themost accessible group of people. The third layer willbe a criminal class who perform vital but illegalfunctions such as people trafficking, passport forgingand money laundry as well as sourcing and procuringsupplies. These are then protected by and hidden behindlayer after layer of support functions. These willtypically include the initiators of recruitment, thepeople who deceive public and political opinion, peoplewho divert attention through controversy ormanufactured campaigns. There will also be groups ofpeople who provide services for the inner layers, who

provide accommodation, food and clothing, even aidworkers who perform menial and other tasks which theymay not even associate with terrorism.

This structure explains how terrorist entities operatebeyond the strictures of a single organised body. Thelayers of this onion can exist anywhere in the realworld, but they all function to push recruits through aseries of brainwashing processes. The more processesthey are susceptible to and submit to, the closer theyget to the centre where their optimum function is found– to die or kill on command. (If anyone doubts thatthese are the real victims of deceptive recruitment,remember, they usually die.) A signifier whichdifferentiates this type of structure from othersimilar military entities is that in the case of culticgroupings the recruits do not join voluntarily withfull knowledge of what they are really getting involvedin, and they are recruited for life; as the 2005 HumanRights Watch report on the MEK stated, there is NoExit. (On September 17, CNN broadcast an item whichincluded a recorded telephone conversation betweenmember of Daesh and an American Muslim convert. TheDaesh recruiter was heard to invite the convert to‘come, hang [out] with us’. As the anchor pointed out,“there was no explicit invitation to come and bombsomething, or behead someone, no, just come hang withus.”)

Conclusion

It does not need stating that combatting the kind ofstructure described above requires a multi-facetedapproach as each layer of the ‘onion’ demands adifferent approach. Using this understanding andanalysis, the families and former members of the MEK

have been able, over many years, to reduce and disablethe MEK’s functions in all but the three innermostlayers. Certainly the political, financial and mediasupport enjoyed by the MEK comes from the West. MaryamRajavi’s base in Auvers-sur-Oise is still there notbecause its secretive and abusive inner workings areunknown, but precisely because it is required to bethere in order to fulfil the MEK’s lobbying functionfor these countries. That kind of support must beaddressed at governmental level. The third layer ofcriminal activity is the responsibility of lawenforcement agencies.

So, the last, central core of the MEK’s ‘onion’ is CampLiberty in Iraq. It is here that the leader MassoudRajavi has effectively imprisoned the majority of MEKmembers and it represents for him the existentialbastion of the MEK. Without Camp Liberty the MEK willbe severely reduced. And it is here that the struggleof the residents’ families to free their loved ones isbeing waged. This and the previous three reports makeclear that the only people serious about rescuing theCamp Liberty residents are their families, formermembers, the government of Iraq and the government ofIran. All the other players are complicit in a game tokeep the MEK locked up behind closed doors.

Massoud Rajavi will do anything in his power to hold onto the people in the camp. He is supported in this bythe will of Western anti-Iran, regime change pundits.Now that Senator McCain, as a go-between for the anti-Shia terrorist forces in Iraq and Syria, has come outin defence of the MEK, it is clear that the MEK stillplay an active role in the regime change plot for Iraq,Syria and Iran.

Rajavi wants to keep them there because he has nothingelse. His only claim is to have an anti-Iran force inIraq. He keeps them hidden because they are old andsick and are not useful for anything. But in terms ofnumbers, he claims to have nearly three thousandpeople. He wants them there because in that way he cancontinue to interfere in the internal affairs of Iraqon behalf of his paymasters. Rajavi’s paymasters wantCamp Liberty to remain because this is their onlyexcuse to continue their presence in Iraq so they caninterfere in the internal affairs of the country.

UNAMI’s role in supporting this situation islamentable. Although Jane Holl Lute is to becongratulated on finding places for 210 residents, andthe American’s have managed to find places for 80 (someof whom may be from Albania anyway), a pattern hasbecome clear over ten years. Removing a small number ofresidents acts to relieve pressure, not to solve thesituation. Just as the Temporary Internment andProtection Facility (TIPF), which was run by theAmerican army adjacent to Camp Ashraf, absorbed 800 ofthe more disaffected residents, this was done to removethem so they didn’t infect the others with theirdissent. Now the MEK proposes sending around 100 of thedisabled and sick and dying members to Albania. Theyserve no useful purpose for Rajavi or his masters andthey can be removed to be a burden on another country.This is not a start to resolving the situation, it isdone to placate public opinion and pretend something isbeing done.

As far as the government of Iraq is concerned there isno obstacle to allowing all the residents of CampLiberty to be accommodated in separate, morecomfortable buildings like Hotel Mohajer, and for theirasylum cases to be processed from there. Ostensibly the

UN also has no objections. The UN is trying to convinceother countries to take them and is trying to convincethe MEK to go. But because these efforts are beingstymied, Camp Liberty has become a de facto retirementhome cum hospice; but without comfort or medicalsupport or the loving attendance of family. Condemnedto suffer the daily strictures of cult culture andsevere suppressive measures, the residents of CampLiberty are deadened to their own fate. Hardly able tothink beyond the moment, liable to explosive anger ormorose depression, it is not a life worth living.

The people who have managed to escape Camp Liberty arenot dead. They come to Europe and talk and are activein exposing the MEK. They get on with normal life, theyreturn to their families, they get married, find work,and in this way break every taboo Rajavi created toscare them into submission. This is why the residentsare not allowed out of Camp Liberty, not because theWest cannot offer refugee places for them through theUNHCR.

It is time to open the gate and let these people leave.Serious people know this is the only way. The UN mustsurely acknowledge that ten years of negotiation withthe leaders who have imprisoned the residents haveachieved nothing. It is not possible to negotiate withpeople who refuse to accept any legal, moral or socialobligations or considerations. Indeed, by negotiatingonly with a handful of MEK leaders there is a tacitacknowledgement that they ‘own’ the people inside, thatthey are effectively the slaves of the leader and haveno voice or choice of their own. This cannot be thecase.

The most effective solution to this problem is tounlock the gates of the camp. Allow the families to

claim their loved ones. And enable each individual tomake their own informed choice in a free atmosphere.

***

First Report (February 2008) – (PDF version)

Second Report (September 2009) – (PDF version)

Third Report (April 2011) – (PDF version)

Fourth Report (October 2014) – (PDF version)

The Life of Camp Ashraf  Mojahedin-e Khalq, Victims of Many Masters, By Anne

Singleton and Massoud Khodabandeh