Who is the alternative to Iran’s regime?

Analysis by PMOI/MEK

June 22, 2018 - Following the ongoing Dec/Jan protests aimed at bringing freedom for Iran’s suffering people, there are two vital issues at hand:

1. Overthrowing the mullahs’ dictatorship
2. The alternative to this regime

The more we trek forward, the question of who is this regime’s alternative becomes all the more imperative. In such sensitive circumstances it is quite natural to see many parties claiming to be the alternative to Tehran’s mullahs.

It is also natural that all groups and individuals, associated or non-associated to a third party, those willing to sacrifice and opportunists seeking to jump at the opportunity, are surfacing and claiming to be patriotic in nature and opposing the ruling apparatus.

This resembles the end of winter and the arrival spring, bringing about the birth of plants. Alongside flowers, however, we also witness the growth of weeds. Next to flowers we see tall and powerful trees full of leaves and blossoms.

When the air speaks of a revolution and change, there are many parties seen rising from their sleep ready to hijack the ruling state, and willing to resort to any and all deceptive measure necessary.

They begin to claim of having a long struggle history against the ruling regime, forging records of years in jail and enduring torture. Worst of all, through demonizing propaganda, they begin to hinder the efforts of truly democratic entities seeking to bring about real change.

In such circumstances, the question is who is the true alternative to Iran’s regime?

The history of revolutions across the globe provide the following realities:

1) An alternative organ has members willing to sacrifice their all, and its enmity against the ruling regime is crystal clear for all parties.

This entity, involved in a continuous war against  the enemy, has seen many of its members lose their lives fighting for their people.

This entity also has seen many of its members imprisoned by different regimes ruling their country. These prisoners are resilient in the face of torture and harsh conditions, leading to their execution.

This entity has complete faith in its objective, being freedom for its people.

2) This alternative has roots in its nation and has risen for their cause.

3) This alternative has access and relies on popular sources for its intelligence. When the enemy launches massive clampdowns, this alternative’s roots amongst the people allows it to obtain intelligence from the ruling regime and expose their true nature to the outside world.

For example, the revelations made by the Iranian opposition People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) regarding the Iranian regime’s clandestine nuclear program.

4) A true alternative should not be associated to any foreign power. It must be independent to the very meaning of the world and especially rely financially on its people and supporters.

5) This alternative must have a strong, democratic organization.

6) This alternative must have a specific leadership established around the cause of opposing the ruling regime and through the years proving its honesty and competence. The leadership must be fully involved in the struggle against the ruling dictatorship, paying the very price of all the sufferings.

7) This alternative must represent people from all walks of life in society and focus its efforts to establish a democratic state.

8) This alternative must be recognized on a global scale and establish this recognition through years of struggle.

Looking at Iran, the only entity fitting such criteria is the Iranian opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a parliament-in-exile led by NCRI President Maryam Rajavi.

The Iranian Diaspora is planning to hold its annual convention on June 30^th in Paris to express their support for democratic change in Iran.

Visit this website for more information about the Iranian opposition convention.

A Viable Democratic Alternative to the Iranian Regime

By Ken Blackwell | June 22, 2018 | 4:14 PM EDT

One could easily argue that Iran’s ruling theocracy is facing the greatest internal threat to its rule since the 1980s. In the beginning of this year, the country was rocked by a mass uprising. The chain of protests was a major step forward for the domestic Resistance movement in the sense that it extracted political activism from farmers and the rural poor, despite the fact that these groups had long been thought to tolerate or even support the clerical regime.

The December-to-January uprising was comprised of protests in upwards of 140 cities and towns spanning the entire country. And this diversity has remained on display in the ensuing months, as activist networks and entire populations continue to organize more localized demonstrations, in keeping with the call-to-action issued in March by Maryam Rajavi, the president of theNational Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a coalition headed by the principle Iranian Resistance group, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

On the occasion of the Iranian New Year, Nowruz, Mrs. Rajavi stated “the coming year can and must be turned into a year full of uprisings,” which must continue “until final victory.” The NCRI has elaborately outlined what “final victory” might look like, and it entails the wholesale removal of the existing regime, and its replacement with a democratic system. Rajavi has articulated a ten-point plan describing the framework of this system, complete with free and fair elections, secular governance, safeguards on the rights of women and minorities, and a commitment to peaceful relations with Iran’s neighbors.

So as Iran’s domestic situation and Western policies toward the Islamic Republic both contend with periods of upheaval, it is important to address two essential questions. Firstly, can the “final victory” predicted by Mrs. Rajavi actually be achieved? And secondly, if the clerical regime can indeed be driven out of power, what comes next?

Iran – the Final Countdown

By Struan Stevenson

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report highlights the huge significance of the uprising in Iran, which began on 28 December 2017. It shows how millions of ordinary Iranians bravely risked their lives to join mass public protests against the repressive theocratic regime that has held power in Iran for the past 39 years. The widespread nature of these demonstrations is without precedent. People have taken to the streets in some 140 cities across Iran.

Demonstrators chanting: “Death to Khamenei”, “Death to Rouhani”, “Reformists, hardliners, it is game over now,” “Death to the Islamic Republic” and “Shame on you, mullahs,” have shown that this is an uprising against the regime itself. Their chants of: “No Gaza, No Lebanon, My Life for Iran ‘Death to Hezbollah” and “Leave Syria alone, think about us instead” have shown that they are sick of their wealth being looted to fund proxy wars and terrorists throughout the Middle East.

As always, much of the western media has either failed to report the uprising at all, or initially reported that the mass demonstrations were simply based on Iran’s dire economic situation. The western media for, the large part, has adhered to the Obama/EU appeasement policy that has insisted on viewing the theocratic regime in Iran as an ally, making it difficult for them to comprehend why the 80 million beleaguered citizens of that country could possibly rise up and demand regime change.

The Obama/EU axis and its supporters in the media have consistently denied Iran’s role as the world’s principal sponsor of terror and its steady and lethal march towards regional hegemony in the Middle East, a phenomenon now openly recognised by the new US administration. The western media who cheered Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal as a great breakthrough, ignored the fact that the terms of the deal will still enable the Islamic Republic to become a fully armed nuclear power in 12 to 15 years’ time, able to carry out its oftrepeated threat to wipe out Israel.

The Obama/EU axis even ignored the windfall release of $150 billion under the terms of the nuclear deal, that has enabled the theocratic regime to re-double its financing of Bashar al-Assad’s brutal civil war in Syria, the genocidal campaign to wipe out the Sunnis in Iraq, the murderous Houthi rebels in Yemen and terrorist Hezbollah in Lebanon. But worst of all, the Obama/EU axis and its supporters have deserted and betrayed the long-suffering Iranian people, who have been subjected to decades of medieval cruelty.

This report unravels the extent of the mass demonstrations and reveals the deadly crackdown imposed by the regime, the torture and death of prisoners arrested during the protests and the role of social media and cyber-warfare during the uprising. The report shows how admissions by leading members of the regime have exposed its fear and vulnerability to regime change and their acknowledgement of the role and growing support for the main democratic opposition movement - the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

The report concludes with the clear view that the clerical regime is now on its last legs and that its demise is inevitable, charting the next necessary steps to restore peace, democracy, human rights and women’s rights to Iran, while bringing the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and international terror to face justice in the international courts.

The US Must Act on Iran's Human Rights Abuses

London, 01 Mar - The United Nations Human Rights Council has invited the Iranian Justice Minister Alireza Avayi to speak at its latest session, which began this week, and that sets a very low bar for human rights.

Avayi has been sanctioned by the European Union for many reasons, but the worst is his long record of human rights violations, including his role in the mass execution of 30,000 political prisoners in 1988.

The massacre, described as one of the worst crimes against humanity since World War II, was ordered in a fatwa by then-Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini.

Political prisoners, mainly members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), were hauled before death commissions, interrogated about their political affiliations, and then sentenced to death after a so-called trial that lasted less than five minutes.

They killed children, the elderly, those who had already been sentenced, those who had already served their sentence, those who were pregnant, and those who were ill. The mullahs showed no leniency.

Avayi, then a prosecutor for the Revolutionary Court in the city of Dezful, personally ordered the deaths of numerous political prisoners, but he was still appointed as Justice Minister in 2017 under the so-called moderate President Hassan Rouhani.

Alireza replaced Mostafa Pourmohammadi, who served on one of the death commissions. The fact that the two most recent Justice Ministers played a role in this massacres, shows that the current Regime endorses the massacre.

So should a man like Avayi address a body that is tasked with protecting the world against human rights abuses?

No, of course not. But the problem is the international community must come together to speak out against this.

No international body has even made Iran accountable for this crime and hardly any countries have spoken out either, despite the fact that the MEK leaked reports of the massacre to the West in 1988.

The West was more concerned with trade and oil than stopping human rights abuses. If it had been the other war around, then the UN would be very unlikely to give Avayi a public platform.

In fact the US led the way in this appeasement policy and it is important that they lead the way in changing course. The US must hold Avayi and all others who took part in the massacre responsible for their crimes.

Reza Alizadeh, the political director of Iranian American Community of Florida (IAC-FL), wrote: “Congress is now in a position to nudge the international community in the right direction. It can do so by finally passing a resolution on Iran’s worst single violation of human rights, and by taking the lead in pushing for the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into that incident and its perpetrators.”

He continued: “At the very least, those who are identified as responsible must be sanctioned and shunned by the international community. Ultimately, they should face charges in the International Criminal Court, not just for the sake of their victims, but also to undermine Iran’s decades-long sense of impunity on this and other issues. This goal is intrinsic to the mission of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and its fulfilment would demonstrate the beneficial role of American leadership.”

European MP ties to Islamic Republic of Iran

European MP ties to Islamic Republic of Iran

By David N. Neumann

After lashing out against opponents of the Islamic Republic of Iran in several parliamentary debates, a member of the European Parliament has admitted to doing the bidding of Tehran. In a meeting in Brussels, Portuguese socialist MEP Ana Gomes acknowledged that she had been instructed in Tehran to bash the Iranian opposition.

“I met with relatives of the victims of a terrorist organisation called MEK,” she said on her visit to Tehran in a meeting of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee on 22 February 2018. After making a number of allegations about the Iranian opposition movement PMOI or MEK, she added: “We cannot continue to allow some members of this parliament, possibly out of naiveté, to continue to abet some of the members of this organization.”

Her claims are particularly surprising, given that competent European and American courts all rejected the terrorist designation of the Iranian opposition years ago. The label had originally been imposed at the behest of Tehran; the only state that currently calls MEK as terrorist is the Iranian government.

Top leaders of the Islamist regime have all blamed the recent nationwide uprisings in Iran on the MEK, while calling for the execution of those arrested as protest leaders.

Last week the Habilian Association, an affiliate of Iran’s notorious Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), published a report about the visit of European lawmakers. Habilian, which claims to be “an NGO run by families of Iranian terror victims,” pointed to the speech of its Secretary General, Mohammad Javad Hasheminejad, as the only non-parliamentarian speaker at a joint meeting between the visiting members of the European Parliament and Iranian MPs on 14 February 2018.

During the meeting with the European delegation, Hasheminejad criticized the visits to the European Parliament of Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi. Later he held a separate meeting with Ana Gomes in which he “praised her brave stance against the MEK,” adding that “she welcomed Habilian’s proposals for more collaboration in future.” The report added that the MEP said that she had been accused by Iranian exiles of being on Tehran’s payroll.

Ms Gomes has been proudly promoting photos of her Tehran visit on twitter and social media, raising questions about how she was allowed to spend so much time cozying up to the “terror victims,” while her colleagues in the same European delegation were denied contact with lawyers and relatives of political prisoners. In fact, the lawyer and mother of Swedish-Iranian doctor Ahmadreza Jalali, who is currently on death row on baseless accusations of espionage, had come for a pre-arranged meeting with the MEPs at their hotel in Tehran. “We were just beginning our conversation when two people from the regime’s security officials intervened and stopped the meeting,” MEP Lars Adaktusson told Swedish radio on his meeting with Jalali’s relatives, adding that the lawyer was forced to leave the hotel.

Ms Gomes accused other members of the European Parliament of “naiveté” for supporting the Iranian opposition, but the two incidents suggest quite the opposite. Why would Iran, one of the world’s worst human rights violators with the highest per capita number of executions in the world, praise the Portuguese MEP and give her such free access to certain individuals, while denying her colleagues access to others?

One of the “victims” whom Ms Gomes has been promoting in her photos is Ibrahim Khodabandeh, named by a 2012 US Library of Congress report as an Iranian intelligence (MOIS) agent. Khodabandeh’s sister-in-law, an English woman based in Leeds, also named as an MOIS operative in the same report, visited the European Parliament last December and spent half a day in Gomes’ office. A week after that visit, Gomes used a parliamentary debate in Strasbourg to demand the expulsion of Iranian opposition activists from the European parliament.

Several European intelligence agencies have reported on Iran’s focus on MEK. Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution or ‘BfV’ stated in its latest annual report, in July 2017: “The main focus of MOIS is in particular on the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) and its political umbrella, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).”

Ana Gomes’ close relations with the Islamic Republic is nothing new. But her obsessive use of every opportunity to slam the Iranian opposition and her wholehearted commitment to openly accommodating Tehran’s interests is rather puzzling.

‘Iran’s days are numbered’ US Congressman in urgent warning to Islamic regime

WARNING: Dana Rohrabacher said the Iranian regime's days are numbered

The Republican said the end of the Islamic Republic is in sight, saying the regime could be kicked out of power “in the blink of an eye”.

Protests in the country have continued this month after first erupting late last year due to anger at soaring unemployment and economic problems.

These spiralled into bigger demonstrations as citizens vented their anger at the regime ruled by religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

But despite Tehran clamping down on the protests, with hundreds of demonstrators rounded up and arrested, Mr Rohrabacher said they signal the end for the regime.

He was speaking yesterday at a conference in Paris organised by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI).

DO NOT LET THE CRIMINALS INTO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

By Mahdavi Nasim

For the victims of violence and crimes against humanity are, Tuesday 27 of the February is a bitter and painful day because the Human Rights Council, which is supposed to monitor the human rights situation in the world and defend the rights of the suppressed people, is going to  host One of the worst criminals in the world, the documents of the criminality's participation in genocide and aggression against humanity are publicly available.

It is very disappointing for victims of crimes around the world that the Human Rights Council will host a criminal

To understand more, a look at the background of Alireza Avaei reminds us that the world should not be a safe place for criminals and be welcomed as champions in International and Human Rights Committees.

The task of human rights organizations and crime victims is to push the United Nations and European countries to prevent the criminals to the Human Rights Council.

Alireza Avaee must be arrested for the crime of crimes against humanity, so that all criminals learn from this lesson.

Avaei was a perpetrator of the 1988 massacre of political prisoners and a member of the Death Commission in Khuzestan Province that sent many political prisoners to execution during the massacre. Between 1979 and 1988, he was the General and Revolutionary Prosecutor in Dezful and Ahvaz.

During the 1988 massacre, he was the Prosecutor-General of Dezful and on Khomeini’s order was appointed as a member of the Death Commission in Khuzestan Province, and he was responsible for the execution of many prisoners in Dezful’s UNESCO Prison. According to eye-witnesses, prisoners who were minors were hanged in groups of two or three in a secluded area behind the UNESCO Prison’s courtyard on the orders of Avaei.

Based on the definition of the Rome Statute, the 1988 massacre constitutes a crime against humanity. Following a fatwa by Khomeini, more than 30,000 political prisoners, mostly members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI / MEK), were arbitrarily executed in a matter of a few months.

In later years, Avaei was head of the mullahs' department of justice in the provinces of Lorestan, Markazi and Isfahan. He was President of the Judiciary in Tehran Province from 2005 to 2014. Afterwards he became Deputy Interior Minister, and in July 2016 Rouhani appointed him as Head of the Presidency’s Inspectorate Office.

 Avaei’s name was added to the European Union’s sanctions list in October 2011 for human rights abuses and direct participation in the torture and massacre of political prisoners.

While blacklisting Avaei in 2011, the EU stated: “As President of Tehran Judiciary he has been responsible for human rights violations, arbitrary arrests, and denials of prisoners’ rights and increase of executions.”

An addressBased on these sanctions, Alireza Avaei will be denied access to the countries of the union and his assets will be confiscated in the European Union.

Iran's cyber warfare against its people must not stand

New cyber revelations from the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK), the Iranian opposition movement, about the scope of mass surveillance by the Iranian regime are significant. Why? They show the desperation of the Iranian regime in confronting the uprising that began nationwide last December and has continued to this day.  

Anti-government protesters  chanted slogans indicative of a revolution: “Death to the dictator,” “Death to (Supreme Leader) Khamenei”, “Death to (Hassan) Rouhani,” “Don’t be afraid, we are all together,” “Forget about Syria, think about us,” “Not Gaza, nor Lebanon, my life for Iran,” and “Reformer, Hardline, the Game Is Now Over.”

WHY MARYAM RAJAVI BELIEVES IRANIAN WOMEN SHOULD BE FREE TO DRESS FREELY

by Mahmood Hakamian 

Last week, we featured a piece on gender equality and how it is imperative to the Iranian Resistance movement. In that piece, we outlined ten areas that Maryam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) would tackle in order to make gender equality a reality in a Free Iran.

One of those areas was freedom of dress and today we will examine why Maryam Rajavi believes that choice in clothing is such an important area to achieve gender equality in.
What are the laws regarding women’s clothing in Iran?

Under the mullahs’ Sharia law, women are supposed to remain veiled in public. The law is incredibly unpopular in Iran and many women defy it at any given opportunity.

When was this law introduced?

The mandatory Hijab was introduced in the early days of the Iranian Regime and many Iranian women, especially those involved in the NCRI member group the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), protested against it and held demonstrations to oppose the law.

How does Maryam Rajavi feel about forced veiling?

As we said in our earlier piece, Maryam Rajavi believes that women should be free to choose their own clothing and that the government should not interfere. She believes that the forced veiling law, along with every other sexist law that deprives women of their individual rights, turns the country into a prison for women.

Maryam Rajavi said: “Iranian women must be free. They must be free to choose what they believe in, what they want to wear and how they want to live. And [the Iranian Resistance repeats]: no to compulsory veil; no to compulsory religion; and no to compulsory government.”

What happens to the women who defy the mandatory hijab law?

If the women are caught by the so-called morality police, over 20 police entities who are in charge of enforcing the religious laws of Iran and suppressing people caught drinking alcohol or attending mixed-gender parties, then they can face arrests, fines, torture, floggings, beatings, rape, or any other inhumane punishment that the Regime authorities can think up.

Why does the Regime react so harshly?

The Regime is increasingly unstable and has to come down hard on any form of dissent in order to keep their tenuous grip on power.

Maryam Rajavi said: “Clamping down on women on the pretext of mal-veiling is one of the most effective means to repress society and silence any voice of dissent. The mullahs have no scruples in enchaining women on so-called religious grounds.”

She continued: “Misogyny is at the core of suppression against society as a whole, since preserving the ruling theocracy is predicated on it. Such misogyny does not arise from blind, religious zealotry or trying to safeguard societal chastity, or even preserving the foundation of the family. Misogyny under the cloak of religion has become systematic and persistent because it is a lever to maintain the monopolistic domination of the velayat-e faqih. Misogyny is the raison d'être for dozens of the regime’s suppressive agencies.”

What would Maryam Rajavi do about forced veiling?

Maryam Rajavi would repeal the forced veiling law and any employment legislation that allow workplaces to fire or discriminate against women who do not wear the hijab.

Maryam Rajavi said: “Written or unwritten laws on controlling the clothing or behaviour of women under the rubric of “mal-veiling,” which have violated Iranian women’s right to freedom and security, shall have no place in tomorrow’s Iran.”

The MEK's Religious Beliefs

The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) is a political group dedicated to bringing freedom and democracy to Iran.

They derive their political beliefs from a modern and tolerant version of Islam that is fully compatible with modern society – the exact opposite of the ruling mullahs’ Sharia Law, which is intolerant, extremist, genocidal, non-democratic, and misogynist – and the MEK believe that their interpretation is the true meaning of Islam.

In 1982, MEK leader Massoud Rajavi, said: “The Islam we want is nationalistic, democratic, progressive, and not opposed to science or civilization. We believe there is no contradiction between modern science and true Islam, and we believe that in Islam there must be no compulsion or dictatorship.”

This combination of tolerant religion and politics means that the MEK enjoys broad public support amongst the Iranian people and people all over the world, but it is also why the mullahs fear the MEK.

Today, we will look at some of those beliefs in more detail and explore why the MEK believe that Islam that the Quran, the Prophet Mohammad, and other religious leaders espouse the ideological principles of freedom, gender, ethnic and religious equality, human rights, and peace.

A Dynamic Islam

While the mullahs see Islam as mechanical and deterministic, the MEK believes that the real interpretation of Islam is dynamic and never impedes social progress. The MEK believes that Islam promotes science, technology and civilization, which improves the lives of ordinary people.

The MEK explain this through the story of Prophet Mohammad’s 23-year mission during which time some Quranic verses were declared ‘resembling’ to reflect changes and advancements in society.

The MEK does not see the Quran as prescriptive, explaining that less than 10% of verses in the Quran are edicts, so it should not be seen as a legal text that does not allow for humans to make their own laws that are suitable for the period in time that they are living.

Fundamentalists see the edicts as unchangeable dogma that must be obeyed at all costs – unless, of course, it is the fundamentalist that breaks them – but the MEK believe that the Quran emphasizes that these edicts are subject to change over time.

In fact, the MEK see fundamentalists as frankly un-Islamic.

A Democratic Islam

The MEK believe that democracy is a key feature of Islam, highlighting the Quran and the Prophet Mohammad as saying that freewill and individual responsibility is what separates the humans from the animals and God’s will is realised through democratic governance.

In 1980, Massoud Rajavi said: “Freedom is a divine blessing…Anyone trying to restrict human freedom has neither understood Islam nor mankind and the [anti-monarchist] revolution. Freedom is indispensable to the survival of mankind as human beings. Otherwise, human beings would be no different from animals and could not be held responsible for anything.”

That is why the MEK see the ballot box as the sole condition for political legitimacy, as a free and fair election offers the people free will.

The MEK believe that fundamentalist mullahs who reject free will, individual choice, and democracy are spreading an interpretation that is incompatible with Islam and therefore meaningless. The process of installing an unelected head of state and rigging elections to ensure that your party wins is also undemocratic and therefore un-Islamic.

IRAN RESISTANCE GROUP MEK CALLS ON INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT PROTESTERS

By INU Staff

INU - The Iranian Regime is involved in “warmongering and belligerence” in order to fuel crises in the Middle East, according to Iran’s organised democratic forces, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

The Iranian Regime’s regional aggression has also been criticised by the Iranian people during their ongoing nationwide anti-regime protests, and the MEK are advising that the international community back the protesters’ calls for regime change in order to avoid Iran starting another war in the Middle East.

MEK representative Shahin Gobadi said: “The regime’s warmongering and belligerence is a major source of concern and tension in the region that can lead to a major war. But it can be averted. Years of policy of appeasement by Western governments emboldened the Iranian regime. The overthrow of the Iranian regime and establishment of peace and democracy in Iran would have a lasting impact in establishment of peace and tranquillity in the region.”

The area is on the edge of all-out war, as tension rise between Iran and its neighbours over Iran’s support for terrorism and proxy militias.

Indeed, Iran has tens of thousands of fighters in Syria, where they have spent $100 billion propping up the Assad Regime since 2011, is in direct conflict with Saudi Arabia over Iran-backed terrorist groups in Lebanon and Yemen, and is at odds with Israel after the downing of an Israeli fighter jet.

Gobadi said: “Export of terrorism and Islamic extremism, including warmongering and meddling in the region, has been a strategic pillar of survival of the regime and a cover for its domestic repression. Syria has been the lynchpin of this policy.”

Protests

The popular people’s protest has featured slogans such as “no to Syria” and “think about us” as the Iranian people call on the mullahs to end their foreign wars and return the money to the public purse.

The protests, which began over a draft budget that slashed subsidies for the poor in favour of additional military spending, have spread to 142 cities and morphed into a protest against everything wrong with the Regime.

The protesters, recognising that the Iranian Regime isn’t listening to their cries, have gone so far as to call for the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, an offence punishable by death in Iran.

So far, at least 50 protesters have been killed in the streets, 8,000 arrested, and 12 have died under torture.

The Iranian Regime, desperate to portray itself as stable and popular, has organised pro-regime demonstrations to retaliate against the people’s protest and in honour of the 39th anniversary of the Iranian Regime, in which paid actors will burn the US flag.

This is nothing new. Iran has been doing this for years in order to make it seem as if the Iranian people are in favour of the Regime and deter the international community from acting. Still, revolution is in the air.

Gobadi made this call for the West to support to the protesters ahead of a meeting in Paris on Friday, in which representatives from 11 European countries will back the protesters.
Gobadi said: “The wall of fear has been cracked, and nothing including arrests, killings and torture can prevent the advancement of the protests to overthrow the regime. The regime’s own officials repeatedly talk about super challenges facing their regime and precarious prospects that loom on the horizon. After 39 years of rule, the clerical regime has never closer than being overthrown by the people than today.”

IRAN REGIME’S MILITARY OFFICIAL ADMITS TO LEADING ROLE OF THE MEK / PMOI IN RECENT UPRISINGS

by Mahmood Hakamian

“The protests that erupted recently across Iran involved setting fire to the State Security Force’s motorcycles, breaking the windows of religious seminaries in Abhar and Zanjan, setting fire to police kiosks in Arak, opening fire on the IRGC with hunting rifles, assaulting a State Security Force officer with a brick….” according to Brig. Gen. Rasoul Sanai, Political Affairs Deputy for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Sanai spoke about the behind the scenes developments of the recent unrest, “Their plan was to spread the riots from the surrounding areas to the capital (Tehran) because they believe owing to previous incidents in Tehran and major cities, Iran’s security and defense forces had been trained and gained the expertise to confront riotous actions. But in other cities the potential for inciting the public is much greater and the security forces have a lesser presence.”

He blamed the Iranian Resistance for the escalation of the protests, saying, “As such, the most serious clashes took place in Touyserkan (Hamedan Province) and several people were killed, including two people who attacked the prison and have yet to be identified. The leaders and those inciting the protests in this city were from the ‘Hypocrites’ (MEK or PMOI). They had come from other cities so as not to be identified. Those who were detained were pursued from the time of MEK incursion into western Iran in 1988….”

The Political Affairs Deputy continued, “Eighty percent of those arrested were under 30 years of age. There were several women among them, who are middle aged. In the 1980s, those who were leading MEK protests were mostly women. And now, the main chain of provocation and starting the protests were women. For example, four of these women caused the protests in the city of Ilam (western Iran). After they were detained, we realized they were not from Ilam….”

Sanai also claimed, “Similarly, those arrested in Kermanshah had come from the city of Karaj (near Tehran). Those who were from Bandar Abbas were arrested in Shiraz. These were the MEK who would go to the cities in an organized fashion and were guiding the slogans. The most radical and sacrilegious slogans, such as ‘they have used Islam as a ladder to harass the people, neither Islam, neither the Quran, let’s sacrifice both for Iran…” and added, “This shows how much they hate Islam and political religion. Directing attacks on military centers, like assaults on the State Security Force and Bassij bases were part of the planning by the MEK. They even attacked the prisons, which means they have their hands in prisons as well.”

Maryam Rajavi and the Plan for Women’s Rights in Iran

There are ten areas that Maryam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) see as in need of improvement in terms of gender equality in Iran.

Let’s explore those ten areas and how Maryam Rajavi would tackle them in more detail.

1. Fundamental freedoms and rights

Maryam Rajavi believes that women should have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as men and vows to ban any type of discrimination against women, in order to ensure that women are equal to men in all economic, social and political spheres.

2. Legal Equality

Maryam Rajavi believes that women and men should have equal protection under the law. Thus, she would:

• raise of the criminal age of responsibility for girls in Iran to 18

• make courts recognise that testimonies and affidavits from women hold equal weight to those from men

• guarantee women’s access to the police and the courts in cases of violence, rape and sexual assault, discrimination, and deprivation of liberty

3. Clothing

Maryam Rajavi believes that women should choose their own clothing without governmental interference, so she would repeal the law on mandatory hijab/veiling and repeal laws that allow employers to dictate the wearing of the hijab.

4. Equal political participation

Maryam Rajavi thinks that women should be allowed to equally participate in political leadership, including:

• formulation and implementation of government policy

• the holding of public office

• the ability to perform all public functions at all levels of government

Therefore, Maryam Rajavi would remove any law banning or limit women’s occupation of senior posts in the government and the judiciary. She would also implement a system when at least half of senior government positions must be given to women and at least half of the candidates for election from any political party must be women. This system is already in place at the NCRI and has worked well to promote equality.

5. Economic Equality

Maryam Rajavi believes that women and men should have equal economic rights, including equal opportunities in the job market, equal pay and equal employment rights. Maryam Rajavi also believes that women should have equal access to men in terms of inheritance, entering contracts, and property management.

6. Equality in the family sphere

Maryam Rajavi thinks that women should have equal rights in family life, which means the freedom to marry or divorce as they see fit (without coercion) and that both parents are responsible for child-rearing, which means that they have equal rights over the children.

Maryam Rajavi would ban underage marriage, polygamy, and any governmental interference into the private lives of women.

7. Criminalising violence

Along with banning the death penalty and torture, Maryam Rajavi would also criminalise rape, various other forms of violence against women, acts of intimidation, and the forcible deprivation of women’s freedoms.

8. Banning sexual exploitation

Maryam Rajavi wants women to be protected from sexual exploitation, so she would ban the sex trade, the trafficking of women, and forcing women into prostitution.

9. Repealing Sharia law

The repeal of the mullahs’ Sharia laws by Maryam Rajavi would remove many sexist laws that the Regime wanted in place, including stoning as a punishment and the acceptance of crimes against women.

10. Social benefits

Maryam Rajavi believes that women must have equal access with men to social benefits relating to retirement, unemployment, old age and other forms of disability, and that women from marginalised groups should receive special financial, educational and medical support from the government.

Maryam Rajavi also believes that pregnant women and new mothers should have rights to maternity leave, medical care, and government-funded daycare when they return to work.

The MEK's Religious Beliefs

The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) is a political group dedicated to bringing freedom and democracy to Iran.

They derive their political beliefs from a modern and tolerant version of Islam that is fully compatible with modern society – the exact opposite of the ruling mullahs’ Sharia Law, which is intolerant, extremist, genocidal, non-democratic, and misogynist – and the MEK believe that their interpretation is the true meaning of Islam.

In 1982, MEK leader Massoud Rajavi, said: “The Islam we want is nationalistic, democratic, progressive, and not opposed to science or civilization. We believe there is no contradiction between modern science and true Islam, and we believe that in Islam there must be no compulsion or dictatorship.”

This combination of tolerant religion and politics means that the MEK enjoys broad public support amongst the Iranian people and people all over the world, but it is also why the mullahs fear the MEK.

Today, we will look at some of those beliefs in more detail and explore why the MEK believe that Islam that the Quran, the Prophet Mohammad, and other religious leaders espouse the ideological principles of freedom, gender, ethnic and religious equality, human rights, and peace.

A Dynamic Islam

While the mullahs see Islam as mechanical and deterministic, the MEK believes that the real interpretation of Islam is dynamic and never impedes social progress. The MEK believes that Islam promotes science, technology and civilization, which improves the lives of ordinary people.

The MEK explain this through the story of Prophet Mohammad’s 23-year mission during which time some Quranic verses were declared ‘resembling’ to reflect changes and advancements in society.

The MEK does not see the Quran as prescriptive, explaining that less than 10% of verses in the Quran are edicts, so it should not be seen as a legal text that does not allow for humans to make their own laws that are suitable for the period in time that they are living.

Fundamentalists see the edicts as unchangeable dogma that must be obeyed at all costs – unless, of course, it is the fundamentalist that breaks them – but the MEK believe that the Quran emphasizes that these edicts are subject to change over time.

In fact, the MEK see fundamentalists as frankly un-Islamic.

A Democratic Islam

The MEK believe that democracy is a key feature of Islam, highlighting the Quran and the Prophet Mohammad as saying that freewill and individual responsibility is what separates the humans from the animals and God’s will is realised through democratic governance.

In 1980, Massoud Rajavi said: “Freedom is a divine blessing…Anyone trying to restrict human freedom has neither understood Islam nor mankind and the [anti-monarchist] revolution. Freedom is indispensable to the survival of mankind as human beings. Otherwise, human beings would be no different from animals and could not be held responsible for anything.”

That is why the MEK see the ballot box as the sole condition for political legitimacy, as a free and fair election offers the people free will.

The MEK believe that fundamentalist mullahs who reject free will, individual choice, and democracy are spreading an interpretation that is incompatible with Islam and therefore meaningless. The process of installing an unelected head of state and rigging elections to ensure that your party wins is also undemocratic and therefore un-Islamic.

UN should help end impunity in Iran and throughout the world

In 1996, on behalf of the Spanish President Allende Foundation, I filed a criminal complaint in Spain, under the principles of universal jurisdiction, against Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet and other leaders of his military junta. The charges detailed genocide, systematic torture, politically motivated killings and terrorism. The defendants were then enjoying absolute impunity in Chile.

I led a multinational team of lawyers in prosecuting those officers in absentia for more than 4,500 cases of murder and forced disappearance, and for the torture of more than 30,000 survivors of Pinochet’s years as dictator of Chile (1973-1990). I was in Santiago’s presidential palace, Palacio de la Moneda, when the coup took place in 1973 and saw Pinochet’s crimes first-hand. The executions and torture perpetrated in Chile remain fresh in everyone’s memories.

But the number of killings pales in comparison to the case that could be brought against leaders of another inhumane system whose crimes recently have garnered my attention. In just a few months during 1988, the Islamic Republic of Iran executed an estimated 30,000 political prisoners and advocates for democratic governance, mostly members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

On the request of the foundation and a Spanish court of justice, Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998 to be extradited and put on trial. Later, he was arrested and indicted in Chile. The United States (under the Clinton administration) did not object. Since then, impunity has ended and hundreds of officers of the Chilean state have been judged and condemned for their crimes against humanity. Many of the leading perpetrators of similar crimes in Iran remain alive; some even hold prominent positions in politics. This means that they still could be arraigned in an international criminal court, if the United Nations takes the necessary measures under the charter.

In the interest of encouraging that outcome, I participated in a civil society hearing on Feb. 1 in Geneva, at which a mock indictment related to the 1988 Iranian massacre was presented and discussed. The proceedings included eyewitness testimony from former Iranian political prisoners and their families, as well as expert opinion from fellow human rights experts including former United Nations judges.

It is my hope, of course, that the Feb. 1 hearing will prove to be a precursor to more formal proceedings by the United Nations. If these proceedings take place, it will be a step toward long overdue legal accountability for some of the world’s worst and most organized violators of human rights, and an encouragement to reduce impunity for crimes of this nature in other countries. Formal trials will likely help to bring some closure to those families that still have not identified the final resting places of their loved ones 30 years later.

Additionally, it is my hope that newfound attention for the 1988 massacre and the subsequent crimes of Iran’s political/religious system will help to reiterate the message that was previously sent by my colleagues and me through our prosecution of the Pinochet crimes. The essence of that message is that, while some officers may enjoy impunity as they commit human rights violations and misuse the instruments of the state, this impunity need not continue forever, much less be accepted by human rights advocates and foreign observers who have the legal mandate to investigate such crimes.

There is a widespread feeling that many world leaders have failed to recognize the role that they can and must play in bringing an end to the impunity of human rights abusers across the globe. Instead, they have tended to look away from dangerous and criminal situations because local populations had no effective means for redress.

Tragically, this impulse has led to situations in which rampant human rights abuses have recurred or worsened over time. But in some cases, the threat of this outcome is lingering, and it might still be prevented. About one week before the hearing in Geneva, the Iranian Resistance leader Maryam Rajavi visited the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as part of the National Council of Resistance of Iran’s efforts to encourage international action to help those arrested during recent protests in Iran.

Beginning on Dec. 28, 2017, two weeks of nationwide protests in Iran gave rise to calls for a change of government. Those demonstrations predictably were met with a violent backlash from the Iranian powers-that-be, the full picture of which is still emerging. Thousands of Iranians have been arrested, more than 50 killed, and reports continue to trickle out of the country regarding young protesters dying as a result of torture in Iranian prisons.

“Mass arrests, opening fire on unarmed protesters, and torturing prisoners to death are clear examples of crime against humanity,” Mrs. Rajavi said. “Unfortunately, Europe has chosen silence and inaction about all of these crimes, something that contradicts many of Europe’s fundamental and joint commitments including the European Convention on Human Rights.”

As we have sadly learned, human rights abusers sometimes escape justice. Democratic nations have an obligation to intercede and protect whenever possible to either halt these abuses around the world, or raise the profile of their perpetrators and increase the chances that they face domestic or international justice at a later date.

With many experts speculating that the unrest in Iran is far from over, the day may not be far off when the Iranian people can seek justice for the crimes committed against them. By helping those people to retain access to the internet and social media, and by weakening the system’s repressive institutions through diplomatic démarches and other appropriate measures, the international community can help to protect the victims and to provide for the reparation of damages resulting from the acts of the state responsible.

Juan E. Garcés was the chief lawyer in the Spanish legal case against Gen. Augusto Pinochet.