view
These are the questions answering to which can somehow clarify ambiguities which exist in the relations of today's world!
To what prices have the lawyers made themselves involved in MKO's case? Will they be able to present a reality negatively with their skills?! These are the questions answering to which can somehow clarify ambiguities which exist in the relations of today's world! When some people accept advocacy of Saddam, why some shouldn't accept the advocacy of his partners? The case of MKO's presence in Iraq and its advocacy has many notable dimensions. Advocates should prove MKO's decision to stay in Iraq at any cost! But, in which court is this view and idea supposed to be posed? Who's its judge? What are MKO's accusations in this court? Is the list of MKO's accusations, regarding their relations with Iranians and Iraqis, limited to the issue of their asylum? Those who accept advocacy of Mojahedin will have to defend them in full scale. They can't work on only a part of MKO's case (for instance, seeking asylum in Iraq), but they must start the story from earlier! A brief non-professional look at the record of MKO's presence in Iraq shows that this presence has had no aspect of asylum-seeking. Although Saddam's financial aids to Mojahedin were partly based on the numbers and statistics presented by the Organization, the correct way for seeking asylum under the supervision of UNHCR has never been followed by MKO members. The point which should be noted is that Saddam has not signed any of UN's refugee protocols and has never been faithful to them; and Iraq has never been willing to accept refugees. In addition, Iraq itself has the highest rates of immigrations. While there are as much documents as of 20 years indicating that MKO has used Iraq soil for terrorist operations against Iran, how do the lawyers want to prove that Mojahedin were refugees? Lawyers will have to deal with the reason and philosophy of MKO's presence in Iraq. Can they ignore that fact that Mojahedin directed hundreds of terrorist operations against Iran, from within Iran and from Iraq? Or say they are not aware of that? Can they deny MKO's tight ties with ousted dictator of Iraq during eight years of war on Iranian people? Do they want, in a court whose judge is the US, to show the facts and reasons why MKO is present in Iraq in reverse? Looking at the US statements about this group is enough! "… in June 1986, France forced Rajavi to leave its soil… Iraq offered him supported and he accepted. They became Iraqi regime's agents in the long run…. According to the press reports, more than 1000 MKO members joined him in Baghdad. He was welcomed by Iraqis in a ceremony, which is usually held for a leader of a government, in order to make a mock of Iranian government… small support of this group inside the country is due to its close cooperation with Saddam Hussein. Visitors of MKO bases in Iraq have stated that the weapons in their depot were given by Saddam…" This is a part of a known US statement on MKO. Do these lawyers have an impartial, full history (not by oral reproductions of the current members, but by written documents by this group itself) of this organization? Have these lawyers seen these people at all? Or have they had interviews with them? MKO's case is clearer than what some people try to show. There's no obscure matter in it. European statesmen, and experts in Iran and region affairs are well aware of the nature of this group and that's why they don't ignore its being terrorist. The most important and interesting point is that these lawyers are far from the realities about this group and an expertise look at Iraq-Iraq issues!! Despite this fact, the last thing for these lawyers is that the US may answer negatively to the request of Iraqi people, who want this group out of their country. The issue of occupation itself is a matter of dispute from legal point of view. Is it possible to find a way for MKO by relying on such matter? Undoubtedly, for the lawyers who have accepted this case with the hope of money and fame it can bring temporary success, only if occupiers listen to their defenses from Darkness. The next question is that, will they be able to convince Iraqi people to accept these sinister gate-crashers? Now, the lawyers have to review all things related to this group with open eyes and they should note that supporting a terrorist group can make them notorious. This is also important to know what information they have about the ones they're going to defend. Are they going to enter a historical trial whose complainants are Iranians and Iraqis only by relying on MKO's claims and slogans?!

New Articles

Iranian film sheds new light on security services

 The Iranian film "Midday Adventures," directed by Mohammad Hossein Mahdavian, begins in Tehran on June 19, 1981, 26 months after the Islamic Revolution and nine months after the outbreak of...

Iran Parliament firmly approves anti-US bill

Iranian lawmakers on Sunday overwhelmingly voted to approve a bill aimed at countering Washington's adventurous and terrorist activities in the region.

President Meta receives US Senate fact-finding delegation

President of the Republic Ilir Meta on Saturday received and held talks with a visiting US Senate delegation led by Senator Roy Blunt on a fact-finding trip to several Western...

We Hate Mojahedin-e Khalq: SNS Respond to a Conference of the Iranian Opposition

Dr. Raz Zimmt investigates Iranian social media responses to the annual conference of Mojahedin-e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group whose support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War remains a searing...

The Trump administration wants regime change in Iran. But regime change usually doesn’t work

President Trump is no fan of Iran. As a candidate, he had promised to tear up the Iran Nuclear Agreement. Having been frustrated in his attempts to do that —...

Most viewed

Jihad 2.0: the Making of the Next Nightmare

 “Albania is being turned into the center of MKO. John Bolton was recently in Tirana, with other international supporters of MKO, and they are attacking Iran and calling for regime...

Iran terror attack: Who gains?

No terror group could have executed on operation of this sort without the help of one or more state intelligence agencies.

ISIS Attacks in Tehran Expose US-Saudi Lies About Iran

Saudi Arabia’s finger prints are on every trouble sport in the Middle East. Not only did Saudi Arabia support NATO attacks on Libya, it also provided "Arab legitimacy" for it...

The Sordid History Of State Sponsored Terrorism Against Iran

For decades, Western empires have waged a silent war against Iran, using tactics ranging from supporting known terrorist groups to deposing the country’s leaders and leveraging regional rivalries. The war...

Iran and the Holy Warrior Trap

Is the West about to make the same mistake with Iran that it made with Afghanistan when it backed the Sunni mujahedin against the Soviet invaders? The Soviets ultimately were...