Mojahedin started the psychological war as a factor for internal war with the theory of Rajavi that:
First Part up to the events of June 1981
Mojahedin started the psychological war as a factor for internal war with the theory of Rajavi that:
"We should take revolutionary advantage with awareness of reactionary aspects and also weakness of liberal base, whether from anti-imperialism bourgeois or Para-democratic attitudes of liberals".
When Bani Sadr came to scene, Mojahedin considered the project of Psychological war with the purpose of dividing the government and attracting the liberals, as their primary goal. In this regard Rajavi reminded fadayeen of the Lenin's words:
"Victory on stronger enemy is only possible when the maximum force is used. And each division, even if small should be used in order to get an ally, even temporary, doubtful, unstable, not trustable, and on condition, with caution and skilled care..."
Victory on which enemy and for what purpose justified attraction of a doubtful force like Bani Sadr?
Iraq war against Iran gave Mojahedin a suitable field to direct their goals skillfully.
Mojahedin tried, from September of 1980 to the 20th of 1981, in order to provide preliminaries of internal armed struggle, with the purpose of toppling Iranian regime, in the form of rebellion, violence, clashing in the streets and with attrition war by Bani Sadr in the government so that they may become victorious with the least costs.
More important, it was group's open political and propagandistic line which was based on psychological war and was considered as a complementary of two mentioned parameters.
Mojahedin, without discussing the war itself, exaggerated the fate of the war and its affairs, in their articles, statements and journals, in order to weaken the morale of people and to question the issue of defense against the enemy.
They also tried to suggest that the war is not revolutionary. By this, they wanted to weaken the Governing Body of Iran. This also guaranteed the desires and ambitions of Iraqis.
Mojahedin posed shortages and disorders, talked about the war vagrants and the critical situations in order to weaken Iranian government.
MKO's psychological war came to help them in two different cases:
Showing a black picture of disorders to make people and vagrants protest
Directing objections and protests against government
But the main purpose of the "psychological war" was to weaken the essence of war and to reveal the issues of the war which were suspiciously benefiting Iraq and were also a program to defeat the forces of Iran.
In this regard, we bring the headline of some of MKO's analysis which were repeatedly posed by them (before and after the 20th of June:
- Two Millions of war vagrants
- A look at the casualties, wastes and war disasters
- Plundering oil for buying weapons
- Request and creating UN's investigating council in order to considering casualties and crimes on civilians in the war
- Non-distribution of fuel materials in winter
- Full censorship of news related to the failure of regime's forces in the fronts
- The crisis of water, electricity and bread
- Devastating role of war in destruction of humane, scientific and cultural credits
- Strikes by workers
- Coining money without backing
- Regime's economical bankruptcy due to delirious costs of the war
- Increase in the costs of consumed water
- Regretful situation of doctors and hospitals
- Delirious increase in imports
- Distress in Basij forces for war
- The Law of military service or obligatory dispatch to the war fronts
- Increase in the period of military service
- Prohibition of resignation by revolutionary forces
- Using Iraqi defectors to compensate the shortage of forces in war fronts
You will find documents and explanations below.
In November 29th of 1980, two months after the formal beginning of the war, Organization (MKO) published an article in Mojahed Journal (No. 100) under the title of "the crisis of public trust" in which it tried to say that people lost their trust to the government due to the economical shortages:
"this stream is so wide that could be called "Public Crisis". The crisis of lack of trust in people toward the officials and toward what they say and do.
If popular governments, that have no secrets with people, engage in war, which is of course fair and for the people, the people will also make themselves ready for the consequences.
So, these governments have no fear from telling about the casualties and wastes of war to their people and ask for their help.
(As you see, with a compassionate tone, they are accusing the officials of hiding affairs from people. Now, the question is that who was taking the most advantage of the openness of the situation of war? Iraq, to whom even the whether in Iran was very important, became very happy to hear that a force like MKO is pressing the government of Iran from inside to open the situation of war to all people)
But the authorities of our country hide the events and realities of war from people and also run away from the realities such as the existence of shortages in the country. The minister of education announces that there's no concern about the fuel needed for winter in the schools because each school has prepared its own fuel in the summer."
In the article of "the crisis of public trust", the minister of education is addressed as follows:
"There's nothing to worry about since the people won't believe. They know that there are no plans for the shortages of fuel when there's no plan for more important matters."
Here, we see that discussion is not over the war vagrants, but they want to suggest the crisis of lack of trust and they want to make officials admit to the casualties, the shortages and ….
In each war, this is the first duty of the fifth column to show a horrible and weak picture of its own country.
Mojahed Journal, No. 109, 12 Feb. 1981, wrote:
"There are a lot of problems and disorders in the field of society and economy so that they are touchable for every one. In addition to the issue of war-stricken and war vagrants, who are in a horrible condition, the shortages in economy, decrease in the internal industry and increase in the need to the more imports, decrease in the agricultural productions, more and more unemployment, inflation, expensiveness are from the undeniable realities."
Mojahed Journal, No. 100, 29 Nov. 1980:
The war of Iran and Iraq, like other affairs in Iran during past 22 months1, whether internal or external, has been another example for the reactionary government. Iraq's attacking to Iran was followed by many economical, political, social and military consequences. Around 1 million innocent people of our country became homeless due to the first effects of the war…
It was a revolutionary right for these people to be organized, be given shelter and home, be helped and …(but now it's not clear what's going to happen to them.)
Mojahed Journal, No. 104, 6 Jan. 1981
In a part of a so-called military analysis about war:
"These cases should be studied politically and answered before any other things:
- Was it possible to avoid from war? Wasn't it possible to stop the enmity from becoming wider by taking suitable political steps?...
Mojahed Journal, No. 109, 12 Feb. 1981
"Some parts of our nation are still under the occupation of aggressors and the war has turned to be an attrition one and from military point of view it doesn't seem to be ending."
Five months after the beginning of the war, Mojahedin came to this conclusion that war is attrition and there's no military solution for it. Meanwhile, their main problem with the government was that "we should make ourselves ready for military combat with the U.S.??!
"Military Analysis about war- Weakening Forces"
Mojahed Journal, No. 105, Jan. 1981
Generally, there are two theories from the two sides in the government about the ways of fighting back against aggression:
Defense by relying on Classic Army
Popular common view
Pros of this viewpoint want to imitate the great revolution, ignore the experiences of revolutionary people of the world and want to fight with occupiers with Molotov cocktail and the slogan of Allah-o-Akbar (God is Great)…
MKO's wide efforts to tease the defense by people, which had resulted in freeing southern cities, was at the first step a sign to the enemy to inform him about the forces he is facing.
Furthermore, what was the difference between Iranian people's defense and the experiences of world's revolutionary people?
It also continues:
There are efforts to end the issue of hostage taking, despite the previous slogans, in order to free the blocked money of Iran and to get weapons for army and on the other hand we hear that Iran is continuously buying weapons from international mediators.
… even the largest threats can't justify Iran's approach toward imperialist countries in getting weapons.
Mojahedin were making atmosphere against the government. If you pay attention you'll find in this article that they have stated contradictory sentences n several places by which they were looking for their own goal.
On one side they say that relying on people is the result of common reactionary view which wants to fight with enemy by slogan and Molotov cocktail and on the other hand they say that Basij is looking for maximum internal possibilities!!
Once they say defending the country by relying on classic army is coming from a liberal viewpoint and once warn about freeing Iran's blocked money which may be used in buying weapons!!
Whether these statements are true or false, we should ask: shouldn't we provide the forces with weapons? If not it would be to the benefit of the enemy.
Mojahedin, who considered themselves as the omniscient ones, don't say what's the solution for war between two countries if Iranian people and classic army are not supposed to be used?
Mojahed Journal, No. 105, 13 Jun. 1981
Reviewing the difficulties of war vagrants and solving their problems are not separated from the entity of the war and it can't be solved without paying attention to the fighting elements.
Here, we don't want to explain the current war, but at the same time we can't ignore those who provoked this fire by their own shortsightedness and not paying attention to the political laws which exist in the international relations…
When crossing the ambitions of Ba'th party, Naïve propagandas provoked the war.
In previous parts, we stressed that Mojahedin always made noise about the foreign threats (you saw the documents in part1 and part 2) now after months, how do they call it naïve propagandas?
Pay attention to an amazing contradictory statement by Mojahedin. By this, they got their desired result at the end:
In the January of 1981, Mojahed No. 105, by mentioning the threats of the U.S. and inverted views about the military interference of the U.S. in Iran, warned:
"But the signs which indicate possible direct interference of the U.S. are as follows:
- Change of government in the U.S. and Ragan's entrance to White House…
- Kissinger's trips to Middle East and Thatcher's imminent visit from the U.S. and her talks with Ragan
- Some military transportations, for example increasing the number of U.S. forces in the Indian Ocean
- Some positions and moves taken by the reactionary elements in the region; for instance some Gulf Arab nations have claimed ownership for three Iranian Islands
- According to the international political equations, it's been said that the situation of Poland and Afghanistan will be used by the U.S. in its interference in Iran.
- Besides the news above, we should remind of internal anti-revolutionary people. Recently we here more news about their movements in some regions such as Sistan and Baluchistan.
... There's no need here to draw the current situation again and to pose the problems again (from the problems related to the war to the difficulties linked to social and economical problems and separation and division among internal forces).
The effect and reaction of all these difficulties and problems are in the public opinion and public dissatisfaction which instigates imperialists plan for impudent conspiracies."
We see that Mojahedin try to suggest an inverted view to the people and authorities; and when foreign forces were working on their conspiracy against Iran through Iraq, they were talking about imperialists' imaginary moves. They talked about transportation and moves by the U.S., but they didn't want to talk about the aggression of Iraq.
In most optimistic look, we can say that this analysis by Mojahedin comes from their shortsightedness. But the reality is something else. When they were following smallest movements by the U.S. in Diego Garcia islands, how couldn't they see the moves and desires of Ba'th near themselves?!!
Joseph Lieberman, long regarded as the “Republicans’ favorite Democrat” because of his militarist foreign affairs agenda and support for a number of right-wing domestic policies, represented Connecticut initially as a...
Representing families of Iranian victims of terrorism, Habilian Association organized a conference themed “Iran victim of terrorism; From MEK to ISIS” on the occasion of national day of combating terrorism...
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...