BACK TO NRO

Submit a Letter to the Editor of National Review Online.

Submit a Letter to the Editor of National Review magazine.

PEOPLE'S MUJAHEDIN OF IRAN, AGAIN posted 3/26/02

Sam Dealey's "reply" to my "response" to his article reminds me of an old adage: "When your lies are discredited, try bigger ones."

He says the following paragraph "was made up; no record of it appears on several news databases": "The lawmakers . . . urged the State Department to . . . provide recognition and support for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an opposition group trying to topple the ruling theocracy in Tehran." But this paragraph is from a Reuters report filed on October 11, 2000. The report covered a bipartisan press conference on Capitol Hill on the same day, in which eight members of Congress unveiled a joint statement by a majority of the House. The next day, the story also appeared in several U.S. dailies, including the Washington Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Miami Herald. The Washington Post ran the complete text of the lawmakers' statement as an advertisement on November 3, 2000.

Dealey, however, first makes the false claim that the paragraph was "made up" and then proceeds to decree that "this is the context in which Shahin Ghobadi's letter must be read." He asserts with bigotry and arrogance uncommon in professional journalism: "The half-truths and falsehoods are so many I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with them all."

As for the false claim that the Mujahedin took part in the "suppression of the northern Kurds" in Iraq, suffice it to cite a formal affidavit by the head of the international relations department of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iraq, the major party in control of northern Iraq, who wrote to a court in Holland that in 1991 "there were rumors of the Mujahedin units assisting the Iraqi troops, [but] these rumors happen to be untrue." He added: "The KDP can confirm that the Mujahedin were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercises any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Mujahedin Khalq has its own political agenda in Iran and its members do not interfere in Iraqi internal affairs."

The location of Mujahedin bases in Iraq are well-known and these camps have been visited on numerous occasions by U.N. officials and international reporters, including American journalists, who have acknowledged that these camps are completely independent of the Iraqi government and army. Furthermore, the Mujahedin's sole source of funding is the Iranian people, who have made enormous sacrifices in the struggle to end the mullahs' tyranny.

Dealey's account of the July 1992 meeting between Mr. Rajavi and the Iraqi president is utterly false. As the reports of the meeting in Mujahedin publications and broadcast and an AFP wire story on July 17 show, the meeting dealt with the April 1992 bombing of a Mujahedin base and prior terrorist operations by the regime against the Mujahedin in Iraqi territory.

As for the presence of a part of the Resistance's military forces in Iraqi territory, anyone seeking fundamental change in Iran knows that the mullahs' dictatorship is not going to vanish on its own: It has to be toppled by a viable force, which must have a presence alongside Iran's borders. That is why the Mujahedin's presence in Iraq is welcomed and supported by the Iranian people, who long to see the end of mullahs' rule and who are, in the final analysis, the sole arbiter and judge of the policies and actions of the Mujahedin.

The claim that Mr. Rajavi "maintained absolute control" over the Mujahedin after 1975, while still in jail, is a farce. It shows the writer's ignorance of the draconian prison regime that political prisoners faced under the shah, particularly in the mid-seventies. Moreover, it is well-known to scholars of modern Iranian history that the Mujahedin, whose leaders and senior officials were imprisoned and executed by the shah's regime in the early 1970s, had no role in the murder of U.S. nationals in Iran. Those responsible for these murders were all executed by SAVAK, the shah's secret police, between 1975 and 1977. While in jail, Mr. Rajavi condemned and fought the Marxists who usurped the Mujahedin's name and facilities through a bloody coup and murder of Moslem Mujahedin members.

Shahin Gobadi
Press office of the People's Mujahedin of Iran
Washington, D.C.

ON THE PEOPLE'S MUJAHEDIN OF IRAN posted 3/20/02

The aim of Sam Dealey's "'A Very, Very Bad Bunch'" is to exert pressure on members of Congress, who have stated their support for the Iranian Resistance in dozens of statements and thousands of letters over the past 18 years, to cease their support.

Since 1992, a majority of members of the House have supported the Iranian Resistance five times. In the same period, a majority of Senators declared a similar position once, while on two occasions, a third of the Senate gave their support to the Iranian Resistance.

The article falsely claims that American legislators supported the Mojahedin for the money they have received from it. It claims that Rep. Dan Burton stopped supporting Mojahedin in 1995. But from 1995 through 2000, Rep. Burton gave his support to the Iranian Resistance in writing on at least three occasion.

The mullahs' regime has made the same accusations and smears against the representatives of the American people. The Iranian foreign-ministry spokesman said on October 15, 2000, that U.S. lawmakers had been "hoodwinked by terrorist groups." A state-run daily, Abrar, wrote on the same day: "The congressmen, in the most naive manner, have fallen into the trap of the plotters of this political statement. In a dumb and simplistic move, they have been lured into a trap designed by the Zionists."

The inclusion of the Mojahedin in the State Department's list of FTOS in 1997 was a futile bid by the Clinton administration to appease the terrormongers ruling Iran. A day after the announcement, the Los Angeles Times reported that a "senior Clinton administration official said inclusion of the Moujahedeen was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected moderate president, Mohammad Khatami."

Two years later Martin Indyk, then Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, publicly acknowledged that naming NCRI as an alias of PMOI was in response to Tehran's demands. He said, "The Iranian government had brought this to our attention."

The Mojahedin's military resistance targets only military and suppressive targets inside Iran and is a legitimate resistance in the context of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions, as well as Christianity and Islam. A majority of members of parliaments in the United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, Norway, and a large number of French and German parliamentarians have supported the Mojahedin.

The murder of U.S. citizens in the 1970s has nothing to do with the Mojahedin. All the leaders of the organization were arrested in 1971 and later executed, except for Mr. Rajavi, who was the sole surviving leader, but remained in prison until 1979. The organization's leadership was taken over by Communist infiltrators who staged a coup in a bid to usurp the Mojahedin's popularity. The coup plotters even murdered those Mojahedin members who had not been arrested by the shah's secret police. The Mojahedin cannot be held accountable for acts in which they played no role. Contrary to the writer's claim, Mr. Rajavi had no control over those who were using the Mojahedin's name. He condemned them right away and predicted that the coup would lead to the rise of the religious fundamentalists led by Khomeini.

Mr. Dealey's claim that the Mojahedin played a role in the U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran is utterly false. Khomeini's Chief Justice Moussavi Ardebili, said: "[The embassy takeover] led to the confusion of left-wing groups and the Mojahedin and exposed their real faces" (Tehran radio, November 4, 1985).

The presence of a part of the Mojahedin in Iraq has no aim or reason other than the effort to topple the mullahs' regime. The Mojahedin's relationship with Iraq is that of two sovereign states, and even U.N. agencies operating in Iraq reported, after visiting Mojahedin camps, that "sites belonging to the Mojahedin were not under the authority of the Iraqi government."

The Mojahedin's sole source of money is the unsparing material support of millions of Iranians in Iran and in diaspora.

Shahin Ghobadi
People's Mojahedin of Iran
Washington, D.C.

SAM DEALEY REPLIES: When I met with the representatives of the Mujahedin's front group this winter in Washington, they passed along a Washington Post article of October 12, 2000, purportedly showing Congress's displeasure with current U.S.-Iran policy. Part of the article read: "The lawmakers . . . urged the State Department to . . . provide recognition and support for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an opposition group trying to topple the ruling theocracy in Tehran." In fact, this paragraph was made up; no record of it appears on several news databases or in the Post's electronic archives.

That is the context in which Shahin Ghobadi's letter must be read. The half-truths and falsehoods are so many I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with them all. Nevertheless, a few deserve some comment.

For example, the assertion that the State Department only identified the National Council of Resistance on its terrorist list as a sop to Iran is not true. While Martin Indyk did say that the Iranian regime had brought the NCR to State's attention, he also said: "Iran is also a victim of terrorism. We condemn these acts as we condemn all acts of terrorism." The Iranian regime is a nasty lot, but that hardly means all who oppose it are good.

The claim that Massoud Rajavi held no control over the movement is also dubious. Despite his imprisonment, according to a U.S. intelligence report Rajavi "rose to command in 1975 after the Mojahedin experienced an internal schism" and "maintained absolute control" over the Mujahedin.

Ghobadi's assertion that the Mujahedin did not take part in the 1979 U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran is equally dubious. Though mentioned in my article, it bears repeating: On the day of the embassy takeover, the Mujahedin's leaders stated: "After the Shah, it's America's turn." And when the hostages were released 444 days later, the group boasted it was "the first force who rose unequivocally to the support of the occupation of the American spy center."
The claim that the Mujahedin act independently of Saddam Hussein is an egregious falsehood. State Department sources say the group is heavily funded by Saddam, and that it has anywhere from five to fifteen camps inside Iraq — most of these at sites shared with the Iraqi Republican Guard. What's more, the group fought alongside Saddam's troops in the 1991 suppression of the northern Kurds, a bloody battle in which chemical weapons were used. This had nothing to do with Iranian resistance and everything to do with Saddam's own expansionist goals.

Lastly, after a meeting with Saddam in June 1992, the Mujahedin's Rajavi declared: "Iranian national movements and their masses strongly denounce the Iranian regime's alliance with U.S. imperialism, world Zionism, and regional reactionaries to launch aggression against Iraq, participate in the blockade on it, and interfere in the domestic affairs of this safe, steadfast country in the interests of colonial schemes and conspiracies."

As for whatever support the Mujahedin has ginned up among various lawmakers — I make no apologies for the latter's ignorance or greed.
If the Mujahedin is serious about it's reforms, there are a umber of positive steps it might take to reassure the U.S. and its allies. The first might be a renunciation of its Marxist and anti-Western past. Also, it might identify and hand over those within the organization who participated in the attacks on Americans and U.S. business and government entities. Lastly, the Mujahedin could renounce all aid from Saddam and pull out from Iraq. Until then, the inescapable conclusion is that this is not a group Americans should be supporting.

ABOUT KUWAIT posted 3/18/02

Victor Davis Hanson's condemnations of Arab attitudes toward the U.S. are on target, but I would like to add my own (admittedly anecdotal) perspective to the situation in Kuwait, based on my service there with the U.S. Army. I personally sensed little ingratitude from Kuwaitis. One example of genuine gratitude is an annual program to give each enlisted U.S. soldier in Kuwait a gift basket during the holiday season. Privately funded, this program grew appreciably after the September 11 attacks. Walking the streets of Kuwait City, one generally feels safe and welcome, with the greatest menace coming from shopkeepers looking to separate a soldier from his pay. Further, Kuwaitis have a wide variety of media available to them, including CNN and Fox News by satellite TV — to which even most tent-dwellers seem to have access — as well as an informative English-language daily that runs Western wire stories, voices some criticism of the government, and tilts only slightly against Israel. Kuwait is far from being perfect — or a perfect ally — but it is a great step up from Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Finally, it should be noted that the ranks of the Kuwaiti army that fled the Iraqis in 1990 comprised mainly immigrants from the Third World. Today, a more "Kuwaitified" and better-trained army should prove more motivated and capable in a conflict against Iraq.
Matthew Adinaro

Victor Davis Hanson responds:
I thank Matthew Adinaro for his firsthand anecdotes about Kuwait. My point was not that the kingdom was inherently evil, rather that in a variety of polls and public fora its populace voiced a surprising dislike of the United States, and that such ingratitude was disturbing since the entire country was rescued from oblivion by Americans — and since the kingdom prides itself as being a "friend" of the U.S. While all polls are subject to a degree of error, I think the recent Gallup findings might reflect popular opinions better than what individual Kuwaitis may say to American servicemen stationed there to save them. I am glad to hear of the reconstitution of the Kuwaiti military, but in the last debacle I was not aware that the "Kuwaitified" high command and royal family chose to be Churchillian and so hold the line while their mercenary troops ran. I am also not sure what to make of "some criticism of the government" — for ten minutes or so every Monday, an unflattering story about His Royal Highness? Finally, I agree that Kuwait is not Egypt or Saudi Arabia, but I find it all the same depressing that we would use such a comparative benchmark in the first place to appreciate the purported positive attributes of our allies. There is really no end to such thinking — Egypt is fine because it is not Saudi Arabia, which is OK because it is not Libya, which is not as bad as Syria, which in turn is a definite improvement over Iran which of course is much better than Iraq? How Algeria, Pakistan, and Yemen, et al., would fit into that scheme I have no idea.

ET TU, NRO? posted 3/18/02

Michael Potemra's article "The Single Life is very disturbing in its ambivalent attitude toward homosexuality. I read NRO because I believe in traditional Western (universal) values. Homosexuality is not one of them, no matter how well it may be packaged in a movie. Don't let your magazine slide into the gutter with the rest of the Culture of Death. Intolerance is one thing (it's bad); indifference toward the masses is another. Look at what the majority of America did during the '60s and what we have now.
Ted Naff
Seattle, Wash.

SIX-MONTH REVIEW posted 3/18/02

Your March 11 edition was a marvelous reminder of why I regard NRO as a daily staple both at work and at home. The fact that there were comments and observations Richard Brookhiser and Jonah Goldberg had offered initially after Sept. 11 was a forceful reminder of the inspiring quality, depth, and perception they and other members of the NRO team offer Web readers — and those of us who need daily hits while awaiting the magazine (those fortnights can be so long).
Peter Scarlet
Tooele, Utah

MECCA-GATE posted 3/18/02

You guys are my heroes. I'm very familiar with CAIR's dubious connections and their vile attempts to suppress criticism of Islamic extremism. Keep up the good work, keep speaking the truth, and don't ever bow down to their threats, harassment, and politically correct demands. America needs you.
Margie McDonald
Clayton, Ga.

For a selection of the critical letters regarding this note in "The Corner," click here.

I WAS A SOLDIER posted 3/18/02

Thank you for Mr. Owens's piece regarding We Were Soldiers. I, too, served in Vietnam during 1968-69, with the 1st Marine Division, outside Danang. And I, too, am grateful for the depiction of the type of young men I knew and with whom I served — naive, yes, but good boys (we weren't yet men, though many became so over there), doing what we understood to be the right thing: serving our country.

How innocent we were, then; how unaware of what war is, and what it does to men — even those who survive. You rightly commend this movie, for it is a true picture of that innocence and of the patriotism that used to be the norm. I can overlook the scene near the end that "went Hollywood," because the rest of it — the sounds, the fear, the courage and self-sacrifice, and, most of all, the performance of duty, no matter what — is what I remember of those young men in that place.

Your words honor them. For that, and for what you did there, I thank you.

Paul E. Scates
Chattanooga, Tenn.

INDIAN NAMECALLING posted 3/18/02

We read with interest "By Any Other Name" by John J. Miller, which references a recent article by Sports Illustrated about the abuse of Native people as mascots. Please refer to "AMERICAN INDIAN OPINION LEADERS: American Indian Mascots: Respectful gesture or negative stereotype?" for accurate information. In this article, 81 percent of respondents indicate that "Indian" mascots are predominantly offensive to Natives. Regardless of the thousands of "polls," "votes," and "statistics," using a race of people as mascots or luck-tokens is morally and ethically wrong. No team calls itself the "Negroes," for the very principles that apply here. It took only one person to sit at the front of the bus to catalyze change in an older form of segregation and discrimination. It should require only one person to point out the racism inherent to using a race of people as mascots, to bring an end to this form of segregation and discrimination.
Alice and Randy Huffman
Information/Resource Directors
American Indian Movement Support Group of Ohio and Northern Kentucky, Covington, Ky.

SEEING VICTOR HUGO posted 3/18/02

Nice piece by Dave Shiflett on Victor Hugo. He might enjoy this anecdote (I can't recall where I saw it): A gentleman had just met Hugo. Asked by his friends what it was like, he replied: "It was like meeting a madman who thinks he is Victor Hugo."
Mike Bowen
Wolfeboro, N.H.

Though not overly fond of the French, I think that some of Dave Shiflett's comments ("An Acceptable Frenchie") are unwarranted — e.g., "We're at war and it is widely believed the French have excellent contacts within the shadowy world of international terrorism." Post 9/11, the French dismantled terrorist cells in their country that had been planning attacks on U.S. interests; they also provided their European counterparts with information leading to arrests in Belgium, Spain, and Italy. This compares favorably with Britain's benevolence toward known terrorists (see, for example, the case of Lofti Raissi, the pilot who trained the hijackers and is now out on bail). It should also be noted that for all their "treachery, cowardice, and corruption," the French are engaged in military operations in eastern Afghanistan.
Mark Mahon
New Haven, Conn.

BACK TO NRO