Take a look at these photographs. Some of them show Maryam Rajavi, one of the objects of ecstatic devotion from the adherents of the Marxist-Islamist-terrorist cult of personality known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. The MEK received sponsorship from Saddam Hussein to serve as terrorist proxies for him during and after the Iran-Iraq war. According to NIAC, Rajavi (and former Revolutionary figure Abolhassan Bani Sadr, whom I was unaware was MEK) is speaking in favor of Moussavi all of a sudden, lending her full support to the opposition movement and wishing it victory. NIAC further reports that the alleged bombing in Tehran — claimed by the regime as a pretext to subdue the demonstrations today — was cited by state television as an MEK operation.
Now, do you consider Rajavi’s support is helpful or harmful to the Iranian opposition? If you are concerned about the well-being of the opposition and the success of its cause, do you think Rajavi should have stayed silent or should have spoken out? Presuming for a moment that Rajavi is a sincere advocate for the opposition, and not an opportunist fundamentally concerned with positioning herself and her movement, ought she be concerned with how toxic her support could be to the brave people out in the streets of the cities and towns of Iran who have been brutalized and murdered by the regime’s goon squads? Should she have thought about how her rhetoric looks to a population that distrusts her as an enduring enemy, across political divisions?
Or should she have treated such concerns by saying this:
The events of the past week in Iran, following the June 12 presidential election there, have been remarkable and hopeful. It’s been a moment when one would like the leader of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq –who has, in such moments, a supporting but not an inconsequential role–to rise to the occasion. Until now, I haven’t. You were therefore put in the position of hoping that the words of the leader of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq were being mostly ignored, that my weakness wouldn’t matter, and that the forces of reform or revolution will be able to prevail–as they may–with the support of many in the MEK, if not its leader…
The Mujahideen-e-Khalq will act in a manner due to our own character and called for by our own duty.
It’s a good thing that the leaders of this country are not so stupid as to follow the advice of people who see a revolution and ask how they can most effectively exploit it.



5 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Have Shia leaders (al-Sistani) in Iraq been talking about the unrest in Iran?
What’s happening with the border, are Iranians coming into Iraq in greater numbers for haj or safety reasons?
There’s very limited reporting that iraqi shiites support the reform movement found by google.
“Presuming for a moment that Rajavi is a sincere advocate for the opposition, and not an opportunist fundamentally concerned with positioning herself and her movement…”
See, for vanguardists, there’s no contradiction between being a sincere advocate and opportunistically positioning yourself. In fact, doing both is the essence of being the vanguard, so I don’t see anything truly redeeming or good in the statement you quoted.
The statement I ‘quoted’ was a recontextualization of the Weekly Standard editorial’s denouncement of Obama. It’s not supposed to be something you feel good about — precisely the opposite.
Oops. Sorry.
Spencer: I do have a question: “Why are there so many signs in English?” I think I know why, but I have not seen or heard about the signs being in English. I feel it’s because the people want the world to know what they are saying and English is the best way. Also to get the pictures in the American Press. Right?? P.S. you do a good job, please keep it up.