THE HUFFINGTON POST

It was at 11 pm on Halloween, 31 October, that Iraqi security forces made their latest menacing incursion into Camp Ashraf. Thirty military vehicles accompanied by 10 police cars entered the camp northeast of Baghdad where 3,400 Iranian dissidents live, intimidating residents with glaring lights and deafening noise and conducting exercises around their homes.

A Camp Ashraf resident wounded by the Iraqi forces during the April 8, 2011 massacre

Simultaneously, the 300 loudspeakers placed around Ashraf to pile on the psychological pressure stepped up their barrage of threats and insults.

This bullying show of force followed a press conference in Baghdad earlier in the day at which Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, promised his visiting Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Salehi, that Iraq would keep its promise of closing Camp Ashraf by 31 December, which is also the date that the last US soldier is due to leave Iraq. The world now has less than two months in which to stop this closure turning into a possible massacre. After two armed assaults by the Iraqi Army on the camp in 2009 and last April – when 36 people, including eight women, were killed and 300 were injured by soldiers carrying US-made weapons – there are no grounds for believing that the December closure will be carried out peacefully and humanely. The Ashraf residents, protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, are members of the principal Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

The Iranian Resistance says it fears the clerical regime in Iran and the Iraqi government are setting the stage for a new bloodbath in Ashraf. It is urging the US, the European Union and the United Nations to prevent it, calling for the implementation of the appeal of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in a report to the Security Council on 7 July, in which he asked “all stakeholders involved to increase their efforts to explore options and seek a consensual solution.”

One of the stakeholders is the United States, which earlier promised Ashraf residents its protection. But so far President Barack Obama has shown little sign of being willing to put the necessary pressure on Baghdad to make sure that Ashraf residents are treated humanely.

During the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Ashraf residents remained neutral. The following year, the US gave written guarantees to all of them that, in return for a voluntary disarmament, the US would protect them. But, in early 2009, the US handed over responsibility for the security of the camp to Iraqi forces. Since then, apart from the two violent military assaults, the camp has been under a punishing blockade, with residents deprived of basic services, such as access to proper medical help.

At the behest of Tehran, the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki set 31 December as the final deadline for the camp to close. Iran, rattled by fears of contagion of the Arab Spring and facing a growing international crisis caused by its drive to develop nuclear weapons and by exposure of its terrorist activities – the most recent being a foiled plot against the Saudi ambassador to Washington – wants Ashraf wiped out at any cost.

In September, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, stating that the Iranian dissidents are asylum-seekers entitled to international protection, urged that Ashraf’s closure be delayed. Still, Baghdad insists that the December deadline be met. Iraq has not the slightest interest in letting the UNHCR carry out its mission. Rather, by refusing to cooperate, it is creating the pretext to claim that no progress has been made and that the only solution is the closure of the camp by force.

One way out of this dreadful situation would be to station UN monitors in Ashraf alongside peacekeeping forces to allow the UNHCR to do its work until the final resettlement of Ashraf residents.

The US may be leaving Iraq but it still has a lot of leverage vis-à-vis the government in Baghdad and at the UN It could and it should make a move.

As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personnel carriers.

Speaking to the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs on 27 October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington had sought assurances from Iraq “that it will treat Ashraf residents humanely, that it will not transfer the residents to a country that they may have reasons to fear.”

The time for words is over. Concrete actions are now essential to safeguard the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US has the power to help them. If not, 2012, a crucial election year, risks starting with a tragedy that the world could have stopped.

Brian Binley is a Conservative Member of Parliament for Northampton South

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brian-binley/camp-ashraf-rehearsal-for-a-bloodbath_b_1076303.html

THE HUFFINGTON POST

A pre-emptive attack by Israel or coalition forces against Iran’s nuclear facilities would prove disastrous to the interests of the West.

Although just rumour and rhetoric at present, if such thoughts were to become a reality they would represent a major set back for the democratic ambitions of an Iranian population determined to bring about change without international intervention. Equally importantly they could impact massively on those democrats in the Arab Spring countries working to establish democratic regimes through the ballot box.

Let us put such thoughts into context. For too long the West has tiptoed around Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, closing its eyes to Iran’s nuclear weapon programme. Time and again British and US leaders have appeased the Mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard and each step along that path, taken in the vain hope that the regime can somehow be moderated, has simply strengthened the regime’s view that the West is both weak and vacillating. In fact they have had the opposite effect of actually emboldening the regime.

Time and again we have been told that engagement with Tehran is the only solution. Time and again Tehran has come to the nuclear negotiations table, taken all the carrots offered, and then used the proverbial stick to punish us by supporting terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

We should, of course, deal with the Iranian regime in a forceful and meaningful manner using every tool at our disposal short of military intervention. But the time is not right to step over that line.

The West’s ambition seems to have centred on only two options when attempting to deal with Iran’s nuclear threat. The first is appeasement and the second is war. Both are dangerous and neither should be considered as practical solutions.

The third option, to which little thought has been given, revolves around the solution proffered by the Iranian resistance leader, Mrs Maryam Rajavi. Incidentally, it is supported by a large group of British Parliamentarians and would involve isolating the regime with targeted sanctions whilst actively supporting the Iranian people’s opposition movement both, internally and externally.

The first step has to be political and economic isolation using sanctions levied against the regime’s entire infrastructure, whilst at the same time removing the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) from the list of banned organisations in the US which was initially enacted as a part of the appeasement programme during previous nuclear negotiations.

Secondly, we must end talk of war which can only help to silence the voice of Iranian opposition in the country. We must end talk of appeasement which has bitterly disappointed Iranian opposition both inside Iran’s borders and beyond and we must act to isolate the Iranian regime whilst supporting the Iranian peoples democratic opposition movement recognising the value of the Chinese proverb that my “enemy’s enemy is my friend.”

That’s the Third Way to create internal regime change and nullify Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

The big question is why the West has failed to recognise that option.

Brian Binley, Conservative Member of Parliament for Northampton South

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brian-binley/tehran-nuclear-weapons-isolation-not-invasion_b_1076317.html

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Displaced Iranians face Dec. 31 to close their camp 

A U.N. envoy on Thursday offered to broker the peaceful closing of a camp for Iranian exiles in Iraq where residents and U.S. lawmakers say an Iraqi military crackdown may be imminent.

An aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who calls the residents of Camp Ashraf “terrorists,” said Iraq’s Cabinet will consider extending its deadline for closing the compound beyond Dec. 31.

U.N. envoy Martin Kobler offered to mediate between camp residents and Mr. Maliki’s government at a news conference in Baghdad.

“There [are] a number of problems that still have to be solved. This needs time, this needs space,” he said.

“The situation, as it is, is not satisfactory, neither to Camp Ashraf residents nor to the government nor to the international community.”

He said he would seek to start talks after the weeklong Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday, which begins Sunday.

Camp Ashraf is inhabited by 3,400 members of the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, an Iranian opposition group that the State Department designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997.

The camp, located north of Baghdad, has become a major irritant for the Maliki government, which is trying to improve relations with neighboring Iran. Supporters of the Mujahedeen dispute the terrorist label and accused Mr. Maliki of caving to pressure from Iran.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has said that the Iraqi deadline leaves too little time for the United Nations to process requests for refugee status from the camp’s residents, who fear they will be persecuted if they stay on in Iraq and executed if they are deported to Iran.

Late Monday night, Iraqi troops and police entered the camp with sirens blaring in what residents said was an attempt to intimidate them.

On April 8, the Iraqi army attacked the camp killing 36 residents, including eight women. More than 300 others were wounded.

In recent conversations with their Iraqi counterparts, U.S. officials have expressed concern for the safety of the camp’s residents.

The U.S. turned over control of Camp Ashraf to the Iraqi government in June of 2009. At the time, the Iraqi government had provided the United States with written assurances that it would treat Camp Ashraf residents humanely, in accordance with Iraqi laws and its international obligations.

“In addition, the government of Iraq stated that it would not transfer residents of Ashraf to a country where they might have reason to fear persecution for their religious or political beliefs or where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be tortured,” said Noel Clay, a State Department spokesman in Washington.

“We continue to urge the government of Iraq, at the very highest levels, to honor its commitments to treat the residents of Ashraf humanely.”

On Wednesday, nearly three dozen members of Congress sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urging him to prevent a fresh wave of violence at Camp Ashraf.

• This article is based in part on wire service reports.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/3/un-envoy-offers-to-mediate-dispute-over-camp-ashra/

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Gorguis Yacoub, left, representative of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki speaks to journalists during a joint press conference with Martin Kobler, right, top U.N. envoy to Iraq, in Baghdad, Iraq, Thursday, Nov. 3, 2011. The top U.N. envoy to Iraq is offering to broker the peaceful closing of a camp of Iranian exiles before the government in Baghdad forces its residents out at the end of the year. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)

BAGHDAD (AP) — In a last-ditch attempt to head off a confrontation, the top U.N. envoy to Iraq on Thursday offered to broker the peaceful closing of a camp of Iranian exiles before the government in Baghdad forces its residents out at the end of the year.

An aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Iraq’s Cabinet would consider easing its deadline if a solution can be agreed on quickly.

At issue is a group of about 3,300 exiles at the remote Camp Ashraf in Iraq’s eastern Diyala province who seek the overthrow of Tehran’s clerical rulers. Members of the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, they won refuge at Ashraf decades ago during the regime of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who saw them as a convenient ally against Tehran’s theocracy.

Since Saddam’s fall in 2003, the exiles have become an irritant to Iraq’s Shiite-led government, which is trying to bolster ties with Iran.

A deadly April raid on the camp by Iraqi forces drew international criticism of Baghdad’s treatment of the group. Al-Maliki responded by pledging to deport the Ashraf residents by the end of the year. The Ashraf residents fear they will be sent back to Iran and imprisoned or persecuted.

“There is a number of problems that still have to be solved,” U.N. envoy Martin Kobler said at a news conference in Baghdad. “This needs time, this needs space.”

He added: “The situation, as it is, is not satisfactory, neither to Camp Ashraf residents nor to the government nor to the international community.”

Kobler said he would seek to start talks after weeklong Muslim Eid al-Adha observance, which begins Sunday.

Ashraf residents are trying to win asylum in the United States, Canada and countries in the European Union but have not been widely successful. The U.S. considers the People’s Mujahedeen a terrorist organization, although the European Union removed it from its terror list several years ago.

Also at the news conference was al-Maliki aide Gorguis Yacoub who, in a turnabout for the government, opened the possibility that the deportation deadline could be extended. He said that decision would be up to the Cabinet, repeating the government’s stance that it wants the Ashraf residents out of Iraq by the end of the year.

Asked if the Cabinet would grant an extension, Yacoub said it would be a possibility “if there to be quick measures in order to achieve” a resolution.

In a statement, Ashraf spokesman Shahriar Kia said the deadline should be canceled outright to give all sides enough time to resolve the years-long dispute. He noted that legislators across the world — including some in Congress and the European Parliament — have demanded that the residents be granted refugee status, which would protect them.

Kia said Ashraf residents have been especially fearful in the last few days after additional Iraqi troops began gathering outside the camp’s gate and waking them up with taunts broadcast through loudspeakers during early morning hours. Iraqi troops took similar actions just before the deadly April 8 raid that left dozens dead.

Journalists are barred from entering Camp Ashraf, and U.N. monitors have been given only limited access. Kia called on the government to withdraw its troops and allow a U.N. monitor to be stationed at the camp.

“Anything less than this is a prelude to the massacre of the residents and a worst repeat of previous bloodbath,” he said.

___

Associated Press Writer Sameer N. Yacoub contributed to this report.

 THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Obama’s abandoning of Camp Ashraf to its fate would breach U.S. honor

MEP Struan Stevenson Warns about Looming Massacre at Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

It was the “mission accomplished” moment that millions of Americans had been waiting for and many of us considered long overdue: the official end to the war in Iraq and the return of all U.S. troops. Whether you believe the operation in Iraq was a noble cause or pure folly, President Obama’s announcement last month that fighting men and women would be coming home to their families in time for the holidays was cause for celebration.

It also should raise an alarm. The withdrawal is widely perceived throughout the region as a victory for Iran. Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, called it a “serious mistake” that would encourage a deeper and more dangerous alliance between Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki and Tehran – fears implicitly validated by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s stern warnings that Iran should not “take advantage” of the situation.

The question that haunts us now is: What will happen in the new Iraq when the U.S. military leaves?

Recent events on the ground suggest an answer: Men, women and children numbering 3,400 – each and every one of whom is covered by a written guarantee of protection by the U.S. government – will be exterminated by Mr. al-Maliki’s forces, at Tehran’s bidding. These residents of Camp Ashraf, in Diyala province close to the Iranian border, belong to Iran’s best-organized resistance movement, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq. Committed to nonviolent regime change and a democratic, nuclear-free Iranian future with equal rights for women, minorities and religions, they are, understandably, the mullahs’ worst nightmare. Tehran has vowed to eliminate them at all costs. And they are unarmed. In other words, once U.S. troops leave, they are sitting ducks.

In April, the Iraqi military attacked the camp, leaving 36 dead and at least 300 wounded – the second unprovoked assault in two years – and that was with American troops in country. To think that the wholesale slaughter of those within Ashraf’s easily penetrable borders will not happen the moment the United States pulls out would be to tacitly condone that slaughter.

It doesn’t have to happen.

What stands in the way of the safe relocation of Camp Ashraf’s residents is one of the very few things the United States government shares in common with the tyrannical Iranian regime: the designation of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq as a terrorist organization. As long as the residents of Ashraf remain on the list of foreign terrorist organizations, they cannot be reasonably assured of the asylum they so desperately need. While a recent demand by British members of Parliament for United Nations protection for the camp is welcome, it falls far short of the American defense that was promised and that the U.S. government is honor-bound to uphold.

The international community owes the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq a huge debt of gratitude for providing valuable information on the location of Iranian nuclear facilities. Yet it is common knowledge in the U.S. national security establishment that Mujahedeen-e-Khalq was placed and maintained on the State Department’s blacklist as part of a failed strategy to appease Iran.

Since then, Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress have demanded direct American action and delisting of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq. An impressive array of the highest-level U.S. national security officials and counterterrorism analysts have publicly confirmed that the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq poses no threat whatsoever to America.

After independent and exhaustive investigations, the United Kingdom and European Union delisted the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq with the British High Court calling the listing a “perverse” decision. The EU has repeatedly urged the immediate protection of Ashraf residents and recently appointed an ambassador to ensure their safety, but the baseless U.S. designation continues to hamper our good efforts.

Most recently, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees qualified Ashraf residents as “asylum seekers under international law,” legally entitling them to physical protection while seeking relocation. But Mr. al-Maliki refuses to cooperate with the U.N. agency, citing the unjustified U.S. terrorist designation as his “license to kill.”

Despite the rosy assessment of the U.S ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, who claims that what the United States leaves behind is the model of new Middle Eastern democracy, Iraq has proved that it is willing to align itself with one of the most brutal regimes on the planet. If the United States does not keep its word and honor its unfinished business with the men, women and children of Camp Ashraf, rest assured that Iran will settle its own unfinished business with them.

Time is of the essence. Only eight weeks are left until the last American soldier leaves Iraq. The lives of 3,400 Iranian dissidents are at stake – and so is American credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Make no mistake about it: A Srebrenica-style massacre will happen at Camp Ashraf. When it does, no Americans will be able to say they weren’t warned.

Struan Stevenson is a Conservative member of the European Parliament representing Scotland. He is president of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iraq.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/2/iraqs-looming-massacre/