PRNewswire, July 6, 2011

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On the Fourth of July in Baghdad, terrorists fired a Katyusha rocket at the U.S. Embassy as Americans were celebrating despite the fact the embassy is inside the heavily-fortified Green Zone. The following day, double blasts from a car bomb and a roadside bombing in a parking lot outside a city council building north of Baghdad killed at least 35 people. The explosions in Taji, a Sunni-dominated town about 12 miles north of Baghdad, are the most recent in a series of attacks across Iraq. Last month, bombs ripped through Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad, killing at least 40 people. Two days before, double blasts occurred that included a suicide car bombing outside a government compound south of Baghdad, which killed 22 people.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iran is furnishing new, more deadly weapons to Shiite militia groups in Iraq that are targeting American  troops in advance of their scheduled exit from the country at the end of this year. As a result, Gates said, about 40 percent of the deaths of American soldiers since the official end of U.S. combat operations almost 10 months ago have occurred in the past few weeks. Iran is “facilitating weapons, they’re facilitating training, there’s new technology that they’re providing,” Gates said. “They’re stepping this up, and it’s a concern.”

As violence against Americans escalates in Iraq, what is the U.S. response? Inexplicably, Washington seeks to compel unarmed Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf, Iraq to leave their homes for an even more insecure facility leaving them further vulnerable to Tehran’s proxies whose aim is to massacre all the dissidents.

Threatening that the U.S. military soon will stop its regular visits to Ashraf to escort staff of UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, American Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey insisted the dissidents stranded in Iraq as a result of U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 dissolve what he called their “paramilitary organization.” Jeffrey said Washington was working with the United Nations to move the over 3,400 Iranians “to a place that is a bit safer, a bit further from Iran,” but he insisted they disband and register as refugees with the U.N. High Commission for Refugees.

Professor Raymond Tanter Founding President of the IPC and former member of the National Security Council senior staff at the White House said, “During my research visit to Camp Ashraf in October 2008, I did not detect any ‘paramilitary organization’ referenced by Ambassador Jeffrey. Assuming such an entity would manifest a capability and intent to use violence, Ambassador Jeffrey’s comment also contradicts the Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism (CRT) of 2007, 2008, and 2009, all of which omit any allegation the MeK maintains capacity and will to conduct terrorist acts. And CRT 2009 does not accuse the MeK of having further developed any paramilitary skills.” Professor Tanter added, “To call the members of an organization that turned over all its weapons to the U.S. military in 2003 and was fully protected by our military a ‘paramilitary organization,’ could only be interpreted by Tehran and its Iraqi proxies as invitation to attack the group as the U.S. is abandoning them.”

According to Lt. General Tom McInerney (ret.), former Assistant Chief of Staff of the Air Force, “It is ironic for Washington to pressure Iranian dissidents in Iraq because they have provided intelligence to the U.S. military, which according to our military commanders helped save American lives.” McInerney added, “While the U.S. should be empowering the organized opposition to Tehran, calling for a leading Iranian dissident group to dissolve itself is tantamount to asking it to stop opposing the Iranian regime — America has no right to make such demands, much worse, it helps our enemies.” McInerney added, “Sadly to say, the principle, ‘No Good deed goes unpunished’ is alive and well in our relations with those who assist us.”

Major General Paul Vallely (ret.), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Pacific, acknowledged the importance of moving the Iranian dissidents outside of Iraq to third countries. Vallely stated, “Risks to the Iranian dissidents are higher if they are relocated within Iraq, e.g., to an encampment that would serve as a de facto prison, away from the prying eyes of the international press, UN Mission, and the U.S. military. The United States must work with our European allies to quickly move the MeK members to third countries, rather than making them even more vulnerable to attacks by Iranian proxies.” In the interim, Vallely said, “America should ensure full protection for the MeK members who are our allies, and prevent Iraqis from eliminating them.”

Captain Chuck Nash, (ret.) U.S. Navy and President of Emerging Technologies International expanded on the idea of moving the Iranian dissidents to a location within Iraq. Nash said, “Moving the Iranian dissidents within Iraq would also be an out of sight out of mind prelude to repeated attacks of the kind that occurred against Ashraf in July 2009 and April 2011. At least during those assaults, the dissidents could communicate with the outside world. But within a desert prison, they would be totally isolated and subject to the whims of the Iraqi Security Forces and armed militias acting on behalf of Tehran.”

According to Bruce McColm, President, Institute for Democratic Strategies and former Executive Director of Freedom House, “The statement of Ambassador Jeffrey to relocate the Iranian dissidents ‘to a place that is a bit safer, a bit further from Iran,’ is out of the question and a recipe for an international humanitarian disaster.” McColm asked, “Does ‘a bit safer’ mean fewer than the 36 people who were killed by Iraqi forces in April would be killed in the next assault? Does ‘a bit further from Iran’ mean proximity to the Iranian border is the problem, which makes no sense, because the Iraqis attacked Ashraf in 2009 and 2011 with the assistance of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security personnel already on the ground and did not have to cross an international border.”

SOURCE Iran Policy Committee

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished–washington-threatens-iranian-dissidents-in-iraq-says-iran-policy-committee-125058664.html

Will the wave of change in the Muslim world reach Iran and evolve into a Persian Spring, asks Lord Corbett.
The Telegraph
By Robin Corbett
30 Jun 2011

About 100,000 Iranian exiles in Paris last month drew the attention of the international community to the plight of the Iranian people and demanded support for the Iranian Opposition movement. They believe the Persian Spring is part and parcel of the Arab Spring, and that the policy of the West could be the key to timing.

The conference was addressed by senior US politicians including former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former US Congressman Patrick Kennedy (son of the late Ted Kennedy), former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and former US Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge as well as senior European figures including former Prime Ministers of Iceland and Ireland.

The message from 100,000 Iranians was three-fold. First, the plight of 3,400 members of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran’s resistance resident at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. The group revealed to the world Iran’s nuclear weapons programme and is considered to be the biggest player in recent widespread protests inside the country. It has found its home in Iraq under attack in recent years from an Iraqi regime which has tied its allegiances to those of Iran. In April of this year, unarmed residents were viciously attacked by Iraqi forces killing 36 residents and leaving 345 seriously injured.

The residents of Camp Ashraf are “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention and under any reading of international law must be protected from such brutality. That is the international law requirement of each member nation of the UN, but most importantly the US and UK who were the leading players in the Iraq war Coalition. The European Parliament has set a clear plan requiring UN protection of the Camp until a lasting solution for relocation outside of Iraq can be found. This strategy must be supported.

Second, the PMOI’s continued listing as a terrorist organisation in the US. Initially placed on the list as an enticing carrot during negotiations with the mullahs’ regime, the ban was never legally watertight. Both the UK and EU courts have found similar bans in their respective jurisdictions to have been unjust and removed the group from the UK and EU banned lists. The US ban is being used by Iraq to continue the killing of Camp Ashraf residents.

Third, the final message was the critical ingredient. The time has come for a combined international effort to weaken the Iranian regime and strengthen the Iranian people. Weakening the regime can be achieved successfully through isolation and targeted sanctions while support for the people can justifiably be defined as support for the Iranian Opposition movement, the two of which are intertwined in achieving democratic change in Iran.

Undoubtedly issues one and two have a clear role to play in the overall message being sent. Protect the PMOI from attack at Camp Ashraf and remove the group from the list of banned organisations in the US and we send a clear message to the Iranian people that we support their democratic ambitions.

Do so with targeted sanctions and the balance of power in Iran can shift, allowing Iranian people power to strengthen and a regime intent on crushing the Arab Spring to topple alongside its dictatorial neighbours. For a historical change Iranians and their Arab neighbours can put regional rivalry aside and strive for the same democratic aspirations.

“Realist” pundits of international politics might try to write this off as being farfetched. But the historical changes encompassing the whole region had been written off by these diplomats and experts following the events from their ivory towers as recently as last year. The real players are the young men and women in the streets of the Middle East, the same who were present in multitudes in June in Paris. That is what made their message so compelling.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale is Chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom. He is a former Chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8608095/Why-we-should-back-the-Persian-Spring.html

St. Louis Post Dispatch
By Kasra Nejat
Tuesday, June 28, 2011

As protests for democracy and human rights continue in the Middle East, the world has not forgotten that the Iranian people also staged nationwide uprisings beginning in June 2009. In February and March of this year, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Iran once again, demanding democracy and an end to the regime.

Without offering support to the Iranian people and their main opposition, the world cannot deal with the regime’s multi-faceted threats, including the mad dash toward nuclear weapons.

For the West, the expression of legitimate demands for freedoms and human rights across the Middle East has meant that the era of choosing tyrannical stability over democracy as a matter of foreign policy has ended.

To alleviate concerns about the role of religious fundamentalism in the region’s future, Washington should stop talking to the fundamentalist mullahs and start listening to the Iranian people.

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have lauded the protest movement in Iran. But, if not translated into tangible actions, words and concerns for human rights abuses are simply benign.

Just recently, the Iranian regime announced that it will triple its enriched uranium production in defiance of the international community and in a clear sign that the world needs to do more than imposing sanctions on the regime. This shows that the Iranian regime’s nuclear defiance, suppression at home and terrorism export are all outpacing U.S. policy. America is stuck in a reactive mode because it largely sidesteps the massive potential of the Iranian people.

Deliberate and active support for democratic change by the Iranian people and their resistance movement is an option that far outweighs appeasement or threat of war in terms of strategic benefits for both Iran and the region.

The depth and magnitude of dissent in Iran has for the past two years been strengthened with the deepening fissures at the apex of power within the regime. New political dynamics have rapidly taken shape within Iran, putting the regime at a severe disadvantage, but Washington’s policy has remained extremely stagnant.

America’s tough rhetoric against Iran will have no real weight in the eyes of the regime if it ignores Tehran’s Achilles Heel.

But, much more is at stake than just Iran. For the West, it makes absolutely no sense to expect a democratic outcome for the popular uprisings in the Middle East while at the same time engaging the fundamentalists ruling Iran. The third option of democratic change should no longer be the third rail of America’s Iran policy. It should be the first priority.

There are a number of practical steps that need to be taken to that end.

First, more comprehensive sanctions, especially an oil embargo, should be imposed against the regime, depriving it of the means to fund terrorism and extremism abroad.

Second, in contrast to its tepid reaction to the regime’s crackdown in 2009, the United States must stand tough against rights abuses. The administration’s decision on June 9 to place sanctions on the Iranian regime’s repressive forces is a good start. But, more needs to be done to support the Iranian people’s aspirations for democracy.

Sadly, even in the current environment, the United States is curtailing the activities of the principal Iranian opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), by keeping it on the blacklist at the behest of Tehran.

A number of distinguished former high-ranking officials from the past three administrations, including not one but three former joint chiefs of staff, seasoned U.S. diplomats, counterterrorism experts and veteran security and intelligence officials like former CIA directors have called on Washington to delist the MEK and protect Camp Ashraf, home to 3,400 MEK members in Iraq.

The United States must immediately delist the MEK, as both a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. and dozens of bipartisan lawmakers have called for. Missouri Congressmen William Lacy Clay and Emanuel Cleaver are among some 80 bipartisan lawmakers who have so far endorsed House Resolution 60, which calls on the secretary of state to delist the MEK.

That should be done, not tomorrow, but today, as former officials like Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton have advocated.

It is a sad irony that the United States is accommodating the demands of the fundamentalist rulers in Tehran by restricting the anti-fundamentalist MEK. Delisting the MEK will strengthen the entire opposition in Iran, serving to suffocate Tehran’s nuclear drive and expansionist agenda.

Kasra Nejat is president of the Iranian American Cultural Association of Missouri, based in St. Louis.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_4ebe4c28-05f4-59f9-b3f4-e6ab086325de.html

Anti-Tehran group should be nurtured, not hindered.
Columbia Daily Tribune
BY KASRA NEJAT
Sunday, June 26, 2011

As protests for democracy and human rights continue in the Middle East, the world has not forgotten that for the past two years, beginning in June 2009, the Iranian people also staged nationwide uprisings. In February and March this year, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Iran once again, demanding democracy and an end to the regime.

Without offering support to the Iranian people and their main opposition, the world cannot deal with the regime’s multi-faceted threats, including the mad dash toward nuclear weapons.

For the West, the expression of legitimate demands for freedoms and human rights across the Middle East has meant the era of choosing tyrannical stability over democracy as a matter of foreign policy has ended.

To alleviate concerns about the role of religious fundamentalism in the region’s future, Washington should stop talking to the fundamentalist mullahs and start listening to the Iranian people.

President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have lauded the protest movement in Iran. But, if not translated into tangible actions, words and concerns for human rights abuses are simply benign.

Just recently, the Iranian regime announced that it will triple its enriched uranium production in defiance of the international community and in a clear sign that the world needs to do more than impose sanctions on the regime. This shows the Iranian regime’s nuclear defiance, suppression at home and terrorism export are all outpacing U.S. policy. America is stuck in a reactive mode because it largely sidesteps the massive potential of the Iranian people.

Deliberate and active support for democratic change by the Iranian people and their resistance movement is an option that far outweighs appeasement or threat of war in terms of strategic benefits for both Iran and the region.

The depth and magnitude of dissent in Iran has for the past two years been strengthened with the deepening fissures at the apex of power within the regime. New political dynamics have rapidly taken shape within Iran, putting the regime at a severe disadvantage, but Washington’s policy has remained extremely stagnant.

America’s tough rhetoric against Iran will have no real weight in the eyes of the regime if it ignores Tehran’s Achilles Heel.

But, much more is at stake than just Iran. For the West, it makes absolutely no sense to expect a democratic outcome for the popular uprisings in the Middle East while at the same time engaging the fundamentalists ruling Iran. The third option of democratic change should no longer be the third rail of America’s Iran policy. It should be the first priority.

There are a number of practical steps that need to be taken to that end.

First, more comprehensive sanctions, especially an oil embargo, should be imposed against the regime, depriving it of the means to fund terrorism and extremism abroad.

Second, in contrast to its tepid reaction to the regime’s crackdown in 2009, the United States must stand tough against rights abuses. The administration’s decision on June 9 to place sanctions on the Iranian regime’s repressive forces is a good start. But more needs to be done to support the Iranian people’s aspirations for democracy.

Sadly, even in the current environment, the United States is curtailing the activities of the principal Iranian opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), by keeping it on the blacklist at the behest of Tehran.

A number of distinguished former high-ranking officials from the past three administrations, including not one but three former joint chiefs of staff, seasoned U.S. diplomats, counterterrorism experts and veteran security and intelligence officials have called on Washington to delist the MEK and protect Camp Ashraf, home to 3,400 MEK members in Iraq.

The United States must immediately delist the MEK, as both a Federal Appeals Court in DC and dozens of bipartisan lawmakers have called for.

Representatives William Lacy Clay and Emanuel Cleaver are among some 80 bipartisan lawmakers who have so far endorsed House Resolution 60, which calls on the secretary of state to delist the MEK.

That should be done immediately.

Kasra Nejat is president of the Iranian American Cultural Association of Missouri, which is based in St. Louis.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jun/26/us-policy-toward-iran-is-stagnant/

Detroit Free Press
June 17, 2011

After the death of Bin Laden, the world is again focusing on the Arab spring with even more vigor, because the message of Arab Spring is opposite to that of Bin Laden — freedom, democracy, and secular Islam.

When Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi began to fire on his own people, the United Nations stepped in — as it should have — with air strikes to protect civilians and stem the brutal attacks.

In Iraq, there is a similar situation, and perhaps even worse. Many Iraqi citizens have been gunned down in Baghdad and other cities because they called Maliki “a liar,” and wanted a better living condition for the country.

Iraqi forces, at the behest of, and with the assistance of the Iranian regime, have fired on guests in the country — unarmed defenseless men, women and children. The only way to describe this action is as a human rights crime.

The scene of the this horrific act is Camp Ashraf, a mini-city north of Baghdad that has been a peaceful home for two decades to exiles from Iran’s mullahs’ — 3,400 men, women and children who are members of Iran’s principal opposition movement, the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK).  But Ashraf no longer is peaceful.

On April 8, Iraqi forces invaded the camp and mercilessly slaughtered 35 residents of Ashraf, including eight women, and wounded hundreds more.

The onslaught infuriated members of Congress. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, wrote to the Secretary of State, expressing concern about the deadly raid, which described as “extremely troubling” and “directly contradict(ing) the Government of Iraq’s commitment to protect Camp Ashraf residents according to our agreement with them and in accord with its international obligations.”

Equally encouraging was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who said, “United Nations confirmation of the scope of last week’s tragedy at Camp Ashraf is deeply disturbing and the Iraqi military action is simply unacceptable.” He then suggested steps that need to be taken, “the Iraqis must stop the bleeding and refrain from any further military action against Camp Ashraf.” Senator Kerry added, “the investigation must hold accountable the responsible parties and ensure that there will be no sequel to these horrific events.”

Kerry described the current situation at Camp Ashraf as “untenable,” and concluded, “The United States must redouble efforts with all the relevant parties — including the Iraqi government, the United Nations, the European Union, and the Mujahedin-e Khalq itself — to seek a peaceful and durable solution, and to find permanent homes for the residents of Camp Ashraf.”

Particularly disturbing is that Maliki is doing the bidding of Tehran, which sees the MEK as a major threat, and for good reason.

The MEK wants to bring democracy to Iran, something that is far from the minds of the mullahs. Indeed, they are terrified of anyone who supports a democratic Iran, which is why they not only are masterminding the action at Camp Ashraf but are fighting demonstrations in the streets of Iran’s cities and having public hangings of dissidents.

It is heartening that the world, including senior American officials from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, as well as French and European politicians, has called for an immediate end to Iraqi occupation of the camp forces and ensuring the protection of its residents by the United States and the United Nations.

The U.S., EU and UN should intervene quickly to protect Ashraf from the assaulting Iraqi forces from Ashraf, and as dozens of senior officials of Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations have recently said, the U.S. should remove the MEK from the terrorist list so it can be able to work for a free Iran in full throttle. In his letter to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Levin requested that the State Department “accelerate its review of the Mujahadeen-Khalq’s designation.”

The terrorist designation was meant to curry favor with the ruling Ayatollahs in Iran to alter their outlaw behavior; that policy has badly failed.

The Ashraf situation has once again demonstrated who the terrorists are – and it’s not the MEK. To the contrary, as Andy Card, former chief of staff to President George W. Bush said, “the MEK is the example that others can follow in the entire region of the Middle East.” That example is a free Iran, which is crucial for a democratic, secular, and non-belligerent region.

Mike Khodadost is the president of the Iranian-American Cultural Society of Michigan.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110617/OPINION05/110616057/Online-commentary-U-S-must-step-up-help-exiled-Iranians-Iraq-s-Camp-Ashraf?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp

PR Newswire
June 6, 2011

WASHINGTON, June 6, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Several former U.S. Government officials spoke to the need for the Obama Administration to focus more on the Persian Spring as the administration is calibrating its new Middle East initiative to adapt to the realities in the region, during a symposium in Washington, DC, entitled “New U.S. Middle East Initiative and the Policy on Iran,” organized by Human Rights and Democracy International. 

P.J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs until March 2011, said, “Change is going to occur from the bottom up.  It’s not going to be imposed from the outside in but we have to be in a position where we can help shape change and support people and institutions that can bring democratic governance to the region as a whole, including to Tehran.” Addressing the protection of Camp  Ashraf, where 3,400 members of Iran’s main opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) reside, he said, “It is up to the international community…beginning with the United Nations, supported by the United States and the European Union, to begin a process to find a solution that allows people at Camp Ashraf to depart Iraq and take up residence in other countries and that should be the policy of the United States and it should be under the leadership with the intervening protection of the United Nations as the international community works to resolve this crisis.”

Nancy Soderberg, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, concurred. “The government of Iraq absolutely must stand by its obligation to protect those in that border and U.S. must push it harder to do so,” she said, adding, “I am confident the Obama administration’s current review [of MEK’s designation] will be decided on the merits.  Having spoken to a variety of people in the administration, I do think this will be decided on the facts.”

Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, said in part of his remarks, “It is important to strengthen the democratic opposition.  It is Iran which is the terrorist state.  That’s where the terrorism emanates. The State Department is going through their process as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia required them to do and I hope as they do so they will expedite their decision and that they will reflect on the fact that the UK and the EU to which I was an Ambassador, have both lifted their restrictions with respect to the MEK.”

“It’s long past time for this country to act based on its principles, to delist MEK and thereby encourage those in Iran who are struggling for regime change and to make certain that the residents of Ashraf are either permitted to remain where they are with security provided by international force or that they are permitted to leave Iraq for other countries,” Judge Michael Mukasey, former United States Attorney General emphasized.

Former CIA Director, Porter Goss said, “We can’t kick down the situation on the MEK anymore.  We’ve got a deadline coming up…  [W]e have to encourage our Department of State to come up with the answers on what they are going to do to finish this review. The FTO designation is an impediment to the final solution of relocation and I think, therefore, the sooner we get a judgment on that, that is what I think where common sense will lead us….There’s not any justification based on what I’ve seen… I think if the case is adjudged that they should no longer be on the list, it will make it simpler to deal with the relocation question [of Camp Ashraf residents]… I think the first thing to do is get the FTO question resolved and the second thing to do is say these folks [Camp Ashraf residents] deserve a future.”

“There is nothing that is likely to be more decisive and more influential in reducing the strategic threats from Iran’s current regime than having a vigorous democratic opposition in Iran. It should be a central goal of EU policy to support the democratic opposition in Iran and the U.S. should be prepared to do so with as much aid as is required and without any concessions,” stressed John Hillen, former Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs.

SOURCE Human Rights and Democracy International

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/329404

By Brian Binley
The Washington Times
Friday, May 27, 2011

Start the effort by protecting Iranian exiles in Iraq
As President Obama is in London to talk hard global politics about Libya and the Arab Spring, there is little doubt that in discussions about Iraq, the fate of 3,400 Iranians based in Camp Ashraf deserves to be high on the agenda.

Those Iranians are members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), Iran’s largest opposition group and the greatest thorn in the side of the current Iranian regime for more than 30 years. The PMOI is famed for revealing the Iranian regime’s clandestine nuclear weapons program and also has played a key role in leading the widespread protests that continue to increase in size and ferocity in Iran’s major cities.

The group’s great success and widespread support have meant that it is the Iranian regime’s No. 1 target. Initially, the Iranian regime used nuclear negotiations to demand that the PMOI be blacklisted in the West as a precondition for Tehran’s entering negotiations. U.S., British and European Union governments of the time had decided that appeasement of Tehran was the order of the day. If this meant unjustly blacklisting the regime’s largest opposition group, then so be it. The United Kingdom and EU blacklisting has ended following historic legal battles. No legal justification remains for the ban in the United States, and widespread calls are being made for the PMOI’s blacklisting to be removed sooner rather than later.

Having been defeated in relation to the blacklisting of the PMOI, the Iranian regime has, since the outset of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, looked to crush the PMOI at Camp Ashraf. With Nouri al-Maliki in power in Iraq, the Iranian regime has found an ally willing to jump at the behest of Tehran’s rulers. Iran’s demands were partly met on April 8 when Mr. al-Maliki ordered 2,500 heavily armed troops to enter the camp, shoot at the residents, run them over with military vehicles and destroy their homes. The vicious attack left 35 residents dead and more than 350 wounded, the majority of whom had suffered direct gunshot wounds. Having killed close to 50 residents and wounded close to 1,000 to date, Mr. al-Maliki has vowed to shut the camp at all costs by the end of the year.

Mr. Obama has a clear duty to intervene to protect this group until a lasting solution can be found. He must not forget that he entered his presidency on the back of a campaign in which he vowed to support democratic movements wherever they arise. Unfortunately, during the widespread protests that followed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent return to power for a second term in Iran, the president remained disturbingly silent as the democratic movement was ferociously crushed by the Iranian regime. The U.S. has a clear duty to protect Ashraf residents, to whom it guaranteed protection at the outset of the Iraqi invasion.

Mr. Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron must issue a statement requesting that a United Nations team take control over the safety and security of the camp and guarantee the residents’ safety, preventing further violent assaults by the Iraqi military. Once U.N. protection is provided to the residents, Mr. Obama and Mr. Cameron must back an EU Parliament lead solution, which requires serious and long-term discussions among all parties to find the residents a home away from Iraq and in areas where their safety can be guaranteed by the host nation. This is a clear solution to what increasingly has become an overcomplicated issue.

The story of the residents of Camp Ashraf and their lasting future is not only about providing humanitarian assistance to a beleaguered civilian population at risk of violent assault at the hands of Iraqi and Iranian regimes. It also sends a message to the people of Iran and the region that the U.S. supports their democratic movements and will protect civilian populations from state-sanctioned military assaults against them.

Mr. Obama came to power on the back of a mantra of supporting democracy the world over; he must follow his words with action by guaranteeing the protection of the Camp Ashraf residents and finding a lasting solution to this humanitarian crisis. We should expect nothing less.

Brian Binley is a member of Parliament in the United Kingdom from the Conservative Party.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/26/obama-must-support-iranian-democracy-movement/