By now, it should no longer be necessary to rehearse the evidence as to the danger Iran represents to Western interests. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its violence in Iraq and elsewhere, and its sponsorship of terrorism (even conspiring with al-Qaeda) are all well-documented, not least by the US government.

While Libya and Syria are rightly condemned for profound abuses of their citizens, there seems to be silence from Western governments on Iran, with the main opposition group remaining on the State Department’s terrorist list and denied US protection in Iraq. While it is important for democratic politics and the human rights of those who must live under such regimes that there is honesty about the foreign policy choices that the West is making, let us stick with realpolitikand focus firmly upon US foreign policy interests.

For thirty years, US administrations have clung to the wishful thought that there is within the Iranian regime a man or faction with whom it can do business. This policy has failed, not least because the Iranian government is wise to the search and is able to bargain and stonewall with US administrations and continue on as before. Witness former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Louis Freeh, recent anecdote about his having taken to the then US National Security Adviser the “strong evidence” of Iranian governmental responsibility in the deaths of 19 US airmen at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia on 25 June 1996. The response was, ‘”Who knows about this?” The FBI were told to keep open the investigation as the President had declared that the guilty would be found, but the Administration wanted to hear no more of Iranian responsibility. There was, Freeh said, “confusion” in US policy-making towards Iran.[i]

At such a critical time for Middle Eastern politics, it is timely that US policy towards Iran is fundamentally reviewed. The choices the US has made in its designated enemies in the region has had profound ramifications for global security. The failure to hold Iran to account for its international actions, as noted by Freeh in the case of the Khobar Towers, and the West’s choice of enemies in the past, has allowed Iran, whatever internal contradictions might be undermining it, to increase its regional power. Given the current mix of circumstances in the Middle East and South Asia, it has never been more important that the West gets its policy towards Iran right.

We can leave on one side the overwhelming evidence of Iran’s violence towards its own citizens, and the arguments as to the moral imperative that imposes upon the free, and simply ask, what is in the US interest? The test of the effectiveness of the 30 year old effort to find a modus vivendi with the Iranian regime is the extent to which Iran has moderated its international behaviour. The evidence from the US Treasury Department of Iranian co-operation with al-Qaeda, the violence in Iraq and the continued pursuit of nuclear weapons all point to failure. It is time to ask, does the US Administration really believe in its stated foreign policy preference for stable democracies with which to engage?

In any case, since the search for engagement with the Iranian theocracy has failed, then, if the US desires changed Iranian behaviour, it really has only two choices for the future: engage Iran militarily and impose a different regime, or remove the obstacles to democratic politics in Iran, beginning with the removal of People’s

Mujahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI or MEK) from the State Department’s terrorist list. The latter path is altogether less costly and more likely to produce a stable government, its democracy indigenously built and this sustainable.

The test for a new policy towards Iran, one that serves the US interest, is how the US government chooses to construct and treat the main Iranian opposition group, the MEK. That this group is central to the future democratic (and secular) politics of Iran can be evidenced in a number of ways. First, it was the MEK that first provided the intelligence revealing Iran’s nuclear programme. If an opposition group can access the most secret of state secrets, it is well and truly embedded in society at all levels. Second, the fact that the Iranian regime is spending resources in Washington to try to maintain the MEK on the terrorist list is symptomatic of the centrality of the MEK in Iran’s negotiations with the US. As such, this tells us something about the importance of the MEK in the Iran’s calculations about regime security and thus, again, it tells us something about the embeddness of the MEK in Iranian society.

Recognising the failure of US policy towards Iran, a growing number of the great and the good in US political and cultural circles have begun to speak openly about the centrality of the MEK to a more useful approach to the region by the US. Their evidence-based approach (see Freeh above) has also led them to see the MEK as it is – as a powerful and legitimate resistance movement, not a terrorist organization. This emerging consensus around an alternative approach to Iran has caused alarm to the theocracy. Since this consensus is built upon evidence, Iran’s approach to the debate has been to try to discredit, among others: former Joint Chiefs of Staff, a National Security Adviser, an Attorney General, CIA Directors, US ambassadors to the UN, a Secretary of Homeland Security, a White House Chief of Staff, a Marine Corps Commander, an FBI Director, and a State Department Director of Counterterrorism. Iran defines them as ‘words-for-hire’ rather than as the experienced, responsible and patriotic individuals that they are in reality.

Finally, removing the MEK from the State Department’s terrorist list would give the 3,400 unarmed Iranian exiles at Camp Ashraf in Iraq some chance of safety from Iraqi forces that have besieged and murdered at the behest of Iran. This group handed over its weapons to US forces in the early days of the Iraq War. They were accorded the status of “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Removing the MEK from the list would remove any excuses the Iraqi government has for its outrageous abuses there. Protecting these people is of central importance not only to the US’ moral authority in the world but to a more effective policy towards Iran. The centrality of the MEK in Iranian society means that, the future foreign policy consequences of a further outrage at Camp Ashraf will be as significant a barrier to future relations with the new Iran as the American Embassy hostage-taking was to US relations with the old.

An evidence-based approach to US policy-making towards Iran means de-listing the MEK and protecting Ashraf’s residents as vital first steps. Such an approach leads away from the ‘confusion’ which Freeh noted towards effectiveness in dealing with a most dangerous state.

Dr Sharam Taromsari, formerly lecturer in International Relations and Middle Eastern Security, Consultant on Middle Eastern affairs

In an interview with the National Public Radio’s Talk of the Nation, Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, debunked the allegations recently leveled by Elizabeth Rubin, a contributor to The New York Times Sunday Review, against Iranian opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

More significant, however, were Governor Dean’s remarks about the two core issues in the ongoing debate in Washington concerning the removal of the group from the State Department’s terrorism blacklist as well as the moral and legal responsibility of the United States for protection of 3,400 unarmed and defenseless members of the group in Camp Ashraf, Iraq.

Mr. Dean, who also served as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2005 to 2009, told the program’s host, Neil Conan, that:

“I don’t believe innocent people who we promised, the United States government, has promised protection should be murdered in cold blood, which they were by the [Iraqi Prime Minster Nouri al-] Maliki administration in April of this year, when he sent American-trained troops with American weapons in to shoot in cold blood unarmed civilians who we promised in writing to protect. That is what happened. This is not an issue of whether these people are a cult or any of this other stuff. This is an issue about whether America is going to keep its word and whether we value human rights. We risk being like the Dutch at Srebrenica, when they pulled their troops back and allowed 8,000 Bosnian Muslims to be murdered in cold blood, unarmed. And we’re – I don’t want to do that again.

“We have video of sniper attacks on these people. The snipers just going into – the Iraqi snipers with our weapons, going into these camps and just shooting these people like it was for sport – women, eight women, then they cut off medical care and two or three more people died who were injured. This is not something the American government ought to put up with.”

As for the need to remove the MEK from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) and allegations of involvement in terrorism leveled against the group by Washington and Tehran, Howard Dean reminded the program’s host that:

“We brought, the American government brought, some of the counterterrorism specialists and the FBI in who interviewed every single one of those 3,400 disarmed people and found that not one of them had ties to terrorism or to terrorists. So they are unarmed. They are not terrorists. Furthermore, this has been litigated in European and American courts. And the MEK has prevailed in every single judicial enterprise. They’re off the terrorist list by court order in Britain, in France, in the European Union. And the Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., has said they did not have due process in 1997 when they were put on the terrorist list. So, you know, you can say whatever you want about these people being in a cult or any of that kind of stuff, or my getting paid as a speaker or whatever you want. That has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is does the United States stand by and allow 3,400 unarmed people, who we disarmed in good faith, to be massacred by the Maliki regime. And 34 of those – 35 of those people have already been killed in cold blood.”

When asked about Elizabeth Rubin’s unfounded and Tehran-friendly description of the group as a “cult” and mistreatment of its members in Camp Ashraf, Governor Dean answered:

“I do know this, there have been two commanders of the American forces who were in Ashraf when we controlled all of Iraq who are supporting the position that they ought to be taken off the terrorist list. One of them testified under oath before Dana Rohrabacher’s committee, which had a hearing on July 7th, that he saw no evidence of this whatsoever. Another one who is not taking speaker’s fees, and certainly isn’t wealthy on his colonel’s pension, is also testifying and making speeches on their behalf. These people were on the ground after Mrs. Rubin was in Ashraf, and they saw no evidence of all this cult business and all that kind of stuff either.”

In her Sunday op-ed piece in the New York Times, Rubin, who told Neil Conan she has never interviewed Maryam Rajavi or even met her, embarked on a malicious mischaracterization of Rajavi, the MEK’s leadership and rank-and-file by merely quoting individuals affiliated with Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Howard Dean, however, set the record straight by describing his own personal encounter with Rajavi. He told Neil Conan that:

“I have actually had dinner with Mrs. Rajavi on numerous occasions. I do not find her very terrorist-like. She is an observant Muslim woman who’s very well-educated, as most of these people are, who speak many foreign languages because most of them have lived in Europe or the United States, including at least one who worked for the Defense Department for 20 years. This is not a scary group of people. And in the past, who knows what they did. But the fact of the matter is they’re not a terrorist group. That’s been ascertained by the FBI. We disarmed them. We promised to defend them. They are unarmed. And 47 of them over a two-year period were mowed down by Maliki’s people. And I don’t think the United States should be permitting those kinds of human rights abuses.”

Howard Dean’s August 15 interview is a great example of how a little truth evaporates a whole bunch of lies.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is reportedly close to announcing her decision to whether remove the Iranian major opposition, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the Department’s list of terrorist organizations or not. The law says this decision must be based on the anti-Terrorism Statute not politics or policy considerations. The US Congress and field experts agree and call for ending the designation.

Her predecessor’s 1997 decision to blacklist the group was definitely a political one and a total disregard of relevant laws. The move by Madeline Albright, the then Secretary of State, was carefully crafted to send a definitive and meaningful welcome-to-office present to the newly-elected president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, the darling of the phantom “reform” movement crowd in Western capitals.

The other component of this welcome package was the White House intervention to prevent the release of the FBI’s investigations which showed Iran was the main culprit in the 1996 Khobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 American servicemen. Not a bad package for the first day in office.

In 2006, the Wall Street Journal removed any ambiguity about the nature of Madeline Albright’s decision, noting that “In 1997, the State Department added the MEK to a list of global terrorist organizations as ‘a signal’ of the U.S.’s desire for rapprochement with Tehran’s reformists, says Martin Indyk, who at the time was assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs. President Khatami’s government ‘considered it a pretty big deal,’ Mr. Indyk says.”

Few days later after the 1997 designation, the New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman, re-emphasized the importance of the MEK blacklisting gesture for Tehran. “The U.S. press missed it, but the Iranians won’t…The Iranians will get the point: We’ve just made it illegal for Americans to support the [MEK] — a group dedicated to overthrowing the Iranian Government.”

Fast Forward to 2011.

The debate about the de-designation of the group has again flared with US Congress, field experts, national security figures, and legal experts calling on the Secretary Clinton to de-list the MEK on one side, and the Washington-based Tehran lobby and their network of reporters and bloggers on the other. A potentially healthy debate about war on terrorism and the Rule of law has, regrettably, turned into an anti-delisting campaign to demonize the MEK.

Glancing over commentaries by this desperate anti-MEK crowd – popping up like mushrooms on a rainy day as “MEK experts” – shows they clearly suffer from acute case of ignorance about America’s terrorism laws, requirements, and definitions. They are masters of copy-pasting and regurgitation, but they lack basic skill in unbiased and objective research into the case laws and court record and experts’ views.  Maybe they do but “can’t handle the truth.”

So, what is the truth about the MEK? Is this group concerned in terrorism? Does it qualify the statuary requirements to be designated as one? Renowned subject matter experts say: No. Let’s see what they say:

Rudi Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York, New York: “I have investigated terrorism and I have seen first hand, in my city the devastation that terrorism can bring about. [MEK] is not a terrorist organization. This is an organization dedicated to achieving freedom and dignity for its people.”

Louis Freeh, Former Director of the FBI, U.S. District Judge: “With respect to the designation of the MEK… I was not consulted in 1997, when the Department of State had listed the MEK… In 1997, the government of Iran duped the U.S. government by inducing it to list the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization, without consulting the FBI… The delisting has to immediately take place.”

Michael Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States: “There was simply no basis in law or in fact for continuing MEK on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist.”

Ambassador Dell Dailey, State Department’s Coordinator For Counterterrorism in 2008, Congressional Hearing: “If you take a snapshot [of MEK’s record] back five years, it appears to be somewhat clean. So we are doing a professional effort to review them.”

Ambassador Dell Dailey, Former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State, 2011: “It is essential that Secretary Clinton . . . revoke the designation and delist the MEK. It is within her ability to do that right now… Delist the MEK from the foreign terror organization list and let the Iranian citizens decide their own form of government.”

Richard R. Schoeberl, former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) executive with leadership responsibilities at FBI Headquarters and the National Counterterrorism Center: “Based on my experience as a Unit Chief in the Counterterrorism Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there are ample grounds to conclude that the MEK should be removed from the FTO list.”

Terry Arnold, Former Deputy Director of the State Department’s Office of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning: “Under the law, the group no longer qualifies as an FTO, because the circumstances that led to its previous listing have sufficiently changed as to merit removal.”

Oliver “Buck” Revell, Former Associate Deputy Director of FBI: “There is no evidence that the group is engaging in terrorism, and having been under the watchful eye of the U.S. military for over five years, there is no evidence that the group retains the capability or intent to commit terrorist acts.”

Prof. Yonah Alexander, Director of Int’l. Center for Terrorism: “[MEK] repudiated violence, ceased all military operations, and voluntarily surrendered its weapons. These actions were substantiated by U.S. intelligence and military bodies…It is amply clear that there is no factual basis for retaining the current FTO status of the [MEK].

Dr. Patrick Clawson, Deputy Director for Research of Washington Institute for Near East Policy: “The State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism contain numerous non-terrorist allegations against [MEK] without offering any indication that the group continues to engage in terrorism.”

Dr. Walid Phares, Director of Future Terrorism at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: “Tehran’s regime, designated as Terrorist by Washington, considers the MEK as terrorist. This puzzling situation is due to the fact that pro-Iranian pressure groups consider the Mujahidin Khalq [MEK] as a real threat to the regime and thus put significant pressures internationally to keep the designation of the MEK as is.”

There you have it; the views of experts, the real terrorism and national security experts, not of those who just jumped on the anti-MEK band wagon of Tehran lobby, driven by the notorious mullah Heydar Moslehi, head of Iran’s feared Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

In 1997, Madeline Albright disgraced herself  by giving in to pressure coming from Tehran’s tyrant rulers and their US-based advocates, and designated the MEK as a terrorist group. Fourteen years later, Secretary Clinton must refrain from yielding to similar pressure from the same bunch. She must de-list. It would be a huge disgrace if she ignores the massive volume of experts’ views, Congressional resolutions, and the court findings and maintain the stigma of terrorism on the MEK. 

Navid Dara is a Washington-based analyst of US policy towards Iran.