Lee Hamilton Calls for MEK Delisting
Trita Parsi: Remove Revolutionary Guards fromTerror List
August 12, 2011 by
In recent weeks NIAC (National Iranian American Council) and its president Trita Parsi have embarked on an intense, concentrated, and forceful campaign in Washington, and on the cyber space, against People´s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI – MEK). This campaign includes tens of Op-eds and articles, dedicated web pages, petitions, letters to legislators, seminars and webinars, and thousands of tweets in a matter of 4 weeks. To understand why NIAC, an organization that was founded based on the claim that it is “a non-profit, non-partisan, non-political and non-sectarian organization”, has so hysterically rushed to take a partisan, political, sectarian, and perhaps for-profit side, let´s systematically, and very briefly, review some background information.
The focus of NIAC and Parsi´s recent campaign is to prevent removing PMOI from the State Department´s list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO). The terrorist listing was the prime justification [1] for two separate assaults by the Iraqi army in July 2009 and April 2011, on Camp Ashraf, residence of the nearly 3,400 members of the PMOI in Iraq. These attacks left more than 50 unarmed residents killed, and hundreds injured.
The blacklisting of PMOI was initiated in 1997, followed by the European countries, to facilitate a policy of appeasement with the Iranian regime (Norman Kempster, “U.S. Designates 30 Groups as Terrorists,” Los Angeles Times, October 9, 1997) . After thorough examinations by courts, United Kingdom in 2008, the European Union in 2009, France in 2010 and 2011, Germany in 2010 and 2011, have dismissed these allegations and removed the group from their blacklists. In July 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit ordered that the State Department re-examine the decision to keep the PMOI in the FTO list. It is expected that the State Department announce their decision soon. An increasing bi-partisan group of more than 130 members of US Congress and high ranking officials from four US administrations, are unified in their opinion that there is no basis for continued listing of PMOI, and have called for their removal from the FTO list.
This campaign is not NIAC or Parsi´s first lobbying campaign to influence the FTO list of the State Department. In the summer of 2007, Trita Parsi embarked on another campaign to remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) from the State Department´s Terrorist list. The designation of the Guard´s Corp was in response to Iranian´s infiltration in Iraq, and in particular their direct role in killing [2] hundreds of American soldiers through improvised explosive devices (IED). Parsi argued [3] that “The White House’s decision to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization could deal a double blow to efforts to utilize diplomacy with Iran to stabilize Iraq.” Note that the Iranian regime itself could not better fit the threat to “up the ante in Iraq”, and the pledge of “good behavior at the negotiation table” in one argument! Prior to this campaign, Trita Parsi was in close and intense communication with the Iranian regime. Evidence of these communications have recently surfaced in a court discovery. Needless to say that Parsi and NIAC´s campaign to remove the revolutionary guards, the murderers of the youth in the streets of Iran, remained futile.
Trita Parsi´s political career is solely defined (since his student days when he started working for the disgraced, pro-Iranian congressman Bob Ney) by advocating positions and actions that favor the Iranian regime´s interests.
If the Iranian government could wish for an ambassador at large in the United States to advocate their wishes, undoubtedly they would have wished for someone who would mimic Trita Parsi. Some examples of Trita´s advocacy are listed below.
– Working with Bob Ney to block the sanctions against the Ayatollahs [4],
– Facilitating Mahmood Ahmadinejad´s reception and speech in the Columbia University [5],
– Promoting the belief that the Iranian nuclear aspiration is strong and mature enough to a point that the United State and the world must learn to live with it, and share the region with the Ayatollahs. Parsi, in answering [6] “Is the United States ready to share the region with Iran?” suggests a “paradigm shift” in the US policy towards accepting Iran´s hegemony in the region, otherwise, it will “disable future administrations from turning political opportunities into real diplomatic breakthroughs — irrespective of their positive intentions.”
– Promoting the belief that the Iranian Green Movement is dead now, and West must fall back again on the appeasement policy and be kind to the current regime. In his article called “The End of the Beginning” [7] , making a mockery of the analysis that the mass demonstrations in the streets of Tehran were the “beginning of the end” of the theocratic regime, Paris wrote: “Iran’s popular uprising, which began after the June 12 election, may be heading for a premature ending. In many ways, the Ahmadinejad government has succeeded in transforming what was a mass movement into dispersed pockets of unrest. Whatever is now left of this mass movement is now leaderless, unorganized — and under the risk of being hijacked by groups outside…”
The pattern and history of Trita Parsi and NIAC, is the clearest explanation for their recent intense campaign against removing MEK from the US blacklist.
[1] http://iranntv.com/node/5587
[2] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1
[3] http://niac.convio.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5710&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1
[4] http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=25959
[5] http://iraniansforum.com/index.php/gallery/trita-parsi-coordinated-his-lobby-with-iranian-regimes-associates/trita-parsi-coordinated01-147#joomimg
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/can-the-us-and-iran-share_b_97670.html
[7] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/26/the_end_of_the_beginning
Secretary Clinton, Delist MEK
August 12, 2011 by
Lives of 3400 Iranian dissidents in Iraq are threatened; Secretary Clinton should listen to the voice of distinguished and well-respected top American officials
OfficialWire
12 August 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. (USA) – A group of distinguished and well respected top American officials have spoken in support of delisting the Iranian opposition, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK /PMOI), from the State Department FTO list. The campaign to counter the Iranian regime’s disinformation campaign to hamper the Iranian opposition seems to bother some lobby groups in Washington such as NIAC nowadays.
The efforts are aimed at securing the safety of 3400 unarmed individuals, including 1000 women, in Camp Ashraf in Iraq, who are faced with a potential massacre at the hands of Iraqi forces under Iranian influence and pressure, especially after the year-end when US forces are due to leave Iraq. Each of the residents was recognized as Protected Persons by the US after they signed an agreement with the US military in 2004 to voluntarily surrender their arms in exchange for safety. The US protected the camp until 2009 and handed over control to the Iraqi government under the SOFA agreement (US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement).
The camp has been attacked twice by Iraqi forces acting on behest of the Iranian government and 36 residents including 6 women have been massacred during the latest attack this April. Delisting MEK will deny the Iraqi authorities the justification to conduct another attack on the unarmed and peaceful camp where Iranian dissidents live, under pretext of countering terrorism.
The Iranian regime’s Washington-based lobby is targeting former top US officials from the full political spectrum who have worked for the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations, for making paid speeches during their visits to various venues to attend conferences organized by Iranian Americans and Iranian exiles this year, which is a common practice among former US officials. The Iran lobby hopes to confuse the issue by targeting the officials for speaking fees. It is a perfectly legal practice for a former official to make a paid speech for a cause he believes in. Many former officials including former US presidents, including Presidents Clinton and Bush, accept fees for their speeches after leaving office.
If these lobbyists are so concerned about and want to stop this practice, they should in fact address the way American politics is run. It seems the pervasive message by these officials in support of the MEK has delivered a hard blow to the storyline promoted by the Iranian regime to cast the MEK as a terrorist organization despite the lack of any evidence to support the allegations. The UK removed the MEK from the list in 2008 and the EU in 2009 after courts found no evidence of terrorist action. It won no less than 22 battles in courts across Europe as it sought to be delisted there. The US Federal Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, ruled in June 2010 to remand the case to the Secretary of State after no evidence was found to support the designation by the court, strongly suggesting the Secretary should revoke the listing.
The designation was based on “classified” documents. These documents which lack any significant substance originate from the Iranian regime and propagate through its web-sites and the Iran lobby in Washington and ultimately end up in the State Department’s classified dossiers by low-level State Department employees of Iranian origin affiliated with NIAC who seem to have a serious conflict of interest. Reza Marashi, who today is Director of Research for NIAC, once served at the State Department’s Iran desk for 4 years until recently. Mr. Marashi has written several articles lambasting the MEK based on pure allegations and no proof. It is of serious concern that a group such as NIAC, known to have extensive links with Iranian officials, under investigation for misusing government funds in lobbying for Tehran, and accused of being an unregistered agent of the Iranian government would have so much influence in shaping US policy toward Iran and Iran’s main opposition force.
NIAC has launched a disinformation campaign in the US against the Iranian opposition MEK to bolster its ties with the Iranian regime. It has belittled the threat of the Iranian nuclear program, has lobbied against effective sanctions, and has encouraged US and Iran reconciliation in favor of Iran’s interests and contrary to the Iranian people and US national interests.
NIAC was formed in the US to seemingly advance Iranian-American civic participation. But in actuality it has worked to advance Iranian regime policy interests in Washington with slick campaigns. Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian analyst familiar with NIAC’s activities, has linked NIAC to the Iranian regime with extensive research.
It seems the message that the Iran lobby wishes to convey is that US officials have spoken in support of delisting of MEK out of ignorance and only for the money, perhaps being bribed.
But a review of the list of former top US officials and their speeches makes this quite implausible. For example, Howard Dean who has made pro bono speeches as well in support of the MEK delisting, said, “We must change our position on the MEK and stop calling them a terrorist organization. They are not a terrorist organization, they have their own bill of rights, which is an extraordinary thing under the leadership of Maryam Rajavi, and we appreciate what she has done greatly,” in reference to a 10-point plan for future Iran that Rajavi, a leader of the NCRI has put forward.
The furor that the Iran lobby has been trying to whip up over the support of top US officials, is really a brazen attempt by Tehran’s lobby, and mainly NIAC, to intimidate public opinion and these well-respected foreign and security policy experts and to pressure them to back away from the views they have expressed.
What is shameful is the Iranian regime’s funding of these lobbies to oppose MEK. According to documents available on the Internet hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid out to lobbies such as NIAC to advocate Iranian regime’s propaganda in the US and publish articles in the media to that effect.
The main motivation behind the State Department’s listing was to curry favor with the mullahs. In September 2002, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs during the Clinton Administration, Martin Indyk, told Newsweek, “[There] was White House interest in opening up a dialogue with the Iranian government. Top Administration officials saw cracking down on the [MEK], which the Iranians had made clear they saw as a menace, as one way to do so.”
This is what John Sano (former Deputy Director of CIA for National Clandestine Service) had to say on this issue in a recent conference in Washington with the Camp Ashraf massacre back in April as an instance: “The situation in Camp Ashraf and the recent massacre which occurred there only three months ago, is the perfect example in terms of what the MOIS is able to do in attempting to shape world opinion. It has been their consistent maligning of the MEK as a subversive and terrorist organization. This is in direct contravention of the reports here in the United States and internationally that have provided the true story behind the massacre… and the reality of the MEK as peace loving, pro-democratic, nonviolent, organization seeking only to promote a system with freedom of speech, assembly, and political parties, as separation of church and state and gender equality.”
Circulating cheap hearsay such as the Mujahedin-e Khalq’s participation in the American Embassy’s seizure and calling for the execution of American hostages is nothing but distorting the truth. Anyone familiar with events in Iran during the 1980s knows well that MEK never took part in the American embassy seizure. On the contrary, the Iranian regime used the opportunity to fasten its grip on power and isolate progressive groups and the opposition including the MEK.
The Iran lobbies have argued that delisting the MEK would give the Iranian hard-line rulers more reason to clamp down on Iran’s internal opposition and the green movement. One can question this kind of irrelevant rhetoric to keep an organization unjustly in the FTO terror list. Is this the statutory legal requirement to keep an organization on the FTO terror list? The time has long passed to exploit legal measures to advance certain political goals. After all, the State Department FTO list is not meant to promote the green movement in Iran and elsewhere, rather it is intended to confront the terrorist threat against US interests. MEK has never been a threat to the US at any time.
However, events of past 14 years, the period the MEK has been kept on the FTO list have demonstrated the moral and political drawbacks of the MEK listing on the opposition inside Iran. The Iranian people have suffered the most brutal crack-down during the past decade and the Iranian regime has used the terrorist label against MEK to silence all voices of opposition inside Iran. Only in the past two years, following post-election protests, thousands have been arrested and hundreds have been executed or tortured, mainly affiliated with the MEK.
The NIAC and their usual roster of so-called experts claim that delisting the MEK will hurt the opposition inside Iran. Delisting of MEK, as the most organized and effective opposition against the Iranian dictatorship could, however, limit the Iranian rulers’ ability to suppress the opposition inside Iran under pretext of terrorism. The ramification of January 2009 delisting of MEK in Europe contributed extensively to the spread of the protests in June of 2009 following the fraudulent presidential elections in Iran.
If NIAC’s argument were to be true, then the MEK and the victims of the regime’s crimes are the source of the problem and not the Iranian dictatorship. Likewise, one can claim the Jews were responsible for their own deaths during the Nazi period and they would never have been massacred if they had not existed or had been kept isolated in their ghettos. This is of course preposterous.
The time has come for the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to ignore the vicious calls originating from Tehran and listen to the voices of conscious coming from former US officials with distinguished records of public service, and the Iranian people, and make the right decision to remove the MEK from the FTO list.
Klick here to sign the petition urging Hillary Clinton to delist MEK
Joseph Omidvar is a scholar in Middle Eastern studies specializing in Iran policies.
http://news.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=86543
U.S. Officials vs. Mullahs Apologists
August 12, 2011 by
Tehran lobbies are at work to discourage support of many former American officials of the MEK in their humanitarian quest to save Camp Ashraf residents from massacre
Tehran lobbies, and apologists have recently been hard at work to use fictitious ” hypothesise,,” ,ruled out by factualists in the “real” events of Iranian uprising and its follow ups.
A round table of disillusioned pundits who try to imitate Gobble, master propagandist of the Nazi regime, forget that we live in the era of Democratic Gales, which judge mostly on “Deeds” and not “disenchanted absurd words and accusations.”
I never encountered “Bassiji” pundits in suits and cravats before escaping Iran. Reading accusations and absurdities in a wave of slanders targeting Iran’s main capable opposition (MEK) that has practically withstood ten-time more such follies by the mullahs, was history for me.
The bundle is composed of NIAC -the dis-reputed Trita Parsi*1- and his chain of corporate. What surprised me is the extent these hypocrites undermine and insult the intellect of the people overall and specifically, Policy makers in Washington.
One recent example of such an article written in the same line reads:
*“But the delisting of the MEK, Iran experts say, could benefit Iran’s hard-line rulers by giving them more reason to brutally clamp down on Iran’s internal, nonviolent opposition. The Green Movement – which led street protests in 2009 – steadfastly rejects the MEK as an anti-democratic and violent force.”*3*
*Iranian group’s big-money push to get off US terrorist list**-** Scott Peterson*
“Iran Experts” in the article no doubt is referring to *Joint Experts’ Statement on the Mujahedin-e Khalq*. It is interesting to note that the “Experts” is referring to none other than Bassiji White tie elements at work in Capitol Hill and lame rejected by the young movement in Iran as a pundit of the fascist regime. Apologists such as Limbert, with a clear prospect of “profitable” *2 cooperation with the Iranian regime, are not the Iranian people’s voice and conscience to denounce a 43 year old pro-democracy movement.
To entice US foreign policy towards such a troublesome and ostracized concoction is more than jeopardizing US foreign policy and the Whole Administration.
Chiming with Iranian Intelligence 34 year-long motto portraying the PMOI/MEK, which is the only serious threat to the malicious mullahs in Iran, as being anti-democratic and violent is immensely repetitious.
The 7 court ruling in Europe and the last in France have ruled these persecutive accusations as “” perverse.” The French Judge, Mr.Trevidic went further than that and recognized; “A Law of a Democratic country, on terrorism, cannot have the intention to obstruct the constitutional right of resistance against oppression.”
Activism of the PMOI(MEK) reflect the natural and inalienable right to resist tyranny, as stated in section 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights*, and as correctly pointed out by former Mayor of New York, Rudii Giuliani; “How can it be terrorism to support Freedom of Religion, freedom for women, a free election, a rule of Law and nuclear-free Iran?!”
*MEK (PMOI) is not a terrorist organization. It is a voice and a call for freedom – Tom Ridge, first U.S. Homeland Security Secretary *5*
*WE, the Iranian people, have seen 150 years of smear campaign by tyrants against its Freedom fighters and dissidents. We have always appreciated those individuals who have embodied the true values of their homeland and stood by us during our worst movements. *
We have seen the brave Howard Baskerville, an American teacher, who came to the aid of Sattar Khan during the Constitutional Revolution*6and fought alongside him and died as a “freedom Fighter.” People still flower his grave in Tabriz and revere his role in aiding the movement.
Gauook, from the people of Germany, came to the aid of Mirza Kouchak Khan.
The long line of individuals from countries worldwide, standing with the Iranian resistance(MEK) in its plight for Freedom has convinced the clerical regime and its apologists of the vital role the MEK plays in Iran and the region.
Dedication and commitment towards democracy, justice, and law in the contemporary world has been a characteristic of individuals who are now protecting genuine values of their American Pride Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson by standing with the Iranian resistance.
A line of names such as: Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton; former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Togo West; former State Department Director of Policy Planning Mitchell Reiss; former Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James T. Conway; Anita McBride, the former chief of staff to First Lady Laura Bush; and Sarah Sewall, a Harvard professor, former FBI director Louis Freeh sat Ed Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and current MSNBC talking head; former National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones; former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge; onetime State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow and former CIA directors Porter Goss and James R. Woolsey, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark and former Commander in Chief of United States Central Command Gen. Anthony Zinni, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former New Mexico Gov. and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, former Bush White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and former 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton.
Accusing such elegance of values lined to defend usurped rights of a people for FREEDOM, is venomous and absurd. This is a never-ending line that will take down the tyrants in Tehran.
The virtue of risk taking for the defence of Freedom is not purchasable since it involves unwavered perseverance to defend genuine values bypassing short-term interests.
We have seen the American pride symbolized in heroes such as George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln, and read about Colonel Francis Marion the fearless cavalryman, leading South Carolinians to victory in the American Revolution.
Today, the “Line” has begun in Europe with more than 4000 politicians, 8000 Mayors, 3400 Jurists worldwide and scores of Humanists and Right defenders and has continued to reach the United States.
These Noble individuals are cherished and loved by the Iranian people and represent their expectations of the “ American democracy”.
REF
1* http://www.iranian-americans.com/docs/zarif/Dorood.pdf
2* http://www.iranian-americans.com/docs/zarif/LimbertThanks.pdf
6* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist_movement_of_Gilan
The “Terror Lobby” List: A Response
August 11, 2011 by
THE HUFFINGTON POST
What is an organization deemed by the US State Department to be dedicated to terrorism — an FTO, or Foreign Terrorist Organization — supposed to do when it believes the charge is spurious? Clearly, the consequences of such a determination are enormous because under federal law anyone providing as much as a nickel in support to an organization on the FTO list is subject to criminal penalties for aiding and abetting terrorism. So naturally, such an organization will try to do whatever it can to exercise its legitimate rights to correct the record, refute erroneous charges and seek de-listing.
This burden to act is especially acute if an organization placed on the FTO list happens to have thousands of its members situated in a foreign country where they stand to be forcibly removed to a truly terrorist regime where the fate of those “repatriated” will likely be death by firing squad or the hangman’s noose. And, where the US State Department FTO listing is manipulated as justification for random acts of violence against members of that particular organization coupled with continued threats of forced deportation, the compulsion to use all legitimate means to remove the unwarranted terrorist label is overwhelming.
This is precisely the situation the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) finds itself in today. The surprise is that it would be vilified for its efforts in a recent article in the Huffington Post by Christina Wilkie (“Mujahideen-e Khalq: Former U.S. Officials Make Millions Advocating For Terrorist Organization“, 8/8/11). There, Ms. Wilkie makes the sensational charge that the MEK is indeed a terrorist organization and that former top US national security officials are willing to prostitute themselves by saying the opposite. To illustrate her point, The Huffington Post chose to bunch photographs of these officials in a sort of rogues gallery captioned as “Terror Lobby”.
It is mindboggling to believe that one could imply that these prominent individuals are villains when they, more than most Americans, understand that Iran is the world’s most active supporter of terrorism and the MEK is dedicated to unhinging Iran’s repressive regime through free elections in which it can participate. Presumably, Ms. Wilkie realizes that the ruling mullahs of Iran would like nothing more than to have its new emerging satellite, the government of Iraq, repatriate the 3,400 MEK dissidents located in Iraq to face “justice” in Iran.
The hangmen in Iran have already executed thousands of MEK members over the course of the last three decades. In further delegitimizing the MEK and its supporters, Ms. Wilkie’s article in fact aids and abets terror — terror not only against the MEK members, but against American troops and Iran’s own citizens who are the key victims of the terrorist policy practiced by Teheran’s regime.
Ostensibly, Ms. Wilkie’s concern is that the MEK remains a terrorist organization that dupes top-tier former US national security officials, including the former Attorney General of the United States, to jettison their US national security concerns in favor of a quick buck. Thus, the article begins with the old canard that the MEK is a Marxist organization. Never mind that the MEK itself denies that it has a Marxist bent. But, let us say that it is Marxist — whatever that means — in orientation. What difference should that make in being subjected to the terrorist organization label?
Similarly, Ms. Wilkie’s pronouncement that the MEK is a “cult” is meaningless, and dangerous. Even assuming the charge to be true, the fact remains that no US law allows placement of an organization on any terrorism list, or validates ignoring an impending humanitarian disaster, because it has “cult”-like qualities. Indeed, the very phrase gives license to irresponsible journalists or government officials to go after whomever they happen to dislike under the banner of the cult flavor of the month.
The only incident — and not evidence — Ms. Wilkie presents on the MEK’s terrorist inclinations is the accusation of its involvement in attacks on Americans more than three decades ago. But conspicuously absent is any mention of the fact that the MEK denied any role in those attacks, which were undertaken by a splinter group not affiliated with the MEK, which coincidently murdered MEK leaders as well.
Only on the second page of her article do we learn that the EU’s highest court has recently taken the MEK off its terrorism list because it found not a shred of evidence to indicate that it has engaged in any act of terrorism. Nor is any reference made in the article to the standards in international and US law about renunciation of terrorism as justifying terminating the terrorist label.
It is telling that the article does not even allude to the fact that three years ago, the highest court in Britain rebuked its own Foreign Office for ever having listed the MEK on its terrorism list, as no credible evidence formed a basis for such a designation.
And in May 2011, the French Judiciary dropped all terrorism and terrorism financing charges against the individuals affiliated with the MEK. The judgment concluded that “The dossier does not contain any evidence indicating an armed activity that would intentionally target civilians,” and that the MEK struggle amounted to “resistance against tyranny.”
Finally, there is no reference to the reasons that the US Congress — unless she deems them all duped as well — have by overwhelming majority asked the State Department to review the MEK listing as being inconsistent with the evidence at hand. 94 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, including Chairmen of the Select Intelligence, Armed Services and Government Oversight committees, cosponsored H.Res.60, which urges the Secretary of State “to remove the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran from the Department of State’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”
Perhaps most ominously, Ms. Wilkie’s article fails to tell readers what the ex-US government national security officials actually said. Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a scholarly and thorough analysis as to why the MEK should be delisted based on the governing law and pertinent facts. Director Louis Freeh explained the political environment in which the MEK was designated in 1997, when the White House had blocked Freeh’s efforts to indict Iranian regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who had planned the bombing of the Khobar Towers, killing 19 American service members.
General Wesley Clark elaborated that he was familiar with the MEK for many years and that based on his own experience in the Balkans, the recent atrocities by the soldiers of Iraq against the MEK dissidents housed in Iraq was tantamount to a war crime and should be investigated. Secretary Ridge remarked that in none of the White House meetings dealing with threats to the United States was the MEK ever mentioned. And the State Department’s coordinator of counterterrorism until April 2010, Ambassador Dell Dailey, said he had found no evidence of MEK involvement in terrorism and had pushed to get the group off the list.
Ms. Wilkie contends, or at least strongly suggests, that because these former national security officials were the recipients of money from Iranian American communities sympathetic to the MEK, the voicing of their opinions puts them in the category of those aiding and abetting terrorism. Of course, the US Justice Department has never made such a slanted interpretation of US law. Indeed, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in July of this year found that it was not convinced that there is any sound basis for classifying the MEK as an FTO and asked the State Department to produce further evidence as to why such a listing was appropriate. For months, however, the State Department has dragged its feet, neither agreeing to delist the MEK, nor forthrightly stating facts that support such a listing.
Journalists considering a story accusing an organization of being a terrorist entity can hardly afford to turn a blind eye on the consequences of what they write, especially when the lives of thousands of individuals may be endangered.
Allan Gerson is the Chairman of AG International Law in Washington D.C. He is presently involved with other attorneys in representing the PMOI/MEK in its efforts to be removed from the State Department List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allan-gerson/post_2286_b_924434.html
Tehran tries to shoot the messengers
August 10, 2011 by
The Washington Times
August 10, 2011
By Zahra Sadeghpour
Mullahs attack U.S. officials urging an end to opposition’s ‘terrorist’ status
In the past few weeks, Washington has been abuzz with a heated debate over the main Iranian opposition, the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).
On the face of it, the debate is on removing the MEK from the list of the State Department’s foreign terrorist organizations – a decision that reportedly will be made soon by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In reality, to delist or not to delist Tehran’s arch-opponents is the battleground for a more profound debate in Washington on how to deal with Iran’s mullahs. The clerical regime’s egregious behavior includes facilitating operation of al Qaeda in the region through an agreement with the vicious terrorist group (as established by the U.S. Treasury Department last week), its unimpeded drive to acquire nuclear weapons, meddling in affairs of other countries – Iraq, in particular – acting as the most active state sponsor of terrorism, and its ruthless crackdown of Iranian citizens.
For Iranian-Americans, the issue, in addition to national security, has another important aspect. It is about life and death for 3,400 Iranian exiles in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. The residents, members of MEK, voluntarily handed over their weapons to the United States in 2003 and were accorded the status of “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But they face increasing threats from an Iraqi government that has been doing the mullahs’ bidding in dealing with the residents. That government’s only excuse for its mistreatment of Ashraf residents is the inclusion of the MEK on the U.S. terrorist list.
Over the years, those who believed that providing incentives and limited sanctions could do the trick vis-a-vis Tehran had the upper hand within the U.S. bureaucracy. The opposition to Tehran theocracy had to be sidelined, since that would have been an irritation to this approach.
But that is changing. There is a growing momentum in Washington among former senior national security, diplomatic and intelligence officials and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that this is a dead-end policy and a recipe for a huge crisis. These realists cite some basic facts: The MEK was placed on the terrorist list for political reasons to curry favor with Tehran’s mullahs, the MEK has renounced all violence since 2001 and there is no merit in maintaining the “terrorist” status.
What’s the response by the other side?
The Iranian regime’s lobby and the apologists for Tehran have resorted to a typical tactic: “If you don’t like the message, attack the messenger.” This is a distraction to overshadow the main issue and main argument, since they fully realize that removal of the MEK from the U.S. terrorist list would make it more difficult for them to hide their real objective, which is aiding the central banker of international terrorism.
One notion that they are propagating is attacking former officials for speaking in favor of a firm policy toward Iran as well as supporting protection of Ashraf residents and delisting the MEK, suggesting that they have received speaking fees from Iranian-Americans.
The idea that the views of three joint chiefs of staff of the U.S. armed forces, a former commander of NATO, a former national security adviser to the president, a former attorney general, two former directors of the CIA, two former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., a former Homeland Security secretary, a former White House chief of staff, a former commandant of the Marine Corps, a former policy planning director of the State Department, a former FBI director, and even a director of Counterterrorism at the State Department could be bought off collectively is simply outrageous.
If that is true, then the Iranian regime, with all its oil money and resources, could have bought hundreds of luminaries to disseminate Tehran’s propaganda that the Iranian regime is the champion of human rights, a victim of terrorism and the biggest promoter of peace in the Middle East.
Former President Bill Clinton has made more than 200 paid speeches in 48 countries in the past 10 years as a private citizen. Former President George W. Bush has also made scores of paid speeches since leaving office. If this line of argument were valid, the integrity of the entire political leadership of the United States would be under question. This is not the issue of one or two individuals but it is a part of a well-established lawful and transparent political process.
Can anyone imply that even former presidents were compromising their views and national security interests because they were making paid speeches in support of an issue? Or that they took positions against a misdeed because they were paid to deliver a speech on the issue? Absolutely not.
It is time that the tune that sounds so pleasant to the mullahs’ ears be stopped and the voices of Tehran opponents be heard. They are the very same people who could not be heard in Iran, and because of the wrongheaded policy of seeking accommodation from Tehran, they have been marginalized by the United States during the past few years as a result of their designation as a foreign terrorist organization.
Instead of trying to shoot the messenger, let’s hear the message. It is about time.
Zahra Sadeqpour is a doctor of pharmacy, a human rights activist and executive director of the Iranian-American Society of Massachusetts. Her younger brother, age 25, was executed by the Iranian regime.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/9/tehran-tries-to-shoot-the-messengers/
Attempts to demonise supporters of Iranian resistance
August 10, 2011 by
The Financial Times
August 10, 2011
From Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
Sir, Your article “Favourite ‘terrorists’ in US focus on lobbying” (July 30) and its complementary piece on FT.com, “Heavyweights back Iranian exile group”, repeat the Iranian regime’s stale allegations against the main organised opposition group People’s Mujahedin of Iran (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) and do a disservice to the Financial Times’ record of unbiased journalism. They are part of an effort by Iran’s intelligence ministry to demonise the supporters of the Iranian resistance.
Some 22 courts in the UK, Europe and the US have ruled that the PMOI is not involved in terrorism; furthermore, the UK government de-proscribed the group in 2008, as did the European Union in 2009 after the courts rejected the very allegations that the articles have yet again brought up.
The Rand report, referred to in the article, has received serious academic criticism for its unsound research methodology and the veiled political advocacy behind it. The institute’s director James Dobbins is a vocal advocate of rapprochement with Iran and has been active in the “Campaign for a New Policy on Iran” which lobbies the US to lift sanctions on Iran.
In the past two years, there has been a serious gap in the direction of the so-called Green Movement leaders and the millions who took part in anti-government protests following the stolen 2009 presidential election. While the demonstrators have repeatedly made clear they demand complete regime change, the leaders of the Green Movement have been equally clear in confirming their support for the mullah-led regime. These figureheads attempt to tarnish the PMOI’s image to convince the US to maintain its ban on the resistance in the hope that this true force for change in Iran remains enchained in the west.
All that the former senior US officials have been publicly demanding is that the US abide by the ruling of the DC Court of Appeal and revoke the terrorism designation of the PMOI to prevent that label from being misused by Iran and Iraq to torture and murder the group’s members and supporters who are committed to bringing democracy, freedom and peace to Iran.
Peter Archer,
President, International Parliamentary Campaign in Defence of Ashraf
Former UK Solicitor General
Peter Fraser,
Co-President, International Parliamentary Campaign in Defence of Ashraf
Former Lord Advocate for Scotland
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a27857d0-c286-11e0-9ede-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Ude8ItFT
The clock is ticking
August 10, 2011 by
St. Louis Post Dispatch
August 10, 2011
As U.S. troops prepare to leave Iraq by the end of this year, a humanitarian crisis is emerging that has a real chance of tarnishing President Obama’s legacy. More than 3,400 Iranian dissidents who reside in Camp Ashraf in Iraq face growing threats from a pro-Tehran Iraqi government bent on destroying them. That has been understandably worrisome for Iranian-Americans all over the United States, including the ones in Missouri, but the repercussions of their fate should concern all of us.
In April, Iraqi troops raided the camp at the behest of the Iranian regime, murdering 36 defenseless civilian residents and injuring hundreds more. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, described it as a “massacre,” adding that there should be an independent investigation. Both the European Union’s foreign policy chief and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights also called for a probe into the deaths.
The incident came after a similar attack in July 2009 that left 11 dead and scores more wounded. A tribunal in Spain has been investigating the attacks as crimes against humanity and war crimes. In July, it summoned the commander of the Iraqi army and two other officers. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will come to court to explain about the crimes after he leaves office and his immunity is over.
Al-Maliki and the Iranian regime are hatching more plans to perpetrate further massacres against the residents of Camp Ashraf, who are the most formidable opponents of the Iranian regime.
The clock is ticking and the need for finding a solution to the crisis is more pressing. The residents in Ashraf, “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, have all signed bilateral agreements with U.S. forces, who promised them protection until their final disposition.
In early 2009, the United States transferred that protection to the Iraqi government after saying it received written assurances that the residents will be treated humanely. After two years of massacres, abuses and what Amnesty International recently described as persistent “harassment” of the residents, Iraq has shown itself to be incompetent of protecting the unarmed civilians at Ashraf.
The United States has a solemn obligation to reassume the protection of the camp, especially because the situation at the camp remains tense as the unarmed civilians are under a complete blockade, even deprived of access to medical treatment and surrounded by armed Iraqi forces.
The European Parliament has offered a long-term, peaceful solution to the crisis, proposing the repatriation of the residents to third countries as the most viable alternative. This has been accepted by the residents.
But, incredibly, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has aligned itself with a solution offered by the Iranian regime and its proxies in Iraq: disband Ashraf and move the residents to a new location in Iraq, which, inevitably, would be away from international eyes. That, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton recently said, is a “recipe for disaster.”
Ambassador Lawrence Butler of the U.S. embassy continues to push for this option, however, while rejecting the European Parliament plan and dismissing the concerns and will of the residents.
Meanwhile, on July 21, the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously passed an amendment to Foreign Relations Authorization Act stipulating that the U.S. government should take “all necessary and appropriate steps” to “ensure the physical security and protection of Camp Ashraf residents.”
It added that the United States should “prevent the forcible relocation of Camp Ashraf residents inside Iraq and to facilitate the robust presence of” the U.N. mission in Iraq in Camp Ashraf.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also has called for respect for the rights of the residents while urging a consensus solution. Forcible displacement is not a consensus solution, unless by consensus is meant a tacit agreement between the United States and the Iranian regime.
All other parties, including the United Nations, the European Parliament, prominent former U.S. officials and even the speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, have rejected the notion as a recipe for a humanitarian catastrophe. If the residents aren’t safe in Ashraf, what makes Ambassador Lawrence Butler think they would be safe in a remote location where the Iraqi government could have absolute free rein?
Ambassador Butler’s insistence on displacing the residents within Iraq paves the way for another Srebrenica-style massacre, as a prominent member of the European Parliament has warned.
That is not what President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would want their legacy to be in Iraq.
The United States undeniably is obligated, both legally and morally, to protect the residents of Ashraf. It is time for the secretaries of defense and state to step in and reject the idea of forcible displacement of the residents of Ashraf inside Iraq, and endorse the European Parliament’s plan while observing U.S. commitments of protection. That is the only way to avert a humanitarian tragedy in Ashraf, the magnitude of which will surely be catastrophic.
Kasra Nejat is president of the Iranian American Cultural Association of Missouri, based in St. Louis.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_2e2e987c-6c9c-5c57-bce1-597d4c780a5a.html#ixzz1UkGxaKSR
Keep Tehran in check
August 10, 2011 by
The Hill (Congress Blog)
By Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
August 10, 2011
The Middle East is experiencing its most tumultuous wave of political change in decades. From Egypt to Syria to Yemen, the people of the Arab World are rejecting the status quo dictatorships and demanding democracy. Those who have been silenced for their whole lives are standing up to their oppressive leaders. Their cries for democracy, human rights and dignity are ringing loud throughout the Middle East and we hear their voices loud and clear. The United States must stand with the freedom fighters in the Middle East and support their desire for the basic values and principles that Americans enjoy every day.
However, there are legitimate reasons for concern about the rise of political unrest and instability in the Middle East. Paramount among them is the fear of the establishment of an Islamic Republic instead of a democratic government. For example, in 1979 popular discontent with an authoritarian Iranian ruler was exploited by Islamists who ultimately imposed their own cruel brand of tyranny. In a chaotic political environment riddled with popular loathing of the status quo and lack of ingrained democratic institutions, free elections provide the ideal setting for even a small group of organized and well-financed Islamic radicals to take control. The rise of a new radical Islamic regime would be dangerous for the Middle East and the rest of the world.
We must not underestimate the threat of Iran. While most Muslims in the region are Sunnis and Iran is ruled by Shiite fundamentalists, we must not oversimplify the situation by assuming that Tehran could have no influence. Exporting Islamic extremism is a pillar of Iran’s foreign policy. It is even enshrined in the regime’s constitution that Islamic rule recognizes no borders, and it should include the entire nation of Islam. Make no mistake; the little tyrant in the desert would jump at the opportunity to conquer a damaged or weak nation. Tehran’s covetous plans were evident in a February 4 speech by Ali Khamenei, the regime’s leader. He called for an Islamic regime to be installed in Egypt, saying the wave of Arab revolts is an “earthquake” triggered by the 1979 Iranian revolution. “Today, developments in North Africa — (including) Egypt, Tunisia and some other countries — have a special meaning for the Iranian nation,” Khamenei said. “This is what was always referred to as the Islamic awakening created by the victory of the great revolution of the Iranian nation.”
In reality, the mullahs were the first to witness the rolling thunderstorm of change through massive anti-government demonstrations in 2009. Khamenei fully realizes that the cry of millions of Iranians, particularly the youth, is freedom and that any opening in Iranian society will lead to an immediate explosion. The outward looking policy of Khamenei is his line of defense to keep the crisis away from his turf.
On the same day, Ali Khamenei, the regime’s supreme leader revealed his attempt to usurp the popular uprisings in the region and leading them towards fundamentalism and exploiting them to the interests of the clerical regime. While calling the popular movement in Egypt “the Islamic movement of Egypt,” he said the unity of demonstrators should be preserved based on Islam and according to Tehran: “this movement has been initiated from the mosques and its slogan is ‘God is great’ and people of Egypt would allow this Islamic movement be derailed.”
The real question for the West is: How do you support a sudden change in the Middle East while at the same time making sure it does not fall in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists?
One answer is to keep a close eye on Tehran. As long as Tehran does not have to focus on quashing a movement for democratic change in Iran by the Iranian people, the precarious prospect of Tehran fulfilling its policy of dominating the Arab World looms on the horizon. Stopping the evil tyrant in Iran does not entail empty verbal condemnations of his conduct, providing concessions or negotiations. It requires a heavy hand and the exertion of stronger pressure on Tehran. For the West, in general, that certainly includes firm steps to curtail Iran’s nuclear program. There is a need for more sanctions on the regime, particularly regarding the purchase of its oil, to prevent it from attaining the means to finance and support its fundamentalist agenda. Actions, not words, will stop Iran.
The United States must also recognize and support the freedom fighters in Iran who are faced with this oppressive dictatorship. Their drive for freedom is the only viable policy in the long run, one that will stop Tehran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons. Western nations should be much more vocal on the rights of Iranians and in condemning the grotesque human rights violations by the regime. The regime does not protect human life; they destroy anyone who dares to get in their way. Three political activists from the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the primary opposition group, who were charged with playing a role in the popular 2009 uprisings, were hanged in March. Many more are on currently on death row.
Finally, the United States must remove the MEK from its list of terror organizations. Placing it there was done to placate the mullahs at a time when appeasement seemed to be an option. The fallacy of that approach is now obvious. Stifling the work of the MEK has blocked the process of change in Iran, enabled the execution of dissidents, and provided an excuse for the mullahs to put inhumane pressure on residents of Camp Ashraf, where 3,400 of its members reside in Iraq. On April 8, 36 unarmed residents were murdered by Iraqi soldiers who invaded the Camp out of acquiescence to Iranian pressure. Last month, the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously adopted my amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act to oppose any plan to relocate the group within Iraq, which would all but guarantee further persecution, and make sure the United States does all it can to protect the residents.
With Tehran waiting for the opportunity to hijack the Arab world’s rejection of Islamic fundamentalism, it would be wise to realize that the United States policy on Iran must move to a new phase that pushes hard for democratic change in Iran.
And that’s just the way it is.
Rep. Poe is a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee. He sponsored H.Res.60 urging the Secretary of State to take the MEK off the FTO List. He also sponsored an amendment to HR 2583 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2012 that passed unanimously to make it the policy of the United States to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf, prevent the forced relocation of the residents inside Iraq, and to facilitate the robust presence of UNAMI inside Camp Ashraf.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/176367-keep-tehran-in-check