The Huffington Post

The U.S. State Department’s inclusion of Iran’s main opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), in the list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) has been fiercely criticized by members of Congress and former U.S. government officials over the past several months. The criticism was heightened when on April 8, 2011, under a direct order from Tehran, Iraqi forces launched a vicious attack against the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq, home to 3,400 MEK members. Videos of the assault show Iraqi soldiers armed with AK-47s shooting at unarmed camp residents in cold blood.

The April massacre at Camp Ashraf brought into light not just the political blunder of the MEK’s terrorist designation, but also its tragic humanitarian cost. Today, the lives of 3,400 people are at the mercy of an Iraqi government which uses the U.S. designation as a justification for murder. Many of the residents at Camp Ashraf have relatives in the US or Western Europe. Some, including my own brother, are former residents of the United States.

On June 18, tens of thousands of Iranian exiles gathered near Paris, France, to call for the protection of Camp Ashraf and the removal of the MEK from the State Department’s FTO list. Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran — a broad political coalition which has the MEK as a member organization — dozens of parliamentarians from around the world, including the U.S., and several former senior U.S. officials, called on Washington to live up to its obligation of protecting Camp Ashraf as a valuable ally in the region. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge described Ashraf as “a thorn in the side of the real terrorists, the Iranian regime.”

Indeed, the humanitarian challenges at Camp Ashraf and the folly of designating the MEK as a terrorist organization has been recognized by Washington for quite some time. A 2009 State Department cable released by Wikileaks highlights the “Catch 22” situation the U.S. has found themselves in, stating:

If the government of Iraq acts harshly against the MEK and provokes a reaction, the [U.S. government] faces a challenging dilemma: we either protect members of a foreign terrorist organization against actions of the Iraqi security forces and risk violating the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, or we decline to protect the MEK in the face of a humanitarian crisis, thus leading to international condemnation of both the U.S. government and the government of Iraq.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Ashraf residents have been caught in the crossfire between the Iranian regime, Iraq, and the United States. In 2003, the U.S. bombed Camp Ashraf, resulting in hundreds of causalities and at least 50 deaths. It was later revealed that the bombings were part of a quid-pro-quo between the Iranian regime and Washington. Tehran offered to repatriate some al-Qaeda suspects if the U.S. cracked down on the MEK.

In 2004, MEK members at Camp Ashraf voluntarily handed over weapons they used to protect themselves in exchange for protection by U.S. forces. The U.S. recognized them as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Meanwhile the MEK continued to serve as an invaluable ally by being the first to expose the regime’s secret nuclear weapons program. Several American Generals and Colonels have also commended the MEK for saving American lives by providing them with intelligence regarding the Iranian regime’s meddling in Iraq, and with the locations of planted roadside bombs.

Fast forward to July 2009 when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s forces invaded the camp and murdered 11 residents. Video footage provided by camp residents show a U.S. soldier with a handheld video camera recording the attacks as they were happening. When the soldier is approached by a blood-soaked camp resident, he is seen shaking his head, mumbling, “I’m sorry” as he turns his back, entering an SUV, and drives away from the camp.

Just hours before the most recent attack on April 8, 2011, the U.S. military unit that was in Camp Ashraf for the previous four days was ordered out of the Camp. The order was given despite the objections of the Colonel in charge, who had requested further reinforcements to protect the residents, and flouting international laws such as the UN RtoP (Responsibility to Protect) mandate, of which the U.S. is a member state.

For those of us who remain oceans and continents away from our loved ones, barred from visits, and restricted to following events on our TV screens, we are forced to live with the fact that our family members in Ashraf are being used as human bargaining chips, mere pawns in the global game of Realpolitik. As a result, they are deprived of the most basic human rights that should be afforded to refugees and defenseless civilians.

This gut-wrenching fact haunts us day in and day out as we wait in apprehension, keeping one eye on the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Ashraf, and the other on the State Department’s inexplicable delay in revoking the MEK’s designation. Next week will be one year since the federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia issued a landmark judgment, concluding that the Secretary had erred in not revoking the MEK’s designation and strongly suggested that she remove the label. It is time for Secretary Clinton to abide by the rule of law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hajar-mojtahedzadeh/the-real-face-of-realpoli_b_892469.html

United Press International

LONDON, July 6 (UPI) — As Syrian President Bashar Assad continues to defy the demands of the Syrian people for change and maintains a policy of massacring his own people, evidence has arisen of a dangerous external influence in Syria.

This external influence is not as Assad has intimated, that of Western influence in the protests, but rather the disturbing role now being played by the Iranian regime in the crackdown on the Syrian people.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other U.S. officials have highlighted the growing role being played by the Iranian regime in the crackdown in Syria, including the Iranian regime supplying Syria with weapons and training to intensify the crackdown.

It can be no coincidence that the methods used by the Syrian forces are similar to those used by the Iranian regime to brutally crack down on the Iranian people’s protests of 2009.

Now as Western leaders continue to lead from behind on the issue of the Arab Spring, weak in their condemnation of the crackdowns and disappointingly lacking in their support for the democratic movements, Iran has set its sights on crushing the Arab Spring and thereby ending the hope of the Iranian people that the Arab Spring will assist their democratic opposition movement.

Lest we forget, even a heavily watered down U.N. Security Council resolution drafted by the United Kingdom and France looks to be in trouble as Russia threatens any resolution with its veto.

The Iranian regime’s influence has found itself more evidently in Iraq where the regime has helped to power Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister who essentially usurped power and who considers himself undoubtedly to be a deputy of the Iranian regime. The regime’s influence in Iraq was clear in April of this year when Iraqi forces under clear direction from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei carried out a violent massacre against 3,400 members of the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran who are resident in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, leaving 36 unarmed residents killed and more than 345 seriously wounded.

The PMOI is Iran’s largest organized opposition group and is believed to have played a leading role in recent uprisings inside Iran. Undoubtedly the group’s democratic ideals and ability to organize widespread protests inside Iran is something the regime’s hierarchy greatly fears.

As the regime shows its clear intent to support governments in the region in crushing the Arab Spring while also attempting to destroy the PMOI in Iraq and activists inside the country, the West’s failure to act against this Iranian threat could have dire regional consequences.

It is clear that the United States, United Kingdom and European Union must now do all within their power to curtail the Iranian regime’s destructive influence in the region, thereby allowing the democratic movements of the Arab Spring to continue and the flourishing shoots of the Iranian Summer to strengthen.

This was the exact demand of about 100,000 Iranian exiles who gathered June 18 in Paris to demand that the United Nations, United States and European Union guarantee protection for the PMOI members resident at Camp Ashraf and to call on Western governments to support the Arab Spring and allow it to lead into an Iranian Summer.

Iranians were not alone in their call. They were joined by 4,000 parliamentarians the world over, including the majority members of 31 parliaments who declared their support for the European plan for Ashraf, and decisively rejected the displacement of Ashraf residents inside Iraq, regarding it as a precursor to committing a new massacre.

Backed by heavyweights such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge who addressed the gathering, the crowd highlighted that if in Iraq where U.S. soldiers remain active and where so many coalition troops have died we are unable to protect Iranians to whom the United States gave personal guarantees to protect, what hope was there for the democratic movements across the region.

As Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran, pointed out in her speech on June 18: “The world community, in particular the United Nations and the United States, are responsible for the protection and security of Camp Ashraf residents. And we tell them that you have no right to invoke Iraqi sovereignty to justify your inaction in the face of crimes against humanity and war crimes. This blatantly violates your international obligations.”

We must support the demands of the 100,000 in Paris and the millions across the Middle East who are demanding freedom and democracy. Inhibiting Iranian influence in the region is part and parcel of supporting the Arab Spring. This must be done by the United Nations providing protection to the residents of Camp Ashraf and the international community showing its support for the Iranian people’s democratic rights.

Act now and come autumn rather than bemoan the defeat of the Arab Spring we will be hailing the arrival of the Iranian Summer.

(David Amess is a member of the British Parliament from the Conservative Party)

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2011/07/06/Outside-View-Arab-Spring-needs-Iranian-Summer-to-survive/UPI-10751309954560/#ixzz1So3MZkTO

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/