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.

This article was originally published in CampAshraf.org

Born in Iran 2 years following the Islamic Revolution, my brother Ali Reza Hassani was only three years old when my parents fled Iran for Greece and ultimately immigrated to Canada to seek a better life for their children. Upon graduating from high school with honors, a then 17 year-old Ali made a difficult and life changing decision. He could study and go on to medical school at home in Canada or he could dedicate himself to the cause of bringing democracy to a country he remembered very little about.

Highly educated on the plight of youth in Iran and uncomfortably aware of the tragic execution his uncle faced at the innocent age of 27, my brother was determined to help rid his homeland of the theocratic regime abusing its people in any way he could. That is when Ali decided to join the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) a decades-old resistance movement based in Ashraf Iraq, with the sole aim of overthrowing the regime in Tehran in favor of democracy, secular government and gender equality.

What my brother did not know then is that his life and the life of 3400 of his fellow comrades would be used as bargaining chips under the Clinton administration. As part of a goodwill gesture to Tehran, the Clinton administration added the PMOI to the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997. The United States naively believed that in doing so they could appease the then President of Iran Khatami who had promised various reforms to the people of Iran and feared the existence of an organized opposition movement, namely, the PMOI.

Fast-forward to nearly 14 years later, the United States has seen their policy of appeasement fail time and time again. Today, Iran poses a perilous threat to international security with its pressing nuclear program and following the 2009 student uprisings the world audience seldom doubts their brutal ways. Moreover, this past month Secretary of Defense Panetta recognized the need to end deadly Iranian interference in Iraq.

The listing of the PMOI went so far as to be deemed unfounded by the U.S Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit in July of 2010 following their de-listing in both the United Kingdom and European Union. How, then, can U.S foreign policy reconcile the assertion that Iran is one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism meanwhile hold that PMOI-who tirelessly oppose Tehran’s radical agenda- are terrorists as well?

The answer is as clear as it seems, they cannot. What remains logically inconsistent is the United States government’s unwillingness to remove the terror-tag unlawfully placed on a group of law-abiding, freedom loving and democracy-espousing individuals like my brother.

The unsubstantiated terrorist label has already cost the lives of nearly 50 unarmed dissidents in Ashraf, Iraq since 2009 and it must not continue. Upon the list’s review this August, I urge Secretary of State Clinton to remove the PMOI granting them the lawful recognition they deserve. Amidst a wave of anti-authoritarian movements sweeping the Middle East now is the time for the U.S to side with the people of Iran and not those who silence them. The very cause to which my brother devoted his life, is in their hands.

By all indications, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is about to release the result of her Department’s court-mandated review of the January 2009 designation of the Iranian opposition MEK, as Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Legal experts agree that the mere observance of the Law, subtle suggestions of the US Court of Appeals, and the statuary requirements, would lead her to one and only one outcome: End the MEK’s designation. This could very well explain the State Department’s delaying tactics to announce the review.

It also explains the impetus behind the frantic outburst of the anti-MEK Tehran-instigated propaganda campaign in recent weeks. The main goal of this campaign, orchestrated by well-known Tehran lobbies in Washington and implemented by a web of similarly well-known advocates of the status quo in Iran is to shift the focus of Sec. Clinton’s review from a “Rule of Law” foundation and prevent the de-designation.

The truth – very hard to swallow by this anti-MEK crowd – is that the Sate Department does not have even an iota of credible evidence satisfying the statuary requirements. Members of Congress are at awe why the State Department does not remove the group from its blacklist or why it is so reluctant to even share its credible evidence – if it has any – with the Congress.

Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-Proliferation and Trade noted last year when he chaired the Subcommittee that:

“I have been an advocate year after year for having the State Department explain what are the criteria under which the MEK has been put on the terrorist list … I have difficulty understanding what has the MEK done, anything remotely, in recent times, that causes the MEK to be on that list. I do know there is no entity more feared, more hated by the mullahs who run Iran than the MEK, which is perhaps the finest compliment that could be paid to that organization.”

Later in 2010, he remarked that:

“Our focus is on: Should the MEK be on the foreign terrorist list? The European Union says no, the US Court of Appeals says that the State Department failed to do its job, and sent them back to do their job… I asked the State Department for a classified briefing on this issue. Any of you who have gotten to know foreign policy from a congressional standpoint will understand when I say, “sometimes you learn more from the classified briefings they won’t give you than from the classified briefings they do give you.”

“The refusal to provide this not just to me, but to the relevant subcommittee was received just yesterday. I therefore asked the intelligence community to provide such a briefing… I’ve been pressing for this briefing for over a month and the variety of different excuses that I got shows that creativity is alive and well in the State Department…

Rep. Sherman, well-known for his anti-terrorism credentials and expertise, offers a very illuminating explanation for the State Department’s foot-dragging. “What it comes down to is that the State Department doesn’t know which way they want to slant the facts before they present it to us because they haven’t figured out what they’re going to do.”

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) has also echoed similar dismay about the non-existence of terrorism-related evidence in the “classified” documents of the State Department. Late last year he told a Congressional briefing that:

“Why has the State Department refused to brief the Subcommittee chaired by Mr. Sherman on the delisting of the MEK?… I want to know what information the State Department has that it’s so relentless on your part that they should remain on this list. Do you know that information?”

The Texas lawmaker, after months of delay, eventually received the “classified” information and in June told the Houston Chronicle that “I have not been convinced they should remain on the list,” adding that he has received both classified and non-classified briefings from the State Department and has yet to see evidence that marks the group as a terrorists. “Iran wants them on the terrorist list. That should be a red flag,” Rep. Poe added.

Many respectable and die-hard patriots in America’s national security circles, from four-star generals to former heads of Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have gone on the record to say the MEK is not a terrorist entity, far from it; it is an ally and a regional partner for fight on terrorism and the Islamic fundamentalism.

Against this backdrop, Secretary Clinton must de-designate the MEK. To maintain the designation would constitute a travesty of justice and the Rule of law and would be viewed as a clear sign of submission to the pressure brought upon by the anti-MEK Tehran-apologists and their anti-Iranian sinister campaign against the MEK.