Who cares more about the safety and security of America and the United States’ national security: The American military personnel who have served their country on the frontlines in Iraq or the pro-Tehran lobby in Washington with well-established political and financial ties to Iran’s leadership and its UN Mission in New York?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon be making a momentous decision about the removal of the Iranian opposition, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). But has she taken note of what many American military officers, who have dealt with the group in person, sometimes for months, say about the MEK?

Captain Vivian Gembara, an attorney for the U.S. military for 4 years, was deployed in Iraq for 12 months beginning in April 2003. During that time, she participated in negotiations with the MEK. She was a member of the 4th Infantry Division team that negotiated and drafted the “voluntary consolidation” agreement between the United States and the MEK. In a 2005 article, she writes that the U.S. Special Forces were first to encounter the MEK in April 2003 when the MEK “offered to work alongside the U.S. to stabilize the country.”

Describing the MEK as a resistance movement which aims “to overthrow Iran’s current Islamic fundamentalist regime and replace it with a democratic government,” Captain Gembara, expressed regret about the missed opportunity of partnership with the MEK as a result of Washington’s reluctance to work with a group which was designated as a FTO. “Classified as a terrorist organization by the State Department in 1997, the [MEK] bears the burden of an outdated and inaccurate label,” she wrote.

Captain Gambara writes that, instead of establishing a partnership with the MEK, “Led by General Ray Odierno, 4th Infantry Division Commander, we were tasked with delivering the bad news. The [MEK] we encountered [in Camp Ashraf] were just as the Special Forces described – fluent in English, Arabic and Farsi; familiar with the terrain and eager to work with us. Meetings that we anticipated would run several hours wound up lasting two days.”

Elaborating on the substance of these negotiations, General Odierno told reporters at the sidelines of the meeting hall at Camp Ashraf that “It is not a surrender. It is an agreement to disarm and consolidate.”  He added that the MEK appeared to be committed to democracy in Iran and their cooperation with the United States should prompt a review of their “terrorist” status, according to news reports.

Noting that “US and Mujahedeen troops have mingled cordially during the discussions here over the past two days,” the French news agency, AFP, quoted General Odeirno as saying “I would say that any organization that has given up their equipment to the Coalition clearly is cooperating with us, and I believe that should lead to a review of whether they are still a terrorist organization or not.”
 
Similarly, General James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, spoke on a panel last month about the MEK and Camp Ashraf based on his “own observations and experiences” and as “the only member of the panel that has had physical responsibilities for their security.”  He told the audience that:

 “As I dispatched some of my commanders to sit down and talk with these folks, as I visited myself, these people are not terrorists. They’re no more terrorists than the people here on the panel… We asked those people to disarm. They’re the only people in Iraq who are disarmed. And yet, these people complied willingly and have done what we asked them to do.”

Speaking at a Congressional briefing in May 2005, Lt. Colonel Thomas Cantwell, Commander of 324th MP Battalion, who for nearly a year was the officer in charge of Camp Ashraf where 3,400 MEK members reside, talked about invaluable role the MEK played as a honest broker between the US commanders and the local Iraqis. Col. Cantwell said:

“When I moved up into northern Diyala province [in Iraq], the relationship of the MEK with the local community helped me in that regard, I think because most of the local sheiks, understanding as part of the Sunni triangle, weren’t exactly trusting of coalition forces but they seemed to have some level of trust with the Mojahedin…”

Also in May 2005, Col. David Phillips “Griffin-6”, the 89th Military Police Brigade, wrote an open letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch which had leveled malicious and completely unfounded allegations about human rights violations in Camp Ashraf. In the letter which was subsequently sent to the members of US Congress and later published in the Congressional Record, Col. Philips stated that:

“I am the commander of the 89th Military Police Brigade and in that role was responsible for the safety and security of Camp Ashraf from January – December 2004… We always had open dialog and debated different subjects. I was exceptionally impressed with the dedication of the female units. These units were professional and displayed strong support for freedom, democracy and equality for women… Were it not for the ongoing insurgency throughout Iraq, I would sanction my daughter to travel to Camp Ashraf and meet these very dedicated and professional female members of the [MEK]…”

In a letter dated August 24, 2006, Lt. Colonel Julie S. Norman, Commander Military Police, JIATF, wrote that:

“The [MEK] has encouraged and assisted various Iraqi groups to join the political process and dialogue with the US forces… The [MEK] has been encouraging peaceful methods in its surrounding community for the establishment of a secure and democratic Iraq and has respected the laws of Iraq…

“The [MEK] has always warned against the Iranian Regime’s meddling and played a positive and effective role in exposing the threats and danger of such interventions; their intelligence has been very helpful in this regard and in some circumstance has helped save the lives of soldiers. Recommend that the facilitation of intelligence continue.”

Few days after the July 2009 deadly attack by the Iraqi forces on MEK members in Camp Ashraf, Warren Murphy from the Indiana National Guard’s 76th Brigade, wrote in the Indianapolis Star newspaper that:

“I also went on several missions to Ashraf and found the people there cooperative and friendly toward us. We should be helping these folks in every way necessary. Repayment for the help they have given us is the least of the reasons to do so. Rescuing them from oppression under the Iraqi government or certain execution if repatriated to Iran is the only action that has a shade of right, and it is easily within our ability to do so.”

Col. Wesley Martin US Army (Ret.) wrote in the New York Post earlier this month that “As a former base commander of Camp Ashraf, the official name of the MEK’s besieged refuge, I’d like to make one thing clear: Despite charges that the MEK is a terrorist organization, these people are American allies. It would be foolish, as well as wrong, to abandon them… As the former antiterrorism/force protection officer for all of Iraq, I know the ‘factual’ basis for the listing is false.”

Last month, Col. Martin told a Congressional hearing entitled “Massacre at Camp Ashraf: Implications for U.S. Policy,” that “I know from experience, the [MEK] is not a terrorist organization. My recommendation in this effort is for the People’s Mojahedin to be immediately removed from the State Department terrorist list.”

Col. Gary Morsch, who had served as the Battalion Surgeon at Camp Ashraf for nearly a year in Camp Ashraf, told the same hearing that:

 “There were no findings of any terrorist activities, disloyalty to the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq, illegal activities, coercion of MEK members, hidden arms, or any evidence that the MEK were not fulfilling their agreement with the U.S. Military to fully cooperate with and support the goals of the U.S. in Iraq…”

Dr. Morsch testified that MEK members in Camp Ashraf were highly educated and “had come to Ashraf to voluntarily serve with the MEK to establish a free and democratic Iran.”

 “Now, it seems to me the oppressive events [at Camp Ashraf] are such today that we have got to reconsider our national posture towards the people at Camp Ashraf and the MEK in general.”

What all these US officers have said on the record about the MEK, spanning a period of eight years, amounts to description of a pro-democracy, stability-seeking ally, not a terrorist entity or a threat to US national security. These statements make it very clear that the MEK’s FTO designation is flawed. The designation has been and continues to be a political act and an incentive to placate Tehran rulers based on some misguided policy consideration and assumptions.

As the anti-MEK crowd, spearheaded by the US-based Tehran lobbies, are ferociously lobbying the State Department to – despite what the law and facts dictate – refrain from revoking the MEK’s “terrorist” tag, Sec. Clinton is wise to listen to the advise of these American soldiers who have come to know the MEK first hand and are concerned about America’s safety and security like no other.

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

 

On June 18, 2011, in a gathering of nearly a 100,000 Iranians, the participants described maintaining the terrorist tag against the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) by the US State Department as an illegal measure and tantamount to participating in the repression of the Iranian people and Resistance. They called on the U.S. government to comply with July 2010 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. and immediately revoke the MEK’s terrorist designation.

Rudolph Giuliani, former New York City Mayor and Presidential Candidate (2008); US Congressman Bob Filner; Andrew Card, White House Chief of Staff of President George Bush (2001-2006); Tom Ridge, first US Secretary of Homeland Security (2003-2005); Michael Mukasey, former US Attorney General (2007-2009); former Senator Robert Torricelli; Alejo Vidal Quadras, European Parliament Vice President; Rita Sussmouth, former Speaker of the German Parliament (1988-1998); Judge Ambassador John Bruton,former Prime Minister of Ireland (1994-1997) and EU ambassador to the US (2004-2005); Geir Haarde, former Prime Minister of Iceland (2006-2009); and Sid Ahmed Ghozali, former Prime Minister of Algeria; were among the speakers at the rally.

The event’s keynote speaker was Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, who said: “The U.S. bears the responsibility for blocking the path of change in Iran, because the main force of change in Iran has been entangled with a bogus terrorist tag. Taking into consideration the ruling of the U.S. Appeals Court and calls by US Members of Congress and high-profile and senior American dignitaries who are demanding the lifting of the terror label and recognition of the Iranian Resistance… We call on the U.S. to put an end to this listing and change the policy that is impeding the Iranian people’s path of attaining freedom.”

 

There is an Iranian parable of a man who sees a drowning mullah crying for help. He reaches out to help and says: “Give me your hand!” The Mullah responds, “No, you give me your hand!”  A way to describe how Mullahs never learned to give even if they are dying! You give them a hand and they ask for your arm. This is why when some in the West hope that by sacrificing the Iranian people’s aspirations for democracy to appease the Supreme Mullah Khamenei, people in Iran laugh and say: Oh, they really don’t know a Mullah!

Soon, one of these days, Secretary Clinton is about to make a long-overdue decision whether to keep or remove the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list. The Iranian regime and its multi-million-dollar lobbyists in the US are tense as they fear their 14-year-long investment to keep the MEK, the largest and best organized Iranian opposition movement, designated as terrorists, in danger. The Mullahs see the MEK as a vexing threat because they are devoted to the downfall of the regime.

MEK supporters have long pointed to the fact that the FTO-designation was a political “goodwill gesture” to Iran’s president Mohammad Khatami in 1997, though no serious reforms – that Khatami had promised in exchange – was ever brought to Iran. On the contrary, the meager reforms he was rewarded for by the West, soon came to an end as MEK’s blacklisting was followed by the EU in 2002.  Khatami’s job was seen “finished” by the supreme leader and he had to vacate power for the hardliners. Ahmadinejad was the result of the West’s failed appeasement policy towards Iran; “Leashing the stone, and unleashing the dog” as the saying goes in Farsi. 

Advertise with OfficialWireThe regime’s lobbyists, paraded as “Iran experts” by NIAC, who advocate for MEK’s continued FTO designation do not present any legal arguments for such a designation with lethal consequences for thousands of MEK members and supporters in Iran, Iraq and around the world, but instead use legally-irrelevant rhetoric that any de-listing will harm the “reformists” and is therefore politically wrong.

Even if they were right – which has been proven wrong – this argument would only affirm MEK’s decade-long assertions that the terror-label was never based on facts but was a purely political instrument from the beginning.

There is in fact no evidence to prove that the MEK is a terrorist organization. The Federal Appeals Court of DC Circuit ruled in July 2010 that the State Department had not acted properly on available evidence and therefore remanded the case to the Secretary of State to review her decision. But one year and one month after that ruling, the State Department has not made any decisions yet.

This wrong policy also threatens the lives of 3,400 unarmed and innocent residents of Camp Ashraf, because Iraq is use’s the terror-label as an excuse for murdering and attacking them. The Iraqi Prime Minister mentioned this in a meeting with the US Congressional delegation who recently visited Iraq to protest an assault by Iraqi guards that killed scores of innocent people in Ashraf in April.  Removing MEK’s FTO designation will give Ashraf residents a chance to be transferred to third countries. This could prevent a much feared Srebrenica-style massacre that international jurists have warned is looming in Ashraf if the status-quo persists.

The main drive behind the anti-MEK campaign in Washington DC is “National Iranian American Council (NIAC)” led by Trita Parsi. For years he has been lobbying for a “softer policy” towards Iran. A few years ago, he was lobbying to prevent the black listing of Iran’s notorious Revolutionary Guards Corps as an FTO. A potential delisting will bring to an end to the long-time policy of appeasement with the Mullah regime in Iran, thus ruining NIAC’s decade-long investment in continued services to the regime.

To justify its campaign, NIAC claims that the MEK is a “dangerous cult” and has no “popular support” in Iran. In fact none of these baseless claims even responds to legal requirements for an FTO designation. A part of this campaign is also focused on discrediting distinguished former US officials, who in recent months have demanded the delisting of the MEK and protection for the 3,400 defenseless residents of Camp Ashraf.

An online petition, started this month, urging Secretary Clinton to delist the MEK has already attracted thousands to publicly put their names to the cause. 

On August 26th, large numbers of Iranian-Americans are going to protest in front of the State Department in Washington DC to demand MEK be delisted and call for protection of Camp Ashraf.

Apart from many innocent lives that are being lost in Iran on a daily basis, continued appeasement of the mullahs will also cost the lives of even more US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan – an uncontestable fact, eight years after the conflicts. A firm policy will make the mullahs understand that America is genuine when it talks about democracy, and would therefore make the Mullahs think twice before supporting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But at the end of the day, the State Department’s decision must be based on facts and not on fiction and hearsay. If there is no evidence to prove MEK is a terrorist organization, they must be taken off the FTO list, just like in Britain, France and the European Union.

MEK’s terror-designation, as admitted by US officials, was a political decision from the beginning. It has stayed a political decision during 14 years of appeasement of the mullahs, but it can no longer remain so after the Federal Appeals Court ruling. The State Department must either provide solid evidence or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should revoke the designation.

Siavosh Rajizadeh, freelance Journalist and human rights activist from Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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