In recent days a statement supposedly written by a group of 37 experts on Iran (from 6 countries including Iran, Scotland, England, Canada and US) has surfaced on the cyberspace. The statement itself is a repeat of many recent articles and declarations by NIAC and its president Trita Parsi, who have embarked on a hysteric campaign against the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI or MEK). In the statement, the “experts” advocate for continued black listing of the MEK by the State Department.

These “experts” argue that delisting Mujahedin creates competition for the softer opposition to the Iranian regime, and hence weakens it. To understand the real motives and the modus operandi of the group signing the statement, let’s look at some background facts.

This is not NIAC’s first “joint statement by the experts”. Many of the same individuals who signed this letter issued another “expert statement” calling for an American rapprochement policy towards Iran and its current rulers (namely Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. In that statement, the “experts” pressed for a policy of appeasement with the ruling Ahmadinejad, as opposed to supporting the green movement and a policy that would lead to regime change in Iran. In an effort to have the maximum influence on Congress, NIAC announced that:

“The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is hosting an event in the U.S. Senate tomorrow (Nov. 18th). The event is designed to give President-Elect Obama advice on how to deal with Iran. In the process of preparing for the meeting tomorrow a group of 21 Iran experts have issued a report titled “Joint Experts’ Statement on Iran”,

At the end of that statement the following sentence was noticeable:

“This statement is the product of a large group of experts with diverse knowledge, experience and affiliations. ”

The embarrassing fiasco with that NIAC’s “joint statement of experts” was that the “experts” failed to reveal to Congress and the public that the statement presented as the fruit of wisdom and the work of twenty one experts had already been published one year earlier under the sole authorship of Trita Parsi!

But why would a group of “experts”, tenaciously push for the continued listing of MEK? A listing that was used as the major justification by the Iranian regime and their proxies in their massacre of unarmed civilians in Camp Ashraf. I do not know the answer to that. However, I can point to a few self evident facts:

1- A large number of the “experts” signing the petition have formal affiliations with NIAC, an organization that has conspicuous financial and political ties with the ruling regime in Iran and their economic mafia. Documents discovered in the process of recent legal challenges that NIAC brought against its critics are self evident.

2- Some of the letter signer experts are involved in ventures that clearly benefit from the status quo in Tehran.. One example is Gary Sick, the Executive Director of Gulf2000, who serves the oil industry. Sick is also on the board of AIC (American Iran Council), an organization w which recived funds from the Iranian regime (through their NY Alavi Foundation).

3- Several have been working with the Iranian government to illegally funnel the US congressional funds to the Iranian agencies that Tehran wished to empower. Examples are Hadi Ghaemi and Dokhi Fasihian. Court documents affirm these individuals’ communications and collaborations with the Iranian officials and agents in the US.

4- Trita parsi is commonly known to be a strong advocate for Tehran who does their bidding in the United States. His $90,000 invoice for facilitating secrete negotiations for Mulahs, and his communications with, and reports to the Iranian envoy Javad Zarif has now surfaced in the court documents.

5- The anti green movement positions and propagandas by many of the “expert” signers of the letter cannot go unnoticed. In fact, the main point of their previous “joint statement by the experts” was to convince the American administration to give up hope on the green movement and instead get close to, and empower the existing rulers in Iran as the only possible option. In his article called “The End of the Beginning” , making a mockery of the mass demonstrations in the streets of Tehran , commonly regarded as the “beginning of the end” of the ayatollahs’ rule, Trita 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. ”

Finally, it should be pointed that the absence of any credible member of the green movement, or credible Iran experts who advocate the policy of appeasement , among the signatures of the statement indicated the bankruptcy of NIAC and their strive to pave the road for another massacre in Camp Ashraf.

A recent opinion piece by Elizabeth Rubin of the New York Times Magazine about the Iranian democratic opposition, Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK), is a great case study in “yellow Journalism”.  Short on facts and credible sources, the piece is filled with cheap and sensationalist shots at the group and its 3400 members in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. It is a shameful attempt at “journalistic assassination” of the group, complementing what Iran rulers and their Iraqi proxies are doing to the MEK members and sympathizers through executions and military raids.
 
The seed of this article, as she alludes to it in her first paragraph, is planted by the usual suspects of Tehran’s Washington-based anti-MEK lobby. The obvious propose of the piece is to persuade the State Department to ignore the growing calls from US Congress and a bi-partisan array of US national security and policy luminaries to remove the group from the Department’s terrorism list. It attempts to achieve this objective by leveling a barrage of lies and IRGC-manufactured fabrications against the MEK, its leadership, and its members.

 Like other hysteric opponents of the MEK de-listing, Rubin opts to ignore volumes of opinions issued by high courts in United Kingdom and the European Union which found the group “not concerned in terrorism” and described its continued blacklisting as “perverse.” The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has also found the designation a violation of due process and remanded it back to State Department for lawful review, strongly suggesting the MEK must be delisted. Rubin conveniently omits what she had said back in 2003 that “the group is also on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, placed there in 1997 as a goodwill gesture toward Iran’s newly elected reform-minded president, Mohammad Khatami.”

Although many of the allegations against the MEK and the Rubin-made context for them have no basis in truth whatsoever, one needs to refrain from buying into this deflective contemptuous invective and instead focus on two core issue.
 
The first issue is that the designation of a group in the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) must satisfy the statutory requirements. By law if those requirements no longer apply to a designated group, regardless of what the Department of State or anyone else may think of the group, the group must be de-listed. This is a matter of law not politics.
 
Dr. Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote in 2008 that:

 “Any designation review should be based only on terrorism issues, not on the general U.S. government view of the organization in question. If the decision to designate a group is made on foreign policy considerations rather than evidence, then the list will be branded as a political instrument, thus reducing its utility…
 
“In the MEK’s case, its designation should not be based on the group’s political stance or worries about U.S.-Iranian relations, nor should it be a reward for its reports on Iran ’s nuclear activities. Over the past three years, the State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism have cited no alleged MEK terrorist activity since 2001, yet have increased allegations pertaining the group’s non-terrorist activities…
 
“These allegations… are not related to the legal criteria for terrorist designation and are probably meant to discredit the MEK. These allegations are irrelevant, and some are also based on contestable evidence.”

The second core issue is that the de-listing of the MEK would have direct impact on development of relocation alternatives for the 3400 MEK members in Camp Ashraf which would preserve their human rights and are consistent with the Fourth Geneva Convention and International humanitarian law.
 
The leadership and rank-and-file of Camp Ashraf have stated their agreement to relocate to a European Union member country or the United States. But that would not be possible with the State Department’s continued designation of the MEK as a terrorist entity. The designation presents a grave complication for efforts to resolve the persistent humanitarian crisis in Ashraf.
 
Last April, just days after the massacre at Camp Ashraf by the Iraqi Army and directed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in a hearing at the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Ranking Member, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), said:

“In private discussions, the Iraqi ambassador’s office has said the blood is not on the hands of the Iraqi government but is at least partially on the hands of the State department because the MEK is listed as a terrorist group and accordingly, Iraq doesn’t feel that it has to respect the human rights of those in the camp.”

There is no mention of any of these facts in the August 14 piece. It should not be so hard to see that Elizabeth Rubin is nothing but a “yellow journalist.”

In recent weeks, the Iranian American Community of Northern California has been hosting a number of symposiums in Washington shedding light on the need to remove the Iran’s principal opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK).

These events which feature senior officials from a number of previous administrations, with various backgrounds, ideologies, and areas of expertise are calling on the Obama Administration to change its policy in regards to the MEK, and remove them from the FTO. In response, the National Iranian American Council has launched a full-fledged campaign opposing the de-listing of the MEK, complete with an entire section on their web site dedicated to the issue, and even “tweeting” about it non-stop. Is this really the biggest issue on the table for Iranian Americans? And if so whose side is NIAC on?

The arguments used and recycled by NIAC over and over again have almost nothing to do with the legal process which the State Department is currently engaged in. Instead they weave their own narrative, and devise their own criteria as to what qualifies enlistment of an organization, than proceed to explain how it applies to the MEK.

The first and most blatantly inane argument that NIAC continues to assert is that the MEK is not popular in Iran and do not represent the views of Iranians, and as such should not be removed from the terrorist list. Just to be clear, does NIAC believe that one of the criteria for being labeled a terrorist organization is unpopularity? If conversely a group shows itself to be popular does that somehow absolve them of the terrorist label? If so, does NIAC support the delisting of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda based on their perceived popularity in the occupied territories, Lebanon and Afghanistan respectively?

Jamal Abdi, NIAC’s so-called policy director is either very good at distorting an argument or very ignorant as to how the State Department review works in regards to the delisting of organizations. He begins by stating that de-listing them would “free the group to inject violence into Iran’s democratic opposition movement.” Making a de facto statement that MEK is a violent organization, though the evidentiary record contains not one instance or act of terrorism in the last decade.

As an example of how the MEK is a violent organization Abdi cites a story in which MEK supporters in Iran chanted “Death to Khamenei” during the 2009 election uprising. This act, according to NIAC shows the groups propensity of incite violence, despite the reality on the streets of Tehran which saw protesters shot in cold blood and beaten by the regimes thugs. Never mind that these were ordinary citizens chanting what would end up being the most repeated slogan during the 2009 protests. Under this criterion I suppose Martin Luther King and Gandhi were also inciters of violence as their words were inevitably met with brutal repression. NIAC doesn’t bat an eye when attributing the brutal crackdown of the Islamic Republic as somehow being the fault of MEK, a classic smear tactic.

NIAC: Fighting for our rights?

In his attempt at presenting arguments as to why the United States should disregard its normal procedures in reviewing the evidentiary basis for the de-listing of the MEK, Trita Parsi the so called president of NIAC offers the following: “The State Department’s review of their terrorism status, which is due to be completed by August of this year, must be conducted without the essentially illegal pressure tactics the MEK currently is employing through lobbyists, lawmakers and hired former officials.”

So to be clear, Iranian Americans cannot advocate for their own due process and first amendment rights under the constitution, but Parsi and his pals can begin a full-fledged campaign to lobby for the MEK to remain on the list without the slightest hint of irony or hypocrisy?

Parsi seems to forget that the due process rights of this group were violated according to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which “ordered the State Department to review its designation of the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran as a foreign terrorist organization, strongly suggesting the designation should be revoked.” If the organization’s supporters engage in a campaign to bring attention to the denial of its rights, as is legal under the First Amendment, this amounts to lobbying in Parsi’s eyes. However, NIAC dedicating half its web site, 90% of its tweets and what appears to be the majority of its resources to stone walling this review isn’t lobbying? What is NIAC’s excuse and stake in the controversy?

Lastly, Parsi contends: “Third, de-listing will put the rising Iranian-American community in a state of shock. In the last decade, an impressive civic awakening has occurred in this successful but previously politically silent community, with dozens of new groups being formed with the aim of contributing to the American democracy and providing the Iranian Americans in the U.S. with a voice. A U.S. funded and supported MEK will ensure a return to the pre-1997 era.”

As an Iranian American who has continually advocated on behalf of his community, the Iranian American Community of Northern California, nothing could be more insulting and offensive. Parsi’s absurd argument would have you believe that somehow Iranians will have their minds wiped and devolve into incompetent and apolitical buffoons if the MEK were de-listed. Yet in the same story, he maintains that the organization is loathed by all Iranians, and their delisting would incite anger and protest. Which is it?

A series of questions come to mind when reading the materials NIAC has put out regarding the proper criteria for deciding whether to delist the MEK.

1. Would the State Department remove the PMOI if they were in fact a violent organization?

2. Should one of the criteria for enlistment or removal be popularity?

3. Should the enlistment of terrorist organizations be a political decision, based on cost benefit analysis, or strict statutory guidelines and procedural due process that is guaranteed by the Constitution?

4. If the United States does remove the PMOI, and they do in fact begin a campaign of terrorism in Iran, wouldn’t the State department just as easily re-designate them as a terrorist organization?

5. Why is NIAC launching a full-fledged campaign in regards to this issue, yet dedicates so little energy or focus on the horrendous human rights situation in Iran.

Unclean Hands

Parsi and his group have a checkered past. In 1997, he created Iranians for International Cooperation, which according to its official website, had the objective of campaigning for “the removal of U.S. economic and political sanctions against Iran, and the commencement of an Iran-U.S. dialogue.” Before that Parsi had begun his career working at Congressmen Bob Ney’s office, another outstanding example of integrity who is now in prison for corruption. In Ney’s office Parsi even allegedly acted as courier for Tehran, receiving proposals from the regime to be relayed to Congress.

Last year, dozens of documents including internal NIAC e-mails, were released, as part of the discovery process during a defamation lawsuit. The evidence showed that Trita Parsi, arranged meetings between Iranian regime officials and members of Congress, including Tehran’s ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Javad Zarif.

All one has to do is to read any of the numerous published statements by Parsi to see the line NIAC is trying to push. Regardless of the current situation, he will conclude his elaborate analysis with the two points; that we need to continue to engage Iran, and that sanctions should not be imposed on the regime. What he doesn’t mention is how NIAC and its associates stand to benefit financially from lifting sanctions against the mullahs. The evidence released also indicates policy coordination between Parsi and a Tehran-based company with ties to the Iranian regime.

NIAC has largely ignored the human rights situation in Iran, only after the brutal summer of 2009 was it forced to make a few half hearted statements condemning the violence. In January 2008, during a meeting on Capitol Hill, Parsi publicly denied that NIAC had a human rights role. He said, “NIAC is not a human rights organization. That is not our expertise.” He added elsewhere, “The current choice Iranians face is not between Islamic tyranny and democratic freedom. It is between chaos and stability.” For NIAC stability is a pseudonym for the Iranian regime and chaos a pseudonym for democracy. Just as protesters who chant down with Khamenei are instigators of violence.

A number of other news outlets and reporters have covered this issue. The Spectator, caled NIAC the “de facto lobby” for the Iranian regime in Washington: It opposes sanctions on Iran, soft-pedals any controversial events in Iran, and counsels ‘patience’ regarding Iran’s stance towards its nuclear program. In November 2009, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic said, “A couple of weeks ago, I retracted my assertion that Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, did “leg-work” for the Iranian regime. … But now I may have to retract my retraction.”

Since the 2009 uprisings in Iran, the group has tried to re-invent its image by trying to paint itself as an advocate of “human rights” and the so called “green movement.” Before that, according to Politico, the majority of NIAC’s internal “minutes include almost no mention of a human rights agenda inside Iran.” Instead the organization seemed adamant to create campaigns such as “send Hillary to Iran” even as the Iranian regime committed horrendous human rights abuses. Not only did the abysmal human rights situation not come up in NIAC’s agenda, it actually worked to silence opposition as much as possible. According to the Weekly Standard, in fact, “the emails suggest that [Parsi] worked to dissuade dissidents from speaking out.”

Learn the Constitution

Apparently the majority of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution have been lost on NIAC and Trita Parsi, though to his credit it may be because he never had a high school civics course in the United States due to the fact that though he is the so-called “President” of the National Iranian American Council, he is a resident alien in the United States and in fact a citizen of Sweden.

Let’s imagine hypothetically that NIAC was a group which sought to defend the rights of Iranian-Americans. A simple glance at its web site and positions seems to allude to the fact that one of its main objectives is to protect the civil rights of Iranian’s residing in America in the post 9/11 era. One would imagine that the ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the due process of an Iranian opposition group was violated when they were enlisted as a terrorist organization would be of some significance to their desire to protect the rights and liberties of Iranians.

As a supposed representative body for Iranian Americans, perhaps NIAC might consider the First Amendment rights of free association for Iranian Americans who may want to support the MEK, regardless of their greater popularity. Does NIAC seek to uphold due process and constitutional rights only for those who it agrees with? Or is standing up for the constitutional rights of Iranians not part of the agenda? NIAC might also take it into consideration that the designation of the MEK is a major obstacle to the re-location of 3,400 refugees in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, never mind the fact that this designation is used as the basis to execute and imprison dozens of MEK sympathizers in Iran.

Perhaps Parsi was referring to NIAC when he talked about the delisting of the MEK as a major setback. If so then that is just one more issue in which they share common grounds with the regime in Tehran.

In recent days a statement  supposedly written by a group of 37 experts on Iran  (from 6 countries including Iran, Scotland, England, Canada and US) has surfaced on the cyberspace.   The statement itself is a repeat  of many recent articles and declarations by NIAC and its president Trita Parsi, who have embarked on a hysteric campaign against the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI or MEK).  In the statement, the “experts” advocate for continued black listing of the  MEK  by the State Department. 

These “experts” argue that delisting Mujahedin creates competition for  the softer opposition to the Iranian regime, and hence weakens it.   To understand the real motives and the modus operandi  of the group signing the statement, let’s look at some background facts. 

This is not NIAC’s first “joint statement by the experts”.  Many of the same individuals who signed this letter issued another “expert statement” calling for an American rapprochement policy towards Iran and its current rulers (namely Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.)  In that statement, the “experts” pressed for a policy of appeasement with the ruling Ahmadinejad, as opposed to supporting the green movement and a policy that would lead to regime change in Iran.  In an effort to have the maximum influence on Congress, NIAC announced that:

“The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is hosting an event in the U.S. Senate tomorrow (Nov. 18th). The event is designed to give President-Elect Obama advice on how to deal with Iran. In the process of preparing for the meeting tomorrow a group of 21 Iran experts have issued a report titled “Joint Experts’ Statement on Iran”,

At the end of that statement  the following sentence was noticeable:

“This statement is the product of a large group of experts with diverse knowledge, experience and affiliations. “

The  embarrassing fiasco with that NIAC’s “joint statement of experts” was that the “experts” failed to reveal to Congress and the public that the statement presented as the fruit of wisdom and the work of twenty one experts had already been published one year earlier under the sole authorship of Trita Parsi!

But why would a group of “experts”, tenaciously push for the continued listing of MEK?  A listing that was used as the major justification by the Iranian regime and their proxies in their massacre of unarmed civilians  in Camp Ashraf.  I do not know the answer to that.   However, I can point to a few self evident facts:

1-  A large number of the “experts” signing the petition have formal affiliations with NIAC, an organization that has conspicuous financial and political ties with the ruling regime in Iran and their economic mafia.  Documents discovered in the process of recent legal challenges that NIAC brought against its critics are  self evident.

2- Some of the letter signer experts are involved in ventures that clearly benefit from the status quo in Tehran..  One example is Gary Sick, the Executive Director of Gulf2000, who serves the oil industry.  Sick is also on the board of AIC (American Iran Council), an organization w which recived funds from the Iranian regime (through their NY Alavi Foundation).  

3-  Several have been working with the Iranian government to illegally  funnel the US congressional funds to the  Iranian agencies that Tehran wished to empower.  Examples are Hadi Ghaemi and Dokhi Fasihian.   Court documents affirm these individuals’ communications and collaborations with the Iranian officials and agents in the US.

4- Trita parsi is commonly known to be a strong advocate for Tehran who does their bidding in the United States.   His $90,000 invoice for facilitating secrete negotiations for Mulahs, and his communications with, and reports to the Iranian envoy Javad Zarif has now  surfaced in the court documents.

5-  The anti green movement positions and propagandas by many of the “expert” signers of the letter  cannot go unnoticed.   In fact, the main point of their previous “joint statement by the experts” was  to convince the American administration to give up hope on the green movement and instead get close to, and empower the existing rulers in Iran as the only possible option.    In his article called “The End of the Beginning” , making a mockery of the mass demonstrations in the streets of Tehran , commonly regarded as the “beginning of the end” of the ayatollahs’ rule, Trita 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. “

Finally, it should be pointed that the absence of any credible member of thegreen movement, or  credible Iran experts who advocate the policy of appeasement , among the signatures of the statement indicated the bankruptcy of NIAC and their strive to pave the road for another massacre in Camp Ashraf.