November 24, 2024

Posts Comments

Iranians protest US ban on opposition group

July 15, 2011 by

Iran Focus

Friday, 15 July 2011
Washington, DC, Jul. 15 – Hundreds of Iranians rallied Friday outside the US State Department on the anniversary of a US Federal Court of Appeals ruling in favour of the main Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), urging the Obama Administration to revoke the group’s status as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

DC Rally across the State department Demands Immediate De-listing of the MEK

A spokesperson for the demonstrators said they were protesting against the Administration’s delay in announcing a decision on the MEK’s status and to demand the group’s de-listing.

The State Department recently missed the statute-mandated 180-day deadline for a decision.
Iranians who attended the protest included representatives of Iranian-American communities, subjected to the adverse consequences of the MEK’s designation, including those with relatives in the MEK’s main base, Camp Ashraf, Iraq, and in Iran.
Over the past few weeks, senior Iranian officials, including commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) have been urging the US to maintain the MEK on its terrorist list.
On 16 July 2010 the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously that the Secretary of State had erred in refusing to grant a petition by the MEK to have its terrorist status revoked. The Washington Post reported that the judgement had strongly suggested that the State Department should remove the group from the FTO list.
In addition to a growing roster of former senior US government officials, some 130 Members of Congress have endorsed resolutions calling for the removal of the MEK from the FTO list, emphasising that any decision to the contrary would violate the statutory criteria.
At one point in the colourful rally, children held birds symbolising 36 residents of CampAshraf who were killed by Iraqi armed forces in an attack on the camp in April.
Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Iran, Mujahedin-e Khalq, and the US State Department

July 15, 2011 by

Originally published on www.stopfundamentalism.com

At the end of June, the world watched as Iran test-fired 14 medium range missiles capable of reaching US and Israeli bases in the Middle East.  According to British Foreign Secretary William Hague, Iran has also been carrying out covert missile tests, “including testing of missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload.” In Syria, the Islamic Republic exercises its influence by assisting the worn-down Assad regime in brutally suppressing the Syrian people.  And in Iraq, we continue to see the hand of the Iranian regime in the ongoing violent insurgency, as well as in Maliki’s government.

Tehran’s growing influence indicates a failure of Western policy towards the Islamic Republic. The policy of the United States and the European Union towards Iran has consistently been timid, often reminiscent of Europe’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler with the Munich Pact. The history of Western relations with Iran since the Revolution of 1979 shows continuous attempts by the West to reach out to the mullah’s regime with the hope of finding some favorability, only to see the mullahs rebuff those overtures. And what has consistently been a go-to practice in appeasing Tehran? The harassment and terrorist listing of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK).

After being forced into exile, the MEK has continued its struggle for democracy. Some 3,400 members of its members are based at Camp Ashraf in northeastern Iraq. The group also remains on the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list. However, evidence suggests the terrorist designation of the MEK arose purely out of appeasement of the Iranian regime. A day after the FTO list was released in 1997, the Los Angeles Times reported:  “One senior Clinton administration official said inclusion of the People’s Moujahedeen was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected moderate president, Mohammad Khatami.”   The United Kingdom and the European Union both followed the United States’ lead in designating the MEK as terrorists, but in recent years, after respective court cases which showed the designation to be faulty, the MEK was removed from both lists in 2008 and 2009 respectively.

But what has been the effect of this terrorist designation of the MEK? If the US and the EU were attempting to appease Tehran, did they succeed in containing and taming the mullahs as they set out to do? The answer is a resounding “no”. The only thing which the terrorist designation of the MEK has achieved is the restriction and harassment of the residents of Camp Ashraf. Most recently, the world stood by and watched on April 8, 2011 as Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, clearly under instruction from Tehran, ordered a brutal attack on the residents of Camp Ashraf, ultimately resulting in 36 deaths and hundreds of injuries. One of those killed was Asiyeh Rakhshani, my 29-year-old adopted sister, who grew up in our family and went to Ashraf to join the campaign for democracy in Iran.

By designating the MEK as a terrorist organization, the US is complicit in these horrid crimes. A recently leaked cable from the US Embassy in Iraq shows that after a US diplomat questioned Maliki as to the conditions in Camp Ashraf, “The PM then expressed some frustration and questioned why the [Government of Iraq] had to act so responsibly towards an organization determined to be a terrorist group by both Iraq and the U.S.” So long as the US upholds the MEK’s fabricated terrorist label, Maliki’s government will continue to feel justified in committing these atrocities.

Numerous prominent and diverse American politicians have come out in support of the MEK, from Tom Ridge and Rudy Giuliani on the right, to Howard Dean and Patrick Kennedy on the left. Additionally, 84 lawmakers in the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, have sponsored H.Res. 60, urging the Secretary of State to remove the MEK from the Department’s terrorist list. Furthermore, on July 7, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing on the recent massacre in Camp Ashraf. During the hearing, two former military commanders, as well as former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, condemned the attacks on Ashraf and called upon the State Department to delist the MEK.

It would be not only ludicrous, but also impossible for an organization which was engaged in terrorist activity to garner such tremendous support in Washington.

However, as the movement to delist the MEK gains widespread support among former senior U.S. government officials, the Iranian regime has reacted desperately by embarking on a misinformation campaign to prevent what is evitable. To this end, it has employed the services of the discredited National Iranian American Council (NIAC), perceived by many observers of the Iranian scene to act as a “lobby” for the Iranian regime. Indeed, an investigative report revealed that NIAC and its president Trita Parsi had skirted lobby laws in promoting rapprochement with the regime in Tehran.

In July 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling ordering the State Department to review the terrorist designation of the MEK, strongly suggesting the designation be revoked.   The State Department must make a decision soon; we cannot afford to wait for another brutal attack on the people of Camp Ashraf.

There are those who fear that if the US were to take a harder stance on Iran, military conflict would ensue. These fears are not baseless. If the past decade has taught us anything, it is that military intervention can be ineffective, counterproductive, and above all, tragic. However, there is a fine line between engaging in military intervention and no longer pursuing failed diplomacy. The terrorist designation of the MEK has not only failed to appease the Iranian regime, it has resulted in severe harm and restriction for an organization devoted to the liberation of the Iranian people. The State Department has a moral and legal obligation to undo this grave error and delist the MEK.

Filed Under: DeList.MEK Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Iranian opposition “executed” in America before trial

July 14, 2011 by
United Press International
Thursday, July 14, 2011
By JAVAD MIRABDAL and JAVID SHENASI
SAN FRANCISCO, July 14 (UPI) — Almost exactly a year ago, on July 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the U.S. State Department to re-evaluate the “terrorist” designation of Iran’s main dissident movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq.
After an inexplicable yearlong delay, the State Department continues to drag its feet even as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism — the Iranian regime — sardonically uses the label as a pretext to kill MEK members and supporters in Iran and through its proxies in Iraq.
Many are left wondering why Washington is so conciliatory toward Tehran’s demands despite the regime’s rogue behavior.
The inclusion of the MEK — an organization dedicated to establishing a democratic Iran — on the U.S. terrorist list has a murky history and even more intriguing are the motivations.
In essence, terrorism is the last thing it’s about. What it is and has always been about is placating the tyrannical regime in Iran.
“Iranian officials for years have made suppression of the MEK a priority in negotiations with Western governments, according to several diplomats who were involved in those talks,” according to The Wall Street Journal.
In 1997, Tehran got its wish. Enamored with the (spurious) “reformist” streak in Tehran, and in order to instigate a thaw in bilateral relations, Washington took several unilateral steps, most important among them restricting the MEK.
“The inclusion of the [MEK on the terror list] was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran,” a senior U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times at the time. In 2002, another official described it as “‘a signal’ of the U.S.’s desire for rapprochement with Tehran’s reformists.”
Tehran interpreted the MEK’s listing as a sign of American weakness, and in the ensuing months and years, it intensified its nuclear activities and terrorism.
Still, as several former high-ranking officials have said, the MEK was kept on the list even “during the administration of George W. Bush, in part out of fear that Iran would provide (improvised explosive devices) to our enemies in Iraq, which of course the mullahs are doing anyway.”
Kowtowing to pressure from Tehran, in 2001 and 2002, Britain and the European Union followed suit both blacklisting the MEK but they were unable to produce a shred of evidence to actually back up the allegations against the organization.
Predictably, both the United Kingdom and the European Union were forced to delist the MEK in 2008 and 2009, respectively, following successive court rulings.
In 2007, U.K. courts concluded that the designation of the MEK was “perverse,” a highly unconventional criticism of a government decision. And, the country’s highest court noted that after seeing all the evidence, both open and classified, that it “reinforced” its view that the MEK is not a terrorist group.
Indeed, the MEK has explicitly and repeatedly rejected all forms of violence as far back as a decade ago. Its members in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, are unarmed civilians and are considered “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. All members were investigated and interviewed thoroughly by agencies like the FBI and the State Department after the 2003 Iraq war during a 16-month investigation. According to the U.S. government itself, none had violated U.S. laws.
The July 16, 2010, appeals court decision said that the MEK’s due process rights were violated and questioned the State Department’s flawed evidence. The decision “strongly” suggested that the designation should be revoked.
The clock continues to tick on an issue that is not simply a political one, although its implications are strategically important. As seconds go by, the State Department’s deliberate delay in implementing the court ruling helps raise the specter of another massacre against thousands of lives in Ashraf.
The pro-Tehran government in Iraq is using the label as a pretext to commit abhorrent crimes against humanity in Camp Ashraf. As recently as April, 36 residents in Ashraf were killed in a massacre that provoked international outrage and calls for an impartial investigation.
The U.S. government, which bears responsibility for the residents under international law, must spearhead an investigation and reassume protection of Ashraf.
A growing roster of prominent senior U.S. officials who have served in the administrations of presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton have also called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to delist the MEK.
At a conference on Capitol Hill in March, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said, “There are many reasons, including MEK’s close cooperation with the United States in exposing Iran’s nuclear program for removing MEK from that list.”
Nearly 100 members of Congress have also co-sponsored a resolution, calling on Secretary Clinton to revoke the MEK’s designation — and the list is growing, including U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who heads the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
In March, during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told Secretary Clinton: “I asked for a classified briefing of the relevant subcommittee, the State Department refused because of the litigation, the intelligence community provided it. And frankly, after that classified briefing, I thought that perhaps there was nothing done this century that justified the MEK being on that list and it provided substantial ammunition to the belief that the MEK is on the list as part of the peace offering or concession to Tehran.”
The appeals court judges reflected the same sentiment in their July 16 ruling. They observed that the State Department evidence “included in the secretary’s analysis on their face express reservations about the accuracy of the information contained therein.”
Former CIA Director James Woolsey made an apt observation when describing the July 16 court opinion, “What the Department of State has done is what the red queen does in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ … execution first, then trial.”
In reviewing the MEK’s designation, Secretary Clinton should base her decision on facts and evidence rather than on political considerations, either intended to mollify the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, or resulting from a lack of political fortitude to stand firm in the face of the Iranian regime’s intransigence.
(Javad Mirabdal is a transportation engineer and a human rights activist. Javid Shenasi is an expert in Natural Pollution Discharge Elimination, working with California Department of Transportation.)

 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Landmark House Hearing Probes Massacre at Camp Ashraf and U.S. Responsibility, Urges De-listing of MEK

July 12, 2011 by
PRNewswire
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
 
WASHINGTON, July 12, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On Thursday July 7, 2011, a landmark hearing, entitled “Massacre at Camp Ashraf: Implications for U.S. Policy,” was held by the Oversight and Investigation Sub-Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.
 
Among those who provided testimony in the hearing were: Ms. Neda Zanjanpour, a survivor of the massacre at Camp Ashraf; Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General of the United States; Col. Gary Morsch, M.D., Chief medical liaison between Camp Ashraf and the U.S. military, Colonel Wes Martin (Ret.), Former Base Commander of Camp Ashraf; and Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow, Council of Foreign Relations. The hearing was chaired by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).
 
In addition to the Ranking Member Russ Carnahan (D-MO), the Subcommittee members Ted Poe (R-TX) and David Rivera (R-FL), Representatives Bob Filner (D-CA), Co-Chair of Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus, Brad Sherman (D-CA), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) also took part in the hearing. Representatives of the U.S. Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents (USCCAR) and relatives of the residents also attended the hearing.
A brief video clip showed scenes of the April 8th massacre at Ashraf by the Iraqi Army operating under the direct order of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It was followed by a briefing in which Ms. Zanjanpour, responded, via a live video link from Ashraf medical clinic, to questions by Members.
 
A Canadian citizen who studied at York University, Zanjanpour went to Ashraf in 1999 at the age of 20. She testified that she had been wounded “when an Iraqi soldier threw a grenade at me, which exploded between my legs.”
 
“The day before the attack, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad told us that the Iraqi forces were going to launch an operation. Despite our pleas to the commander of U.S. forces – which had been at Ashraf since April 3rd – to stay, his unit was ordered out of the Camp at 9:20 p.m. on April 7th. That left us completely defenseless in the face of a massive assault by the Iraqi forces.”
 
She said Ambassador James Jeffrey’s comments that the MEK should be relocated inside Iraq amounts to “asking Ashraf residents to submit to the demands of the Iranian regime… We will never surrender to the Iranian regime by going to concentration camps in Iraq where we could be murdered away from international spotlight.”
 
In his opening remarks, Rep. Rohrabacher said, “Why was a U.S. unit deployed at Camp Ashraf ordered away just hours before the attack? We would have liked to have asked State Department officials these questions, but we were told no one was available to testify today at this hearing. This stonewalling can only go so far before it becomes a cover up.  … U.S. appeasement of this crime is part of the story.”
 
He noted that the continued blacklisting of the MEK “is used to justify actions like the April attack.” “The United Kingdom and the European Union have removed the MEK from their terrorist lists. We should quit playing games and also remove the MEK from the terrorist list before it results in another massacre,” Rohrabacher added.
 
“During our trip to Iraq last month, we met with numerous people regarding the slaughter at Camp Ashraf on April 8th. Not surprisingly, we heard a lot of different and conflicting stories. What is not in dispute is that over 30 Camp Ashraf residents were killed, over 300 wounded by Iraqi security forces. These killings have been widely condemned, and I concur… A full, fair and independent investigation will provide for the best means of finding a final determination of what happened and will allow anyone found responsible to be brought to justice and help prevent future attacks,” Subcommittee Ranking Member, Russ Carnahan added.
 
Congressman Ted Poe said, “To date, the administration has done nothing to hold Iraq accountable for the attack.” He added that he also opposes the proposal to displace Ashraf residents in Iraq.
 
With regards to MEK’s designation, Congressman Poe said, “I have seen the classified evidence and it is unconvincing. The State Department has not made its case that the MEK should stay on the FTO list. The MEK should not be used as a political tool to appease brutal dictators.”
 
Congressman Filner stated that “The MEK and its leader have come up with the one legitimate policy that is best for us as Americans. They call it the third way. That means we do not invade Iran, but we do not appease the existing mullahs. We get out of the way and let the resistance do what it can and should and wants to. The listing of the MEK as a terrorist organization is getting in the way, so we ought to de-list.
 
“After all our treasure of money and men and women who have died and been injured there, do we want the Iranians to take over? And yet that is a potential. Ashraf is a symbol of what we need to prevent. After all this intervention in Iraq in a decade, the Iranians come in. The MEK favors a non-nuclear, democratic, secular regime. I think that’s something we can all agree to,” the Californian Democrat added.
 
In part of her remarks, Rep. Jackson Lee said, “Nowhere should we tolerate the heinousness of the attack on the residents of Camp Ashraf. And no matter how deep the friendship is or the recovering history of Iraq, it should not be tolerated.
 
“If the ambassador of Iraq can hear my voice, he needs to come to Congress. He owes this Congress an apology… He owes both an apology to the people in Camp Ashraf, to the people of Iraq who will suffer as well because they are diverse, and he owes an apology and explanation to the world family, and particularly the United States of America, for the treasure that we lost attempting to provide democracy there,” the Texas Democrat concluded.
 
The former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in his submitted testimony outlined the steps the sub-committee should take to remedy the “terrible situation” at Camp Ashraf. He said: “The committee should first seek explanation from the State Department about the current and future policy towards Ashraf and oppose their displacement inside Iraq; it should try to assure that a UN force will protect Ashraf residents until their safe resettlement.”
 
He also raised questions about the removal of an American unit before the attack and called for the committee’s investigations into that and the failure to provide adequate medical care after the fact.
 
Third, he said, “the committee should seek an answer from the State Department about its review of the MEK’s designation in accordance with a July 2010 court of appeals ruling. And, fourth, the committee should look into what the State Department has done to enforce what is known as the Leahy Amendment that bars assistance by the U.S. to any military unit that has committed human rights violations. “
 
Colonel Wes Martin (Ret.), Former Base Commander of Camp Ashraf, said, “The terror and torment that is being cast upon the [MEK] and Camp Ashraf needs to stop. 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.”
 
“They do need protection of U.S. military forces,” he added while strongly dismissing the U.S. Embassy-Baghdad proposal to relocate Ashraf residents inside Iraq. Col. Martin also debunked allegations by the Iranian regime that the residents of Ashraf were being held against their will. “One perpetual rumor worthy of specific address concerns members of the MEK being held against their will. I was able to validate through specific occurrences anyone wishing to leave has that choice,” Col. Martin added.
 
The third witness, Dr. Gary Morsch, who served as the Battalion Surgeon at Camp Ashraf, stated, “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…”
 
He said Ashraf residents were highly educated and “had come to Ashraf to voluntarily serve with the MEK to establish a free and democratic Iran, and were now working with the U.S. to promote democracy in Iraq.”
 
Referring to the siege on Ashraf, he said the residents are being denied basic security and other necessities. “It was with great sadness,” he said, “that I have now witnessed the abandonment of the residents of Camp Ashraf by the very government that had asked me to risk my life to defend these same people.”
 
He said relocation of the residents within Iraq, “in my judgment, would be a recipe for disaster.”
 
Takeyh emphasized, “It would be wrong and immoral to forcefully repatriate inhabitants of the camp back to Iran. Given the fact that the Islamic Republic lacks even the basic rudiments of an impartial justice system, they are likely to be met with certain death. Nonetheless, the international community under the auspices of the United Nations should begin to search for new homeland for the MEK personnel…”
 
“There will be a list of questions offered to the State Department concerning the massacre at Camp Ashraf, including when they knew about what and who gave orders for our military to leave, etc., etc… And we will expect an answer. If we do not get an answer, I will proceed with making sure that we have a follow-up hearing until those questions are answered,” Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Rohrabacher said in his closing statement.
 
“Let’s just make sure that no more of these people [Ashraf residents] who are friends of freedom are murdered by the mullah regime in Tehran or by their stooges who now control the government of Iraq,” he added.
 
Camp Ashraf is home to 3,400 members of Iran’s principal opposition, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), including 1,000 women.

SOURCE U.S. Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents (USCCAR)

Filed Under: News, US Congress Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Michael Rubin and the Mujahedeen-e Khalq

July 9, 2011 by
Originally published on www.stopfundamentalism.com
Commentary by  Ali Safavi
 
As Iran’s main opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), earns a well-deserved spotlight around the world, Michael Rubin’s sagging fortunes have compelled him to lambast the organization once more. In a commentary last week, Rubin churned out another rant against the MEK. Although coated with a thin layer of supposedly calm and rational argument, the piece is bloated with clear bias and unjustified accusations.

Both in this commentary and in an earlier article, Rubin is distraught and annoyed about the growing list of top former US government officials and Members of Congress, including the Republican Presidential hopeful, Michele Bachmann, calling for the MEK to be scratched off the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. The group was designated in 1997 in an attempt to open dialogue with Tehran.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said in June 18, 2011 gathering of tens of thousands of Iranians in Paris, “After all, if an organisation cannot be treated under the law as a foreign terrorist organisation, unless it either engages in terrorism that threatens the welfare of the United States or has the capability and intent to do so, then the MEK which has renounced violence should have no difficulty getting itself off that list.  And so in July 2010, the MEK won a ruling from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit that the Secretary of State must reconsider the designation of MEK as a foreign terrorist organisation because the information she was relying on was not sufficient.”  Judge Mukasey is in agreement with a Federal Court of Appeals ruling last July and hundreds of members of Congress, not to mention a roster of former security, intelligence and diplomatic officials around the world.

But Rubin begs to disagree. “I consider the MKO a terrorist group,” he overconfidently proclaimed in the earlier commentary. Well then!

In his July 3 commentary, he adds that, “The only thing that can make Iranians rally around their current leadership is American outreach to the MKO.” That preposterous logic betrays the fact that the MEK is seen around the world as the largest and most organized opposition to the Iranian regime. To find an analogous case, that is like saying the only thing that could make the French rally around the Vichy regime was an international outreach to the Free French forces. It is clearly faulty logic. Indeed, if what Mr. Rubin says is true, then Tehran should be delighted if Washington reached out to the MEK!! To the contrary, mullahs are paranoid about the MEK and have made it a major priority to prevent its removal from the US watch list.

Five years ago, I debunked the utterly ludicrous allegations he had recycled in the article and borrows from Iranian intelligence services in full detail. Rubin, unsurprisingly, fails to mention it.

Rubin, who periodically baffles readers with his anti-MEK slurs, rumor mongering and outlandish lies, grabs onto whatever straw he can, even accusing the group of “making up” intelligence about the Iranian regime’s nuclear program (never mind that the group’s revelations in 2002 and dozens of subsequent press conferences triggered the IAEA’s investigations into the regime’s program and were described by a senior analyst at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as being “correct 90 percent of the time”).

The only party engaged in “making up” lies is Rubin himself. He says the MEK has no support inside Iran (another interesting verdict). “During my time in Iran,” he explains his evidence, “it was clear that … all [Iranians] detest the MKO.” Two observations are in order here.

First, when was the last time that he was in Iran, and on whose expense and whose invitation was Mr. Rubin visiting? And what did it take for the Iranian regime to tolerate his stay in Iran? Some Iranian ‘NGO’ or ‘independent’ academic institution!? For all we know, the Iranian Foreign Ministry have over years been quite generous to other MEK detractors, including Flynt Leverett and his wife Hillary Mann Leverett by inviting them to all-expenses paid visits to Iran.  

Second, “All Iranians” detest the MEK, he claims. It is unclear if the man is trying to be funny or if he is just a bad liar, since he offers no evidence to back up his assertions. He clearly acknowledges that a section of the Iranian population has supported the MEK, and that the group’s members have been brutally suppressed by the Iranian regime, including in 1988 when tens of thousands of MEK members were massacred in Iranian prisons. How is it that most of those who have been hanged in Iran for political charges since the summer 2009 uprising have been those associated with the MEK?

But, even disregarding all that evidence of support for the group, what does the level of support have to do with the group’s terror label in the United States. Clearly, whether the MEK has support inside Iran or not should be judged by the Iranian people themselves, not by Rubin.  

A shallow brook, they say, babbles the loudest. There is no substance to what Rubin says, and for good reason. The truth is that Rubin has always been at his wits’ end when it comes to his rants against the MEK. That’s why he lies. But the so-called Iran expert tries to do so with a clumsiness that inspires only pity.

In the past, dismayed about pro-MEK voices on the Hill, Rubin claimed that the MEK has enticed hundreds of members by sending “pretty young women” to cultivate “friendly lawmakers and commentators” and by offering them “Christmas baskets full of nuts and sweets.”

Now, he accuses the prominent personalities supporting the MEK, which include three former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two former Supreme Allied Forces’ Commanders, nine former State Department officials, an Attorney General and two former heads of the CIA and a former FBI director, of being essentially bought off by the MEK.

“MKO lobbying is slick,” he has said, using the Iranian regime’s abbreviation of the group’s name. The American personalities, he says, “should acknowledge the honorarium or consulting fees they receive from the group.”

When asked about receiving an honorarium by a reporter at a June 2, 2011 panel in Washington, DC, former Attorney general Michael Mukasey, put that baby to rest, “You have an array of people here today from various political parties differing on many public policies.  I don’t know of a single one of them who has articulated a viewpoint that they don’t believe, though are getting fees today or not. I also tell you as a matter of historical fact that the pamphlets of Thomas Paine were not distributed for nothing.  That doesn’t undercut either the persuasiveness of them or the historical correctness of them.”

Rubin should be the last person to counsel others on honorariums, since reports surfaced back in 2006 about his contacts with private contractors in Iraq when he worked in the Pentagon. A 2006 New York Times article apparently alleged that he improperly hid an affiliation and funding from a private contractor in Iraq. “Normally, when I travel, I receive reimbursement of expenses including a per diem and/or honorarium,” Rubin was quoted as saying.

It was the great American President, Abraham Lincoln, who said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” I wonder if Michael Rubin has come across that apt comment.

Ali Safavi, a member of Iran’s National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), is President of the Near East Policy Research (NEPR)

http://www.stopfundamentalism.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1117:michael-rubin-and-the-mujahedeen-e-khalq&catid=60:editorial&Itemid=49

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Real Face of Realpolitik: Camp Ashraf and the U.S. FTO

July 8, 2011 by

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

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Arab Spring needs Iranian Summer to survive

July 6, 2011 by

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

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished — Washington Threatens Iranian Dissidents in Iraq, Says Iran Policy Committee

July 6, 2011 by

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

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Why we should back the Persian Spring

June 30, 2011 by

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

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Iranians are seeking democracy — and support

June 28, 2011 by

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

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,