TOP SECRET WRITERS

Back in May of this year, I wrote an article about a massacre that took place at Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

Camp Ashraf is the home of Iran dissidents that are currently unarmed and relatively harmless, however they have a long history of coordinating attacks against the Iran regime. Some people would call those attacks part of a long-term revolution against a terrible dictatorship, while others would call the efforts of the MEK a form of terrorism.

There are even questions about the validity of historical accounts involving the involvement of the MEK in the death of soldiers and defense contractors in the 1970s, and the takeover of the U.S. embassy in 1979, where 52 Americans were held hostage for over a year.

Shahriar Kia has been one steadfast supporter of Camp Ashraf, wants the camp to remain where it is, and refutes all efforts from foreign diplomats that want to aid residents of the camp by moving them out of the camp and disbanding the group.

I decided to interview Shahriar directly and ask hard questions about the controversial group, and to dig further into its real history.

An Interview with Shahriar Kia

TSW (TopSecretWriters): We’ll get to the current status of Camp Ashraf in a moment, but first let’s explore the history of the MEK, because that is what so many Americans have a problem with, and it is what makes it difficult to support the people of Camp Ashraf.

In the 1970s, the MEK did not like U.S. support for the pro-Western shah, so U.S. soldiers and defense contractors were killed. This is documented. Could you explain why American citizens should overlook that history and support the MEK being taken off the terrorist list today? Could you also comment on whether it’s true that the MEK supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy where 52 Americans were held hostage for well over a year?

And finally, with the actions of your group against the Kurds and Shiites during the 1970s, it seems understandable that the MEK would not be welcome in Iraq because there is so much animosity from those groups.

How do you envision MEK members surviving if they remain in Iraq, in the face of so much hatred for those past deeds?

SK (Shahriar Kia): Before all, let me just clarify the known fact that allegations being circulated by supporters of the policy to appease the mullahs in the U.S. and Europe against the MEK – the main democratic opposition group resisting the mullahs – is, plain and simple, part of a plan organized by the Iranian Ministry of intelligence (MOIS). The MOIS appropriates great sums of money to run a campaign of disinformation with the aim of discrediting its opposition.

These measures are to deceive western governments, supply its international lobbies with added fuel and extend its life. Allegations about the killing of American officers in the 70’s, backing the invasion of the American embassy in Tehran and taking part in the suppression of Kurds and Shiites in Iraq are only partsof this campaign and, simply put, are nothing but bogus lies. (See Enclosure # 21)

In 1999, Reuters reported that Mr . Mrtin Indyk , then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs , Publicly acknowledged that “the Iranian government reminded us” to put the Iranian Resistance on the FTO list.

In August 2002, Mr.Indyk told Newsweek that “the Mojahedin’s designation was a part of Clinton’s policy of rapprochement with Tehran.”

You referred to the U.S. support for the Shah.

It’s totally true that the Iranian people were discontented with the U.S. for its support of the Shah’s dictatorship, loathed by the Iranian people, and this is exactly what caused the Iranian people to have some sort of mistrust when it came to U.S. policy.

This feeling is not limited to the people of Iran; today many officials in the U.S. admit that America’s great mistake in backing the shah is what led to the current state of affairs in Iran. There is no doubt that three decades of mullah’s rule is a direct result and offspring of the shah’s dictatorship.

The American and British led coup against Dr. Mossadeq, marginalized the middle class and the reformists and drove them out of the political landscape, and paved the way for Islamic fundamentalism to emerge as an alternative.

Khomeini’s rise to power in Iran was the building block and the beginning for the spread of fundamentalism and terrorism throughout the Middle East.

The MEK was, from the outset, the main opposing force against the religious dictatorship in Iran and throughout the past three decades has paid a heavy price for its resistance against the religious fascism ruling Iran.

The fact that MEK opposed America’s support of the shah, however, doesn’t in any way link the killing of American officers to the MEK.

The struggle for freedom and democracy against the most ruthless and brutal dictatorship of recent history, which in the name of Islam knows no boundaries in perpetrating any and all atrocities against its opponents, has taken a heavy toll on the MEK and its members.

Execution of pregnant women, execution of youth as young as 13 and 14 years, sanctioned rapes of young girls before their execution, massacre of 30 thousand supporters and members of the MEK imprisoned within a few months in 1988 are all only a portion of the mullahs’ atrocities in Iran.

The Iranian regime’s current effort to massacre the residents of camp Ashraf is, in effect, an effort to complete an unfinished genocide by mullahs started years ago against members of MEK.

These allegations, which are being disseminated by the mullahs against the MEK, are nothing new. However, since the mullahs did not succeed in eliminating the MEK and the Iranian resistance was not curtailed, the mullahs have shifted gears and begun a smear campaign with the aim of demonizing the MEK.

Their main objectives are to discredit their main opposition group, to create confusion and thus justify the execution of MEK members in Iran (MEK sympathizers who were recently executed in Iran like Ali Sare,I, Jaffar Kazemi and …) and massacre of camp Ashraf residents.

What Sort of Iran Government Does MEK Desire?

TSW: Obviously the MEK and America share common interests in removing the current Iranian regime from power, however it appears that our motives are polar opposites. It is our impression that while Americans would like to see the regime replaced with Democracy and Freedom, your group would prefer Shiism and Marxism – is this true?

Also, from what I understand, the MEK is still an anti-Iran group that seeks the overthrow of the Iran regime. Can you describe the ideal scenario that the MEK members would like to see happen in Iran? What sort of perfect government and society do you envision?

SK: The MEK aspires for democracy, freedom and the establishment of a secular government in Iran. Our foreign policy will be based on peaceful coexistence, peace, regional and international collaboration and adherence to the UN charter. We shall have relations with all nations.

The only solution to putting an end to the tragedy of the Iranian regime and preventing a human catastrophe is bringing about a regime change in Iran. This is our mutual interest. This change will not be realized neither by foreign military intervention nor by appeasing the mullahs.

As stated by Mrs. Rajavi on numerous occasions, there exists a third option of regime change by Iranian people and their Resistance. This could be reached by putting an end to the appeasement policy and removing the MEK from the FTO list.

This will set free the potential of the Iranian people and their resistance in bringing about change in Iran. One of the main obstacles in the way of change in Iran, which has harnessed the potential for change in the Iranian people, is the unjust listing of the MEK.

The Iranian people and their resistance are, undoubtedly, in the same front with the civilized and democratic society in confronting Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, although we may have our points of disagreement. Any delay by the U.S. and the Europeans in standing by the side of the people will only have detrimental consequences for world peace.

What the MEK and residents of Ashraf desire – for the future of Iran – is democracy, freedom and the establishment of a secular government based on the principle of separation of church and state.

This charter was published by the Washington Times on March 31, 2007 and I’ve included a (Enclosure # 13).

UMaryam Rajavi’s Ten Point Platform for Future Iran

1. From our point of view, the ballot box is the only criterion for legitimacy. Accordingly, we seek a republic based on universal suffrage.

2. We want a pluralist system, freedom of parties and assembly. In Iran of tomorrow, we will respect all individual freedoms. Expression of opinion, speech and the media are completely free and any censorship or inquisition is banned.

3. In the free Iran of tomorrow, we support and are committed to the abolition of death penalty.

4. The Iranian Resistance is committed the separation of the church and the State. Any form of discrimination against the followers of all religions and denominations will be prohibited.

5. We believe in complete gender equality in political, social and economic arenas. We also committed to equal participation of women in political leadership. Any form of discrimination against women will be abolished. They will enjoy the right to freely choose their clothing.

6. We want to set up a modern legal system based on the principles of presumption of innocence, the right to defense, and the right to be tried in a public court. We also seek the total independence of judges. Cruel and degrading punishments will have no place in the future Iran.

7. We are committed to the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights, and international covenants and conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of discrimination Against Women.

8. We recognize private property, private investment and the market economy.

9. Our foreign policy will be based on peaceful coexistence, international and regional peace and cooperation, as well as respect for the United Nations Charter. We will establish relations will all countries.

10. We want the free Iran of tomorrow to be devoid of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

The Impending Massacre at Camp Ashraf

TSW: Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has stated that the government will shut down Camp Ashraf by the end of the year. The population does not want the MEK in Iraq because of past deeds. The U.S. troops, which provided protection during the American presence there, is coming to an end. Can you truly envision any scenario other than leaving Iraq and settling somewhere that is safer for Camp Ashraf residents?

Also, how high is the threat against Camp Ashraf and how often do attacks occur? Are there currently any defenses or is the camp solely dependent upon the diminishing U.S. presence?

SK: Residents of Ashraf are on the verge of a bloody massacre at the hands of the Iranian regime and the Maliki government.

The Maliki administration has announced that it is going to close camp Ashraf by the end of 2011. At a time when a guaranteed alternative has not been proposed to the camp residents, this ultimatum only lays the ground work for Maliki to perpetrate another massacre in Ashraf which is bound to be greater in scale and bloodier than the previous.

From another standpoint, one should note that Nori Maliki owes his second term as Prime Minister to the Iranian regime. Were it not for Iran, al-Iraqiya was the victorious block and Dr. Alavi was the rightful Prime Minister.

In return for the Iranian regime’s support and the support of Iraqi parties affiliated with Tehran of Nori al-Maliki, it is required that camp Ashraf be shutdown in return and its residents extradited to Iran or massacred and the Iranian opposition must be dismantled.

This is what Tehran has officially demanded from Maliki.

There is no doubt in my mind that the mullahs in Tehran and Maliki have their minds set on carrying out another massacre in camp Ashraf. Presently, Iraqi armed forces are stationed in Ashraf with their armored personnel carriers and their guns directed towards the residents.

The inhumane siege against Ashraf continues. The 300 loudspeakers – placed in and around the camp by agents of the Iranian intelligence agency – are blaring profanity and threatening the residents around the clock; exposing the residents to psychological torture prevalent in Nazi concentrations camps.

Camp Ashraf is inhabited by 1000 Muslim women who are the prime target of Maliki’s suppressive forces and the terrorists in Iranian regime’s Qods force.

The residents are completely defenseless and unarmed in the face of a possible attack by the Iraqi forces and have no means of defending themselves.

It is unfortunate that despite the fact that each and every resident of Ashraf has signed an agreement with the U.S. in return for voluntarily handing over their arms, and despite being recognized by the U.S. as protected persons under the 4th Geneva Convention and despite U.S. assurances that pending final disposition of their case it is responsible for their protections; but time and again, when Iraqi security forces have launched attacks against the residents, the U.S. has turned a blind eye and has disregarded its responsibilities.

The U.S. government’s failure to live up to its promises and agreements with the residents of Ashraf has brought about the disapproval of American congressmen, jurists and members of parliament the world over. (Documents of hearings at the U.S. senate and congress are available per your request).

This is a practical solution for Ashraf residents:

On May 2011 a practical solution was provided by European Parliament’s delegation to settle Ashraf residents in third countries. That was a comprehensive plan but, unfortunately, the US embassy in Iraq, in bringing forward the illegal, dangerous and hopeless solution to relocate the residents inside Iraq, acted practically as an impediment to the European solution.

It is worthy to mention that the the any relocation of the residents inside Iraq is the same that Nouri-al- Maliki was seeking to carry out since two years ago. Such proposal by US Embassy in Iraq would in fact lead the 3400 inhabitants of camp Ashraf to Maliki’s slaughter house, while the US government and its embassy’s support for this solution could significantly act in favor of it.

At the hearing session dated 27 July, Congressman Ted Poe declared “Relocation inside Iraq is the joint desire of Iranian and Iraqi regimes.”

On the contrary, there is an international consensus that compulsory dislocation inside Iraq would only the way for another massacre of the Ashraf residents and this is a reality which has been proved so far.

Besides the Iraqi and Europeans’ opposition to relocation inside Iraq, on July 21stthe Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed an amendment to the funding bill, which obliges the US government to prevent compulsory relocation of the Ashraf residents inside Iraq’.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Member of the U.S. House of representatives, announced in the same hearing session to the officials of the state department that “The U.S. State Department will be responsible for any further bloodshed in Ashraf. You, the State Department, will be held accountable for the loss of lives of unarmed civilians.”

In order to put the solution in practice:

1. A UN monitoring team should be stationed there to monitor the events and to see what is taking place there.

2. The refugee status of camp Ashraf residents should be reaffirmed by making a group determination with regard to themby the UNCHR,eventhough a temporary status,to grant them the right of international protection.

3. An immediate investigation regarding the April 8th massacre should be launched under auspices of the United Nations.

4. The iraqi government must be pushed to follow the call of United Nations Secretary General to refrain any use of violation and to end the inhuman siege and psycological torture; and to withdraw armed troops inside the camp, where there are close to 1000 muslim women.

5. United States and the European Union should support theEuropean Parliament’s solution to transfer the residents to third contries as well as providing their protection until the end of this project.

Final Words

Shahriar and supporters of Camp Ashraf provide more than enough evidence showing that the people of Camp Ashraf are currently nowhere near worthy of being included on any terror list. They turned in their arms – their only source of protection against outsiders – to the U.S. in exchange for protection.

It seems clear that the U.S. is letting them down. Even worse, as the end of the year approaches, the senseless slaughter of innocent residents at Camp Ashraf appears inevitable.

Ryan Dube is editor-in-chief of TSW and an electrical engineer in the aerospace industry. He spends his time investigating declassified government documents, legends and conspiracy theories. Ryan has 232 post(s) at Top Secret Writers

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011/09/interview-camp-ashraf/

OfficialWire.com

It is exactly 5 months since my daughter Saba was murdered, along with 35 others in a massacre lead by Al-Maliki forces at the behest of Tehran.
Global protest, sit-ins and campaigns are still ongoing.

The bloodbath in the Camp along with tens of clandestine arrests and kidnappings of MEK families in Iran is on also ongoing, justified by the US State Department’s blacklisting of MEK.

Furthermore, in July 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit ordered that the State Department re-examine the decision to keep the PMOI in the FTO list. Thirteen months on, the Department’s unusual reluctance in complying with the court order is unjustified and a contravention of the Rule of law.

In early 2004 a 16-month investigation period at camp Ashraf,60 miles north of Baghdad and home to some 3400 members of the MEK, was performed by nine US agencies including the FBI, the State Department, the Department of Justice, the Immigration Office, the DIA.

The objective was to screen every single resident of the camp. According to the New York Times on July 27, 2004, the US government announced: “U.S. Sees No Basis to Prosecute Iranian Opposition ‘Terror’ Group Being Held in Iraq”.

Following the D.C circuit court of appeals on July 16th 2010 ruled that the case be reviewed, a strong voice in the US congress has urged Secretary Clinton to put an end to the flawed policy of appeasing the mullahs in Tehran and the blacklisting of the MEK.
 
Since 2008 twenty courts in Europe issued definitive ruling for delisting MEK due to lack of evidence, which was later carried out. France’s judiciary in 2011 announced there is no evidence of terrorism against the MEK.

Yet, while the US State Department is still tendentious towards appeasing the mullahs, the “vociferous mediatic rage” by Iranian regime’s supporters and pundits in capitol hill is at its highest to persuade the Whitehouse to keep the MEK on the terrorist list. 

The past 4 week engineered campaign with its thread back in Tehran has proved to any neutral bystander, that such efforts are part of a campaign to prevent regime change in Iran.
 
Meanwhile concerns by lawmakers and analysts worldwide is understating Whitehouse independent decision making regarding the delisting of MEK.
 
Both failed policy to push for dialogue or engage in change of attitude with a dead regime and using the terror tag on MEK as bate for the already dead and illegitimate clerics ruling Iran is a laid out chess game planned by Tehran .

Iranian officials’ interpretation of the policy to “engage” with the vicious tyrants in Iran has overtly been mocked as a sign of weakness on behalf of the Whitehouse.
 
Nevertheless my daughter, Saba, has paid the price for such misguided policy with her life. MEK is the only movement, whose rights according to international laws and principles of human rights have been deliberately overlooked under the pretext of “National Security” and the “US list of foreign terrorist Organizations.”
 
When it comes to understanding “realpolitik” the recent winds of change; ousting dictators one after the other will definitely reach the mullahs in Tehran.
 
The bitter truth for clerical regime pundits is that it is finally the opposition which will proceed to bring about a change in the turbulent country.  
 
Despite the push to keep the Iranian pro- democracy opposition (MEK/PMOI) in the US black list, and disregard of millions spent in a ferocious – but repetitious smear campaign against MEK , the latest show of legitimacy by the organization in its election of a new Secretary General as well as several last gatherings has proved efforts futile.
 
The fruit of the argument could be read between the lines of a speech given by Mr. Jean Ziegler, Vice-President of the Advisory Committee of the UN Human Rights Council in a meeting in July this year: “Camp Ashraf is a source of inspiration and hope for the Iranian people in achieving democracy. If camp Ashraf doesn’t survive, one must say that for the Arab revolutions, for Arab revolutionaries who are looking for a reference, who are looking for an example, this would be a tragedy.”

He added that: “It is clear that from Egypt to the Nafous Mountains in eastern Libya and to Tunisia, all these youth are looking for a reference and an example. Ashraf is the illustration of what they are in search of.”

Any delays to end the policy of appeasement would come at the price of more lives being lost in camp Ashraf. The MEK must be delisted; the survival of human rights and democratic values is a necessity of the 21th century against dictators.  The US must change its policy towards the Iranian regime and side with the Iranian people and its resistance.

Saba Haftbaradaran , (born 21 February 1982 , was former student of Law graduate , who was killed in an attack on the refugee Camp Ashraf, April 8, 2011. Reza Haftbaradaran, one of the Ashraf residents and father of Saba is a politcal activist.

http://news.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=204689

HOUSTON CHRONICLE

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” – John Adams.

These words by one of the U.S. founding fathers should be the only criteria for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she reviews whether to remove the main Iranian resistance movement, Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK,) from the State Department’s terror list.

As Americans, Southern Californians should care about this because America’s greatness, first and foremost, stems from its values and principles. Our values inspired many nations to stand up against tyranny and to challenge the status quo imposed on them by dictators. Over the years, our words and our commitments have been as solid as gold. And this is exactly the U.S. that the tyrants loathe, with the ruling mullahs in Iran at the top of the list.

Yet, due to the injustice imposed on Iranian dissidents by a misguided policy, not only our values and prestige are on the line, but also 3,400 innocent, defenseless dissidents are on the verge of being massacred at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where they are at the mercy of a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. None of us wants to see a humanitarian crisis because of a wrecked policy that should have been rectified a long time ago.

After the European Union’s and the British highest courts found no relationship between the MEK and terrorism, the E.U. and U.K. removed the terror designation.

On July 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., reviewed the MEK case and, similar to the high courts in Europe, found the terrorism allegations and label against MEK unfounded, ordering the State Department to review the designation.

As admitted by its original designers in 1997, this designation was made not on the basis of facts and the law but as part of a political decision for appeasing the religious fascist rulers of Iran in search of “moderates” who were never found.

In Iran, this policy provided the Islamic regime with an unprecedented opportunity to accelerate its nuclear bomb efforts and to prepare the grounds for Ahmadinejad’s faction to further the extremist policies of the Tehran government.

The State Department’s unjust designation of MEK as a foreign terrorist organization has been invoked on many occasions by the Iranian clerical regime as a justification for execution of political prisoners in Iran.

It is also providing an excuse for the Iraqi government’s approach to the residents of Camp Ashraf, who are “protected persons” under Geneva Fourth Convention, on behest of the Iranian regime.

In a total disregard for the legal process, the State Department has dragged its feet for more than a year.

In recent months, dozens of prominent Americans from both parties and more than 100 members of Congress, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA,) have insisted that the law must be respected and the unlawful designation of MEK must be annulled, calling on Secretary Clinton to reverse the unjust listing. Mr. Rohrabacher has joined 93 other colleagues, including the Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairs, Howard McKeon and Darrel Issa, as well as democrats Loretta Sanchez and Bob Filner, in co-sponsoring H.R. 60, which urges the secretary to de-list the MEK.

Meanwhile, the Iranian government and its lobby in the U.S. are understandably quite nervous over the possibility that the Secretary could delist MEK in the next few weeks. They have embarked on a propaganda campaign against PMOI and the Americans who support the MEK and respect for the law.

Tehran’s rulers recognize that the designation of MEK has been the cornerstone of the defunct policy of appeasement and has been the main obstacle that has impeded democratic change in Iran.

“National Iranian American Council” (NIAC,) reportedly the Iranian regime’s primary lobbying arm in the U.S., the has been consistently calling for a soft policy, to the point of even opposing sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards, known to be the godfathers of terrorism in the Middle East and the world. NIAC is now spearheading the demonizing campaign of MEK and tries to discredit prominent senior former U.S. government officials who have supported justice and delisting of the MEK as well as calling for U.S. fulfillment of obligations to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf.

Secretary Clinton should make her decision on MEK based solely on the evidence and the facts, the “stubborn things.” Then we all can claim rightly that this is the U.S. we inherited from John Adams.

http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-09-01/news/30107354_1_terror-list-camp-ashraf-mek

The Iranian daily, Keyhan reported on 29 August that only 25 showed up at the said demonstration siding with those in Washington who say MEK has no popular support!

Iranian media are known worldwide to not have any credibility for the news they blare out and this one seems to be just that. But it seems that the Iranian media, for their outrageous claims to be considered as at least to be partly true, resort to a Goebbels style, ‘Big Lie’ propaganda technique: “to tell a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

Nevertheless, it is said that a picture speaks a thousand words, or may be a few thousand considering the picture above in this case.

According to reports, the Secretary of State Clinton will be making her decision soon whether to keep the main Iranian opposition group, MEK on the US terror list or remove it once and for all.

On the other hand MEK’s main home in Iraq, Camp Ashraf, has been the center of major international attention after it was raided by Iraqi forces last April leaving 36 MEK members who resided in Ashraf dead and over 350 wounded. 

The Ashraf residents are unarmed Iranian refugees considered as Protected Persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention who have lived in Ashraf, Iraq for the past 25 years but the Iraqi government refuses to recognize their status and threatens to extradite them back to Iran.

Since the reports of decision by Secretary Clinton surfaced, a media war began in the United States between on one side the supporters of the MEK in the US calling for the removal of the group from the US black list and on the other side, the Iranian well known lobby, National Iranian American Council – NIAC run by an Iranian established collaborator, Trita Parsi.

The rally in Washington on Friday was part of efforts by supporters of the MEK to show their solidarity and draw the attention of the State Secretary to another human catastrophe at hand if the group is not removed from the US list of Foreign Terrorist Organization.  Iranian and Iraqi authorities have repeatedly referred to US blacklist as reason to justify crackdown on the Iranian opposition members in Ashraf.

http://www.stopfundamentalism.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1169:iranian-media-how-to-tell-a-lie–a-big-lie&catid=74:iranian-american&Itemid=93

OfficialWire.com

In an unprecedented political move, thousands of Iranian expatriates supporting the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) movement converged on the State Department on Friday, August 26, to join voices with former U.S. Congressmen and senior officials to call the U.S. Government to take the MEK off its list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO).

Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) addressed the rally in front of the State Department headquarters. The event also featured speeches by former Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former CIA Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations John Sano.

It might have been the first time in the history of the State Department that such a rally holds on its doorsteps in regards to a decision by the Department. It certainly marks a point in democratic values, where victims of a decision on “security measures” have the opportunity to express their feelings for the world to see it. It can certainly show the way to regimes like the one in power in Tehran, that know no way other than shooting defenseless demonstrators back home.

But at the same time the event shows flaws in the decision-making procedure permitting a wrong decision to prevail for long periods of time in support of a wrong and perverse policy, and shows the whole world how vulnerable democratic principles can be in the face of political interests.

The MEK was blacklisted in Washingtonin 1997 as a “goodwill gesture” to Iran in the hope that the mullahs could be placated to abandon terrorism and repression. The Clinton administration was looking for a way to establish “special” relations with Mohammad Khatami, then newly-elected president in Iran and pretending to incarnate “those who stand for reform” inside the clerical regime. A senior White House official said to the Los Angeles Times on October 9, 1997, that the listing was a “goodwill gesture” towards Iran’s new president. Martin Indyk, then Assistant Secretary of States for Near East Affairs, was quoted in September 2002 by Newsweek confirming that the listing was part of Clinton administration’s policy of rapprochement with the Iranian regime.  

Putting Iranian politics’ considerations parallel to those concerning foreign terrorist organizations is unethical in the first place, and is detrimental to US anti terrorist policy in the second.  At the end, it undermines democratic principles of coherent state behavior.

Great care should be taken to keep there only those who merit a place on that list, thus isolating the real terrorists and those who support them. Tehran’s regime is the world’s first sponsor of State terrorism, according to State Department’s categorical definitions. Listing the main opposition movement to the same regime in the FTO list sends a wrong signal to all parties. It suggests that everything, including FTO lists, can be subject to opportunistic bargaining when it comes to short or middle term political interests. Other countries might be influenced by US policy. The UK and the EU followed Clinton administration’s tracks to include, in 2001 and in 2002 consecutively, and again on specific demand byTehran, the MEK in their own “terrorism” lists. It took the movement seven years of legal fight to get off those lists. In fact, the evidence presented by the State Department’s lawyers to justify the ban is a virtual copy of the Iranian regime’s misinformation against the group. All of these allegations were introduced as evidence by various European governments to justify their blacklisting of the MEK but were subsequently dismissed as Iranian state-propaganda by the courts, and the MEK was delisted in the UK and Europe.

But even if we were putting foreign policy considerations first, the worst policy is to continue a failed policy with no reason. Mohammed Khatami never delivered the promised “reforms”. On the other hand,  Hassan Rohani, his chief negotiator in nuclear affairs, later admitted that the “open” Western attitude towards Khatami permitted Iran to quietly construct its array of enrichment centrifuges needed to produce more than necessary enriched uranium to bring the country close to making its first Bomb, creating one the most serious foreign policy challenges of all US administrations thereafter.  After eight years of Khatami, we are now witnessing the second four year term of Ahmadinejad.

The brutal regime in power in Iran has definitely not changed its behavior, nor has the State Department in listing the MEK.

Finally, several courts, including the US Appeal’s court have studied every bit of “proof” presented against the MEK, and concluded that it is not a terrorist organization. Among Washington DC’s speakers on August 26 was Brian Binely, conservative member of the British House of Commons, giving the complete ordeal of the British and European  judiciary who studied, in long hearings over more than seven years, the case of the MEK and consecutively deciding that terrorist allegations against the movement were, ‘perverse’ and ‘flawed’. But more than mere judicial and legal aspects are at stakes.

Thousands of MEK members have repeatedly come under deadly attack in their main base in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, by Iraqi armed forces at the behest ofIran’s fundamentalist regime. Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki uses the terror label as an excuse to murder the residents. On April 8, 2011, 36 MEK members were slaughtered by Iraqi forces and hundreds of others were injured. Eleven people had lost their lives in similar attacks carried out by Maliki’s forces in July 2009. Maliki has now threatened to close the camp and expel the residents by force at the end of the year. An urgent humanitarian task would now be saving those lives, with the United Nations and the US bearing the main responsibility. A situation which would normally not have occurred were it not for the FTO listing.

This is now a matter of life and death. Maintaining this illegitimate ban on the MEK will lead to the massacre of all Camp Ashraf residents.

In an unprecedented political move, thousands of Iranian expatriates supporting the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) movement converged on the State Department on Friday, August 26, to join voices with former U.S. Congressmen and senior officials to call the U.S. Government to take the MEK off its list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO).

Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) addressed the rally in front of the State Department headquarters. The event also featured speeches by former Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former CIA Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations John Sano.

It might have been the first time in the history of the State Department that such a rally holds on its doorsteps in regards to a decision by the Department. It certainly marks a point in democratic values, where victims of a decision on “security measures” have the opportunity to express their feelings for the world to see it. It can certainly show the way to regimes like the one in power in Tehran, that know no way other than shooting defenseless demonstrators back home.

But at the same time the event shows flaws in the decision-making procedure permitting a wrong decision to prevail for long periods of time in support of a wrong and perverse policy, and shows the whole world how vulnerable democratic principles can be in the face of political interests.

No decision is more legitimate. No other foreign policy issue has in the past gathered so much opposition back home. An array of former American administrative, military and state officials, including a former Attorney General, FBI director, Homeland Security Secretary, two CIA directors, three former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former NATO commander, two former US envoys to the UN, President Obama’s ex-National Security Advisor, and political heavyweights Howard Dean, Rudi Giuliani, and Patrick Kennedy support the call for the de-listing of the MEK.

A number of bipartisan US legislators from the Senate and House of Representatives, through sending messages, expressed their solidarity with the rally of thousands of Iranians in Washington DC on August 26 calling for delisting of MeK and protection of Ashraf. They represent a Congress that has insisted since long time ago on the necessity of delisting the movement. American lawmakers are not alone in such endeavor. More than 500 British Parliamentarians from all parties and both Houses of Parliament and a total of 4,000 lawmakers globally, stand on their side.

Apart those politics, there are the Iranian people as well.

MEK leader Maryam Rajavi, speaking to the rally from France via a video message on a big screen, echoed those people’s view in reference to the April massacre in Ashraf:  “The terror listing in the U.S. is openly used as a justification to legitimize such bloodletting, by both the cruel mullahs as well as their proxy government in Iraqi,” she said. “Therefore, the Iranian people are asking the United States, ‘Why are you not annulling the license to kill our children?'”

Nooredin Abedian taught in Iranian higher-education institutions before settling in France as a political refugee in 1981. He writes for a variety of publications on Iranian politics and issues concerning human rights.

http://news.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=176645

SCOOP INDEPENDENT NEWS

On August 13, 2011, an article written by Elizabeth Rubin appeared in NYT’s Sunday review. The highly biased article which lacks the slightest notion of neutral reporting cites allegations emanating from Iran’s rulers against their main opposition, Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK/PMOI). As the US Department of State is due to review its decision on FTO designation of MEK, the Iranian regime and its lobbyists have been hard at work to influence Secretary Hillary Clinton’s decision.

Elizabeth Rubin’s allegations against MEK are a duplication of what has filled websites and media known to be affiliated with the Iranian regime for the past 10 years. The article, which repeats the same allegations she made in 2003, was well received by the Iranian regime’s media. Her July 2003 article was used as propaganda material by Iranian embassies throughout the world and widely distributed for some time. The source of her misinformation is certainly not any of the residents of Camp Ashraf, where she visited in April 2003; rather the propaganda seems to come from MEK adversaries working with Iran’s infamous Ministry of Intelligence.

Needless to say that Elizabeth Rubin has links to some circles and elements within the Iranian regime, devoted to helping the regime stay in power. She has reportedly visited Iran in 2003 and again in 2007 where she met and interviewed many of the so-called moderates inside the ruling dictatorship.

The MEK was placed on the FTO list in 1997 for political reasons to appease the so-called moderates inside the ruling dictatorship in Iran. Now that the myth of moderation in Iran has faded, the players have resorted to another ploy, advocating for a “green movement” in Iran and purporting to represent Iranian protesters.

US military personnel and commanders who have worked closely with MEK members in Camp Ashraf from 2003 to 2009 are certainly more qualified to judge MEK. In contrast, Mrs Rubin who has spent only a few hours in the camp has spent more time with Iranian officials in Tehran and their Washington based lobbyists.

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 an article published in Global Politicianon April 11, 2005 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 added “classified as a terrorist organization by the State Department in 1997, the [MEK] bears the burden of an outdated and inaccurate label.”

After Ashraf residents submitted their arms to the US forces in 2003, General Ray Odierno, who was then the commander of 4th Infantry Division was quoted by the French News Agency 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.”

Court rulings in the UK, France, and EU have also indicated that the terrorist allegations against MEK are unfounded.

On Nov. 30, 2007, a British court ordered MEK to be removed from the British government’s list of terrorist organizations. MEK was subsequently removed from the UK list and was later removed from the European list in January 2009, following a 7-year court battle. The Washington DC Circuit of the US Federal Appeals Court has also ordered the US State Department to review MEK’s FTO listing.
Elizabeth Rubin’s article gives the Iranian regime and the Maliki government in Iraq the excuse they need to massacre the residents of Camp Ashraf, home to 3400 unarmed and defenseless members of MEK in Iraq. The Iraqi army has conducted two separate raids on the camp in July 2009 and April 2011. In the recent deadly attack 35 residents of the camp were murdered in cold blood.

Many Iranian-Americans concerned at the listing and the legacy of appeasement of the current Iranian regime have organized to voice their opposition to the State Department’s FTO listing of the MEK. They have held numerous seminars and public events to educate the public about the facts of the case. In a large rally opposite the State Department on August 26, thousands of Iranian Americans joined former US officials to call again on Secretary Hillary Clinton to delist the MEK.

There have been strong calls by former US officials from both parties to delist MEK from the State Department’s FTO listing and provide protection for Camp Ashraf in Iraq. The appeals by three joint chiefs of staff of the U.S. armed forces, a former commander of NATO, a former national security adviser to the president, a former attorney general, two former directors of the CIA, two former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., a former Homeland Security secretary, a former White House chief of staff, a former commandant of the Marine Corps, a former policy planning director of the State Department, a former FBI director, and a director of Counterterrorism at the State Departmenthas apparently troubled the Iranian regime forcing it to launch the recent disinformation campaign against its main opposition.

Recently, a bi-partisan panel was held in Washington D.C. on July 18, 2011. The panel was joined by General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997-2001) and Howard Dean, former Chair, Democratic National Committee and other US former officials. The speakers expressed dismay over the administration’s failure to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Camp Ashraf in Iraq, and its failure to review delisting of MEK from FTO list.

General Hugh Shelton stated, “The State Department has failed to provide any, either classified or declassified, information that states why the MEK should have been placed on the list in the first place. They also last week, exceeded the 180 days that they had been given by the Court to produce evidence to substantiate their reasons why the MEK is on the list. I say, Wake up, State Department, take the MEK off the FTO list today.”

Referring to the recent heightened campaign by the Iranian regime and its U.S.-based lobby to overshadow the growing consensus in the U.S. Congress and among policy and political circles on the need to immediately de-list the MEK, Governor Dean stated: “These people are not terrorists. You see in the paper the pro-Iranian lobbyist saying, well, they’re a cult and they’re this and they’re that. Well, first of all, I don’t believe that’s true, but even if it were, does that justify the murder in cold blood of people who are under American protection? I think not. Let’s stop the name calling and the foolishness and look at this for what it is. This is genocide, and we will not have it.”

Many members of the US Congress have also joined the calls for removing MEK from FTO list and protection of Ashraf. On July 28, 2011 a bi-partisan panel was held by members of U.S. Congress and senior former public officials.

The panel, held at the U.S. House of Representatives, praised the unanimous adoption of a language to H.R. 2583 to make it the policy of the United States to “prevent the forcible relocation of Camp Ashraf residents inside Iraq and facilitate the robust presence of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq in Camp Ashraf.”

The House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said, “Now, the government of Iraq knows full well what the position of the U.S. House of Representatives is as stated by our committee … and it’s time for the Obama administration to follow suit and to make sure that Ashraf residents receive the protections that they were promised, that they are entitled to. There is no time to waste.”

The Florida lawmaker added, “There’s no guarantee that the government of Iraq and their security forces will not repeat their past unacceptable behavior [the April 8 massacre] because they have paid no price for it in the international community. The safety of the residents of Camp Ashraf is in jeopardy. It’s in jeopardy right now, right this moment. It will be in jeopardy until the international community says that this is unacceptable. This is the critical time for the U.S. to stand up and do the right thing.”

Judge Ted Poe (R-Texas) who is a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee stated: “I have seen everything that they [State Department] have to offer and I am not convinced that the MEK should stay on the foreign terrorist organization list. So I introduced a resolution, along with about 80 cosponsors — republicans and democrats — to delist the MEK. It’s time to do that because as long as the MEK is designated as an FTO it will be harder to preserve freedom for those people in Camp Ashraf. [Iraq’s Prime Minister] Mr. Maliki and his government and the Iranian government both use that designation by the United States as a reason to oppress those residents,”

The fact is that the MEK listing has been a main stumbling block against democratic change in Iran. The Iranian regime has used this label to arrest demonstrators in Tehran’s streets during 2009 uprisings and has executed prisoners supporting the MEK. Ali Saremi, 63 was executed in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison on December 28, 2010 for affiliation with MEK and visiting his son in camp Ashraf. Jafar Kazemi, 47 and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghaii, 52 were hanged in Evin prison on the same basis on January 24, 2011. There are many other prisoners in Iran, whose lives are endangered by continued MEK designation as a terrorist organization.

The injustice against MEK must end; the continued listing of MEK will result in more killings in Camp Ashraf and of MEK supporters in Iran. Secretary Hillary Clinton should remove the MEK from the US Department of State’s FTO list based on facts and evidence as demanded by many Iranian-Americans and prominent US dignitaries.

Joseph Omidvar is an Iranian Scholar in Middle Eastern Studies now living in exile.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1109/S00004/truth-will-trump-fiction-in-iran-opposition-case.htm