November 24, 2024

Posts Comments

Tehran tries to shoot the messengers

August 10, 2011 by

The Washington Times
August 10, 2011
By Zahra Sadeghpour

Mullahs attack U.S. officials urging an end to opposition’s ‘terrorist’ status

In the past few weeks, Washington has been abuzz with a heated debate over the main Iranian opposition, the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

On the face of it, the debate is on removing the MEK from the list of the State Department’s foreign terrorist organizations – a decision that reportedly will be made soon by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In reality, to delist or not to delist Tehran’s arch-opponents is the battleground for a more profound debate in Washington on how to deal with Iran’s mullahs. The clerical regime’s egregious behavior includes facilitating operation of al Qaeda in the region through an agreement with the vicious terrorist group (as established by the U.S. Treasury Department last week), its unimpeded drive to acquire nuclear weapons, meddling in affairs of other countries – Iraq, in particular – acting as the most active state sponsor of terrorism, and its ruthless crackdown of Iranian citizens.

For Iranian-Americans, the issue, in addition to national security, has another important aspect. It is about life and death for 3,400 Iranian exiles in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. The residents, members of MEK, voluntarily handed over their weapons to the United States in 2003 and were accorded the status of “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But they face increasing threats from an Iraqi government that has been doing the mullahs’ bidding in dealing with the residents. That government’s only excuse for its mistreatment of Ashraf residents is the inclusion of the MEK on the U.S. terrorist list.

Over the years, those who believed that providing incentives and limited sanctions could do the trick vis-a-vis Tehran had the upper hand within the U.S. bureaucracy. The opposition to Tehran theocracy had to be sidelined, since that would have been an irritation to this approach.

But that is changing. There is a growing momentum in Washington among former senior national security, diplomatic and intelligence officials and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that this is a dead-end policy and a recipe for a huge crisis. These realists cite some basic facts: The MEK was placed on the terrorist list for political reasons to curry favor with Tehran’s mullahs, the MEK has renounced all violence since 2001 and there is no merit in maintaining the “terrorist” status.

What’s the response by the other side?

The Iranian regime’s lobby and the apologists for Tehran have resorted to a typical tactic: “If you don’t like the message, attack the messenger.” This is a distraction to overshadow the main issue and main argument, since they fully realize that removal of the MEK from the U.S. terrorist list would make it more difficult for them to hide their real objective, which is aiding the central banker of international terrorism.

One notion that they are propagating is attacking former officials for speaking in favor of a firm policy toward Iran as well as supporting protection of Ashraf residents and delisting the MEK, suggesting that they have received speaking fees from Iranian-Americans.

The idea that the views of 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 even a director of Counterterrorism at the State Department could be bought off collectively is simply outrageous.

If that is true, then the Iranian regime, with all its oil money and resources, could have bought hundreds of luminaries to disseminate Tehran’s propaganda that the Iranian regime is the champion of human rights, a victim of terrorism and the biggest promoter of peace in the Middle East.

Former President Bill Clinton has made more than 200 paid speeches in 48 countries in the past 10 years as a private citizen. Former President George W. Bush has also made scores of paid speeches since leaving office. If this line of argument were valid, the integrity of the entire political leadership of the United States would be under question. This is not the issue of one or two individuals but it is a part of a well-established lawful and transparent political process.

Can anyone imply that even former presidents were compromising their views and national security interests because they were making paid speeches in support of an issue? Or that they took positions against a misdeed because they were paid to deliver a speech on the issue? Absolutely not.

It is time that the tune that sounds so pleasant to the mullahs’ ears be stopped and the voices of Tehran opponents be heard. They are the very same people who could not be heard in Iran, and because of the wrongheaded policy of seeking accommodation from Tehran, they have been marginalized by the United States during the past few years as a result of their designation as a foreign terrorist organization.

Instead of trying to shoot the messenger, let’s hear the message. It is about time.

Zahra Sadeqpour is a doctor of pharmacy, a human rights activist and executive director of the Iranian-American Society of Massachusetts. Her younger brother, age 25, was executed by the Iranian regime.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/9/tehran-tries-to-shoot-the-messengers/

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

Keep Tehran in check

August 10, 2011 by

The Hill (Congress Blog)
By Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
August 10, 2011

The Middle East is experiencing its most tumultuous wave of political change in decades. From Egypt to Syria to Yemen, the people of the Arab World are rejecting the status quo dictatorships and demanding democracy. Those who have been silenced for their whole lives are standing up to their oppressive leaders. Their cries for democracy, human rights and dignity are ringing loud throughout the Middle East and we hear their voices loud and clear. The United States must stand with the freedom fighters in the Middle East and support their desire for the basic values and principles that Americans enjoy every day.

However, there are legitimate reasons for concern about the rise of political unrest and instability in the Middle East. Paramount among them is the fear of the establishment of an Islamic Republic instead of a democratic government. For example, in 1979 popular discontent with an authoritarian Iranian ruler was exploited by Islamists who ultimately imposed their own cruel brand of tyranny. In a chaotic political environment riddled with popular loathing of the status quo and lack of ingrained democratic institutions, free elections provide the ideal setting for even a small group of organized and well-financed Islamic radicals to take control. The rise of a new radical Islamic regime would be dangerous for the Middle East and the rest of the world.

We must not underestimate the threat of Iran. While most Muslims in the region are Sunnis and Iran is ruled by Shiite fundamentalists, we must not oversimplify the situation by assuming that Tehran could have no influence. Exporting Islamic extremism is a pillar of Iran’s foreign policy. It is even enshrined in the regime’s constitution that Islamic rule recognizes no borders, and it should include the entire nation of Islam. Make no mistake; the little tyrant in the desert would jump at the opportunity to conquer a damaged or weak nation. Tehran’s covetous plans were evident in a February 4 speech by Ali Khamenei, the regime’s leader. He called for an Islamic regime to be installed in Egypt, saying the wave of Arab revolts is an “earthquake” triggered by the 1979 Iranian revolution. “Today, developments in North Africa — (including) Egypt, Tunisia and some other countries — have a special meaning for the Iranian nation,” Khamenei said.  “This is what was always referred to as the Islamic awakening created by the victory of the great revolution of the Iranian nation.”

In reality, the mullahs were the first to witness the rolling thunderstorm of change through massive anti-government demonstrations in 2009. Khamenei fully realizes that the cry of millions of Iranians, particularly the youth, is freedom and that any opening in Iranian society will lead to an immediate explosion. The outward looking policy of Khamenei is his line of defense to keep the crisis away from his turf.

On the same day, Ali Khamenei, the regime’s supreme leader revealed his attempt to usurp the popular uprisings in the region and leading them towards fundamentalism and exploiting them to the interests of the clerical regime. While calling the popular movement in Egypt “the Islamic movement of Egypt,” he said the unity of demonstrators should be preserved based on Islam and according to Tehran: “this movement has been initiated from the mosques and its slogan is ‘God is great’ and people of Egypt would allow this Islamic movement be derailed.”

The real question for the West is: How do you support a sudden change in the Middle East while at the same time making sure it does not fall in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists? 

One answer is to keep a close eye on Tehran. As long as Tehran does not have to focus on quashing a movement for democratic change in Iran by the Iranian people, the precarious prospect of Tehran fulfilling its policy of dominating the Arab World looms on the horizon. Stopping the evil tyrant in Iran does not entail empty verbal condemnations of his conduct, providing concessions or negotiations. It requires a heavy hand and the exertion of stronger pressure on Tehran. For the West, in general, that certainly includes firm steps to curtail Iran’s nuclear program. There is a need for more sanctions on the regime, particularly regarding the purchase of its oil, to prevent it from attaining the means to finance and support its fundamentalist agenda. Actions, not words, will stop Iran.

The United States must also recognize and support the freedom fighters in Iran who are faced with this oppressive dictatorship. Their drive for freedom is the only viable policy in the long run, one that will stop Tehran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons. Western nations should be much more vocal on the rights of Iranians and in condemning the grotesque human rights violations by the regime. The regime does not protect human life; they destroy anyone who dares to get in their way. Three political activists from the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the primary opposition group, who were charged with playing a role in the popular 2009 uprisings, were hanged in March. Many more are on currently on death row.

Finally, the United States must remove the MEK from its list of terror organizations. Placing it there was done to placate the mullahs at a time when appeasement seemed to be an option. The fallacy of that approach is now obvious. Stifling the work of the MEK has blocked the process of change in Iran, enabled the execution of dissidents, and provided an excuse for the mullahs to put inhumane pressure on residents of Camp Ashraf, where 3,400 of its members reside in Iraq. On April 8, 36 unarmed residents were murdered by Iraqi soldiers who invaded the Camp out of acquiescence to Iranian pressure. Last month, the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously adopted my amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act to oppose any plan to relocate the group within Iraq, which would all but guarantee further persecution, and make sure the United States does all it can to protect the residents.

With Tehran waiting for the opportunity to hijack the Arab world’s rejection of Islamic fundamentalism, it would be wise to realize that the United States policy on Iran must move to a new phase that pushes hard for democratic change in Iran.

And that’s just the way it is.

Rep. Poe is a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee. He sponsored H.Res.60 urging the Secretary of State to take the MEK off the FTO List. He also sponsored an amendment to HR 2583 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2012 that passed unanimously to make it the policy of the United States to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf, prevent the forced relocation of the residents inside Iraq, and to facilitate the robust presence of UNAMI inside Camp Ashraf.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/176367-keep-tehran-in-check

 

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

Richard Myers Calls for Delisting of MEK

August 9, 2011 by

Richard Myers Calls for MEK Delisting

Filed Under: Featured Photos Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Irony Of Promise And Action

August 9, 2011 by

“The United States will continue to stand with those who struggle to assert their fundamental humanity. It is essential that these brave people know that the international community supports them, just as it is essential that human rights abusers in Damascus and Tehran know that we are watching them. Until such time as they are held accountable by domestic authorities, it is our responsibility to hold them accountable at the international level,”(Testimony of Jeffrey D. Feltman , Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia Washington, DC July 27, 2011.)

Writing the above statements on stacks of papers and reading them aloud to pose as a strong advocate of human rights is one thing, while sending the State Department’s Field Operator into negotiations with Iranian political dissidents in Camp Ashraf, opposing the Mullahs regime in Iran, and asking them to choose between dying or giving up their beliefs and being dispersed as individuals without any organizational cohesion, is another thing.

A few days earlier on July 23rd, the New York Times quoted Ambassador Lawrence E. Butler, the American diplomat, as saying, “The Americans have offered a plan in which the group’s members would vacate this camp, which during Mr. Hussein’s tenure served as a military base, and relocate to another site in Iraq, where they would disband, an essential step before the United Nations would recognize the members as refugees. To the outside world, you look like a paramilitary organization.”

The organizational structure of any political institution is the most evolved means to represent the individual members’ social and political beliefs. The more savagely human rights are violated by a ruling regime, the harder this organization holds to its principals, and naturally, the more persistent it is to protect them. While MEK is recognized as the most effective opponent against mullahs in Iran, the message being conveyed by Mr. Butler to disperse this organization satisfies the ruling religious dictatorship in Iran, and indeed, it is the solution suggested by the Mullahs prior to Mr. Butler. However, it is evident that MEK would not accept the Mullah’s long term ambition, which is being carried out unwittingly by an American ambassador.

As an inseparable component of modern societies, human right’s values have evolved to endorse other social and industrial developments and policies. That in the above case the conduct of policy on the political field yields a contradictory result such as I have mentioned above, should be very alarming for high-ranking decision makers.

In the case of the residents of Camp Ashraf, the United States has signed a protection treaty with every person of the camp, and yet Iraqi’s Army under Maleki has nevertheless attacked the camp on several occasions killing as many as 50 of the residents under the watch of American forces.

It should be acknowledged that while human rights values play a vital role on the international stage to attract confidence and trust, the violation of protected rights of the Camp Ashraf residents will potentially be a distinguishing factor in the failure of future projects, and a continuous embarrassment for the United States.

It is essential that the United States fulfil its promise to protect unarmed civilians of Camp Ashraf, as well as play an active role within other international bodies, such as the United Nations, to move these residents to a safe third country in support of the EU plan. In the absence of such policy and action, the United States will be paying the price as a participator and collaborator of the violation of human rights for years to come, just as the Dutch are learning they have to pay for Srebrenica.

Mehran Amini, is a former Pilot opposing Mullahs regime in Iran who lives in Toronto, Canada and may be contacted by email at: mehran.amini411@gmail.com.

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

Dell Dailey Calls for Delisting of MEK

August 8, 2011 by

Dell Daily Calls for MEK Delisting

Filed Under: Featured Photos Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Washington Post, August 4, 2011: Dear Hillary, Delist MEK

August 4, 2011 by

 

Filed Under: Publicity Ads Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abandoned allies?

August 3, 2011 by

THE NEW YORK POST

Don’t betray Iranian refugees

Some 3,400 innocent Iranian dissidents now living in a camp in Iraq are in imminent danger of being slaughtered. These men, women and children — members of Mujahedin-e Khalq, or People’s Mujahedin, a longtime Iranian opposition movement — trusted America’s promise to protect them. But the gradual US withdrawal from Iraq leaves that promise in doubt.

As a former base commander of Camp Ashraf, the official name of the MEK’s besieged refuge, I’d like to make one thing clear: Despite charges that the MEK is a terrorist organization, these people are American allies. It would be foolish, as well as wrong, to abandon them.

As America pulls back, Iranian influence is on the rise in Iraq — notably in Diyala Province, where Camp Ashraf is located. As Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Iran’s President Mahomoud Ahmadinejad grow closer, the MEK’s situation becomes more critical.

These innocents’ vulnerability was made tragically clear on April 8, when elements of the Iraqi army used US-supplied vehicles and equipment to raid the camp, killing 34 defenseless people and wounding nearly 350.

In videos of the event, we witness the courage of the residents of Ashraf. Despite knowing they may be the next to die, they rush to rescue their fallen comrades.

Courage under fire is an admirable trait. Killing unarmed people is murder. Yet the State Department has done nothing of substance to address these attacks or the overall Ashraf situation.

Sadly, the State Department even now continues to list the MEK as a terrorist group — a listing made 14 years ago to placate the rulers in Tehran in yet another failed diplomatic outreach. (A court has now ordered State to review the listing.)

As the former antiterrorism/force protection officer for all of Iraq, I know the “factual” basis for the listing is false. For example, Hoshyar Zebari, now Iraq’s foreign minister and the longtime head of international relations for the Kurdistan Democrat Party International Relations, has repeatedly confirmed that the MEK did not attack the Kurds in the 1990s. Yet State still cites such supposed attacks in its annual report on terrorism. And just last month, State’s point man on Ashraf, Ambassador Lawrence Butler, repeated the canard again in a New York Times interview.

The real benefactors of the fall of the MEK will be Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime — which has long sought custody of these refugees in order to eliminate them as enemies of the state.

The MEK surrendered to the US military without firing a shot, turned over all its weapons, accepted consolidation at Camp Ashraf, formally renounced terrorism, accepted protected-person status under the Fourth Geneva Convention and provided the Free world with crucial intelligence, including vital data on Iran’s development of a nuclear weapons program. They met every requirement we placed on them.

Yet in early 2009, we turned the protection of Ashraf over to the Iraqis — despite numerous warnings that too many elements of Iraq’s government are eager to curry favor with Iran. This is like putting the Mafia in charge of the FBI Witness Protection Program.

As validated in the April 8 videos, the “protectors” murdered Ashraf residents. Now, the United States wants Ashraf residents to accept relocation to a different, more remote site in Iraq. The refugees see this as an invitation to a massacre — not unlike the 1995 slaughter of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.

The MEK has fulfilled its end of commitments. The United States has come up very short, and the residents of Camp Ashraf are paying the price. It is long past time for us to make things right.

For starters, that means removing the MEK from the US terrorist list and moving Ashraf residents to third countries where their safety can be guaranteed.

Col. Wesley Martin US Army (Ret.), served as the senior antiterrorism/force-protection officer for all Coalition forces in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/abandoned_allies_HCjcM8v310sbGvMaIUVrhM

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

Bill Richardson Calls for Delisting of MEK

August 2, 2011 by

Bill Richardson Calls for MEK Delisting

Filed Under: Featured Photos Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Robert Torricelli Calls for Delisting of MEK

August 1, 2011 by

Robert Torricelli Calls for MEK Delisting

Filed Under: Featured Photos Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US National Security, Military, and Policy Figures Call for MEK Delisting

August 1, 2011 by

  

General James Jones, U.S.M.C. (ret.), Former National Security Advisor to President Obama and Supreme Allied Commander Europe:

“I propose three [New Year] gifts. The first one is successfully delisting the MEK, the second one which has been mentioned but is equally important is ensuring the security of the people of Camp Ashraf and the third is to support the popular movement for freedom as expressed by Iranians both inside and outside ofIran.” Washington, DC, March 17, 2011
__________________________________________________________________ 

Governor Howard Dean, Former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Governor of Vermont: 

“… We must change our position on the MEK and stop calling them a terrorist organization. They are not a terrorist organization, they have their own bill of rights, which is an extraordinary thing under the leadership of Madame Rajavi, and we appreciate what she has done greatly.” Paris, February 26, 2011 

“The MEK is not a terrorist group and we need to de-list them immediately. Immediately.” Washington, DC, March 17, 2011. 
__________________________________________________________________

 Rudi Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York:

“It is about time that we change the listing of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran on the terror list. I have studied terrorism for over 35 years. I have investigated terrorism and I have seen first hand, in my city the devastation that terrorism can bring about. This is not a terrorist organization. This is an organization dedicated to achieving freedom and dignity for its people.” New York, September 24, 2010
__________________________________________________________________

 Tom Ridge, Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Governor of Pennsylvania, and U.S. Representative:

“It’s a very important and a very visible statement that these Republicans and these Democrats, having worked for Republican and Democrat administrations, feel unanimously that the designation of MEK should be lifted and should be lifted now… The Resistance and the MEK are not looking for money, they are not looking for arms. They just want the freedom to speak. They want to be delisted and take action into their own hands. We need to do that for them because time is running out.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
__________________________________________________________________

 Andrew Card, Former White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Transportation:

“The MEK was our ally in the war on terror… But the State Department was left behind, left behind with a document that is irrelevant today. And the courts have said, check its relevance. My prayerful hope is that the State Department is checking what is relevant today, and they will see today for what it is rather than a yesterday that they didn’t understand or know… I hope that the United States will say the MEK is that ally that we need on the war on terror…” Washington, DC, April 26, 2011 
 __________________________________________________________________

General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret.), Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe:

“The State Department is reconsidering the foreign terrorist organization listing. Why wouldn’t they take an organization like this off the list? I think they will. I think they must.” Paris, April 27, 2011. 

“I’ve seen no evidence that this is a terrorist organization. I’ve asked for this, none has been presented. I can see no reason why they should remain on the foreign terrorist organization list. None…” Brussels, May 25, 2011 
__________________________________________________________________

Louis Freeh, Former Director of the F.B.I., U.S. District Judge:

“With respect to the designation of the MEK… I was not consulted in 1997, that the Department of State had listed the MEK . . . . In 1997, the government of Iranduped the U.S.government by inducing it to list the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization, without consulting the FBI… We now have in this new administration the opportunity to do the right thing, but it should be now . . . . The delisting has to immediately take place.” London, February 14, 2011
__________________________________________________________________

Lee Hamilton, Former Vice-Chair of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon theUnited States, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

“[F]rom where I stand now I’m really puzzled. I do not understand why the United Stateshas kept the MEK on the terrorist list for all of these years. I have had access to classified information. I know some things may have happened in the past. This is a factual question with regard to the conduct of the MEK and why the United Stateshas not resolved it and spoken out on it. I am not aware of any facts that require the MEK to be on the terrorist list.” Washington, DC, February 19, 2011
 __________________________________________________________________

Michael Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States and Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York:

“It is important not only that the [MEK] designation be removed but also that it be removed quickly before Iran and those acting in its behalf can wear down the residents of Ashraf and force them to leave or impose an even worse fate on them.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011.  

“Many people in this room, including me, have had occasion in the past to make the case many times over that there was simply no basis in law or in fact for continuing MEK on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations and that 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.” Washington, DC, March 17, 2011
__________________________________________________________________

Gen. Hugh Shelton,U.S. Army (ret.), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“[B]y placing the MEK on the FTO list we have weakened the support of the best organized internal resistance group to the most terrorist-oriented anti-western world antidemocratic regime in the region. That’s a disgrace. Iran’s current regime is clearly a government that needs to change. The MEK is the organization that they fear and that should tell us something right off the bat. When you look at what the MEK stands for, when they are antinuclear, separation of church and state, individual rights, MEK is obviously the way that Iran needs to go.” Washington, DC, February 19, 2011
__________________________________________________________________

Ambassador John Bolton, Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations:

“We have seen in recent years that opinion within the U.S. government has tended towards delisting the MEK, but at the end of the Bush administration Secretary Rice decided not to do that for essentially the same reason that the Clinton administration put the group on the list to begin with: to open channels of communication with Iran.” New York, September 24, 2010
__________________________________________________________________

Porter Goss, Former Director of the CIA:

“We can’t kick down the situation on the MEK any more. We’ve got a deadline coming up…The FTO designation is an impediment to the final solution of relocation and I think, therefore, the sooner we get a judgment on that, that is what I think where common sense will lead us….There’s not any justification based on what I’ve seen… I think the first thing to do is get the FTO question resolved and the second thing to do is say these folks [Camp Ashraf residents] deserve a future.” Washington, DC, June 2, 2011 
 __________________________________________________________________

Ambassador Bill Richardson, Former Governor of New Mexico, Secretary of Energy, Ambassador to the United Nations, and U.S. Representative:

“[W]ith the MEK . . . I think it makes sense to take them off the terrorism list. North Korea was taken off the list, I don’t know if you know this, some time ago. This is something I’m not going to say—this is bureaucracies. Bureaucracies move slow. To move them you’ve got to do sometimes gigantic leaps. I’m not making any excuses but I do think this is something we need to reassess right away.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
  __________________________________________________________________

Ambassador Dell Dailey, Former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State:

“It is essential that Secretary Clinton . . . revoke the designation and delist the MEK. It is within her ability to do that right now… Delist the MEK from the foreign terror organization list and let the Iranian citizens decide their own form of government.” Washington, DC, March 17, 2011   
   __________________________________________________________________

 
James Woolsey, Former Director of Central Intelligence:

“One thing we should no longer do, and on this I join the others on this panel, is keep the MEK listed as a terrorist organization. In 22 years of practicing law I read a lot of legal decisions and I recently read the Circuit Court’s decision in the case involving the MEK… This eloquently and well written decision of last July by the D.C. Circuit effectively says, quite bluntly, although it doesn’t use this particular analogy, that what the Department of State has done is what the red queen does in Alice in Wonderland when she is asked if first we’re going to have the trial and the verdict and then the execution she says no, execution first, then trial.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
 __________________________________________________________________

General Richard Myers, U.S.A.F. (ret.), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“Delisting the MEK is surely the right thing to do and it’s way past time to do that.” Washington, DC, April 14, 2011 
  __________________________________________________________________

Patrick Kennedy, Former United States Representative, Chairman of the DCCC:

“I personally believe the reason MEK is still listed as a terrorist organization is that our policy in the past has been one of appeasement [of Iran]. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  MEK is the biggest threat to the Iranian mullahs.” Washington, DC, May 19, 2011

__________________________________________________________________

General Peter Pace,U.S.M.C. (ret.), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“Some folks said to me this week if the United States government took the MEK off the terrorist list it would be a signal to the Iranian regime that we had changed from a desire to see changes in regime behavior to a desire to see changes in regime. My response to that is: sounds good to me.” Washington, DC, February 19, 2011  
__________________________________________________________________

General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps (2006-2010): 

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

“Now, it seems to me the oppressive events [at Camp Ashraf] are such today that we have got to reconsider our national posture towards the people at Camp Ashraf and the MEK in general… And I’ve got to tell you what happened recently should be a national outrage and, unfortunately, I don’t see it.” Washington, DC, July 26, 2011
__________________________________________________________________

Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, Former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union:

I hope as [State Department] do so they will expedite their decision and that they will reflect on the fact that the UK and the EU to which I was an Ambassador, have both lifted their restrictions with respect to the MEK but the State Department I hope will make their decision based on the merits and to do so quickly and promptly, again recognizing the precedents that others have created.” Washington, DC, June 2, 2011  
__________________________________________________________________

 Robert Torricelli, Former U.S. Senator from New Jersey:

“[T]he listing of the MEK as a terrorist organization by the United States government is wrong. It is wrong as a matter of law, it is contrary to the facts, it is interfering with the rights of American citizens to be heard and it is contrary to American foreign policy… I call upon Secretary Clinton who I consider a dear friend and one of the finest leaders in the history of our country to do what she knows is right: End the policy and end it now.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
__________________________________________________________________

Ambassador Mitchell Reiss, Former Director of Policy and Planning, U.S. Dept. of State and Member of the National Security Council:

“Whether or not you believe that we have one year, two years, three years or more before Iranwill be in a position to acquire nuclear weapons, there is still no reason to be shy about doing more to support the Iranian opposition. A good first step would be delisting the MEK.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
__________________________________________________________________

Frances Townsend, Former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush:

“[T]he tyrannical regime in Iran believed that failure to delist the PMOI was weakness not strength… The greatest single step right now today that I believe the United States government can take to really put pressure on the Iranian regime and really insist and enable change is to delist the MEK. We should do that because the listing is not warranted by the evidence that is public or anything that is classified…” Paris, December 22, 2010 
 __________________________________________________________________

Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania (2003-2011):

“I will send a letter to President Obama and to Secretary Clinton telling them, one, that the United States is morally bound to do everything we can to ensure the safety of the residents of Camp Ashraf and, two, if, Director Freeh and General Shelton and General Conway and Governor Dean and the rest of these great panelists say that MEK is a force for good and the best hope we have for a third option in Iran, then, good Lord, take them off the terrorist list. Take them off the terrorist list.” Washington, DC, July 26, 2011
__________________________________________________________________

John Sano, former Deputy Director of CIA for National Clandestine Service:

“[Iran’s] Disinformation campaigns basically are feeble attempt to convince the United States and its organizations, the State Department, even Congress, as well as the international observers, that the residents of Ashraf should be displaced and further that the MEK should remain on the foreign terrorist organization list.

“The MEK promotes a peaceful, non-violent, and democratic Iran; is committed to the universal declaration of human rights as well as international conventions and covenants; and promotes a domestic and foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence. The time is long past for the MEK to be delisted from the foreign terrorist organizations list.” Washington, DC, July 28, 2011
__________________________________________________________________

General Anthony Zinni, U.S.M.C. (ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Central Command:

“I know you all realize you are seeing not only the bi-partisanship that was mentioned. You are seeing leadership from our Congress, administrations past and present, from our military and from our intelligence agencies and law enforcement. You have an entire spectrum here that feels the same way. I think what you are going to hear up here is a continuous set of comments much like you’ve heard already: the need to remove the MEK from this list of terrorists, the need to support the opposition groups and understand who they are.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011 
__________________________________________________________________

Dr. Philip Zelikow, Former Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Counselor of the States Department:

“So what then would I recommend to the Secretary were I in my old job today? I would say, here is a four-part proposal of what you could do: Part one. Delist the MEK as an FTO. Washington, DC, April 26 2010

Filed Under: Featured Post Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,