In recent months, with anticipation of a decision by Secretary Hillary Clinton about the lifting of the unfounded terrorist designation from Iran’s democratic opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a number of former senior officials of the State Department, from both Republican and Democratic administrations, have gone on the record to call for an objective review of the designation based on facts and devoid of customary ill-advised foreign policy considerations designed to send conciliatory signals to Tehran.
 
John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations and the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, stated during a recent conference that  “I didn’t see anything when I was in the government that justified them [MEK] being on the [FTO] list. We’ve had very senior officials in our American intelligence and counter-terrorism activities that have talked about the work they’ve done with the MEK.  We have repeated testimonials by senior American military officials during the days of the American military presence in Iraq … who have talked about their cooperation and the renunciation of terrorism, the disarming of Camp Ashraf and the work that was done to help the United States during that period.”

Back in September, Ambassador Bolton explained why, despite the abundance of evidence and facts to delist, the previous administration decided to maintain the MEK on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). He said “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.”

Among the most significant views about the FTO designation of the MEK are comments made by Ambassador Dell Dailey, Coordinator for Counterterrorism of the State Department in the last two years of the previous administration. He was the official with full access to MEK’s “terrorism” file and yet he could not find any justification of the group’s continued FTO listing.

In 2008, he recommended the MEK be removed from the FTO list based on absence of any evidence to meet the statuary criteria. Secretary Rice, however, overruled that decision.

Last March, Mr. Dailey reiterated his recommendation and said “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.”

Mitchell Reiss, former Director of Policy Planning in the Department of State, has spoken about the bi-partisan and multi-discipline nature of the growing support among senior national security and policy figures for the removal of the MEK from the FTO list.

He told a panel recently that “Whatever our political affiliation, it has no bearing today, as we are unified shoulder to shoulder in our effort to help right this wrong, to de-list the MEK and to help the people at Camp Ashraf.” He added that “The fight being waged to de-list the MEK, the fight to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf… is America’s fight as well. Both our interests and our values are inextricably linked in this case.”

Former senior State Department officials from other administrations have also urged the MEK’s delisting. Bill Richardson, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, has noted that “I sense this momentum with what’s happening in the Middle East, what’s happening in Iran, the repressive nature of the regime responding to the protesters. First, is the delisting [of the MEK] and we should do something about [the protection] of Camp Ashraf. This is a movement that doesn’t want any money. This is a movement that doesn’t want weapons.”

Stuart Eizenstat, former US Ambassador to the European Union and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, has stressed on the importance of strengthening democratic oppositions and addressed the issue of MEK’s blacklisting in his recent remarks. He said “The State Department is going through their process as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia required them to do and I hope as they 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.”

Nancy Soderberg, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, in her remarks earlier this year about the April 2011 massacre of MEK members in Camp Ashraf, said “The government of Iraq absolutely must stand by its obligation to protect those in [Camp Ashraf] and U.S. must push it harder to do so.”

As for the need to review the MEK’s FTO designation based on facts and legal requirements, Ambassador Soderberg has been optimistic that “I am confident the Obama administration’s current review will be decided on the merits.  Having spoken to a variety of people in the administration, I do think this will be decided on the facts.” Such a belatedly fresh approach by the administration toward the MEK’s FTO status, should guarantee the group’s removal from the terror list.

Dr. Philip Zelikow, Former Counselor of the States Department and Secretary Rice, and Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, stated back in April that “What would I recommend to the Secretary [Clinton] 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.”

The consensus among these former officials of the State Department has extended beyond this circle and now many other national security and policy figures as well as subject matter experts have joined the US Congress to urge Secretary Clinton to end the MEK’s blacklisting. It is passed time to do so.

Amir Naderi is a Washington-based research analyst with focus on US-Iran relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly 100,000 Iranians Demand MEK to be Removed from the US State Department's List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siavosh Rajizadeh, freelance Journalist and human rights activist from Iran