This article was originally published in CampAshraf.org

Born in Iran 2 years following the Islamic Revolution, my brother Ali Reza Hassani was only three years old when my parents fled Iran for Greece and ultimately immigrated to Canada to seek a better life for their children. Upon graduating from high school with honors, a then 17 year-old Ali made a difficult and life changing decision. He could study and go on to medical school at home in Canada or he could dedicate himself to the cause of bringing democracy to a country he remembered very little about.

Highly educated on the plight of youth in Iran and uncomfortably aware of the tragic execution his uncle faced at the innocent age of 27, my brother was determined to help rid his homeland of the theocratic regime abusing its people in any way he could. That is when Ali decided to join the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) a decades-old resistance movement based in Ashraf Iraq, with the sole aim of overthrowing the regime in Tehran in favor of democracy, secular government and gender equality.

What my brother did not know then is that his life and the life of 3400 of his fellow comrades would be used as bargaining chips under the Clinton administration. As part of a goodwill gesture to Tehran, the Clinton administration added the PMOI to the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997. The United States naively believed that in doing so they could appease the then President of Iran Khatami who had promised various reforms to the people of Iran and feared the existence of an organized opposition movement, namely, the PMOI.

Fast-forward to nearly 14 years later, the United States has seen their policy of appeasement fail time and time again. Today, Iran poses a perilous threat to international security with its pressing nuclear program and following the 2009 student uprisings the world audience seldom doubts their brutal ways. Moreover, this past month Secretary of Defense Panetta recognized the need to end deadly Iranian interference in Iraq.

The listing of the PMOI went so far as to be deemed unfounded by the U.S Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit in July of 2010 following their de-listing in both the United Kingdom and European Union. How, then, can U.S foreign policy reconcile the assertion that Iran is one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism meanwhile hold that PMOI-who tirelessly oppose Tehran’s radical agenda- are terrorists as well?

The answer is as clear as it seems, they cannot. What remains logically inconsistent is the United States government’s unwillingness to remove the terror-tag unlawfully placed on a group of law-abiding, freedom loving and democracy-espousing individuals like my brother.

The unsubstantiated terrorist label has already cost the lives of nearly 50 unarmed dissidents in Ashraf, Iraq since 2009 and it must not continue. Upon the list’s review this August, I urge Secretary of State Clinton to remove the PMOI granting them the lawful recognition they deserve. Amidst a wave of anti-authoritarian movements sweeping the Middle East now is the time for the U.S to side with the people of Iran and not those who silence them. The very cause to which my brother devoted his life, is in their hands.

By all indications, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is about to release the result of her Department’s court-mandated review of the January 2009 designation of the Iranian opposition MEK, as Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Legal experts agree that the mere observance of the Law, subtle suggestions of the US Court of Appeals, and the statuary requirements, would lead her to one and only one outcome: End the MEK’s designation. This could very well explain the State Department’s delaying tactics to announce the review.

It also explains the impetus behind the frantic outburst of the anti-MEK Tehran-instigated propaganda campaign in recent weeks. The main goal of this campaign, orchestrated by well-known Tehran lobbies in Washington and implemented by a web of similarly well-known advocates of the status quo in Iran is to shift the focus of Sec. Clinton’s review from a “Rule of Law” foundation and prevent the de-designation.

The truth – very hard to swallow by this anti-MEK crowd – is that the Sate Department does not have even an iota of credible evidence satisfying the statuary requirements. Members of Congress are at awe why the State Department does not remove the group from its blacklist or why it is so reluctant to even share its credible evidence – if it has any – with the Congress.

Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-Proliferation and Trade noted last year when he chaired the Subcommittee that:

“I have been an advocate year after year for having the State Department explain what are the criteria under which the MEK has been put on the terrorist list … I have difficulty understanding what has the MEK done, anything remotely, in recent times, that causes the MEK to be on that list. I do know there is no entity more feared, more hated by the mullahs who run Iran than the MEK, which is perhaps the finest compliment that could be paid to that organization.”

Later in 2010, he remarked that:

“Our focus is on: Should the MEK be on the foreign terrorist list? The European Union says no, the US Court of Appeals says that the State Department failed to do its job, and sent them back to do their job… I asked the State Department for a classified briefing on this issue. Any of you who have gotten to know foreign policy from a congressional standpoint will understand when I say, “sometimes you learn more from the classified briefings they won’t give you than from the classified briefings they do give you.”

“The refusal to provide this not just to me, but to the relevant subcommittee was received just yesterday. I therefore asked the intelligence community to provide such a briefing… I’ve been pressing for this briefing for over a month and the variety of different excuses that I got shows that creativity is alive and well in the State Department…

Rep. Sherman, well-known for his anti-terrorism credentials and expertise, offers a very illuminating explanation for the State Department’s foot-dragging. “What it comes down to is that the State Department doesn’t know which way they want to slant the facts before they present it to us because they haven’t figured out what they’re going to do.”

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) has also echoed similar dismay about the non-existence of terrorism-related evidence in the “classified” documents of the State Department. Late last year he told a Congressional briefing that:

“Why has the State Department refused to brief the Subcommittee chaired by Mr. Sherman on the delisting of the MEK?… I want to know what information the State Department has that it’s so relentless on your part that they should remain on this list. Do you know that information?”

The Texas lawmaker, after months of delay, eventually received the “classified” information and in June told the Houston Chronicle that “I have not been convinced they should remain on the list,” adding that he has received both classified and non-classified briefings from the State Department and has yet to see evidence that marks the group as a terrorists. “Iran wants them on the terrorist list. That should be a red flag,” Rep. Poe added.

Many respectable and die-hard patriots in America’s national security circles, from four-star generals to former heads of Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have gone on the record to say the MEK is not a terrorist entity, far from it; it is an ally and a regional partner for fight on terrorism and the Islamic fundamentalism.

Against this backdrop, Secretary Clinton must de-designate the MEK. To maintain the designation would constitute a travesty of justice and the Rule of law and would be viewed as a clear sign of submission to the pressure brought upon by the anti-MEK Tehran-apologists and their anti-Iranian sinister campaign against the MEK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5- The anti green movement positions and propagandas by many of the “expert” signers of the letter cannot go unnoticed. In fact, the main point of their previous “joint statement by the experts” was to convince the American administration to give up hope on the green movement and instead get close to, and empower the existing rulers in Iran as the only possible option. In his article called “The End of the Beginning” , making a mockery of the mass demonstrations in the streets of Tehran , commonly regarded as the “beginning of the end” of the ayatollahs’ rule, Trita Paris wrote: “Iran’s popular uprising, which began after the June 12 election, may be heading for a premature ending. In many ways, the Ahmadinejad government has succeeded in transforming what was a mass movement into dispersed pockets of unrest. ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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