April 24, 2024

Posts Comments

Defense chief clashes with senators over Iraq

November 15, 2011 by

REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rejected accusations at a heated Senate hearing on Tuesday that U.S. politics helped drive the decision to completely withdraw from Iraq this year without leaving any troops behind as trainers.

A woman listens to proceedings during a hearing held by the Senate Armed Services Committee on security issues relating to Iraq on Capitol Hill in Washington November 15, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

The October 21 drawdown announcement by President Barack Obama followed failed negotiations with Baghdad to secure an immunity deal that the Pentagon made a precondition for keeping any U.S. military trainers in the country.

Panetta put the blame squarely on Iraqi politics, with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki unable to push an immunity deal through parliament.

But prominent Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee questioned whether U.S. politics also played a role, with Obama – an early opponent of the Iraq war who campaigned on a promise to end it – facing a re-election battle in 2012.

In a particularly heated exchange, Senator John McCain flatly told Panetta he did not believe his version of events. He suggested that the Obama administration failed to provide Iraq the facts and figures it needed to make a decision.

“The truth is that this administration was committed to the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. And they made it happen,” said McCain, who lost the 2008 election to Obama.

Panetta responded forcefully: “Senator McCain, that’s just simply not true. I guess you can believe that … but that’s not true.”

General Martin Dempsey, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the top U.S. military officer, said he and others at the highest level of the Pentagon had been encouraged by Panetta and Panetta’s predecessor, Robert Gates, to lobby Iraqi military leaders to accept some sort of training mission.

“We were all asked to engage our counterparts, encourage them to accept some small permanent footprint,” Dempsey said.

TIDE OF WAR “RECEDING”

The Iraq withdrawal announcement followed a June decision by Obama to bring a third of American troops home from Afghanistan by the end of next summer – a faster pace than the U.S. military had recommended. During both announcements, Obama assured Americans that, after a decade of constant conflict, the tide of war was receding.

The two decisions have fueled criticism by Republicans that Obama is ignoring battleground realities in order to bring the two costly, bloody wars to a conclusion.

“I think it’s no accident that the troops are coming home (from Afghanistan) two months before his (2012) election,” said Senator Lindsey Graham.

“And if you believe that to be true, as I do, I don’t think it’s an accident that we got to zero (in Iraq).”

Asked by Graham whether questions about fallout from Obama’s Democratic base ever came up in discussions on Iraq, Panetta replied: “Not in any discussions that I participated (in).”

Graham and other lawmakers raised concerns about the fate of 3,000 Iranian refugees at Camp Ashraf in Iraq once U.S. forces withdrew. The camp is a base of the People’s Mujahideen Organization, a group that opposes the Tehran government and launched attacks into Iran before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Baghdad has been seeking to close the camp and rights groups say the residents have been harassed and denied access to basic medicine by the Baghdad government.

“Do you think the people in Camp Ashraf, do you think they’re going to get killed? What’s going to happen to them?” Graham asked.

Dempsey said U.S. diplomats were working to ensure Iraqis provided protection for the refugees. Lawmakers warned that if Baghdad violated its commitment to protect them it would lead to strained relations with Congress.

About 24,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, down from a peak of about 190,000 during the height of former President George W. Bush’s troop surge in 2007.

Panetta and Dempsey acknowledged that Iraqi security forces will face numerous challenges once U.S. troops withdrew.

Dempsey said he saw a moderate risk of an Arab-Kurdish conflict over the oil reserves around Kirkuk. He also cited the important role U.S. surveillance and transport aircraft played in counter-terrorism missions.

Still, he and Panetta expressed optimism over Iraq’s ability to grapple with its own challenges and the ability to deal with Iranian. Panetta said he believed Maliki saw Iran as “having a destabilizing influence in that part of the world.”

“My view is that the region largely rejects Iran and its intentions. And I think Iraq is at the top of that list,” Panetta said.

(Editing by Paul Simao)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/15/us-usa-iraq-idUSTRE7AE2K920111115

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

House Committee Approves Amendment to Protect Camp Ashraf

November 2, 2011 by

STOP FUNDAMENTALISM

Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on both sides of the isle unanimously approved an amendment to a bill that called to protect the 3400 residents of the Iranian dissident Camp Ashraf which is located northeast of Baghdad today, reported AP. The Bill is designed to impose yet harder sanctions on Iran.

“If history is any guide, it will see another massacre,” said Judge Ted Poe, R-Texas, refereeing to two tragic previous incidents at the camp in which almost 50 residents died when Iraqi military units opened fire on the unarmed population of the camp.

Baghdad says it intends to close the camp by the end of 2011 despite international calls that the date is not realistic as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is trying to process individual applications of the camp residents to be able to resettle them in third countries.

Monday night an Iraqi Military column, consisting of at least 30 military vehicles and 10 police cars, swarmed into the camp, creating a lot of noise, maneuvering through the camp.  The National Council of Resistance of Iran considers the action as preparation by Iraqis for another attack on the camp.

UNHCR said in September in a statement that Ashraf residents have filed individually for asylum and so they are now considered ‘asylum seekers’ which entitles them to international protections.

The amendment asks the Obama administrator to pressure Iraq to ensure the well-being of the camp residents and to prevent the involuntary return of them to thier country of origin, Iran, where they will face certain death.

The amendment also urges the government of Iraq delay camp closure until the UNHCR can resettle the residents elsewhere.

Ros-Lehtinen wants the bill ready to be signed by the President Obama “to hand the Iranian regime a nice holiday present.”  The bill has 343 co-sponsors.

The two bills approved by both Republicans and Democrats on the House Committee today would strengthen current sanctions while expanding the list of companies and individuals subject to penalties. Lawmakers cited recent allegations of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and insisted that such brazen behavior demands consequences.

http://www.stopfundamentalism.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1245:house-committee-approves-amendment-to-protect-camp-ashraf&catid=74:iranian-american&Itemid=93

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

Lawmakers fear Iranian dissidents face assault in Iraq

November 2, 2011 by

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Want U.N. to protect Camp Ashraf

Demonstrators hold petitions asking President Obama to protect Iranians at Camp Ashraf in Iraq during a rally at the White House on Saturday. (Associated Press)

Nearly three dozen U.S. lawmakers are urging U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to prevent a fresh outbreak of violence at a camp for former Iranian resistance fighters in Iraq.

In a letter made public Wednesday, they wrote that residents of Camp Ashraf have been subjected to “deadly incursions and repeated incidents of harassment” by Iraqi forces.

Late Monday night, Iraqi troops and police entered the camp with sirens blaring in what residents said was an attempt to intimidate them.

On April 8, the Iraqi army attacked the camp, killing 36 residents, including eight women. More than 300 others were wounded. The lawmakers warned of “another tragedy on a larger scale” without prompt U.N. action.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has set a Dec. 31 deadline to close Camp Ashraf. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has said that the Iraqi deadline does not leave enough time to process the refugee status requests of Camp Ashrafs 3,400 residents, who fear they will be arrested and executed if they are deported to Iran.

The Obama administration has expressed its concern to the Iraqi government about the recent developments at Camp Ashraf.

“We are … in a continuing dialogue with the government of Iraq, at the very highest levels, to impress upon them the importance of treating the residents of Ashraf humanely,” State Department spokesman Noel Clay said Wednesday.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said she is worried about the Iraqi militarys actions inside Camp Ashraf.

“The residents are being subjected to psychological torture,” the Florida Republican said.

Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen said a strong message must be conveyed by President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. generals in Iraq to the Maliki government that it must uphold commitments to protect the camp’s residents.

“Iraq feels like it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants to the Camp Ashraf residents, and no one will protest,” Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen said.

Rep. Judy Chu, California Democrat, told a gathering on Capitol Hill that the Iraqi government must extend its deadline to shut the compound.

“We are in a critical time period,” she said.

Meanwhile, the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday adopted a resolution to put additional sanctions on Iran. The resolution includes an amendment committing the United States to ensuring the protection of Camp Ashraf residents.

The residents of Camp Ashraf are members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, an Iranian opposition group that the State Department designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997. The residents and their supporters say the Iraqi government has used this designation to justify its actions against the camp.

U.S. forces disarmed the Mojahedin in 2003 and turned over control of Camp Ashraf to the Iraqi government in 2009.

In their letter to Mr. Ban, the lawmakers said the United Nations must set up a “full-time monitoring team” inside the camp.

“This will create the safe, accountable and orderly environment where all claims can be fully processed and all refugees can be resettled in third countries where they are safe,” they wrote.

The continued presence of the resistance on the State Department’s terrorism list is the main reason for the harassment of Camp Ashraf residents, according to some scholars.

“If [they] were not on the terrorism list, Maliki would not be able to justify treating the residents of Camp Ashraf as terrorists,” said Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Britain and the European Union took Iranian resistance off their lists of terrorist organizations in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/2/lawmakers-fear-iranian-dissidents-face-assault-in-/

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

House committee OKs new penalties against Iran

November 2, 2011 by

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House panel on Wednesday unanimously approved harsher penalties against Iran, arguing that an economically weak Tehran will struggle in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

By voice vote, Republicans and Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee pushed forward two bills that would strengthen current sanctions while expanding the list of companies and individuals subject to penalties. Lawmakers cited recent allegations of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and insisted that such brazen behavior demands consequences.

The legislation builds on sanctions that Congress overwhelmingly passed — and President Barack Obama signed — last year. Those penalties targeted exports of gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran and banned U.S. banks from doing business with foreign banks providing services to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The United Nations and the European Union have also imposed sanctions on Iran.

The latest legislation “is designed to clamp new and tougher sanctions on Iran’s energy sector, threatening the regime’s existence if it refuses to halt its nuclear weapons program,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., the committee chairwoman. She called Iran’s energy sector the country’s Achilles heel.

The United States has tried repeatedly to coax Iran into international negotiations with the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany over its nuclear program. Iran contends that its program is designed to generate electricity, not build weapons.

Among the new provisions, the House bills would restrict foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from doing business with Iran, include bartering among activities that could be sanctioned and prohibits Americans from conducting commercial or financial transactions with the Revolutionary Guard.

Directing its ire at Syria and North Korea as well, one provision would strengthen the prohibition on granting landing rights in the United States to vessels that have visited Iran, North Korea or Syria in the last two years.

Rep. William Keating, D-Mass., said the government of Syria, widely criticized for its crackdown on demonstrators, receives political and material assistance from Iran.

The committee, by voice vote, adopted an amendment by the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Howard Berman of California, that would require the president to determine within 30 days whether Iran’s central bank is supporting the country’s chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or missile programs, financing the purchase of advanced convention weapons, underwriting the Revolutionary Guard or aiding Iran’s support for international terrorism.

If the president makes such a determination, the administration would be required to impose penalties that would bar any foreign bank doing significant business with the central bank from U.S. economic activities.

“Our hope, as with all our sanctions, is that an economically challenged Iran will have less money to spend on weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and other nefarious activities,” Berman said.

The sanctions appear to be taking a toll in Tehran. Just this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledged that the current penalties were impeding Iran’s financial institutions, saying, “our banks cannot make international transactions anymore.”

The committee also approved an amendment by Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, designed to protect the several thousand Iranians living in exile at Camp Ashraf, located northeast of Baghdad, Iraq. The camp is run by the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, a resistance group to Tehran’s clerical regime that has been a harsh critic of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It has been attacked by the Iraqi army, with dozens killed, and Baghdad is intent on closing the camp.

The provision in the bill calls on the administration to pressure Iraq to ensure the well-being of the camp residents. The measure also calls for preventing the involuntary return of camp residents to Iran and delaying the camp closure until the U.N. High Commission for Refugees can resettle the residents in another country.

“If history is any guide, it will see another massacre,” Poe warned.

Ros-Lehtinen expressed hope that the House leadership could move quickly on the legislation, which has 343 co-sponsors.

She said she wanted the bills ready for the president’s signature “to hand the Iranian regime a nice holiday present.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jj2bqkbYDkP7bGYkuAZMOBBPmd2g?docId=3dcc27d13f3c464aaa297c647a20afb4

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

US lawmakers advance new Iran sanctions

November 2, 2011 by

AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE

WASHINGTON — The US House Foreign Affairs Committee approved legislation Wednesday to toughen sanctions on Tehran over its suspect nuclear program in the wake of an alleged Iranian assassination plot.

The panel endorsed the measure by voice vote, with Democrats and Republicans closing ranks in the wake of US allegations that Iranian officials schemed to hire Mexican drug cartel killers to murder Saudi Arabia’s envoy to Washington.

“There should be consequences to this type of behavior, and I believe the international community must stand up against this threat,” said the committee’s top Democrat, Representative Howard Berman.

US lawmakers aim to tighten already considerable sanctions on the Islamic republic, notably on its energy and banking sectors, in a bid to force a freeze to what the West argues is a covert nuclear weapons program.

The measure calls for new sanctions such as denying US visas to anyone involved in Iran’s oil or gas industries, toughening existing measures against weapons of mass destruction and an amendment authored by Berman aimed at cutting Iran’s central bank off from global financial markets.

Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the committee’s chairwoman, called on the full House and Senate to approve the legislation quickly to get it to President Barack Obama’s desk “in time to hand the Iranian regime a nice holiday present.”

Lawmakers amended their text to add measures targeting Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, blamed in the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, and financial entities they control. The text also singled out individuals or foreign entities aiding the elite corps.

The panel also urged the Obama administration to press Iraq to postpone the closure of a camp housing thousands of outlawed Iranians until the United Nations grant political refugee status to those who want to avoid returning to Iran and place them in third countries.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Monday that his government was resolved to close down Camp Ashraf, northeast of the Iraqi capital, by year’s end.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iaydBEVMghh-JdWFuN5T3ylYgm1A?docId=CNG.277271d0aa542d00f612f1524cd48fa9.151

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

Secretary Hillary Clinton Questioned on Camp Ashraf in House Hearing

October 29, 2011 by

US COMMITTEE FOR CAMP ASHRAF RESIDENTS

On 27 October, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared at a hearing  of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee where she was questioned by several members of the Committee asked about the humanitarian crisis in Camp Ashraf and the reasons behind the delay in delising of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) from the FTO list.

Here is an excerpt of the exchange:

Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Many members including the ranking member and I had sought the administration’s commitment to securing their protection given the Iraqi government’s repeated failure to comply with its international human rights obligations to the Camp Ashraf residents and in light of President Obama’s announcement of the final withdraw of American troops from Iraq, we need to be confident that our administration is engaged with the government of Iraq, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and others to ensure the welfare of Camp Ashraf residents and to resolve their long-term security goals.

 Secretary Clinton: With respect to Camp Ashraf, which we deeply are concerned about, we know that there is an ongoing and very legitimate expression of concern. We have elicited written assurances from government of Iraq that it will treat Ashraf residents humanely, that it will not transfer the residents to a country that they may have reasons to fear. And we are pushing very hard to get the United Nations High Commission on Refugees to work with residents of Camp Ashraf and Government to get them to a safe place.
…
Rep. Sherman: I think many of us saw this ad about Camp Ashraf featuring a 14-year-old girl who fears extermination. We face a tough circumstance and that we are withdrawing from Iraq. In the past there have been some will say massacre but at least terrible instances in which tens of people have been killed. And there are press reports that the Iraqi officials say well don’t worry about it too much after all these folks are on the US terrorist list. What are we doing to assure that when we leave Iraq we will not see the massacre of 3400 people at Camp Ashraf? And how is it going on the court-ordered review on whether the MEK should be on the terrorist list?
 
Secretary Clinton: On those points in particular congressman in accordance with the DC circuit’s 2010 ruling, State Department is reviewing the designation. There will be a decision, It has to be done expeditiously but thoroughly and we hope to have such a decision in the future. I would add that the current designation does not pose a bar to the resettlement of Ashraf residents in Europe. And the humanitarian situation at Ashraf in our opinion is also not related to the MEK’s designation. And I think it’s also important to recognize that, you know, we need to do as much as we can to move as many people out of the camp before the end of the year and we are trying to do that. We are working primarily through the United Nations and certainly with both the residence of Ashraf and the government of Iraq to try to put in place a very rapid assessment of individuals and we have urged the EU and other countries to favorably consider the resettling of any Ashraf resident granted refugee status because we want to shrink the numbers as best we can.

…
Rep. Rohrabacher: You stated that we are going to do as much as we can in terms of Camp Ashraf. You’re not doing as much as you can. It’s been 500 days since the court has ordered us to reconsider this terrorist designation and that should be plenty of time to understand what the issues are. And other people around the world now have determined that they don’t put them on the terrorist list. So we are not doing as much as we can. And I would hope that you take that up and do as much is you can to ensure there’s not another massacre of people there that we could have prevented.  Let’s note that we have officially requested the State Department for information about the the Camp Ashraf massacre. Do you intend to comply with that request as we’ve been told the State Department will or are you backtracking from a commitment?

Secretary Clinton: Congressman, we will provide that what information we can to you.

Rep. Rohrabacher: We can sounds like the operative words of how to get out of answering a question.  You obviously have the records of your own department. Are you going to provided it?  You have a request from Congress you agreed to do it.  And will to comply with that request?

Secretary Clinton:  We certainly will comply with the request.
 
Rep. Rohrabacher: Ok, thank you.

Secretary Clinton:  But I cannot tell you what will be in the reply that is the provocation of my answer.

…

Judge Poe: Thank you Madam Secretary, thank you Madam Chair. I will try to make this to the point.
Last time you and I talked in this very room, we talked about the safety of camp Ashraf. That was in March and then later in April, Iraqi soldiers came in and killed people in Camp Ashraf. People disagree on how that occurred but people did that. Right now, on 31st [December] United States is leaving, I am not discussing that, but also on 31st, Maleki has made it clear that the camp is going to close. When we were in Iraq this summer, Chairman Rohrabacher, myself and others on this committee, we met with Maleki on the issue of Camp Ashraf. It got very heated. We wanted to go see the camp, he refused to let us see it. And later, we learned when we were flying around in a BlackHawk, that we have been invited to leave the country based upon that discussion with him. But the number one thing he said about the way Iraq treated Camp Ashraf was the US designation of the MEK.

He spent all of his time saying this is the reason they are treated the way they are because you, the United States, have designated them as a foreign terrorist organization.
 
My concern, first of all, is the safety of the people in Camp Ashraf when that 31st comes. They are in fear.  85 of those people some are Americans and the others of that 85 that are there among the 2000, are permanent residents of the US. So, my question is, what are we doing through the end to make sure they extend the deadline so the people can do what necessary through the UN to get out of Iraq and go somewhere in the world. And second, the long term issue of the MEK designation. I am encouraged by your words last night that you made regarding that. So, those are my two issues and my two questions to you Madam Secretary.

Secretary Clinton: Well, congressman, I can assure you that I am personally very focused on trying to make sure that we protect the safety of the residents of the camp. I, and our department and our administration strongly condemned the violence that led to the deaths. Regardless of how that happened, the fact is, you are right, 36 residents died because of the violence on April the 8th. We are monitoring the situation as closely as we can.
 
We see no evidence suggesting that there is any other imminent attack on Ashraf and we continue to urge the government of Iraq to show restraint. As I said earlier, we do have written assurances from the government of Iraq to treat the Ashraf residents humanely, to follow their international obligations which they have, as long as the residents remain in the country, and not to transfer anyone to any country where that person could be persecuted as a result of their political or religious beliefs. And so, we are trying to nail down as much as we can to provide some protective screen for the residents. We know that they have approached; that we have also pushed the UNHCR to have even more of a presence, to do more, to try to move as many of the status determinations as they can. So this is an area of deep concern to us and we are moving on many fronts and we are also going to move as expeditiously as possible to a final resolution on the designation.

Judge Poe: Do we have any time frame on the designation?

Secretary Clinton: I cannot be more specific than that congressman, as expeditiously as possible.

Judge Poe: Well, I just want to re-urge you and the administration to make sure that when December 31 comes, bad things do not happen to those good folks in Camp Ashraf.  And all of the politics, when you would set them aside, fulfill our obligations [just as we asked them] to put their weapons down as MEK, they did; and they get refugee and asylum status somewhere in the world but their safety is paramount. I’d just re-urge that Madam Secretary.
 
Secretary Clinton: I appreciate your urging, I appreciate the concerns and I take them very seriously sir.

 

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

Bi-Partisan Members of Congress Deplore 450-Day Delay by State Department in Completing Court-Mandated Review of MEK Designation

October 14, 2011 by

PRNewswire

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2011 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — In a Congressional briefing on Wednesday, several Members of Congress deplored the State Department’s unjustified 450-day delay in completing the Court-mandated review of the designation of Iran’s main opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), according to California Society for Democratic Iran.

In a Congressional briefing on October 12, 2011, several Members of Congress deplored the State Department's unjustified 450-day delay in completing the Court-mandated review of the designation of Iran's main opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

The briefing, moderated by Dr. Allan Gerson, former Chief Counsel to the U.S. delegation to the United Nations and Deputy Assistant Attorney General (for Office of the Legal Counsel), featured Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, John Lewis (D-GA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Co-Chair, Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus, Judy Chu (D-CA) and Ted “Judge” Poe (R-TX). Congressional staffers and delegations representing Iranian-American communities in the United States also attended the conference.

As the first speaker, Rep. Chu said, “450 days have passed, and yet the state department still has not given a response, every day of delay, means another day where peaceful democratic leaders and activists are at risk… It’s well past the time to heed the federal courts order and to remove Iran’s largest opposition group from that terrorist list.”

Rep. Bob Filner concurred, adding, “I don’t know what the State Department is scrambling around with. They are still working on this thing after 450 days now.  This is irresponsible; it’s countered the law. You can announce it [delisting] today, you can announce it tomorrow, you could have announced it a year ago.”

“It has been 450 days since our government was given the mandate to explain why they have designated the MeK as a terrorist organization and our government has not responded. What’s the hold up? What’s holding things up is the fact that our government is treating a gangster regime in Iran with kid gloves… We are afraid to actually conduct ourselves honestly and openly here for fear of someway insulting or enraging the mullah regime in Iran. What can be more ridiculous than that?… The first way to show that we stand strong is to back those people in the MEK who are right on the border of Iran and who are standing tall telling the Iranian people that there is an alternative to this brutal regime that’s stamping out your freedom,” emphasized Rep. Rohrabacher

John Lewis, the distinguished representative from Georgia added his voice to the delisting campaign. “450 days after court ruling. Why did the delay? Justice delayed is justice denied,” Mr. Lewis said, stressing, “We cannot wait, we cannot be patient. We want our freedom and we want it now.”

Rep. Poe added, “We must make sure that we also create safety, long term safety, for the good folks in Camp Ashraf… Those who continue to delay and delay and delay, they are not going to wear us down, and make us give up.  The delay, if anything should cause us to be more encouraged and more passionate about the safety of the folks in Camp Ashraf and the delisting of the MeK.”

“If you have criminal penalties the rule of law requires due process, and it’s not only the US constitution that requires it, but it is also the past decisions of the US court of appeals, so one has to ask the question why would the state department, with all of its legion of lawyers, refuse to comply with something so elementary that we learned in high school civics,” Dr. Gerson said.

Media Contact: Nasser Sharif California Society for Democracy in Iran, 562 221 8000, nsharif@californiasdi.org

News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: https://ireach.prnewswire.com

 SOURCE California Society for Democracy in Iran

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bi-partisan-members-of-congress-deplore-450-day-delay-by-state-department-in-completing-court-mandated-review-of-mek-designation-131896283.html

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

Obama’s Iran Appeasement Syndrome

August 30, 2011 by

TOWNHALL.COM

Calling President Obama’s approach toward Iran “bad policy” is like calling a rotten egg a failed omelet.

The Iranian regime is an avowed enemy of the US and the West by virtue of its stated goals and its violent actions. The Iranian government’s visceral, unmitigated hatred of the United States and its hostile intentions are manifest in every speech by President Ahmadinejad and every edict from the mullahs of the ruling Islamic High Council. No American should doubt that Iran is at war with the US and the West and will escalate its hostilities as new weapons and new resources become available.

None of this is new or controversial among people who have followed Iran’s actions since the mullahs seized power in 1979; the most potent and portentous symbol of the Iranian revolution were the 52 Americans held hostage there for 444 days. Indeed, virulent anti-Americanism has been a source of national identity for the Iranian regime from its inception. What should worry Americans more than Iran’s posture is that such commonsense statements are heresy in the Obama White House.

The naïve hand of friendship extended by President Obama to this hostile regime has led to a series of humiliations and increasingly dangerous strategic threats. Since President Obama took office and sent Nowrouz greetings to the Iranian people, the regime has responded by — holding three innocent American youths hostage, accelerating their nuclear weapons program, violently suppressing democratic movements, providing weapons and materiel to terrorists who attack American troops in Iraq, and coddling enemies of America including Hamas, Hezbollah, Hugo Chavez, and Bashir al Assad.

But nowhere is President Obama more out of touch with the reality of the Iranian threat than in his treatment of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (or MEK), the Iranian dissident movement.

The MEK was put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations in 1997 by the Clinton administration as a sop the Islamist regime. It was a condition demanded by the ruling mullahs in Tehran because they hated and feared the MEK. Thousands of MEK members have been killed by the regime. Tehran maintains a constant propaganda barrage attacking the MEK and millions of dollars have been spent to curry resistance to the MEK in the West.

In recognition of the changed, democratic character of the MEK, both Great Britain and the European Union have taken the MEK off their terrorist lists. The list of American foreign policy experts calling for the de-listing of the MEK is impressive: a former Attorney General, two former US Ambassadors to the UN, a former Director of the FBI, and a former Secretary of Homeland Security, to name only a few. Additionally, almost 100 members of Congress have signed a resolution calling for removal of the MEK from the terrorist roster.

While the continued blacklisting of the MEK is unreasonable and illogical, it is eerily consistent with Obama’s selective indignation when civilians are bludgeoned to death by police in Islamic regimes. Obama’s lack of support for the massive democratic dissent in the streets of Tehran in 2009 was shocking, but he welcomed the recent uprisings in Egypt, Libya and Syria despite the prominent presence of radical Islamists in the leadership of those protests. Obama committed American forces to help topple the dictator Gaddafi, but has not committed America and prestige and power to help the pro-democracy forces in Iran.

What is the thread that ties Obama’s strange and inconsistent policies together? The consistency lies in the peculiar ideology Obama brings to foreign policy decisions.

President Obama pledged during his campaign that an “open hand” would be extended by his administration to all nations, friend or foe. Disastrously enough, he has kept this promise. This has required overlooking mortal threats such as those posed by the Iranian regime, and ignoring potential allies like the MEK. It also explains why President Obama and his appointees in the US State Department have resisted firmer measures against Iran. In plain language, Obama’s ideology blinds him to the serious danger a nuclear-armed, anti-democratic Iran poses to the United States and our allies.

The United States urgently needs to confront and oppose Iran’s terrorist agenda through strong diplomatic and economic measures. A simple first step to signal our serious intentions would be to support Iran’s internal dissidents, a strategy which should begin with lifting the outdated and invalid terrorist stigma from the Mujahideen-e Khalq.

When Iran’s internal democratic forces see that the United States will no longer tolerate that nation’s backing for international terrorism, we will begin to see an unraveling of that regime’s despotic grip on its people.

Tom Tancredo represented Colorado’s 6th Congressional District from 1999 until 2009 where he chaired the 100+ member bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus. He currently serves as co-chairman of Team America PAC and president of the Rocky Mountain Foundation. He authored “In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security.

http://townhall.com/columnists/tomtancredo/2011/08/30/obamas_iran_appeasement_syndrome

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

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

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

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

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