April 24, 2024

Posts Comments

The “Terror Lobby” List: A Response

August 11, 2011 by

THE HUFFINGTON POST

What is an organization deemed by the US State Department to be dedicated to terrorism — an FTO, or Foreign Terrorist Organization — supposed to do when it believes the charge is spurious? Clearly, the consequences of such a determination are enormous because under federal law anyone providing as much as a nickel in support to an organization on the FTO list is subject to criminal penalties for aiding and abetting terrorism. So naturally, such an organization will try to do whatever it can to exercise its legitimate rights to correct the record, refute erroneous charges and seek de-listing.

This burden to act is especially acute if an organization placed on the FTO list happens to have thousands of its members situated in a foreign country where they stand to be forcibly removed to a truly terrorist regime where the fate of those “repatriated” will likely be death by firing squad or the hangman’s noose. And, where the US State Department FTO listing is manipulated as justification for random acts of violence against members of that particular organization coupled with continued threats of forced deportation, the compulsion to use all legitimate means to remove the unwarranted terrorist label is overwhelming.

This is precisely the situation the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) finds itself in today. The surprise is that it would be vilified for its efforts in a recent article in the Huffington Post by Christina Wilkie (“Mujahideen-e Khalq: Former U.S. Officials Make Millions Advocating For Terrorist Organization“, 8/8/11). There, Ms. Wilkie makes the sensational charge that the MEK is indeed a terrorist organization and that former top US national security officials are willing to prostitute themselves by saying the opposite. To illustrate her point, The Huffington Post chose to bunch photographs of these officials in a sort of rogues gallery captioned as “Terror Lobby”.

It is mindboggling to believe that one could imply that these prominent individuals are villains when they, more than most Americans, understand that Iran is the world’s most active supporter of terrorism and the MEK is dedicated to unhinging Iran’s repressive regime through free elections in which it can participate. Presumably, Ms. Wilkie realizes that the ruling mullahs of Iran would like nothing more than to have its new emerging satellite, the government of Iraq, repatriate the 3,400 MEK dissidents located in Iraq to face “justice” in Iran.

The hangmen in Iran have already executed thousands of MEK members over the course of the last three decades. In further delegitimizing the MEK and its supporters, Ms. Wilkie’s article in fact aids and abets terror — terror not only against the MEK members, but against American troops and Iran’s own citizens who are the key victims of the terrorist policy practiced by Teheran’s regime.

Ostensibly, Ms. Wilkie’s concern is that the MEK remains a terrorist organization that dupes top-tier former US national security officials, including the former Attorney General of the United States, to jettison their US national security concerns in favor of a quick buck. Thus, the article begins with the old canard that the MEK is a Marxist organization. Never mind that the MEK itself denies that it has a Marxist bent. But, let us say that it is Marxist — whatever that means — in orientation. What difference should that make in being subjected to the terrorist organization label?

Similarly, Ms. Wilkie’s pronouncement that the MEK is a “cult” is meaningless, and dangerous. Even assuming the charge to be true, the fact remains that no US law allows placement of an organization on any terrorism list, or validates ignoring an impending humanitarian disaster, because it has “cult”-like qualities. Indeed, the very phrase gives license to irresponsible journalists or government officials to go after whomever they happen to dislike under the banner of the cult flavor of the month.

The only incident — and not evidence — Ms. Wilkie presents on the MEK’s terrorist inclinations is the accusation of its involvement in attacks on Americans more than three decades ago. But conspicuously absent is any mention of the fact that the MEK denied any role in those attacks, which were undertaken by a splinter group not affiliated with the MEK, which coincidently murdered MEK leaders as well.

Only on the second page of her article do we learn that the EU’s highest court has recently taken the MEK off its terrorism list because it found not a shred of evidence to indicate that it has engaged in any act of terrorism. Nor is any reference made in the article to the standards in international and US law about renunciation of terrorism as justifying terminating the terrorist label.

It is telling that the article does not even allude to the fact that three years ago, the highest court in Britain rebuked its own Foreign Office for ever having listed the MEK on its terrorism list, as no credible evidence formed a basis for such a designation.

And in May 2011, the French Judiciary dropped all terrorism and terrorism financing charges against the individuals affiliated with the MEK. The judgment concluded that “The dossier does not contain any evidence indicating an armed activity that would intentionally target civilians,” and that the MEK struggle amounted to “resistance against tyranny.”

Finally, there is no reference to the reasons that the US Congress — unless she deems them all duped as well — have by overwhelming majority asked the State Department to review the MEK listing as being inconsistent with the evidence at hand. 94 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, including Chairmen of the Select Intelligence, Armed Services and Government Oversight committees, cosponsored H.Res.60, which urges the Secretary of State “to remove the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran from the Department of State’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”

Perhaps most ominously, Ms. Wilkie’s article fails to tell readers what the ex-US government national security officials actually said. Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a scholarly and thorough analysis as to why the MEK should be delisted based on the governing law and pertinent facts. Director Louis Freeh explained the political environment in which the MEK was designated in 1997, when the White House had blocked Freeh’s efforts to indict Iranian regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who had planned the bombing of the Khobar Towers, killing 19 American service members.

General Wesley Clark elaborated that he was familiar with the MEK for many years and that based on his own experience in the Balkans, the recent atrocities by the soldiers of Iraq against the MEK dissidents housed in Iraq was tantamount to a war crime and should be investigated. Secretary Ridge remarked that in none of the White House meetings dealing with threats to the United States was the MEK ever mentioned. And the State Department’s coordinator of counterterrorism until April 2010, Ambassador Dell Dailey, said he had found no evidence of MEK involvement in terrorism and had pushed to get the group off the list.

Ms. Wilkie contends, or at least strongly suggests, that because these former national security officials were the recipients of money from Iranian American communities sympathetic to the MEK, the voicing of their opinions puts them in the category of those aiding and abetting terrorism. Of course, the US Justice Department has never made such a slanted interpretation of US law. Indeed, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in July of this year found that it was not convinced that there is any sound basis for classifying the MEK as an FTO and asked the State Department to produce further evidence as to why such a listing was appropriate. For months, however, the State Department has dragged its feet, neither agreeing to delist the MEK, nor forthrightly stating facts that support such a listing.

Journalists considering a story accusing an organization of being a terrorist entity can hardly afford to turn a blind eye on the consequences of what they write, especially when the lives of thousands of individuals may be endangered.

Allan Gerson is the Chairman of AG International Law in Washington D.C. He is presently involved with other attorneys in representing the PMOI/MEK in its efforts to be removed from the State Department List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allan-gerson/post_2286_b_924434.html

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

Tehran tries to shoot the messengers

August 10, 2011 by

The Washington Times
August 10, 2011
By Zahra Sadeghpour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s the response by the other side?

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

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

The idea that the views of three joint chiefs of staff of the U.S. armed forces, a former commander of NATO, a former national security adviser to the president, a former attorney general, two former directors of the CIA, two former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., a former Homeland Security secretary, a former White House chief of staff, a former commandant of the Marine Corps, a former policy planning director of the State Department, a former FBI director, and even a director of Counterterrorism at the State Department could be bought off collectively is simply outrageous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attempts to demonise supporters of Iranian resistance

August 10, 2011 by

The Financial Times
August 10, 2011
From Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

Sir, Your article “Favourite ‘terrorists’ in US focus on lobbying” (July 30) and its complementary piece on FT.com, “Heavyweights back Iranian exile group”, repeat the Iranian regime’s stale allegations against the main organised opposition group People’s Mujahedin of Iran (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) and do a disservice to the Financial Times’ record of unbiased journalism. They are part of an effort by Iran’s intelligence ministry to demonise the supporters of the Iranian resistance.

Some 22 courts in the UK, Europe and the US have ruled that the PMOI is not involved in terrorism; furthermore, the UK government de-proscribed the group in 2008, as did the European Union in 2009 after the courts rejected the very allegations that the articles have yet again brought up.

The Rand report, referred to in the article, has received serious academic criticism for its unsound research methodology and the veiled political advocacy behind it. The institute’s director James Dobbins is a vocal advocate of rapprochement with Iran and has been active in the “Campaign for a New Policy on Iran” which lobbies the US to lift sanctions on Iran.

In the past two years, there has been a serious gap in the direction of the so-called Green Movement leaders and the millions who took part in anti-government protests following the stolen 2009 presidential election. While the demonstrators have repeatedly made clear they demand complete regime change, the leaders of the Green Movement have been equally clear in confirming their support for the mullah-led regime. These figureheads attempt to tarnish the PMOI’s image to convince the US to maintain its ban on the resistance in the hope that this true force for change in Iran remains enchained in the west.

All that the former senior US officials have been publicly demanding is that the US abide by the ruling of the DC Court of Appeal and revoke the terrorism designation of the PMOI to prevent that label from being misused by Iran and Iraq to torture and murder the group’s members and supporters who are committed to bringing democracy, freedom and peace to Iran.

Peter Archer,
President, International Parliamentary Campaign in Defence of Ashraf
Former UK Solicitor General

Peter Fraser,
Co-President, International Parliamentary Campaign in Defence of Ashraf
Former Lord Advocate for Scotland

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a27857d0-c286-11e0-9ede-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Ude8ItFT

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

The clock is ticking

August 10, 2011 by

St. Louis Post Dispatch
August 10, 2011

As U.S. troops prepare to leave Iraq by the end of this year, a humanitarian crisis is emerging that has a real chance of tarnishing President Obama’s legacy. More than 3,400 Iranian dissidents who reside in Camp Ashraf in Iraq face growing threats from a pro-Tehran Iraqi government bent on destroying them. That has been understandably worrisome for Iranian-Americans all over the United States, including the ones in Missouri, but the repercussions of their fate should concern all of us.

In April, Iraqi troops raided the camp at the behest of the Iranian regime, murdering 36 defenseless civilian residents and injuring hundreds more. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, described it as a “massacre,” adding that there should be an independent investigation. Both the European Union’s foreign policy chief and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights also called for a probe into the deaths.

The incident came after a similar attack in July 2009 that left 11 dead and scores more wounded. A tribunal in Spain has been investigating the attacks as crimes against humanity and war crimes. In July, it summoned the commander of the Iraqi army and two other officers. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will come to court to explain about the crimes after he leaves office and his immunity is over.

Al-Maliki and the Iranian regime are hatching more plans to perpetrate further massacres against the residents of Camp Ashraf, who are the most formidable opponents of the Iranian regime.

The clock is ticking and the need for finding a solution to the crisis is more pressing. The residents in Ashraf, “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, have all signed bilateral agreements with U.S. forces, who promised them protection until their final disposition.

In early 2009, the United States transferred that protection to the Iraqi government after saying it received written assurances that the residents will be treated humanely. After two years of massacres, abuses and what Amnesty International recently described as persistent “harassment” of the residents, Iraq has shown itself to be incompetent of protecting the unarmed civilians at Ashraf.

The United States has a solemn obligation to reassume the protection of the camp, especially because the situation at the camp remains tense as the unarmed civilians are under a complete blockade, even deprived of access to medical treatment and surrounded by armed Iraqi forces.

The European Parliament has offered a long-term, peaceful solution to the crisis, proposing the repatriation of the residents to third countries as the most viable alternative. This has been accepted by the residents.

But, incredibly, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has aligned itself with a solution offered by the Iranian regime and its proxies in Iraq: disband Ashraf and move the residents to a new location in Iraq, which, inevitably, would be away from international eyes. That, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton recently said, is a “recipe for disaster.”

Ambassador Lawrence Butler of the U.S. embassy continues to push for this option, however, while rejecting the European Parliament plan and dismissing the concerns and will of the residents.

Meanwhile, on July 21, the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously passed an amendment to Foreign Relations Authorization Act stipulating that the U.S. government should take “all necessary and appropriate steps” to “ensure the physical security and protection of Camp Ashraf residents.”

It added that the United States should “prevent the forcible relocation of Camp Ashraf residents inside Iraq and to facilitate the robust presence of” the U.N. mission in Iraq in Camp Ashraf.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also has called for respect for the rights of the residents while urging a consensus solution. Forcible displacement is not a consensus solution, unless by consensus is meant a tacit agreement between the United States and the Iranian regime.

All other parties, including the United Nations, the European Parliament, prominent former U.S. officials and even the speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, have rejected the notion as a recipe for a humanitarian catastrophe. If the residents aren’t safe in Ashraf, what makes Ambassador Lawrence Butler think they would be safe in a remote location where the Iraqi government could have absolute free rein?

Ambassador Butler’s insistence on displacing the residents within Iraq paves the way for another Srebrenica-style massacre, as a prominent member of the European Parliament has warned.

That is not what President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would want their legacy to be in Iraq.

The United States undeniably is obligated, both legally and morally, to protect the residents of Ashraf. It is time for the secretaries of defense and state to step in and reject the idea of forcible displacement of the residents of Ashraf inside Iraq, and endorse the European Parliament’s plan while observing U.S. commitments of protection. That is the only way to avert a humanitarian tragedy in Ashraf, the magnitude of which will surely be catastrophic.

Kasra Nejat is president of the Iranian American Cultural Association of Missouri, based in St. Louis.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_2e2e987c-6c9c-5c57-bce1-597d4c780a5a.html#ixzz1UkGxaKSR

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

Keep Tehran in check

August 10, 2011 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s just the way it is.

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

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

 

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

Abandoned allies?

August 3, 2011 by

THE NEW YORK POST

Don’t betray Iranian refugees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoid Another Srebrenica at Camp Ashraf

July 21, 2011 by

The Huffington Post

At first glance, the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica almost two decades ago has little in common with the plight of some 3,500 dissident Iranians at a place called Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

But a closer look shows the opposite.

In 1995, Dutch forces serving as UN peacekeepers to monitor the situation during the siege of Srebrenica did nothing to protect Muslim civilians, who were turned over to the Serb military and slaughtered.

In 2003, residents of Ashraf surrendered their weapons to U.S.-led Coalition forces and, after a 16-month investigation, the U.S. government recognised each one of them as a Protected Person under the Fourth Geneva Convention and issued every resident an ID card and a “Protected Person under Fourth Geneva Convention” card.

Now, eight years later, Iraqi forces – at the instigation of their masters in Iran – have besieged Ashraf. In assaults carried out in July 2009 and last April, 47 of these “protected persons” were killed and 1071 injured. So, just as the Dutch failed in Bosnia, so has the U.S. in Ashraf.

So what?

Until recently, that might have been the answer: But then, a surprise legal event took place. On July 5, the Dutch court of appeals held the country’s government accountable for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. The court said that the Dutch forces failed to protect the lives of civilian Muslims, and the judges ordered the Dutch government to pay retributions to families of the victims. The court rejected the argument offered by the government that its soldiers were acting under the command of the United Nations thus removing their responsibility for the situation.

Sounds a lot like Ashraf, doesn’t it?

Indeed, as the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, said the U.S. inaction is far more serious. The U.S. individually questioned every resident of Ashraf, took all their weapons, even what might be needed for self-defence, ruled that they posed no threat of terrorism, and assumed full responsibility to provide protection until their final disposition.

Nothing that has happened since relieves the United States of this responsibility. Yet, the U.S. has refused to interfere in the situation, a decision far more unacceptable than the inaction of Dutch forces during the Srebrenica tragedy. There is no doubt that the United States, by virtue of the responsibility it accepted to protect the lives of Ashraf residents, should be leading an investigation into the Iraqi actions and demanding answers for the killings and injuries committed at Ashraf.

Rather, it has turned a blind eye to the situation.

The irony is that in every area except Ashraf and the People’s Mujahadin of Iran (PMOI), whose members have lived there for 25 years, the U.S. has assailed the mullahs in Tehran and their activities in Iraq. Recently, it blamed the increase in U.S. casualties in Iraq on weapons sent there by Iran. It also has decried Iran’s export of terrorism.

Yet, it has sat on the sidelines as the Maliki government in Baghdad cosies up to the mullahs. And it has done nothing to remove the PMOI from its place on the list of terrorist organisations, a designation that goes back to the days when the State Department thought they could get closer to “moderates” in Tehran through appeasement. The mullahs are still laughing at the success of that ploy, as it advanced their programme of nuclear weapons development.

Now, it’s “put-up-or-shut-up” time for the Obama administration.

Most urgently, it must act to protect those 3,500 at-risk residents of Ashraf, whose plight is getting more desperate every day as another military assault it prepared. They don’t want reparations for their families following their slaughter; they want a safe haven, outside of Iraq.

It must also remove the terrorism label from the PMOI so it can continue to lead the struggle for a free and democratic Iran. That’s all the Iranian opposition wants – no troops, no funds, just to have the unjustified “terror” tag removed. It is this that Iran and Iraq use to justify the killings of Ashraf residents.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale is Chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom. He is a former Chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lord-corbett/avoid-another-srebrenica-_b_904251.html

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

“Wake Up State Department, Take the MEK off the FTO List Today”

July 20, 2011 by

General Hugh Shelton, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997-2001), Saturday, July 16, 2011, Washington, DC

Excerpts:

Thank you for a very warm welcome. It is truly great to be with you here in Washington today and to join such a distinguished group of colleagues.

I’d also like to offer greetings to the residents of Camp Ashraf that may be watching or may see this later on. You know, there have been some substantive changes that have occurred in the political landscape and in the challenges that the Ashraf residents face since I last spoke to you or this group in May of this year, but some things have not changed.

First is the United States’ guarantee of protection for the residents of Camp Ashraf.  It is a commitment that we, as a nation, made and that we must honor if we are to sustain our reputation as a great nation and one that can be trusted to honor its
commitments.

As we all know, the residents of Camp Ashraf are individuals that provided invaluable information to the United States during the War with Iraq and at its most critical moments.  They are individuals that have placed themselves at great — great risk, not only themselves, but their families as well, by voluntarily giving up their arms when they were asked to do so by the United States, when, at that time, they were guaranteed protection by us.

And as an organization, we must remember that they are ones that first alerted us to the — to the nuclear programs that had been proposed by the mullahs, and as such, the regime might have those weapons today had it not been for their assistance.

The second thing that has not changed is — is that the current regime in Iran is still the world’s largest exporter of terrorism and the greatest threat to peace and stability throughout that region.

The ruling Iranian regime is an oppressive regime, as we all know.  It’s one that mixes theocracy with autocracy and extreme expansionist ideology and one that continues to defy the international community.

It is a regime that is intent on denying their own citizens the freedoms that they desire and that they deserve.

The U.S. has encountered elements of this regime in every operation that we have conducted for the last 25 years.

And it is a regime that is not there to help another country fight for freedom; it is there to impose their will on that regime whenever they can and wherever they can.

We recently heard Secretary of Defense Panetta say or express concern regarding Iran’s interference with the Maliki Government in Iraq.  So I think that now we have, in terms of Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary Leon Panetta, two individuals in the Pentagon that fully understand the threat that Iran poses to the region and to the United States’ interests.

Third is the oppression of the — and the inequality of women by the current regime, and Iran has not changed.  It is deplorable.  We know that women want equality, they want respect and the right to participate in all social and economic events, and they deserve to live their lives in a productive manner, one in which they can live with dignity, one, unfortunately, which is not their lot in Iran today.

The current regime’s theocratic manner of declaring women as intellectually and physically inferior to men is counter to women’s rights, and it’s counter to their expectations, as well as — as what is the right thing to do by that regime and what — something that the regime understands but fails to do it.

Unfortunately, another thing that has not changed is that the largest, best-organized resistance to Iran’s current regime, the PMOI or the MEK, is still on the foreign terrorist list here in the United States.

Our great ally, the UK, took them off their list in 2008, followed very quickly in 2009 by the EU.  In the United States, we have former Ambassador Dell Dailey, another colleague who is — as — as the ambassador for counterterrorism to the State Department and as an individual who commanded our Joint Special Operations Command who knows more about terrorism and the – and the various organizations in this country than anyone in the State Department today, also previously recommended that the MEK come off the FTO list.

Our Congress has passed a resolution encouraging the State Department to take them off, and we’ve also seen in this — in this process that the State Department, in spite of being told to provide it, has failed to provide any either classified or declassified information that states why the MEK should have been placed on the list in the first place.

They also, as we know, last week, exceeded the 180 days that they had been given by the Court to produce evidence to substantiate their reasons why the MEK is on the list.

I say:  Wake up State Department, take the MEK off the FTO list today.

Now, what has changed since we saw that deplorable attack on — of Maliki’s control Iraqi troops in April?  Well, first, the — the fate of Ashraf residents has become very tenuous.  We, in the United States, have continued to fail to acknowledge our commitment to ensure the safety of the Ashraf residents hiding behind the lame excuse that it is now an Iraqi problem.

Ambassador Jeffrey in Iraq, his idea that Ashraf residents should be relocated somewhere else in Iraq without any assurance or even any apparent concern for their safety or providing rationale as to why this is a good idea, other than said it moves it further away from the Iran border, is appalling.  It causes me to stop and wonder what is this man drinking.

This idea is a recipe for disaster.  It is a recipe for slaughter.  It is a recipe for ethnic cleansing, far outside the reaches, now, of the international community.  By dispersing the residents of Ashraf, it is setting up a recipe for — or setting up a disaster.

The — the Iranian influence on the Maliki Government today has shown — has shown us that the Maliki Government is incapable of providing the degree of protection for the Ashraf residents that they should be providing.

It has shown that the Maliki Government has a disdain for the Ashraf residents, because we see inhumane treatment of the Ashraf residents on a daily basis, to include the loud speakers, the psychological warfare that they have been — that they have been carrying out, as well as the fact that they have continued to not allow the proper degree of medical treatment for the Ashraf residents.

And then, of course, we all watched the Maliki-controlled troops as they attacked or slaughtered and injured the unarmed residents of the Camp Ashraf.

We either need to send a new ambassador with moral courage who understands America’s prior commitments, or we need better oversight and guidance from Washington for that ambassador.

Equally appalling to me is the fact that when you look at the fact — that we have not used the tools of our national power to make sure that the Ashraf residents who are provided proper medical treatment is absolutely astonishing.

We should not forget that the MEK is the best organized, it is the most formidable opposition to the current Iranian regime.  It has challenged the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism for the past 32 years.  And to me, it is the MEK that provides hope for the current Iranian people that – it provides a degree of hope that far exceeds anything else that we, here in the United States, or our allies can offer short of direct intervention.

When you look at the 10-point program of human rights platform published by President-elect Mrs. Rajavi, which emphasizes the same religious and gender freedoms that are emphasized and advocated by the U.S. Department of State, to me, it makes it a no-brainer.

Just how dumb can Ambassador Jeffrey or anyone else be to ask an organization of this type to disband itself as he did just recently when, all over the world, we are supporting groups, groups who stand — stand against ruling dictators, dictators that are far less a threat to the United States than the Iranian regime and, in fact, dictators that were considered friends of the U.S. in some cases.

Why would we not want to put the weight and power of this country behind an organization that we know stands for the — the same principles that we stand for and that is the best-organized, best-led organization to take on the current Iranian regime?  It just doesn’t make sense.

As we look ahead, you say,okay, those are the problems, what do you recommend?  Well, my recommendation would be, first of all and first and foremost, take the MEK off the list.

Secondly,we need to remember that the — the Ashraf residents are part of the group that the United States recognized as protected citizens under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that we, ourselves, provided protection for for six years.

Third, we need to pressure the Iraqis to stop all harassment and suppressive measures against the Ashraf residents today.Fourth, given that the Ashraf residents have accepted relocation as an option, we should let the Iraqis know in no uncertain terms, and by that, I mean, use maybe what I would characterize as “coercive diplomacy,” that forcible displacement inside Iraq is totally unacceptable.

We should use the tools of our national power, particularly our diplomatic and our economic tools, to ensure that the Iraqis live up to the commitments that we made to the Ashraf residents if we are not going to do it ourselves.

Fifth, we, in the United States, should step up to our responsibilities and guarantee temporary protection to the residents of Ashraf until they are resettled in third countries.

Let me summarize by saying we know that Iran is much — has much stronger and concentrated nationalism than any other country in the Middle East.  We know that many other countries in the Middle East look at Iran as a threat and for good reason.

We also know that the MEK provides the best avenue for change, and it’s why they — that Iran considers the MEK as a significant threat to their regime.

I would call on Secretary Clinton and Secretary Panetta to acknowledge the U.S. commitment, the promise that we made, the contract that we made with the Ashraf residents to provide for their protection.  Let’s quit hiding behind the lame excuse that that’s now an Iraqi problem as a reason — that — that gives us a reason to stand by and watch, and that’s not a reason at all.

Again, I say use the tools thatare available.  We’ve got a very strong economic tool, and we certainly have got diplomatic tools that we can use to adjust Maliki’s attitude and his actions towards the residents of Ashraf.

We, the United States, as I said before, are a great nation, but we are not in the eyes of the rest of the world if our word is not our bond and if we do not honor our commitments and our promises.

This is a disgrace for America in my opinion.  If President Maliki is so weak that he can’t control his armed forces or if he, in essence, is using his armed forces to attack, harass and, in the case of April, to slaughter the residents of Ashraf, then it’s a clear indication that he is nothing more than a puppet for the current Iranian regime.

Today, it is clear that the current regime in Iran needs to change, and the MEK, with their platform of human rights and equality, is the one that they fear.

We should join the UK and our European allies and remove the MEK from the FTO list, allowing them to continue to bring maximum pressure on the current regime.

This, combined with the strength and courage of those individuals living in Iran today who want their freedom, and especially the women and the youth of that country, offers the greatest opportunity for seeing Iran with a government that is sensitive to the needs of the people of Iran and the greatest opportunity for all the citizens of Iran to enjoy the basic human rights and freedoms that the rest of the free world enjoys.

Thank you very much.

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

Empower Iranians vs. Tehran

July 19, 2011 by
National Review Online
 
Iran ’s most prominent opposition group should not be labeled a terrorist organization. 
 
How should Western governments deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, whichWashingtonlabels “the most active state sponsor of terrorism”
 
Iranian aggression began in 1979, with the seizure of the U.S. Embassy inTehran, and the holding of some of its staff as hostages for 444 days. Major subsequent attacks included two bombings inBeirutin 1983: at theU.S.embassy, killing 63, and at a U.S. Marine barracks, killing 241.
 
More recently, U.S.secretary of defense Leon Panetta stated, “We’re seeing more of those weapons going in [to Iraq] from Iran, and they’ve really hurt us.” Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added, “Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups, which are killing our troops.”American responses fall into two main camps: tough and diplomatic. The first sees Tehran as irredeemable and counsels a policy of confrontation and even force; it assumes that diplomacy, sanctions, computer viruses, and threats of military strikes have no chance of dissuading the mullahs from going nuclear, and it speaks of regime change or a military option against the Iranian bomb. The diplomatic camp, which generally controlsU.S. policy, accepts the permanence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and expectsTehran to respond to diplomatic overtures.
 
A main battleground in this dispute is the question of whether or not the most prominent Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK), should remain on the U.S. government’s terrorism list. The tough camp generally views the MeK, founded in 1965, as a lever against the mullahs and (with a minority dissenting) wants it delisted. The diplomatic camp argues that delisting would anger the Iranian leaders, hampering efforts to improve relations, or (contradictorily) would limit Washington’s ability to reach out to the Iranian street.

The pro-MeK side argues that the MeK has a history of cooperating with Washington, providing valuable intelligence on Iranian nuclear plans and tactical intelligence about Iranian efforts in Iraq. Further, just as the MeK’s organizational and leadership skills helped bring down the shah in 1979, these skills can again facilitate regime change. The number of street protestors arrested for association with the MeK points to its role in demonstrations, as do slogans echoing MeK chants, e.g., calling Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a “henchman,” Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “dictator,” and shouting “down with the principle of Velayat-e Faqih” (that a religious figure heads the government).

A number of fomer high-level American officials advocate delisting the MeK, including a national-security adviser (James Jones), three chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Hugh Shelton, Richard Myers, Peter Pace), a secretary of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge), an attorney general (Michael Mukasey), and even a State Department coordinator for counterterrorism (Dell Dailey). A chorus of prominent Republicans and Democrats favor delisting, including a bipartisan group of 80 members of Congress.

The anti-MeK faction does not address the benefits of delisting but argues that the U.S. government must continue the listing on the basis of allegations of terrorism. Their indictment notes that the MeK killed six Americans in the 1970s. Whether or not these allegations are accurate, a terrorist incident must have occurred within two years to continue with the terrorist-group designation — rendering discussion of the 1970s completely irrelevant.

What about the past two years? The pro-MeK side points to three main U.S. terrorist databases — the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI), the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), and the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) — and notes that in each one the MeK comes up clean since 2006 or earlier.

What about capabilities and intentions? The State Department’s 2006 “Country Reports on Terrorism” accused the MeK of maintaining “capacity and will” for terrorist acts but the 2007, 2008, and 2009 reports omitted this statement. Britain’s Court of Appeal derided proscription of the MeK as “perverse,” and the group was removed from the U.K. terrorist list in 2008. The European Union cleared the group of terrorism charges in 2009. The French judiciary dismissed all terrorism-related allegations against the group in May 2011.

In brief, the argument to maintain the MeK’s terrorist designation is baseless.

Following a court-mandated review of the MeK’s terrorist designation, the secretary of state must soon decide whether to maintain this listing. With one simple signature, the Obama administration can help empower Iranians to seize control over their destiny — and perhaps end the mullahs’ mad nuclear dash.

— Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved. 

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

Iranian resistance demands Clinton remove it from terrorist list

July 19, 2011 by
 The Washington Times
July 19, 2011
By Marieke van der Vaart
Delay said to appease Tehran
 

Iranian opposition activists are accusing the State Department of flouting a federal court’s year-old ruling ordering the removal of the Iranian resistance from the U.S. list of international terrorist organizations.

Supporters of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) called on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to comply with the court order as they rallied outside the State Department last week to mark the anniversary of the ruling.

The State Department says it is still reviewing evidence about the group.

“Until the [MEK] are removed from the list, the U.S. policy is appeasing the current Iranian regime,” said Mohamad Alafchi, an Iranian-American protester from New York.

“The Iranian people see that. That’s the only reason they’re on the list — to appease the Iranian regime.”
The State Department said it most recently received evidence from the MEK legal team in June.
“Were currently reviewing this new material,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “So, no decision has been made.”

High-level support for removing the MEK from the terrorist list range from former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from the Bush administration to Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

President Clinton placed the resistance on the terrorist list in 1997 to meet a key demand of the Iranian government when he was trying to open relations with Tehran. Before that, the resistance operated openly in the United States with a Washington office.

The MEK first petitioned to get off the terrorism list in 2009, but the State Department rejected its appeal in early 2010. A year ago on Saturday, the federal court of appeals in Washington overturned that decision, but the MEK has remained on the list ever since.

Resistance members are demanding that Mrs. Clinton either present more evidence to prove the group is engaging or has recently undertaken terrorist activities or drop the accusation entirely.

The current legal debate is only the latest controversy in the MEK’s turbulent relationship with the United States since its founding in 1963. Led by a group of leftist Iranian university students, it carried out several bombings, abductions and hijacking operations in the 1970s that resulted in the deaths of six Americans in Iran, according to the State Department.

After the Iranian revolution, the MEK emerged as a key opposition group to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his brutal theocratic regime. In the 1980s, MEK leaders fled into exile to Camp Ashraf, 50 miles from Iran inside neighboring Iraq.

Then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein allowed the resistance to carry out attacks on Iran, his enemy in the Iran–Iraq war of the 1980s.

In 2003, the MEK signed an agreement with U.S.-led coalition forces to hand over all of its weapons. Bruce McColm, president of the Institute for Democratic Strategies, said that each of the 3,400 refugees was guaranteed security. The United States handed over the camp to Iraqi forces in 2009.

Since then, Iraqi security forces have raided the camp twice, killing between 41 and 46 Iranians and wounding about 800 more.

“[Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki] put in writing that he would protect the people at Camp Ashraf, according to the Geneva Convention,” Mr. McColm said. “Clearly, he hasn’t.”

MEK members said that until the United States takes the group off its terrorist-organizations list, the Iraqi government will continue to use that terrorist designation as a justification for violence.

“You have a situation that creates a humanitarian disaster,” Mr. McColm said.

In 2009, a European court ordered the European Union to remove the resistance from its own terrorist list, after finding the MEK had committed no acts of terrorism.

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