October 26, 2026

Posts Comments

Trita Parsi and NIAC’s Handy Iran Experts Again

August 15, 2011 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf Tagged With: , ,

Elizabeth Rubin: “Yellow Journalist” Par-Excellence

August 15, 2011 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf Tagged With: , ,

Trita Parsi and NIAC’s Handy Iran Experts Again

August 13, 2011 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf Tagged With: , ,

Trita Parsi: Remove Revolutionary Guards fromTerror List

August 12, 2011 by

In recent weeks NIAC (National Iranian American Council) and its president Trita Parsi have embarked on an intense, concentrated, and forceful campaign in Washington, and on the cyber space, against People´s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI – MEK). This campaign includes tens of Op-eds and articles, dedicated web pages, petitions, letters to legislators, seminars and webinars, and thousands of tweets in a matter of 4 weeks. To understand why NIAC, an organization that was founded based on the claim that it is “a non-profit, non-partisan, non-political and non-sectarian organization”, has so hysterically rushed to take a partisan, political, sectarian, and perhaps for-profit side, let´s systematically, and very briefly, review some background information.

The focus of NIAC and Parsi´s recent campaign is to prevent removing PMOI from the State Department´s list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO). The terrorist listing was the prime justification [1] for two separate assaults by the Iraqi army in July 2009 and April 2011, on Camp Ashraf, residence of the nearly 3,400 members of the PMOI in Iraq. These attacks left more than 50 unarmed residents killed, and hundreds injured.

The blacklisting of PMOI was initiated in 1997, followed by the European countries, to facilitate a policy of appeasement with the Iranian regime (Norman Kempster, “U.S. Designates 30 Groups as Terrorists,” Los Angeles Times, October 9, 1997) . After thorough examinations by courts, United Kingdom in 2008, the European Union in 2009, France in 2010 and 2011, Germany in 2010 and 2011, have dismissed these allegations and removed the group from their blacklists. In July 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit ordered that the State Department re-examine the decision to keep the PMOI in the FTO list. It is expected that the State Department announce their decision soon. An increasing bi-partisan group of more than 130 members of US Congress and high ranking officials from four US administrations, are unified in their opinion that there is no basis for continued listing of PMOI, and have called for their removal from the FTO list. 

This campaign is not NIAC or Parsi´s first lobbying campaign to influence the FTO list of the State Department. In the summer of 2007, Trita Parsi embarked on another campaign to remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) from the State Department´s Terrorist list. The designation of the Guard´s Corp was in response to Iranian´s infiltration in Iraq, and in particular their direct role in killing [2] hundreds of American soldiers through improvised explosive devices (IED). Parsi argued [3] that “The White House’s decision to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization could deal a double blow to efforts to utilize diplomacy with Iran to stabilize Iraq.” Note that the Iranian regime itself could not better fit the threat to “up the ante in Iraq”, and the pledge of “good behavior at the negotiation table” in one argument! Prior to this campaign, Trita Parsi was in close and intense communication with the Iranian regime. Evidence of these communications have recently surfaced in a court discovery. Needless to say that Parsi and NIAC´s campaign to remove the revolutionary guards, the murderers of the youth in the streets of Iran, remained futile.

Trita Parsi´s political career is solely defined (since his student days when he started working for the disgraced, pro-Iranian congressman Bob Ney) by advocating positions and actions that favor the Iranian regime´s interests. 

If the Iranian government could wish for an ambassador at large in the United States to advocate their wishes, undoubtedly they would have wished for someone who would mimic Trita Parsi. Some examples of Trita´s advocacy are listed below.

– Working with Bob Ney to block the sanctions against the Ayatollahs [4],

– Facilitating Mahmood Ahmadinejad´s reception and speech in the Columbia University [5], 

– Promoting the belief that the Iranian nuclear aspiration is strong and mature enough to a point that the United State and the world must learn to live with it, and share the region with the Ayatollahs. Parsi, in answering [6] “Is the United States ready to share the region with Iran?” suggests a “paradigm shift” in the US policy towards accepting Iran´s hegemony in the region, otherwise, it will “disable future administrations from turning political opportunities into real diplomatic breakthroughs — irrespective of their positive intentions.” 

– Promoting the belief that the Iranian Green Movement is dead now, and West must fall back again on the appeasement policy and be kind to the current regime. In his article called “The End of the Beginning” [7] , making a mockery of the analysis that the mass demonstrations in the streets of Tehran were the “beginning of the end” of the theocratic regime, Paris wrote: “Iran’s popular uprising, which began after the June 12 election, may be heading for a premature ending. In many ways, the Ahmadinejad government has succeeded in transforming what was a mass movement into dispersed pockets of unrest. Whatever is now left of this mass movement is now leaderless, unorganized — and under the risk of being hijacked by groups outside…” 

The pattern and history of Trita Parsi and NIAC, is the clearest explanation for their recent intense campaign against removing MEK from the US blacklist. 

[1] http://iranntv.com/node/5587
[2] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1
[3] http://niac.convio.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5710&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1
[4] http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=25959
[5] http://iraniansforum.com/index.php/gallery/trita-parsi-coordinated-his-lobby-with-iranian-regimes-associates/trita-parsi-coordinated01-147#joomimg
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/can-the-us-and-iran-share_b_97670.html
[7] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/26/the_end_of_the_beginning

 

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf Tagged With:

U.S. Officials vs. Mullahs Apologists

August 12, 2011 by

Tehran lobbies are at work to discourage support of many former American officials of the MEK in their humanitarian quest to save Camp Ashraf residents from massacre

Tehran lobbies, and apologists have recently been hard at work to use fictitious ” hypothesise,,” ,ruled out by factualists in the “real” events of Iranian uprising and its follow ups.

A round table of disillusioned pundits who try to imitate Gobble, master propagandist of the Nazi regime, forget that we live in the era of Democratic Gales, which judge mostly on “Deeds” and not “disenchanted absurd words and accusations.”

I never encountered “Bassiji” pundits in suits and cravats before escaping Iran. Reading accusations and absurdities in a wave of slanders targeting Iran’s main capable opposition (MEK) that has practically withstood ten-time more such follies by the mullahs, was history for me. 

The bundle is composed of NIAC -the dis-reputed Trita Parsi*1- and his chain of corporate. What surprised me is the extent these hypocrites undermine and insult the intellect of the people overall and specifically, Policy makers in Washington.

One recent example of such an article written in the same line reads:

*“But the delisting of the MEK, Iran experts say, could benefit Iran’s hard-line rulers by giving them more reason to brutally clamp down on Iran’s internal, nonviolent opposition. The Green Movement – which led street protests in 2009 – steadfastly rejects the MEK as an anti-democratic and violent force.”*3*

*Iranian group’s big-money push to get off US terrorist list**-** Scott Peterson*

“Iran Experts” in the article no doubt is referring to *Joint Experts’ Statement on the Mujahedin-e Khalq*. It is interesting to note that the “Experts” is referring to none other than Bassiji White tie elements at work in Capitol Hill and lame rejected by the young movement in Iran as a pundit of the fascist regime. Apologists such as Limbert, with a clear prospect of “profitable” *2 cooperation with the Iranian regime, are not the Iranian people’s voice and conscience to denounce a 43 year old pro-democracy movement.

To entice US foreign policy towards such a troublesome and ostracized concoction is more than jeopardizing US foreign policy and the Whole Administration.

Chiming with Iranian Intelligence 34 year-long motto portraying the PMOI/MEK, which is the only serious threat to the malicious mullahs in Iran, as being anti-democratic and violent is immensely repetitious.

The 7 court ruling in Europe and the last in France have ruled these persecutive accusations as “” perverse.” The French Judge, Mr.Trevidic went further than that and recognized; “A Law of a Democratic country, on terrorism, cannot have the intention to obstruct the constitutional right of resistance against oppression.”

Activism of the PMOI(MEK) reflect the natural and inalienable right to resist tyranny, as stated in section 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights*, and as correctly pointed out by former Mayor of New York, Rudii Giuliani; “How can it be terrorism to support Freedom of Religion, freedom for women, a free election, a rule of Law and nuclear-free Iran?!”

*MEK (PMOI) is not a terrorist organization. It is a voice and a call for freedom – Tom Ridge, first U.S. Homeland Security Secretary *5*

*WE, the Iranian people, have seen 150 years of smear campaign by tyrants against its Freedom fighters and dissidents. We have always appreciated those individuals who have embodied the true values of their homeland and stood by us during our worst movements. *

We have seen the brave Howard Baskerville, an American teacher, who came to the aid of Sattar Khan during the Constitutional Revolution*6and fought alongside him and died as a “freedom Fighter.” People still flower his grave in Tabriz and revere his role in aiding the movement.

Gauook, from the people of Germany, came to the aid of Mirza Kouchak Khan.

The long line of individuals from countries worldwide, standing with the Iranian resistance(MEK) in its plight for Freedom has convinced the clerical regime and its apologists of the vital role the MEK plays in Iran and the region.

Dedication and commitment towards democracy, justice, and law in the contemporary world has been a characteristic of individuals who are now protecting genuine values of their American Pride Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson by standing with the Iranian resistance.

A line of names such as: Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton; former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Togo West; former State Department Director of Policy Planning Mitchell Reiss; former Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James T. Conway; Anita McBride, the former chief of staff to First Lady Laura Bush; and Sarah Sewall, a Harvard professor, former FBI director Louis Freeh sat Ed Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and current MSNBC talking head; former National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones; former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge; onetime State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow and former CIA directors Porter Goss and James R. Woolsey, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark and former Commander in Chief of United States Central Command Gen. Anthony Zinni, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former New Mexico Gov. and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, former Bush White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and former 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton.

Accusing such elegance of values lined to defend usurped rights of a people for FREEDOM, is venomous and absurd. This is a never-ending line that will take down the tyrants in Tehran.

The virtue of risk taking for the defence of Freedom is not purchasable since it involves unwavered perseverance to defend genuine values bypassing short-term interests.

We have seen the American pride symbolized in heroes such as George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln, and read about Colonel Francis Marion the fearless cavalryman, leading South Carolinians to victory in the American Revolution.

Today, the “Line” has begun in Europe with more than 4000 politicians, 8000 Mayors, 3400 Jurists worldwide and scores of Humanists and Right defenders and has continued to reach the United States.

These Noble individuals are cherished and loved by the Iranian people and represent their expectations of the “ American democracy”.

REF

1* http://www.iranian-americans.com/docs/zarif/Dorood.pdf

2* http://www.iranian-americans.com/docs/zarif/LimbertThanks.pdf

3* http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0202/An-Iran-style-outcome-for-Egypt-Why-there-are-key-differences

5* http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/iran-resistance/9796-mek-pmoi-is-not-a-terrorist-organization-it-is-a-voice-and-a-call-for-freedom-tom-ridge-first-us-homeland-security-secretary

6* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist_movement_of_Gilan

*************
Mahin Saremi is a former political prisoner who escaped prison in March 2011 and came abroad in April . He husband Ali Saremi was a very well known political prisoner with 27 years of prison under the present regime . Mahin could have also been under torture with charges of Moahrbeh (waging war against god) is she had not escaped Iran. She was one of the organisers of the 2009 protests in Iran*.

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

Irony Of Promise And Action

August 9, 2011 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arab Spring needs Iranian Summer to survive

July 6, 2011 by

United Press International

LONDON, July 6 (UPI) — As Syrian President Bashar Assad continues to defy the demands of the Syrian people for change and maintains a policy of massacring his own people, evidence has arisen of a dangerous external influence in Syria.

This external influence is not as Assad has intimated, that of Western influence in the protests, but rather the disturbing role now being played by the Iranian regime in the crackdown on the Syrian people.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other U.S. officials have highlighted the growing role being played by the Iranian regime in the crackdown in Syria, including the Iranian regime supplying Syria with weapons and training to intensify the crackdown.

It can be no coincidence that the methods used by the Syrian forces are similar to those used by the Iranian regime to brutally crack down on the Iranian people’s protests of 2009.

Now as Western leaders continue to lead from behind on the issue of the Arab Spring, weak in their condemnation of the crackdowns and disappointingly lacking in their support for the democratic movements, Iran has set its sights on crushing the Arab Spring and thereby ending the hope of the Iranian people that the Arab Spring will assist their democratic opposition movement.

Lest we forget, even a heavily watered down U.N. Security Council resolution drafted by the United Kingdom and France looks to be in trouble as Russia threatens any resolution with its veto.

The Iranian regime’s influence has found itself more evidently in Iraq where the regime has helped to power Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister who essentially usurped power and who considers himself undoubtedly to be a deputy of the Iranian regime. The regime’s influence in Iraq was clear in April of this year when Iraqi forces under clear direction from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei carried out a violent massacre against 3,400 members of the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran who are resident in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, leaving 36 unarmed residents killed and more than 345 seriously wounded.

The PMOI is Iran’s largest organized opposition group and is believed to have played a leading role in recent uprisings inside Iran. Undoubtedly the group’s democratic ideals and ability to organize widespread protests inside Iran is something the regime’s hierarchy greatly fears.

As the regime shows its clear intent to support governments in the region in crushing the Arab Spring while also attempting to destroy the PMOI in Iraq and activists inside the country, the West’s failure to act against this Iranian threat could have dire regional consequences.

It is clear that the United States, United Kingdom and European Union must now do all within their power to curtail the Iranian regime’s destructive influence in the region, thereby allowing the democratic movements of the Arab Spring to continue and the flourishing shoots of the Iranian Summer to strengthen.

This was the exact demand of about 100,000 Iranian exiles who gathered June 18 in Paris to demand that the United Nations, United States and European Union guarantee protection for the PMOI members resident at Camp Ashraf and to call on Western governments to support the Arab Spring and allow it to lead into an Iranian Summer.

Iranians were not alone in their call. They were joined by 4,000 parliamentarians the world over, including the majority members of 31 parliaments who declared their support for the European plan for Ashraf, and decisively rejected the displacement of Ashraf residents inside Iraq, regarding it as a precursor to committing a new massacre.

Backed by heavyweights such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge who addressed the gathering, the crowd highlighted that if in Iraq where U.S. soldiers remain active and where so many coalition troops have died we are unable to protect Iranians to whom the United States gave personal guarantees to protect, what hope was there for the democratic movements across the region.

As Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran, pointed out in her speech on June 18: “The world community, in particular the United Nations and the United States, are responsible for the protection and security of Camp Ashraf residents. And we tell them that you have no right to invoke Iraqi sovereignty to justify your inaction in the face of crimes against humanity and war crimes. This blatantly violates your international obligations.”

We must support the demands of the 100,000 in Paris and the millions across the Middle East who are demanding freedom and democracy. Inhibiting Iranian influence in the region is part and parcel of supporting the Arab Spring. This must be done by the United Nations providing protection to the residents of Camp Ashraf and the international community showing its support for the Iranian people’s democratic rights.

Act now and come autumn rather than bemoan the defeat of the Arab Spring we will be hailing the arrival of the Iranian Summer.

(David Amess is a member of the British Parliament from the Conservative Party)

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2011/07/06/Outside-View-Arab-Spring-needs-Iranian-Summer-to-survive/UPI-10751309954560/#ixzz1So3MZkTO

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News Tagged With:

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished — Washington Threatens Iranian Dissidents in Iraq, Says Iran Policy Committee

July 6, 2011 by

PRNewswire, July 6, 2011

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On the Fourth of July in Baghdad, terrorists fired a Katyusha rocket at the U.S. Embassy as Americans were celebrating despite the fact the embassy is inside the heavily-fortified Green Zone. The following day, double blasts from a car bomb and a roadside bombing in a parking lot outside a city council building north of Baghdad killed at least 35 people. The explosions in Taji, a Sunni-dominated town about 12 miles north of Baghdad, are the most recent in a series of attacks across Iraq. Last month, bombs ripped through Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad, killing at least 40 people. Two days before, double blasts occurred that included a suicide car bombing outside a government compound south of Baghdad, which killed 22 people.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iran is furnishing new, more deadly weapons to Shiite militia groups in Iraq that are targeting American  troops in advance of their scheduled exit from the country at the end of this year. As a result, Gates said, about 40 percent of the deaths of American soldiers since the official end of U.S. combat operations almost 10 months ago have occurred in the past few weeks. Iran is “facilitating weapons, they’re facilitating training, there’s new technology that they’re providing,” Gates said. “They’re stepping this up, and it’s a concern.”

As violence against Americans escalates in Iraq, what is the U.S. response? Inexplicably, Washington seeks to compel unarmed Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf, Iraq to leave their homes for an even more insecure facility leaving them further vulnerable to Tehran’s proxies whose aim is to massacre all the dissidents.

Threatening that the U.S. military soon will stop its regular visits to Ashraf to escort staff of UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, American Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey insisted the dissidents stranded in Iraq as a result of U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 dissolve what he called their “paramilitary organization.” Jeffrey said Washington was working with the United Nations to move the over 3,400 Iranians “to a place that is a bit safer, a bit further from Iran,” but he insisted they disband and register as refugees with the U.N. High Commission for Refugees.

Professor Raymond Tanter Founding President of the IPC and former member of the National Security Council senior staff at the White House said, “During my research visit to Camp Ashraf in October 2008, I did not detect any ‘paramilitary organization’ referenced by Ambassador Jeffrey. Assuming such an entity would manifest a capability and intent to use violence, Ambassador Jeffrey’s comment also contradicts the Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism (CRT) of 2007, 2008, and 2009, all of which omit any allegation the MeK maintains capacity and will to conduct terrorist acts. And CRT 2009 does not accuse the MeK of having further developed any paramilitary skills.” Professor Tanter added, “To call the members of an organization that turned over all its weapons to the U.S. military in 2003 and was fully protected by our military a ‘paramilitary organization,’ could only be interpreted by Tehran and its Iraqi proxies as invitation to attack the group as the U.S. is abandoning them.”

According to Lt. General Tom McInerney (ret.), former Assistant Chief of Staff of the Air Force, “It is ironic for Washington to pressure Iranian dissidents in Iraq because they have provided intelligence to the U.S. military, which according to our military commanders helped save American lives.” McInerney added, “While the U.S. should be empowering the organized opposition to Tehran, calling for a leading Iranian dissident group to dissolve itself is tantamount to asking it to stop opposing the Iranian regime — America has no right to make such demands, much worse, it helps our enemies.” McInerney added, “Sadly to say, the principle, ‘No Good deed goes unpunished’ is alive and well in our relations with those who assist us.”

Major General Paul Vallely (ret.), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Pacific, acknowledged the importance of moving the Iranian dissidents outside of Iraq to third countries. Vallely stated, “Risks to the Iranian dissidents are higher if they are relocated within Iraq, e.g., to an encampment that would serve as a de facto prison, away from the prying eyes of the international press, UN Mission, and the U.S. military. The United States must work with our European allies to quickly move the MeK members to third countries, rather than making them even more vulnerable to attacks by Iranian proxies.” In the interim, Vallely said, “America should ensure full protection for the MeK members who are our allies, and prevent Iraqis from eliminating them.”

Captain Chuck Nash, (ret.) U.S. Navy and President of Emerging Technologies International expanded on the idea of moving the Iranian dissidents to a location within Iraq. Nash said, “Moving the Iranian dissidents within Iraq would also be an out of sight out of mind prelude to repeated attacks of the kind that occurred against Ashraf in July 2009 and April 2011. At least during those assaults, the dissidents could communicate with the outside world. But within a desert prison, they would be totally isolated and subject to the whims of the Iraqi Security Forces and armed militias acting on behalf of Tehran.”

According to Bruce McColm, President, Institute for Democratic Strategies and former Executive Director of Freedom House, “The statement of Ambassador Jeffrey to relocate the Iranian dissidents ‘to a place that is a bit safer, a bit further from Iran,’ is out of the question and a recipe for an international humanitarian disaster.” McColm asked, “Does ‘a bit safer’ mean fewer than the 36 people who were killed by Iraqi forces in April would be killed in the next assault? Does ‘a bit further from Iran’ mean proximity to the Iranian border is the problem, which makes no sense, because the Iraqis attacked Ashraf in 2009 and 2011 with the assistance of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security personnel already on the ground and did not have to cross an international border.”

SOURCE Iran Policy Committee

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished–washington-threatens-iranian-dissidents-in-iraq-says-iran-policy-committee-125058664.html

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News Tagged With: