22 August 2012, Sadegh Sistani, “US State Department: When Its Enemy Becomes its Savior,” Global Politician.

An article in the Global Politician describes Sadegh Sistani as a “political prisoner who escaped Iranian dungeons in April 2011 and has endured 17 years and 8 months of torture and interrogation by the Iranian Intelligence service.”

Appeasing the Ayatollahs and Suppressing Democracy: U.S. Policy and the Iranian Opposition, IPC

The Sistani article makes an interesting case for the U.S. State Department to refrain from appeasing the Iranian regime by placing its main political opposition that rejects clerical rule on the Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. In this respect, Sistani reinforces the argument made in an IPC book, Appeasing the Ayatollahs and Suppressing Democracy. One reviewer states that the book provides:

“an excellent discussion of how the past policies of appeasement and engagement with the Iranian regime have only made it more aggressive. The book provides many examples, especially for the Khatami (the “moderate” president) era and the U.S. administration’s attempts to appease the mullahs, hoping for reforms and moderation inside Iran.”

“The result was exactly the opposite. The Iranian mullahs internal repression was extended (as evident from the brutal repression of the student movements), many authors were assassinated during serial killings, substantially more women were stoned to death, Iran’s nuclear program accelerated, and guess who, after the “moderation” era, became Iran’s “president” — yes, Khatami paved the road for Ahmadinejad. The fact is: both Khatami and Ahmadinejad bow to Khamenei. Khamenei rules. There is no room for moderation.

“The only viable solution for a free, democratic Iran is to stop appeasing the mullahs, and to support the Iranian people and their resistance. The book provides a compelling argument why the Mojahedin [Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK)] cannot be ignored and the role they will inevitably have to play in the future of Iran.”

The Sistani article also discusses the siege of MEK residents by Iraqi Security Forces in Camp Ashraf as the residents await transfer to Camp Liberty and an opportunity for resettlement outside of Iraq. in this respect, the article supports the argument that the international community has a “responsibility to protect” unarmed civilians subject to harm put forth in an IPC post,

Iranian Dissidents Languish in Iraq

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL ARTICLE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon popularized the “responsibility to protect” unarmed civilians subject to harm by well-armed states. The responsibility to protect principle (R2P) holds nations responsible for shielding civilians in their midst from war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and related crimes against humanity. 

According to the secretary general, the doctrine “requires the international community to step in if this obligation is not met.” Washington is now stepping up to the plate with its offer to protect the Iranian dissidents in Iraq.

But others have shirked their roles in monitoring the situation. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) acknowledged it has not visited the Iranian oppositionists as of the end of 2011 because “the situation . . . is being monitored by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq [UNAMI].”

Yet monitoring by UNAMI has not restrained Iraqi military and police forces. They violated a signed December 2011 memorandum of understanding between the UN and Government of Iraq by mistreating Iranian dissidents during their transfer from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya, formerly Camp Liberty, Iraq.

Since the publication of the “responsibility to protect” article, the situations in Ashraf and in Camp Liberty have deteriorated even further.

Struan Stevenson, Member of the European Parliament and President of the Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iraq stated that an assault on Camp Ashraf had occurred on 27 August 2012,

 “…causing injury to 20 residents, [and] once again reveals the ominous intentions of the Iranian regime and its collaborators in Iraq. According to pictures and video clips, Iraqi SWAT forces (wearing all-black uniforms) attacked the defenceless residents, who had gathered with their personal belongings to be inspected before moving to Camp Liberty at the specific request of the US and UN.”

For additional IPC commentary on the situation in Camp Liberty at the end of August 2012, see:

Iranian American Community of Northern California: Bi-Partisan Panel lauds Iranian dissidents in Iraq, urges Secretary Clinton to de-list the Iranian opposition, MeK, and ensure the peaceful resettlement of all Camp Ashraf residents in third countries

Iranian American Community of Northern California: Bi-Partisan Panel lauds Iranian dissidents in Iraq, urges Secretary Clinton to de-list the Iranian opposition, MeK, and ensure the peaceful resettlement of all Camp Ashraf residents in third countries

Terror Tagging of an Iranian Dissident Organization by Raymond Tanter

The press release below summarizes in multimedia format a conference in Washington DC on 25 August 2012 of high level former American officials. Each hyperlink on the press release contains a presentation of a particular speaker.

An overall theme of the conference is linkage between designation of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) on the U.S. foreign terrorist organizations list and difficulty in resettling residents who are members of the MEK and who reside in Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, Iraq to third countries.

In the context of removal of the MEK from the U.S. terrorist list, Iran Policy Committee (IPC) research reported in Terror Tagging of an Iranian Dissident Organization, indicates an increased likelihood that third countries will accept the residents.

Meanwhile, two days after the August conference in Washington, members of the MEK in Camp Ashraf submitted to a search by Iraqi forces as condition for the MEK to travel to Camp Liberty en route to possible resettlement outside of Iraq.

During the search, there is evidence that an Iraqi army intelligence officer with a prominent role in the July 2009 and April 2011 Iraqi attacks against Ashraf residents began threatening them. When police and soldiers began pushing the residents, they protested, which resulted in rock throwing by the Iraqis. See photo below of Iraqi policemen throwing rocks at the residents of Ashraf.

27 August 2012, Iraqi soldiers attacking Camp Ashraf residents as they stand in line to be transported to Camp Liberty in 100 degree weather

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE

WASHINGTON, Aug. 28, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In a symposium at the historic Willard Intercontinental Hotel on Saturday [August 25, 2012, former senior U.S. officials urged the State Department to delist the main Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), and protect its members in Camps Ashraf and Liberty in Iraq.

In his opening remarks, former Congressman Patrick Kennedy  made a reference to the 6th group of 400 of the residents of Camp Ashraf who were preparing to go to Camp Liberty from Ashraf: “As the sixth convoy leaves and because of the leadership and goodwill gesture of Madam Rajavi, it’s appropriate that we call on the Iraqi government, that we call on the United Nations and Mr. Kobler to finally do the right thing and …to honor the humanitarian issues that have been pointed out in the Memorandum of Understanding.”

General James Jones, President Obama’s former National Security Advisor and former Commander, Supreme Allied Command-Europe, who could not attend the conference, said in a written message, “The right thing to do, the humanitarian thing to do, is for the United States to remove the terrorist listing currently ascribed to the people of Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, and to champion a program of third country repatriation as soon as possible.”

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey described Secretary Clinton’s linkage of cooperation in the closure of Ashraf and the de-listing of the MeK as being “completely lawless, because it’s got nothing to do with standards under the statute.” He added, “The continued listing of MeK is the main obstacle to resettlement and the MeK has done all in its power to comply with even the irrelevant demand that Ashraf be closed.  Enough is enough.” Judges Mukasey concluded that the residents of Camp Ashraf “have already put their lives on the line yet again by trying to organize yet another convey and have been frustrated in that effort; it is not time to urge further accommodation by the residents, it is time to urge common sense on the State Department.”

Former CIA Director Porter Goss added, “My job is to find terrorists…We looked at Camp Ashraf but we didn’t find any… Nobody has been able to find any; we sent the FBI, we sent the military.”  Former New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato agreed, “MeK has been the sworn enemy of the corrupt Mullahs who are there now.  Let’s make them our friend… Let’s bring down terrorism.”

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert said the focus should be to make sure that MeK is de-listed. “If that happens, it takes away the issue of Ashraf.  It takes away the issue of Camp Liberty and gives people the opportunity to be repatriated to a country of their choice.”  As to the impact of the voice of Congress so far, Mr. Hastert said, “I think it puts the State Department in a tenuous situation in the reticence that they’ve had in not de-listing the MeK. If the State Department doesn’t do its job, Congress can withhold part of the funding for the State Department.”

“What is not difficult,” former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, said “is this question of de-listing MeK… From a justice perspective, it would appear to be the only thing that we could do.”  Gov. Ritter added, “After watching the promises made in 2003 to the residents of Camp Ashraf, not just by the United States Government and the United Nations, but by the international community, in many respects those have been really unilaterally broken.” “This notion of transferring from Ashraf to Liberty and that it would be in a sense a transition, for the American people a transition from one place to a worse place on your way to a better place is not a just transition,” he added.

Former Coalition Forces Commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan McNeill, said, “A nuclear weapons capable Iran with its present government would be a traumatically destabilizing factor for not just the Gulf but for the greater region. Where does it stop?” General McNeill added, “I do advocate replacing such a repressive government, by plebiscite and popular demand, it would far better.  It would also set an example for others in the region.”

[Another speaker at the conference, Ambassador Marc Ginsberg, said] “When I talk to the State Department, they say, oh, these are the MeK, as if somehow or other they’re terrorists.  Well, prove it.  The court compelled you to prove it and I sat in that court hearing room.  And I didn’t hear anything.  Where is the proof?  I heard nothing from my friends in the [State] Department. I keep asking the Treasury Department, where is the proof?  I get no answer from the Treasury Department.  I asked the Justice Department, where is the proof that this is a terrorist organization?  I can’t even get the benefit of a reply,” noted former senior White House advisor Ambassador Ginsberg.

Tehran’s Anti-MeK Propaganda Machine

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL POST

by Raymond Tanter
The National Interest
October 27, 2011

If disinformation is defined as deliberate and covert efforts to plant false information to bias media reporting and intelligence collection, the UN’s Durban conferences constitute a prime example. Although organized around an “anti-racist” agenda, they focus on ways to delegitimize Israel and are an icon of intolerance.

A participant in the Durban conferences is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just as it tries to delegitimize Israel, Iran does the same to its opposition while portraying itself as defender of human rights. By releasing American hostages as a “humanitarian” gesture to “improve” the standing of the regime as President Ahmadinejad arrived at the UN, Tehran shows it is a past master of propaganda.

The Islamic Republic treats Israel and Iranian oppositionists in the same way because both are committed to the rule of law rather than to rule by clerics. In research for my forthcoming book on how to facilitate Iranian democracy, I concluded that the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iranian opposition group, is genuinely committed to democracy and not pretending just to gain support. My conclusions echoed those of under secretary of state George Ball, who stated in 1981 that the MeK intended to replace the Islamist regime “with a modernized Shiite Islam drawing its egalitarian principles from Koranic sources rather than Marx,” and of a State Department report of 1984 asserting: “The Mujahedeen unsuccessfully sought a freely elected constituent assembly to draft a constitution.”

The Iranian regime also misinforms publics, delegitimizes and seeks to destroy the MeK because it challenges clerical rule. By contrast, other dissident organizations, such as the Iranian Green Movement faction headed by Mir Hossein Mousavi, accept clerical rule.

Intelligence communities are targets of Iran’s disinformation. Consider a letter of August 2, 2011, called the “Joint Experts’ Statement on the Mujahedin-e Khalq.” One signatory stands out because of his distinguished background in intelligence: Paul Pillar, former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia and now at Georgetown University.

The letter repeats false allegations of the Iranian regime, such as, “Widespread Iranian distaste for the MeK has been cemented by MeK’s numerous terrorist attacks against innocent Iranian civilians.” It resembles regime propaganda against the MeK; see an allegation in the Fars News Agency, the Islamic Republic’s radio and television network, which broadcast alleged statements of two MeK members who “confessed” they had planned to set off homemade bombs in Iran during June 2010. The broadcast includes an interview with Intelligence Minister Moslehi. But when recounting “terrorism” of the MeK, he only pointed to the group’s political and public-relations activities, including sending information outside the country, rather than actions against civilians.

A search of the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) for that period fails to link the MeK to the alleged incident described in the Fars Broadcast. (The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center no longer publishes the WITS.) Since 2001, there have not been any military attacks by the MeK, even against regime targets, much less against civilians. Consequently, there is growing bipartisan support for removing the terrorist tag on the MeK, e.g., at least 96 members of Congress, including Chairs of the House Select Intelligence, Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees.

As Iranian-Americans rallied in pro-MeK protests against Ahmadinejad when he spoke at the UN in 2010 and 2011, such well-attended rallies indicate support for the MeK among émigrés, which in turn can be read as evidence of support within Iran. One Iranian specialist who studies the MeK also finds support for the organization in Iran: Patrick Clawson of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy states:

One of the signs that the MEK still has supporters in Iran is that they occasionally provide blockbuster revelations about Iranian clandestine activities. None was more explosive than their revelations about the Iranian nuclear centrifuges at Natanz—revelations that led to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the subsequent unraveling of Iran’s eighteen-year tissue of lies about its nuclear activities, repeatedly condemned by the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council.

More recently, based on similar MeK sources, there was an August 2007 revelation about how the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) dodged international sanctions by using front companies to import nuclear enrichment equipment and take over the Iranian oil and gas sectors, mainstays of the economy. In October 2007, the U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the IRGC.

Another revelation on October 14, 2011, exposed the role of the IRGC-Quds Force (QF) in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States and blow up the Saudi Embassy in Washington. That disclosure reinforced additional sanctions Treasury placed on the IRGC-QF three days earlier.

And what is Tehran’s response to evidence of complicity in the assassination plot? The regime blames Israel and the United States and asserts MeK involvement. The State Department promptly denied MeK responsibility and accused Tehran of “fabricating news stories” and spreading “disinformation” to exploit skepticism about the plot.

In its efforts to suppress dissent, the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) shapes opinion about the MeK throughout the world. The MOIS also targets the American intelligence community. The ministry plants false stories in the media; then they are used by U.S. intelligence to justify a false narrative against the MeK.

On September 12, 2007, the Mehr News Agency, a MOIS news outlet, announced that before one of the bombings in Karbala, closed-circuit cameras around the Imam Hossein shrine caught a woman and a youngster gathering information from various entrances of the shrine: “After their arrest, it became clear that they had been sent by the Mojahedin Khalq Organization [MeK] to locate ways to sneak into the shrine for terrorist operations, ”states Mehr.

Iran’s Habilian Society, a regime-sponsored group posing as a human-rights organization, published a U.S. Federal Appeals Court’s description of declassified American documents. One carried Iranian stories alleging MeK involvement in Karbala. Several state-run media reproduced the report. On August 14, 2010, Fars wrote:

According to reports recently published by the U.S. intelligence community, the Monafeqin [MeK] maintain their readiness to conduct terrorist attacks and resort to violence; based on recently declassified documents, the U.S. intelligence community emphasized…that…[the MeK] claim regarding having voluntarily renounced violence in 2001 was nothing but a hoax, and this organization maintains its capability to conduct terrorism.

The U.S. intelligence community classified a news account that had been planted in the media by the Iranian regime, allowing it to complete a disinformation cycle—a news-intelligence-news loop. The MOIS plants false allegations in its media, which become classified U.S. documents in the middle and end with Tehran reporting declassified U.S. intelligence as “proof” of MeK involvement in terrorist planning. But during this time period, the MeK in Iraq was under U.S. or Iraqi electronic surveillance. Thus, the MeK could not secretly plan or implement attacks on Karbala without being detected.

Under pressure of the Federal Court order, the State Department on May 20, 2011, released additional classified documents relevant to the terrorist designation of the MeK. One was an AP report of February 9, 2008, about alleged MeK involvement in Karbala plotting. In addition to the irony of classifying a public report later used to justify redesignating the MeK, the report also recalled statements about MeK training of suicide bombers placed in the media by Tehran.

General James Conway, U.S. Marine Corps (retired), former commandant of the Marine Corps who participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the first battle of Fallujah, paints a picture of disinformation by the Iranian regime against the MeK:

The MOIS plants stories in the press of potential threats faced by American military commanders. And then the MOIS goes to those individuals and says, ‘You know, Camp Ashraf, where MeK members reside in Iraq, is a den for suicide bombers. The MeK is training them, and that’s a threat to American forces.’

Regarding Paul Pillar, he is a noted critic of “politicization of intelligence”—and thus it is surprising to find his name among those who wish to keep the MeK listed as a terrorist group. Because the absence of terrorism or terrorist activities during a legally relevant period of two years prior to a redesignation decision does not support maintaining the MeK on the list and there is hard public evidence of a political motivation for the listing, those who oppose politicization of intelligence should also support removal of the MeK from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list.

As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton makes her decision whether to remove the MeK, there is also a need to encourage others to act against bona fide terrorists. So long as the MeK is on the terrorist list despite its absence of terrorism and terrorist activities, the list is politically suspect. And if a decision to redesignate a group as terrorist were made on political grounds instead of evidence, the list would become a political instrument and reduce counterterrorism utility.

Finally, as the State Department dithers in its decision to remove the MeK terrorist designation, Tehran delegitimizes its main opposition, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force pressures Baghdad to destroy members of the MeK in Camp Ashraf Iraq near the Iranian border.

Monday: Muhammad Sahimi, lead political columnist for Tehran Bureau, responds to Dr. Tanter.

Raymond Tanter served on National Security Council staff and as personal representative of the Secretary of Defense to arms control talks in the Reagan-Bush administration. A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, he is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. His most recent book is Terror Tagging of an Iranian Opposition Organization (Iran Policy Committee, December 2011).

Image: www.kremlin.ru

Tanter Responds to His Critics

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL POST

by Raymond Tanter
The National Interest
November 1, 2011

It is a delight to find two critics, Paul Pillar and Muhammad Sahimi, implicitly accepting my argument that the Iranian regime practices disinformation against its principal opposition, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK). The regime’s purpose is to delegitimize and destroy the organization. By eliding my argument and shifting the focus mainly to nonlegal allegations about the MeK, such as calling it an “abhorrent cult” supported by the homeless, there is a presumption of a scant legal basis for tagging the MeK as terrorist.

Such words as “cult/terrorist” are similar to how the Iranian regime describes the MeK, suggesting that Tehran’s disinformation program has been effective. Here is a quotation from the Fars News Agency, a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Fars quotes the Commander of Iran’s notorious Basij Forces of the IRGC, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who said, “Iraqis hate the MKO [MeK] much and the only reason for the presence of the grouplet in Iraq is the US support for this terrorist cult.”

The Iran Policy Committee (IPC) conducted interviews at over thirty rallies of oppositionists who support the MeK in Britain, France, Belgium and Germany, as well as in New York and Washington. We found attendees to be upper-middle-class professionals, such as engineers, physicians, company executives and academics, without any hint of cult-like behavior. Also, the word “cult” is no longer used to describe the MeK in the State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism (see 2009, 2010, and 2011).

Can anyone argue that tens of thousands who attended pro-MeK rallies in Paris during 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 were homeless and went there for money? That would be an incredible assertion for which evidence is lacking. And what about the tens of thousands of MeK members the regime has executed in the past thirty years? Drawing on a book by Ayatollah Khomeini’s former deputy, The Telegraph reports that over 30,000 political prisoners were massacred in 1988; and most were supporters of the MeK.

A majority of those sentenced to death or executed for their involvement in the post-election 2009 uprisings in Iran were also members of MeK, according to Amnesty International, in statements of 2010 and 2011. Their killings are a reflection of the widespread operations of the MeK in Iran, which results in a disproportionate number of its supporters being persecuted.

Colleagues and I in the IPC conducted a study to assess the popularity of the MeK and other Iranian dissident groups, including organizations not espousing regime change. Using the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) for the period from January-December 2005, we performed a content analysis and determined the MeK was the topic of discussion over 350% more often than all other dissident organizations combined. We reasoned that if the MeK had little support within Iran, the regime would hardly pay so much attention to it relative to other groups. And Iran would not spend its political capital with foreign governments asking them to suppress the group or seek the destruction of Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where 3,400 members of the group reside.

The main legal argument against my October article seems to focus on “capability and intent” as being sufficient to justify retention of the terrorist designation of the MeK.

My September article in The National Interest provided a full legal basis for redesignation. That article states, “For the MeK to be re-designated absent any terrorist activity or terrorism, the State Department has to demonstrate that the group has both the capability and the intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism and that either threatens U.S. national security or the security of American citizens.”

Muhammad Sahimi states that I claim—falsely, he says—that leaders of the Green Movement accept clerical rule. But Sahimi admits such acceptance; in this respect, the relevant citation in his article states, “Both Mousavi and Karroubi…want the Constitution to be implemented completely.” Hence, they do accept clerical rule. In fact, Mousavi praised the Vali Faqih Ali Khamenei before the election and praised Ruhollah Khomeini in December 2009.

Paul Pillar ends his critique by asserting there is a campaign to exert political influence “on what ought to be administrative and legal decisions.” I concur. The decision to delist the MeK should be made on the facts and on the law and not on criteria used to smear members of the group.

[Editor’s note: The National Interest has enjoyed the debate between Raymond Tanter, on the one hand, and Muhammad Sahimi and Paul Pillar, on the other, about the Iranian MeK. This is an issue with sufficient complexities and facets to fuel even further exchanges, but of course we must close it out. We encourage such give and take as one means to be employed from time to time to lay bare important issues and delve deeply into their inner reaches.]

MeK, Iran, and the War for Washington

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL POST

by Raymond Tanter
The National Interest
September 16, 2011

Note: The author has not received any compensation whatsoever from the MeK or related groups.

There is an escalating war for influence over U.S. policy toward Iran: It is a dispute among university scholars, think-tank analysts and former American officials. Reverberations of this war are not confined to the Washington beltway but have profound significance for the Middle East. As Arab republics like Egypt and Tunisia fall from popular protests, internally inspired regime-change scenarios abound. While largely peaceful protests brought down regimes in Cairo and Tunis, state suppression resulted in violent pushback in Libya, Syria and Yemen.

Although Arab republics are the immediate targets of their populations, Arab kingdoms like Bahrain, and to a much lesser degree Jordan and Saudi Arabia, are feeling the heat of popular unrest. Because there is generally a lack of consensus on how to transfer power in Arab republics, they are less stable than kingdoms. “The king is dead; long live the (new) king,” does not easily translate into “The president of the republic is dead; long live his son.”

Just as conflicts over succession occur among the Arab republics, so a succession crisis is likely to arise in the Islamic Republic of Iran. We should use the lens of such a conflict in Iran when viewing the war in Washington about an Iranian dissident organization—the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK). Saddam Hussein’s takedown by foreign militaries highlights the need for a homegrown antidote to Iranian rulers because external regime change is off the table in the aftermath of the Iraq War.

Secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton is poised to announce the MeK designation in fall 2011, a decision long overdue. Nothing is likely to be more decisive in reducing the strategic threat from Tehran than having a vigorous democratic opposition in Iran; it is critical to have a coalition of prodemocracy dissidents working together to weaken the regime from within and replace it; the MeK can play an enhanced role in the prodemocracy movement if it is removed from the State Department terrorist list. But above and beyond the potential international benefit of facilitating internal regime change for Iran, the MeK simply deserves to be delisted on the basis of facts and law alone.

A search of U.S. government and private electronic and media sources by scholars in the Iran Policy Committee reveals an absence of evidence to support the inference that the MeK engages in terrorist activities or terrorism or has the capability and intent to do so. The databases are: the U.S. Worldwide Incident Tracking System, which the National Counterterrorism Center no longer publishes; Department of Homeland Security-sponsored Global Terrorism Database; and U.S. government-supported RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents. In these major databases, there are no confirmed associations of the MeK with any military action after 2001.

Given the absence of unclassified evidence of MeK involvement in terrorist activities during the course of nine years (2001-2010), any countervailing evidence in the classified record should be viewed with skepticism and subject to scrutiny for credibility. An assumption here is that terrorist incidents are too public not to appear in databases or in newspapers of record.

On 4 December 2008, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities issued a judgment annulling the MeK designation, and the European Union cleared the MeK of terrorist conduct in January 2009. The United Kingdom removed the group from its list of proscribed organizations in June 2008. In addition, the French judiciary dismissed all terrorism and terrorism-financing charges against the group in May 2011.

Two issues before the American court have been whether the State Department provided due process of law to the MeK and credibility of evidence in support of allegations against it. In a July 2010 ruling regarding a MeK appeal of its continued designation in January 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC circuit faulted the decisionmaking process of the secretary of state.

The court questioned the credibility, sources and legal relevance of evidence in the Secretary’s January 2009 decision to maintain the designation and ordered the State Department to give the MeK an occasion to rebut some of the declassified material used in the re-designation. On 20 May 2011, the department released ten documents. Five were unclassified, mostly wire service reports from the Associated Press, Radio Farda and Azeri Press Agency. They concern allegations, such as MeK’s “cult-like” behavior and supposed lack of popular support within Iran. Such false, nonlegal allegations are no grounds on which to base a terrorist tag.

For the MeK to be re-designated absent any terrorist activity or terrorism, the State Department has to demonstrate that the group has both the capability and the intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism and that it either threatens U.S. national security or the security of American citizens.

In the Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism (CRT) 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, a CRT 2006 accusation that the MeK “maintain[s] the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts” does not recur. And there are no terrorist activities or terrorist events cited during the legally relevant period of two years prior to the last re-designation decision of January 2009. In fact, no such actions are alleged in Country Reports since 2001.

In view of the convergence of historical circumstances and the law in favor of delisting, consider the political origins of the MeK designation. The roots are in the Iran-Contra affair of the mid-1980s: In exchange for release of American hostages held in Lebanon by one of Tehran’s proxies, Hezbollah, the State Department alleged without evidence that MeK members used terrorism and violence as “standard instruments of their politics.” Thus began the use of that designation primarily as a tool to achieve foreign-policy aims rather than antiterrorism goals.

Martin Indyk, who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in 1997, said one of the reasons the MeK was put on the terrorism list was part of a “two-pronged” diplomatic strategy. It included increasing pressure on Saddam Hussein by linking him to a “terrorist group,” the MeK. The other “prong” was the Clinton administration’s interest in opening a dialogue with Tehran. On 8 June 1997, Mohammad Khatami was elected president of Iran, and the administration viewed him as a moderate. Clinton officials saw cracking down on the MeK as a way to strengthen Khatami at the expense of so-called hardliners. But this political use of the terrorist designation failed; Tehran pocketed the concession without reciprocity.

Because law and facts converge for removing the designation of the MeK, those who oppose delisting fall back on political grounds buttressed by vague factual allegations for a continuation of the terrorist tag. There is an unfounded claim that the MeK is unpopular within Iran because of “numerous terrorist attacks against innocent Iranian civilians.” Then there is an invalid policy conclusion: “Removing the MeK from the Foreign Terrorist Organization [sic] list and misconstruing its lack of democratic bona fides and support inside Iran will have harmful consequences on the legitimate, indigenous Iranian opposition.” The allegation of MeK unpopularity is false. Support within the expatriate Iranian community suggests popularity in Iran; no other dissident organization can mobilize similar numbers of expat supporters.

Some who believe delisting would limit Washington’s ability to reach out to the Iranian street are wrong; the disproportionate number of protestors arrested and hanged because of association with the MeK indicates the organization’s significant presence on the Iranian street. Those who oppose delisting the MeK and hold a dim view of the effectiveness of Iranian dissidents to bring about regime change weaken their opposition to removal of the tag on the MeK. An argument in support of delisting on foreign-policy grounds is that it would reinforce the democratic opposition in Iran.

In most of the arguments opposed to delisting the MEK, no statutory fact is presented. So opponents of removing the terrorist tag resort to irrelevant non-legal arguments to overshadow lack of evidence of its engagement in terrorist activities or terrorism. In effect, those in favor of maintaining the MeK listing want Secretary Clinton to disregard the facts and the law entirely. With a simple signature delisting the group, Secretary Clinton would not only bring her Department in line with law and facts; she also would help empower the Iranian people to change the regime and open a political option between failed engagement and ineffective sanctions, on one hand, and problematic military action on the other.

Raymond Tanter served on the senior staff of the National Security Council and as personal representative of the Secretary of Defense to arms control talks in Europe in the Reagan-Bush administration. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan.

Image by Harald Dettenborn

Iran Policy Committee: Whistleblower Charges UN Collusion with Baghdad against Iranian Dissidents in Iraq

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On 23 August 2012, the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) examined three sets of events regarding Iranian dissidents in Iraq, who are members of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) and concluded in a press release that certain actions are necessary to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe as well as to correct wrongs. These events include: 1) A 21 July interview with as well as a 22 July article by a high level whistleblower who is a former official of the UN in Iraq and whose job was to monitor the condition of the Iranian dissidents; 2)  The whistleblower’s allegations and his comments on remarks made by a State Department spokesperson on 25 July about the status of the dissidents; and 3) A “goodwill gesture” offered on 17 August by the dissidents to send 400 additional residents from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty, Iraq.

Nonviolent, unarmed Iranian female dissidents resist Iraqi military forces in Camp Ashraf, Iraq

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney (Ret), former assistant vice chief of staff, U.S. Air Force; and Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (Ret), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Pacific interviewed the whistleblower, Tahar Boumedra, who had charged that actions of the United Nations against the Iranian dissidents were “a shameful story of hiding the truth and looking the other way when we knew there were violations … complicity with wrongdoers, and neglect of human rights and humanitarian responsibilities.”

Because the Boumedra accusations are in accord with research on Iraq that McInerney and Vallely conducted, they said, “We concur with the allegations of Boumedra and condemn the UN for failure to protect the unarmed innocent civilian Iranian dissidents; going beyond Boumedra, furthermore, we charge the Department of State with colluding against the unprotected to curry the favor of Baghdad and Tehran.” McInerney and Vallely called for “an independent investigation of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), to look into the allegations by Boumedra with special reference to discovering if prosecutable offenses may have occurred under international humanitarian law.”

American-made Iraqi Humvees patrol within Camp Liberty, as if Iranian dissidents were prisoners instead of asylum seekers to be protected

As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment in the Reagan and Bush administrations and member of the Advisory Board of the Iran Policy Committee, William A. Nitze, interviewed Boumedra and said, “I concur with the call for an investigation of UNAMI in light of specific charges by one of the most senior UN officials in that part of the world.”

General McInerney applauded the “goodwill gesture” on 17 August by the dissidents to send 400 additional residents from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty, Iraq. “What is not clear,” McInerney added, “is whether there would be a reciprocal move by the State Department regarding the designation of the MEK on the Department’s foreign terrorist organizations list.”

Professor Raymond Tanter, President of the IPC and former senior member of the National Security Council staff in the Reagan-Bush administration, stated that, “Although IPC research shows that linkage of designation of the MEK to non-statutory criteria, such as cooperation in Iraq, is not in accord with the June 2012 Federal Appeals Court ruling ordering the Secretary of State to make a determination on the status of the MEK by 1 October 2012, the Department of State has an opportunity to act now, and do what some 100 bipartisan Members of Congress have asked it to do, i.e., to delist the MEK,” added Tanter.

Tanter asked Boumedra for a response to remarks of 25 July by the State Department spokesperson. Victoria Nuland who stated, “The Government of Iraq has recently taken constructive steps … On July 15, it transported from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya [Liberty] a cargo convoy of 300 additional air conditioners, several large water tanks, additional generators, and other goods to improve the residents’ quality of life at Camp Hurriya … We commend the Government for these positive measures and for its stated commitment to a peaceful resolution of this issue, which is the only acceptable outcome.”

Boumedra responded by saying, “Such statements contradict Iraq’s officially announced policy of making lives of Ashrafis ‘unbearable.’ Documents are available. It also does not correspond to my own firsthand experience of three and a half years dealing with this matter.”

Boumedra added, “Furthermore, whatever improvement registered, if any, during the last six months in Camp Liberty, they did not happen thanks to the generosity of the Iraqi Government. They are the achievements of Ashrafis at their own expense, despite imposed restrictions on their freedom of movement and contact with the outside world.”

State Department and UN officials concede that living conditions at Camp Liberty are significantly lower than that of the former home of the dissidents in Ashraf. On 1 August 2012, however, the State Department claimed, “Allegations of dire humanitarian conditions at Hurriya [Liberty] are inconsistent with observations made by U.S. Government officials who have visited Hurriya, as well as reporting from UN monitors. Based on these reports, and other information, it is clear that the quality of life at Hurriya exceeds accepted humanitarian standards.”

Notwithstanding Department of State claims, Boumedra said in an interview that the head of the UN in Iraq had “directed his staff to cover up the prisonlike conditions of a relocation camp for Iranian dissidents in reports to the world body.”

On a broader note, Boumedra said, “Camp Ashraf residents have been evicted from their settlement residence of 26 years without due process of law. It is an arbitrary eviction. UN rules on this matter hold that when an eviction takes place, it should be done according to due process, and the State must compensate with similar standards or higher—in any case not lower.”

Members of the U.S. Congress Recommend State Department Press Baghdad for Humanitarian Conditions for Iranians at Ashraf and Liberty, Iraq, says Iran Policy Committee

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In the course of research on Iranian dissidents, the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) reviewed letters sent by a Senator and Members of the House of Representatives to the Secretary of State on the status of Iranian dissidents in Iraq. IPC also participated in a briefing by Members of the House. IPC research is consistent with views expressed in these letters and at the briefing.

In a June 12, 2012 letter, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to express his dismay over the lack of action by the Department of State to reach a decision on the status of a revocation petition filed by the main Iranian opposition group that rejects clerical rule, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq. Senator Levin wrote: “I have requested repeatedly that the Department of State proceed expeditiously to make a determination regarding the designation of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) as a foreign terrorist organization…” The Senator is the latest among U.S. lawmakers to criticize the delay by the Department on the status of the MEK. The Senator also questioned the process that the State Department pursues to determine the status of the petition by the MEK.

Entrance Gate of Camp Ashraf, Iraq, which provided residents a serene, livable environment

Iraqi forces point guns at Camp Ashraf, where exiled Iranians are now are under siege

A letter of August 2, 2012 from Members of the House spearheaded by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA), ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade stated, “We respectfully request that the Department of State seek the Iraqi government’s agreement to and implementation of a number of humanitarian measures. Until these measures are implemented, further voluntary relocation of Camp Ashraf residents would only exacerbate the current dreadful living conditions in Camp Liberty.” A bipartisan group of 79 Members of Congress signed the letter.

During a briefing by Members of the House on Capitol Hill in Washington on August 1, 2012, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), a senior member of Committee on Homeland Security blamed Baghdad for “lack of clean water” at Camp Liberty. Also at the briefing, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, called for removal of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), a group to which the Iranian dissidents belong, from the U.S. terrorist list to facilitate their speedy resettlement outside of Iraq, without relocation from Ashraf to Liberty.

Through independent research, the IPC determines that residents of Liberty are only seeking minimum humanitarian improvements in their quality of life. These include ensuring satisfactory access to clean water via measures to connect Liberty to the Baghdad water network and transfer of water purification equipment from Ashraf to Liberty or acquisition elsewhere of such items; improved electrical equipment to operate air conditioners, potentially through transfer of large generators from Ashraf to Liberty; authority to construct adequate ramps and related safety infrastructure for residents of Liberty, including those who are suffering from disabilities; and transfer of forklifts from Ashraf to Liberty to facilitate handling of heavy items.

Armed Iraqi police at a checkpoint inside Camp Liberty, which has a prison-like status

Three former U.S. military officers of the IPC issued a statement on implications of diplomatic maneuvering about the status of the Iranian dissidents in Iraq. Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney (Ret), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, (U.S. Army (Ret), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Pacific; and Captain Charles “Chuck” Nash, U.S. Navy (Ret) said, “We are concerned that statements implying Iranian dissidents in Iraq are responsible for any delay in relocating play into the hands of those in the Government of Iraq intent on forcible relocation; on the contrary, our research finds that Baghdad is responsible for such delays because of failure to provide minimum humanitarian assistance to the dissidents. In this respect, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and head of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), Ambassador Martin Kobler, told the Security Council on July 19, 2012 that, “Time is running out to find a sustainable situation,…[and he urged] the Camp Ashraf residents to cooperate with the Iraqi authorities and to relocate.”

Founder and President, Global Initiative for Democracy and former Freedom House Executive Director, Bruce McColm commented on a statement of August 1, 2012 by Patrick Ventrell, Department of State Acting Deputy Spokesperson. Ventrell called on “…the Ashraf leadership to immediately resume cooperation with the relocation of residents to Camp…[Liberty].The continued intransigence of the residents’ leadership in placing preconditions and making demands prior to any agreement to relocate…[additional] Ashraf residents is unacceptable…” McColm said “Ventrell’s statement blames the victim rather than the cause of the delay—Baghdad.”

Professor Raymond Tanter, President of the IPC and former member of the National Security Council staff in the Reagan administration, inferred Baghdad’s hidden agenda for denying minimum humanitarian life support: “1) Provide a rationale for forcible relocation within Iraq of remaining Ashraf residents by the Iraqi military; 2) Wear down resolve of Liberty residents so they ‘voluntarily’ repatriate to Iran rather than resettle to friendly third countries where they can continue as a political force that threatens survival of the clerical regime in Tehran; and 3) Evacuate Ashraf but keep former residents at Liberty to give space and time for the Iraqi military to place weapons in Ashraf to reinforce the false claim the MEK maintains an intent to commit terrorism and justify its continuation on the U.S. terrorist list. Such a hidden agenda based on fabricated premises is an illegitimate basis for denying minimum humanitarian life support to individuals listed as asylum seekers by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refuges.”