Special coverage of US elections from Abu Dhabi and Washington

Professor Raymond Tanter appeared in Washington DC on an Abu Dhabi News Channel, Sky News Arabia. He debated another scholar on 7 November 2016, about Iran and Saudi Arabia in English, which was translated into Arabic. The debate may be viewed at 31:00 minutes out of about a 51:00 minutes segment of Sky News “Special Coverage of U.S. Elections from Abu Dhabi and Washington.”

One of the themes of Tanter’s comments in the debate centered on remarks in his post in The Fikra Forum of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Preparing for Regime Change in Iran. The statements were by His Royal Highness, Prince Turki Al Faisal of Saudi Arabia; the Prince complimented the leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), saying that,

“Maryam Rajavi, your endeavor to rid your people of the Khomeinist cancer is an historic epic that…will remain inscribed in the annals of history.”

Tanter pointed on that on July 9, 2016, he observed a rally in Paris at which Prince Turki put forth what has become known as the “Turki Option,” i.e., regime change in Iran by the people.

When the crowd chanted, “The people want regime change,” the Prince joined the crowd in Arabic saying, “I, too, want regime change” in Iran, a remark that brought the house down.

“The Iranians and US: A Shared Civilization Marred by Revolutionary ‘Identity’ Policies,” Turki’s talk, contains an argument that contrasts to the historically risk-averse nature of the Saudis, signaling the rising temperature of the cold war against revolutionary Iran.

Prince Turki stated that, “The Khomeinist regime has brought only destruction, sectarianism, conflict and bloodshed – not only to their own people in Iran, but across the Middle East. This is not the way forward.”

Then what is the way?

First, limit U.S. “engagement” with Tehran: Hillary Clinton is likely to take a hard line against Iran, as she did in the nuclear deal’s preliminary talks while Secretary of State. And if Donald Trump were elected, he pledged to renegotiate the deal, which hardly favors engagement.  Tanter mentioned how Iran was the problem in Syria and should not be a part of the solution there. In this respect, he used a new book by the NCRI entitled, “How Iran Fuels the Syria War” to demonstrate the widespread presence of Iranian-controlled on the ground troops in Syria.

Second, enhance existing sanctions. This action reverts to Republican-inspired coercive diplomacy that brought Iran to the table. In the spring 2016, the House of Representatives approved three new bills against Iran: blocking Iran’s access to the dollar outside of the U.S. financial system, sanctioning any sector of Tehran’s economy that directly or indirectly has applications for Iran’s ballistic missile program, and prohibiting Washington from buying heavy water from Iran.

Third, embrace regime change, because sanctions alone are insufficient to keep the regime in compliance. Publicly backing the Iranian opposition for regime change is the “Turki Option,” and the one that better ensures long-term compliance because the Iranian dissidents do not favor nuclear weapons in word and deed.

As the Prince attempts to redraw the arc of history, now is the time for the West to join the coalition that to shape the future.

Click here for the Arabic version of “Preparing for Regime Change in Iran.”

To watch the interview please go to: bit.ly/2ep4YXf

Sky News Soundbites on Syria Hit on 12 OCT 2016

Professor Raymond Tanter appeared on Sky News Arabia on 12 October 2016. Tanter spoke about Syria in English, which was translated into Arabic.

One of the themes of Tanter’s comments centered on this Idea, FORCE AND DIPLOMACY GO HAND TO HAND. In addition, he said Russian airstrikes and barrel-bombing by Assad plus Iranian-controlled ground forces make for coercive diplomacy. The West only has diplomacy that is not reinforced by troops on the ground but only in the air.

People don’t live in the air or on the sea. They live on the ground. The way to control the ground is to be on the ground with combat forces.

There are some 60,000 troops on the ground in Syria controlled by Iran. They include the Quds Special Forces of Islamic Republican Guard Corps, Hezbollah from Lebanon, as well as those from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and a scattering from other countries that Tehran controls.

The West cannot succeed unless it has friendly forces on the ground, protected by a buffer zone, or a safe haven, coupled with a no-fly zone to keep warring aircraft out of the zone.

Preparing for Regime Change in Iran

Excerpts from “Preparing for Regime Change in Iran,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, available at Fikra Forum

 “Maryam Rajavi, your endeavor to rid your people of the Khomeinist cancer is an historic epic that…will remain inscribed in the annals of history.” -His Royal Highness, Prince Turki Al Faisal

On July 9, 2016, I observed a rally in Paris at which Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, former ambassador to the U.S. and intelligence chief but no longer in any official position, addressed Maryam Rajavi, President-Elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). The Turki option — regime change in Iran — turned up the heat on Tehran. When the crowd chanted, “The people want regime change,” the Prince joined the crowd in Arabic saying, “I, too, want regime change” in Iran, a remark that brought the house down.

With some Arabs leading the call, various dissidents like the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) core of the NCRI are accelerating their calls for regime change in Iran. The Arab conflict with Iran has been mainly sectarian, but Turki sought to move the conflict to a strategic level with a greater focus on removing the “revolutionary” nature of Iran’s regime. With some support for the NCRI in the U.S. Congress, European national parliaments, and the European Parliament, it is time for the West to join this effort.

…

Georgetown University students and colleagues in the Iran Policy Committee conducted a study to assess the image of the NCRI 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 NCRI/MEK was the topic of discussion almost four time as often as all other dissident organizations combined.

We updated the 2005 study by using the large number of attacks by the IRGC or Iranian proxies against the NCRI. Again, the NCRI family of entities were targeted more than other rebellious minorities in Iran. In addition, the Iranian regime regularly sets up expositions throughout the country to convince Iranians to refrain from paying any attention to the NCRI.

If the regime were not so leery of the NCRI, they would hardly pay so much attention to it. Furthermore, Iran would not spend its political capital with foreign governments asking them to suppress the group or seek the destruction of Camp Ashraf/Liberty in Iraq, where MEK dissidents were confined in exile at Liberty until September 9, 2016.

…

The 2009 uprising showed that millions in Iran wanted regime change, a goal espoused by the NCRI, whose members paid a disproportionate price for participation. Some Arab governments are now lining up with Iranian dissidents because they perceive the revolutionary enemy regime at their doorstep. As the Prince attempts to redraw the arc of history, this is the time for the West to join the coalition that could shape the future.

——–

*** Other contributions of the author at The Washington Institute  are available in Arabic at: http://bit.ly/2exfybj

*** Click here for the Arabic Word version of “Preparing for Regime Change in Iran”

Professor Raymond Tanter served on the U.S. National Security Council and as Personal Representative of the Secretary of Defense to arms control talks in the Reagan-Bush White House.

 

 

 

The Turning Tide

The breaking news is in the title: “The Turning Tide.” On Sep. 12, 2016, Secretary of State John Kerry made a statement that reflected a shift away from the Iranian regime in favor of its main opposition when he announced in unusually favorable language that the Mujahedeen e-Khalq, or MEK departed from Camp Liberty and safely arrived in Albania. Kerry said a “significant American diplomatic initiative…has assured the safety of more than 3,000 MEK members whose lives have been under threat.” The tide has turned.

Led by Sen McCain, on July 14, 2016, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved S. CON. RES. 42: It stated in part that it was the sense of Congress that the United States should work with the Government of Iraq…to ensure that all residents of Camp Liberty are safely and expeditiously resettled in Albania.

Because of such pressure, Baghdad had no choice but to permit the last groups of dissidents to depart. And the remaining residents departed Sep. 9, 2016.

The good news: They are safe; the bad news: Although the tide has turned, resettlement requires resources to make up for hundreds of millions of dollars of their material assets denied to them when departing Iraq.

To continue reading please go to: http://bit.ly/2coL2m6

Tehran Destablizes; Gets Sanctions Relief & Nuclear Threshold Status

B/C of Qasem Soleimani: Shiite militias kill Sunnis, bully #CampLiberty Subvert Yemen & Saudi @ALArabiya_Eng @NCRIUS youtu.be/RkRbISQA5Ns

Gen. Qasem Soleimani Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force has facilitated killing of Sunni civilians in Iraq by radical Shiite militias that also bully Iranian dissidents at Camp Liberty, Iraq; armed troops that destabilize Yemen and threaten Saudi Arabia; and helped Assad remain in power in Syria, which set the context for gains there by the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), aka Islamic State.

According to 21 May 2015 congressional testimony by Dr. Fred Kagan, “…Shia militia forces are part of the Iranian military de facto. The Badr Corps, run by Hadi al-Amiri, reports to Qassem Sulemani, the commander of the Quds Force. “Kata’ib Hezbollah [is] run by Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, reports to Qassem Sulemani, commander of the Quds Force.” Because the Iranian regime is part of such problems in Iraq, it should not be a part of solutions.

The takeover of Ramadi accelerates the appeal of ISIS to Sunni Iraqis who had been fence-sitters; tribal leaders are especially vulnerable to defecting to ISIS as its momentum increases. During 2014, local Iraqi Sunni grievances against the Shiite-led government in Baghdad and ISIS controlled more than half of the territory around Ramadi; by springtime of 2015, it controlled even a greater share of Ramadi.

Regional allies like Saudi Arabia may be less willing to act in the coalition against ISIS and may be more inclined to overlook Saudis who assist the Islamic State. Research indicates that Washington needs to listen and hear Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as ISIS makes gains in Yemen and in the Sinai Desert. Instead the Obama administration is so strongly inclined to obtain some sort of a nuclear deal with Iran that Washington is willing to ignore Tehran’s efforts to destabilize the region.

Regarding the Lausanne framework deal, on one hand, regional allies are especially concerned that the Iranian regime will receive sanctions relief upfront and such reprieve will be difficult to snapback.

On the other hand, the framework institutionalizes Iran as a threshold nuclear power legitimately able to develop nuclear weapons whenever it decides. In this respect, the framework recognizes the Iranian regime’s assumed right to enrich uranium on its own soil, contrary to a half of dozen UN Security Council resolutions that denied Tehran this claim.

Revocation of the Terrorism Listings of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK)

An Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, published the article below, Now the cards are on the table, on 28 September 2012 in its online and print editions as an insert in the International Herald Tribune in Israel. On the same date, the U.S. State Department formally announced revocation of the designation of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and related groups from its Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. Likewise, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control revoked comparable designations from its Specially Designated Nationals List.

The State Department announcement included the following:

Property and interests in property in the United States or within the possession or control of U.S. persons will no longer be blocked, and U.S. entities may engage in transactions with the MEK without obtaining a license. These actions will be published in the Federal Register.

Below is the article commenting on the revocations by Professors Tanter and Sheehan.

Now the cards are on the table

In the wake of Secretary Clinton’s decision, Jerusalem and Washington should reset their Iran policy by embracing regime change there as a priority.

By Raymond Tanter and Ivan Sascha Sheehan
28 September 2012

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL POST IN HAARETZ (Note: Must have subscription to read full article on the Haaretz website)

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s September 21 announcement that she will remove the Mujahedeen-e Khalq from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations is an important step toward correcting Washington’s Iran policy and an occasion for Jerusalem to adopt a fresh approach toward the Iranian opposition.

Delisting Iran’s primary opposition organization that rejects clerical rule is, in and of itself, a threat to the Iranian regime. Removal from the list is therefore an opportunity to assess and reset American and Israeli policy toward Tehran.

Removing the MEK’s terror designation plays on Tehran’s suspicions that an “unholy alliance” of Jerusalem, Washington and the MEK is colluding to launch covert attacks against Iran’s nuclear program. If there were such an alignment, it would also contribute to deterrence of Iranian assaults against Israeli diplomats and serve as a check on Iranian aggression.

In a September 23 Washington Post article that proposed a fictive scenario involving an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, analysts imagined how Israel might be accused of working with the MEK. They speculate that the MEK will be widely perceived as reinforcing Israel’s air assaults with military operations on the ground in Iran: “Within hours, Twitter is alight with reports of explosions in various parts of Iran. All seemingly can be traced to one source: the Iranian opposition group Mujaheddin-e-Khalq.”

That the group stokes the regime’s fears by mobilizing broad political support in the expatriate community and holding massive rallies around the world does little to quiet the regime’s anxieties. A 2005 study found that the MEK was given 350 percent more attention by Iranian state-run media than all other opposition organizations challenging the regime.

The disproportionate number of protesters who were arrested or sentenced to death during the 2009 uprising because of their association with the MEK is also indicative of the regime’s intent to block the group’s political influence on the Iranian street.

The MEK is the largest dissident organization in the Paris-based de facto parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. It has long failed to meet the statutory criteria necessary for terror tagging under U.S. law. That it remained on the list can be attributed to persistent lobbying by the Iranian regime and miscalculation by successive U.S. presidents that concessions would appease Tehran’s theocrats and eliminate state-sponsored proxy violence.

If Clinton had failed to delist, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington would in any event have removed the organization from the list on October 1. By taking the initiative rather than hiding behind the judiciary, Washington signals to Tehran that regime change from within is on the table. Iran has threatened to curtail its negotiations with the West when it takes actions that favor the MEK; Clinton’s removal of the group’s designation thus acknowledges that engagement with Iran is no longer a top priority, although sporadic and unproductive nuclear talks might continue.

Removal of the terror designation in the midst of a hotly contested presidential election confirms that U.S. counterterrorism policy remains unpoliticized. Strong bipartisan support for the MEK on Capitol Hill, where Israel also commands strong backing, is further indication that the shift was not partisan.

American and Israeli officials should follow the delisting of the Iranian resistance with efforts to empower the opposition and support calls for democratic change. Free of the terror label, supporters can now put their money where their mouth is and embrace the opposition in its campaign for democracy.

In light of last week’s announcement by Secretary Clinton, here’s what can be done to help reset policy toward Tehran.

First, the worldwide pro-Israel community can help push back against the Iranian regime’s disinformation campaign against removal of the MEK from the State Department’s terror roster. The Iranian lobby in Washington is as well funded as it is deceptive and the opposition is enemy number one. Consider the unsubstantiated allegation made by Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. On February 9, 2012, Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News that the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group’s terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting.

Second, because the heat will be turned up by the pro-Iranian Iraqi government on the 3,000 MEK dissidents housed at Camp Liberty in Iraq, the pro-Israel community should speak publicly about the safety of the residents and press humanitarian concerns.

Third, in the wake of Secretary Clinton’s decision, Jerusalem and Washington should reset their Iran policy by embracing regime change in Iran as a priority. Support for the Iranian opposition would give further credence to threats to take military action and complement sanctions meant to coerce Tehran. Unless the survival of the regime is on the table, Iran will continue to pursue its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons as well as threaten Israel and the United States. The removal of MEK’s terror classification rings an alarm bell among the theocrats in Tehran that their illegitimate reign is coming to an end.

__________________

Prof. Raymond Tanter served on the senior staff of the National Security Council in the Reagan White House, and is president of the Iran Policy Committee. Prof. Ivan Sascha Sheehan is director of the negotiation and conflict management graduate program in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore.

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.”

Iran Policy Committee: Violations of Human Rights of Iranian Dissidents in Iraq and the Unwarranted Terrorist Designation of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK)

Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State, Ambassador Daniel Benjamin

CLICK HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL POST

WASHINGTON, July 17, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On 17 July 2012, the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) issued a press release. A State Department teleconference on 6 July 2012 prompted the release. Briefing the media were Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Ambassador Daniel Benjamin as well as Special Advisor to the Secretary on Camp Ashraf, Ambassador Daniel Fried. They briefed on the situation at Camp Ashraf, Iraq and the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) designation. Developments over the past few days also stimulated the release.

Regarding human rights, Ambassador Benjamin stated, “The Iraqi Government and the United Nations continue to encourage the secure, humane relocation of residents to Hurriya [Liberty] for refugee status determinations by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.” Benjamin added that because no other convoys of the residents of Camp Ashraf have relocated to Liberty since early May, “…the patience of the Iraqi Government is wearing thin.”

Special Advisor to the Secretary of State on Camp Ashraf, Ambassador Daniel Fried

Three former U.S. military officers of the IPC issued a joint statement taking issue with Ambassador Benjamin’s assertions about Baghdad and the UN encouraging secure and humane relocation: 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).

McInerney, Vallely, and Nash stated, “As former members of the U.S. military, we are concerned that Ambassador Benjamin’s statement will be read as a signal by Baghdad to launch a third attack against Iranian dissidents in Ashraf. Based on IPC research, we believe the Government of Iraq is engaged in serious violations of the human rights of Iranian dissidents in Ashraf and Liberty, Iraq. With the acquiescence of U.S. diplomats, dissidents’ rights as asylum seekers in their quest for refugee status are being violated on a systematic basis by Baghdad.”

Founder and President, Global Initiative for Democracy and former Freedom House Executive Director, Bruce McColm joined Professor Raymond Tanter, President of the IPC and former member of the National Security Council staff in the Reagan-Bush administration to comment on the situation of the dissidents in Ashraf and Liberty.

Ambassador Fried described the relocation of the residents of Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty as “successful,” because during the transfer there were no “roadside bombs or attacks.” Ambassador Fried added, “I’m more impressed by the progress that has been made than concerned by the problems that remain. This is Iraq…we’re doing all right so far.”

Tanter said, “Such a statement by Fried is in stark contrast to remarks of 71 Members of the Iraqi parliament, who find, ‘Conditions at Liberty are far from humane and have every character of a forced relocation.'”

Tanter  stated, “On 30 June 2012, the Deputy Prime Minister and General Secretary of the Iraqi National Movement informed the UN Secretary General that Camp Liberty was a ‘prison’ for the residents because they are collectively punished with their deprivation from basic humanitarian needs at the behest of the Iranian regime.”

On the basis of IPC research, McColm pointed out examples of necessary equipment to ensure basic human rights, especially for the disabled and to solve the water shortage in Liberty:

Transfer of specially-designed vehicles and specially-designed trailers for the disabled from Ashraf to Liberty and about 50 passenger cars, which would mean one car for about every 40 residents, a minimum in the hot weather for wounded and disabled residents

Permission for construction, including the building of pavements, porches, canopies, ramps, special facilities for the disabled, and permission to build green areas and recreational facilities

Removal of large power generators owned by the residents from Ashraf to Liberty, an adequate number of forklifts to Liberty, and ability to sell their movable and immovable assets in Ashraf to fund their relocation and resettlement abroad

“Having the residents to deliver water on a daily basis from 12 kilometers away by tankers was not a way to meet minimum humanitarian needs,” said McColm.

McColm also stated, “Connecting Liberty to a municipal water network, which was repeatedly promised by Iraqi officials and confirmed by the State Department and UN representatives, would be one solution to the water shortage problem.”

“To improve the life support infrastructure of Camp Liberty to an acceptable level is an absolute necessity for the State Department to live up to its promises made to every resident of Camp Ashraf and deprive Iran from its desire to wear down its opposition into submission in prison-like conditions at Camp Liberty,” said IPC president, Professor Raymond Tanter.

With respect to the terrorist designation of the MEK, on 6 July 2012, Ambassador Benjamin said, “With such a [violent] history, cooperating fully with the UN’s efforts in Iraq would be a tangible demonstration that the MEK has left its violent past behind and that it no longer retains the capability and intent to engage in acts of terrorism.”

Tanter stated, “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 October 2012; the Court ignored or rejected such linkage when presented by the State Department representative in briefs and oral argument prior to the June ruling.”

In addition, Tanter said, “Legal criteria for inclusion on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list are that a group must be a foreign organization; engaged in terrorist activity or retain the capability as well as intent to engage in terrorist activity; and that activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or its national security. Thus, cooperation in a relocation process is not a legal criterion for designation or continued listing.”

Tanter also stated, “The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 holds that even if an organization is engaged in terrorist activities or terrorism or retains the capability and intent to do so, national security considerations may warrant removal from the terrorist list. The law, however, does not provide for the reverse—that is, maintaining a designation for non-terrorist reasons. Relisting the MEK because of alleged noncooperation in Iraq would be an example of a non-statuary rationale and legally impermissible.”

McInerney, Vallely, Nash, McColm, and Tanter concluded, “Violations of the human rights of Iranian dissidents in Iraq and linkage of their relocation within Iraq to what several national and international courts have found to be an unwarranted  terrorist designation of the organization to which they belong—the MEK—is a recipe for another violent crackdown by Iraq on the Iranian oppositionists. As the 20 July unilateral Iraqi deadline for perhaps forcibly evacuating the remaining dissidents from Ashraf to Liberty approaches, the international community has a responsibility to pressure Baghdad to improve humanitarian conditions so they can safely relocate within Iraq as prelude to humane resettlement in friendly countries.”