Iran Policy Committee: Removal of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) from U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations List

Press Release
For Immediate Release
25 September 2012

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE ISSUED VIA PR NEWSWIRE.

Washington DC—On 21 September 2012, U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, informed the Congress of her intent to remove an Iranian dissident group, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. Upon publication in the Federal Register in about 7 days from her announcement, the delisting becomes official and all the consequences of sanctions embodied in the designation will also be lifted by different U.S. Government agencies.

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 stated,

“I concur with Secretary Clinton’s announcement to delist the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) as a long-overdue recognition that as the largest dissident organization in the Iranian parliament in exile—the National Council of Resistance of Iran—the MEK did not meet the statutory criteria necessary for terror tagging under U.S. law.

“The MEK only carried the terrorist label due to persistent lobbying by the Iranian regime and miscalculation by successive American presidents that concessions would appease Tehran’s clerical rulers and diminish state-sponsored proxy violence.”

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, (Ret), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force stated,

“Now that the terrorist tag has been removed from the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) by Secretary Clinton, collection of dissident information as lead intelligence can accelerate and complement that of western intelligence services to bolster sanctions against Iran. Origins of international sanctions against Tehran came from blockbuster intelligence revelations of the MEK and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the parliament in exile of the Iranian resistance.”

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, (Ret), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Pacific joined General McInerney in welcoming the announcement by Secretary Clinton and stated,

“As the guns of war with Iran are becoming louder for a post-American 2012 presidential elections conflict scenario, research of the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) suggests how important it is for the Washington to refrain from hamstringing the MEK with a terrorist designation. By delisting the organization, it can increase its role in facilitating political change in Iran.

“Delisting the MEK should jumpstart intelligence revelations at a critical time when such information can be useful in demonstrating Tehran’s propensity to cheat on its obligations to the United Nations and potential targeting of Iranian nuclear sites, if military force has to be used as an option of last resort.”

Captain Charles “Chuck” Nash, U.S. Navy (Ret) welcomed the Clinton announcement to remove the terrorist label on the MEK. Nash stated,

“Like other former military officers, I am very concerned about the exposure of unarmed civilian members of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) who suffer at the mercy of their jailers in Baghdad. Because of the pushback by Tehran against the removal of the MEK terrorist designation, its members in Iraq will be subject to recrimination. The Iranian press abounds with statements against delisting, perhaps prelude for Tehran to order Baghdad to launch a third assault on the MEK members like those in 2009 and 2011.”

Founder and President of Global Initiative for Democracy (GID) and former Freedom House Executive Director, Bruce McColm, said,

“With the delisting of MEK, which was the most distinct yardstick for the policy of appeasing Iran, the focus must now shift to assisting the Iranian people as they endeavor to bring down their oppressive rulers. The MEK can certainly play the role of the catalyst in utilizing its enormous political and organizational wherewithal to this end.”

Professor Raymond Tanter, President of the IPC and former member of the National Security Council staff in the Reagan-Bush administration said,

“It is encouraging that commitments made by the United State were reiterated on 29 August 2012, when Victoria Nuland, State Department Spokesperson, said the Department urges the Government of Iraq to continue steps to address humanitarian concerns raised at Camp Liberty by its residents [now some 3,000 members of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq).”

Specifically, Nuland said,

“The United States…reiterates its commitment to work towards resolution of humanitarian issues at … [Liberty], including sustainable means for the continued supply of water and electricity. The United States also reiterates its commitment to support the safety and security of the residents throughout the process of their relocation outside of Iraq.”

“The United States will have to monitor implementation of such commitments,” stated Tanter.

Dr. Daniel Pipes, President of the Middle East Forum, has published over a dozen articles and given several interviews in multiple languages about the MEK, including on Iranian expatriate communities whose annual rallies in Paris are events attended by tens of thousands of supporters of the MEK. Concerning the announcement by Secretary Clinton to remove the MEK designation, Dr. Pipes stated, “A special vote of thanks to all those analysts, led by the indefatigable Raymond Tanter, who established that the MeK is not terrorist and that relations with it serve the national interests of the United States.”

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.

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.]

Empowering Iran’s Opposition for Regime Change from within

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL POST FROM HAARETZ, AN ISRAELI NEWSPAPER

8 June 2012

To facilitate regime change from within Iran, it is critical to remove the terrorist designation from the MEK, and to protect and resettle its members.

To bring about regime change from within Iran requires a dissident organization with the kind of leadership skills that helped create a coalition to overthrow the shah of Iran. Only one viable group that rejects clerical rule in Iran remains from the days of the Islamic Revolution – the Iraq-based Mujahideen-e-Khalq, the largest group within the National Council of Resistance of Iran (the Paris-based parliament-in-exile ). Although primarily based in Iraq and France, both groups exercise considerable influence within Iran.

In a study of several formal Iranian opposition organizations during 2005, the Iran Policy Committee concluded that the MEK and the NCRI have the expertise and means to join and lead a coalition for political change in Iran; and in a follow-up study, the IPC found that despite the law and facts, these two dissident groups were hampered from doing so because of being tagged as terrorist organizations by the U.S. Government. In addition, the terrorist tag harmed the ability of the MEK and NCRI to collect intelligence on the Iranian regime, information that had been instrumental in bringing about international inspections and sanctions.

Regarding the origins of the inspections-sanctions link, The New York Times reported that upon coming to office in 2009, President Obama gave the order to speed up a wave of cyberattacks against Iran. The article states, “Tehran sensed his vulnerability, resumed enriching uranium at an underground site at Natanz, one whose existence had been exposed just three years before.” But, in fact, The Washington Post correctly credited, “An exiled opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, [which] first publicly revealed the existence of Iran’s much larger uranium facility at Natanz in 2002.”

Indeed, during August 2002, the NCRI reported the existence of a secret nuclear facility near Natanz. An independent think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, confirmed the revelation, identified the site as a uranium enrichment facility, and that December, released imagery of Natanz.

In a 2006 study, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, (CSIS), a Washington, D.C. think tank, found that “The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) revelations about Iran’s secret nuclear program did prove to be the trigger point in inviting the IAEA into Tehran for inspections…”

Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2011, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing to examine US strategic objectives towards Iran. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

On 3-4 June 2012, David Cohen, the U.S. Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, was in Israel, where he discussed additional sanctions against Iran with the heads of both the Mossad and IDF Intelligence. On 8 June, UN nuclear watchdog agency chief Yukiya Amano met in Vienna with Iranian representatives to negotiate access for inspectors to a suspect nuclear site, but such talks failed to reach agreement and reinforced the need for sanctions to coerce Tehran to negotiate seriously. The Cohen and Amano visits highlight the nexus of inspections and sanctions.

Considering the continued blacklisting of the MEK (and NCRI), it’s worthwhile to examine essential aspects of the organization: its ideology, support within Iran, and how the group relates to Israel.

In IPC research, we have interviewed most of the MEK leaders in both Iraq and France, as well as analyzed their foundational statements and documents. We determined their positions to be consistent with democratic principles. Tehran seeks to delegitimize and link Israel and the MEK, partly because both are committed to the rule of law rather than reign by unelected clerics. We found that leaders and rank-and-file of the MEK support a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem and Israel’s right to exist. In contrast, other dissidents have called for the annihilation of Israel, as well as preservation of the nuclear program.

Abroad, no other dissident organization can mobilize similar numbers of expatriates at its rallies. (See two references to the work of Daniel Pipes below this post.) On June 23, MEK supporters will hold their 9th annual rally in Villepinte, France. The event regularly draws upward of 80,000 supporters, including many Arabs, Christians, and Jews.

Back in Iran, the disproportionate number of summer 2009 protesters arrested, sentenced to death, and hanged because of their association with the MEK also indicates the organization’s significant presence on the Iranian street. And the vast majority of an estimated 30,000 political prisoners massacred in summer 1988 belonged to the MEK. Risking one’s life to divulge highly classified intelligence is a clear indication that even in the most sensitive field of national security, there are MEK supporters.

The IPC conducted a content analysis of references to all formal Iranian opposition groups in regime media during 2005, in both Farsi and English. The team found that state-run media paid 350 percent more attention to the MEK than all other organizations combined.

And yet, since 1997, the MEK has been on the list of foreign terror organizations compiled by the State Department. The designation almost paralyzes a group that operates openly, and makes it illegal for U.S. citizens to provide it with material support. The more recent roots of this ongoing aberration go back to the summer of 1997, when a “moderate” cleric, Mohammad Khatami, was elected as Iran’s new president. The Clinton administration saw inclusion of the MEK on the terrorist list as a goodwill gesture to the new regime, with which it was hoping to open a dialogue.

On June 1, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington informed the State Department that it had until October 1 to make a decision on the status of the MEK; otherwise the court would order its revocation from the list. The Department can be expected to allow that full period to pass to delay delisting out of a desire to keep alive the moribund nuclear talks with Iran, which threatens to end talks if the MEK were delisted.

To facilitate regime change from within Iran, it is critical to remove the terrorist designation from the MEK, and to protect and resettle its members who are under constant attacks and threats from Iran and its proxies in Iraq. The Iranian people, as well as Jerusalem and Washington, all have an interest in empowering the Iranian opposition. The current policy does just the opposite; it empowers the regime in Iran.

Prof. Raymond Tanter served on the senior staff of the National Security Council in the Reagan administration, and has been a visiting professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His most recent book is “Terror Tagging of an Iranian Dissident Organization” (Amazon Kindle).

Regime Change from within Iran to Counter Tehran’s “Talking about Talks”

Yukiya Amano, Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency
Photo: http://www.iaea.org

Head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, Yukiya Amano, made premature remarks about “progress” in getting Tehran to discuss inspections of what may be a nuclear weapons trigger.  Eager for “good news,” the Western media  became overly optimistic about the 23-24 May 2012 Baghdad Talks between the Iranian regime and the major powers.Underlying this hopefulness is that diplomacy is buying time and hence delaying any plans for Israel to launch attacks against Iranian nuclear sites. Iran rejects a new package of proposals put forward by the powers, seeks to get into a “proposal-counter proposal” process, and reverts to its pattern of  “talking about talks.” Iran demands sanctions relief and a wider agenda, while the major powers insist on discussing Iran’s nuclear file without such relief at this stage. Not surprisingly, the two sides agreed to hold a fourth round of talks in Moscow on 18-19 June 2012.

In the context of endless negotiations, the military option arises again as the default alternative. But what about a third option—regime change from within Iran—in addition to placing added emphasis on the military alternative as the May Baghdad round of diplomacy failed like prior rounds in Geneva during December 2010 and Istanbul in April 2012?

Critics answer that before regime change can occur, Iran’s “zone of immunity” from attack will increase as it uses time to make nuclear sites relatively invulnerable to attack. But the Islamic Republic is already using “diplomatic time” to become more immune to airstrikes, while the regime change clock is barely ticking.

To accelerate regime change from within requires Jerusalem and Washington to have friends in Tehran, which is the topic of an article Raymond Tanter wrote as an op-ed for the 22 May 2012 Jerusalem Post,  a slightly revised version of which appears below.

Jerusalem, Tehran, and Washington

22 May 2012

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL ARTICLE IN THE JERUSALEM POST

Ahmadinejad at nuclear ceremony in Tehran. Photo: Reuters

As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu pulls main political groups into a wall-to-wall coalition, he is in position to choose either military attacks on Iranian nuclear sites or to wait for international sanctions and covert action to compel Tehran to cease progress on a nuclear weapons capability. At issue, however, is whether these are the only alternatives available.

A third option involves regime change from within Iran, of the kind to make less likely pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. Such an approach requires Jerusalem and Washington to have friends in Tehran.

While the enemy of my enemy might still be my enemy, assume for the moment the conventional wisdom is correct: An enemy of the Iranian regime is a good candidate to be a friend of Israel.

In fact, the main Iranian dissident group that rejects clerical rule in Tehran, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK), reaches out to Washington and does not oppose Israel.

By contrast, the Iranian Green Movement faction, headed by Mir Hossein Mousavi, accepts clerical rule and has a history of anti- Israel activities, such as calling for it to be annihilated.

As the U.S. State Department decides whether to remove the MeK from its terrorist list, the drive to be delisted would benefit from a push from the pro-Israel community. Because delisting would send an implicit but unmistakable signal to Tehran that regime change from within is on the table, one would think the pro-Israel community would be active in the fight for removal of the MeK from the list. But there is no sign of the community’s influence in the delisting process. The community, however, is very active in the sanctions process.

As sanctions pressure Iran to make concessions at the May 23-24 Baghdad Talks on Iran’s nuclear file, it is useful to note that Mousavi of the Iranian Green Movement said consequences of giving up Iran’s nuclear program would be “irreparable.”

In contrast, the MeK opposes Iranian production of nuclear weapons; and to back up its words, the MeK reveals Tehran’s covert activities to procure uranium enrichment and weaponization equipment. In issuing blockbuster intelligence on Iranian progress toward nuclear weapons capability, the MeK laid the framework for international sanctions imposed on Iran.

There is an assumption among pundits of an alliance of convenience between Israel and the MeK, but it rests on thin evidence of unnamed officials and an Iranian intelligence agent, Massoud Khodabandeh.

Allegations of a covert alignment works in favor of those who would keep the MeK on the U.S. terrorist list, weakening its ability to help build a coalition to remove the clerical regime from power in Tehran. While uncertainty about such an alignment may reinforce Israel’s deterrent posture vis a vis Iran, it may be only a Pyrrhic achievement in view of costs incurred in inadvertently maintaining the MeK on the U.S. terrorist list.

In a research trip to Iraq during 2008, I reported on interviews and documents that corroborated a tight relationship between the MeK and the US military in Iraq, but not with American diplomats. In addition, I reported how Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) spreads false narratives about the MeK, some of which US diplomats echo.

In October 2011, MeK-supplied information reinforced U.S. intelligence to expose Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force for plotting to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States and blow up the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

That disclosure reinforced additional sanctions the U.S. Treasury placed on the IRGC-QF three days earlier.

And what is Tehran’s response when confronted with evidence of its complicity in the assassination plot? The Ministry of Intelligence and Security blamed Israel and the United States, while also claiming MeK involvement.

To its credit, the State Department promptly denied MeK responsibility, accused Tehran of “fabricating news stories,” and of spreading “disinformation” to exploit skepticism about the plot.

While it might make some strategic sense for Israel to remain silent about any involvement with the MeK and sit on the sidelines in the group’s effort to be removed from the U.S. terrorist list, there is no excuse for the pro-Israel community to refrain from seeking removal of the MeK from the list and helping to allay suffering of its supporters in Iraq, who languish under prison-like conditions, hoping to be resettled in friendly countries rather than forcibly repatriated to Iran.

The State Department has said it was looking favorably at delisting the MeK if it continued cooperating by vacating a former base inside Iraq, called Camp Ashraf, to another location, Camp Liberty.

There are about 1,200 MeK members remaining in Ashraf and some 2,000 already in Liberty.

But the fly in the ointment is that the State Department also said it might still rule against delisting the MeK if evidence turned up of a capability and intent to commit terrorism in Ashraf after complete relocation to Liberty, a condition described by former U.S. military commanders as “absurd,” because they supervised inspection of Ashraf, it was under American military control from 2003-2009, and Iraqi military monitoring and control thereafter.

Such a condition is a virtual invitation for Iranian agents to plant weapons in Ashraf, which then could be used by the State Department as indicators of capability and intent for the MeK to commit terrorism.

It is in this final phase of decision making at the State Department where the American pro-Israel community might make a difference, but it sits quietly on the sidelines of an epic struggle: whether Israeli and U.S. policy should include not only talks, sanctions, and threats to take military action but also a “regime change from within” option for Iran.

—–

The writer was a frequent Visiting Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is Emeritus Professor at the University of Michigan, and former member of the Senior Staff of the National Security Council in the Reagan-Bush administration.