THE INDEPENDENT(Blogs) – By Lord Alton – As the world was preoccupied with the ongoing fiscal debate in Washington, DC, important news that could have serious consequences for global security and U.S. national security passed by with little notice. After years of speculation, debate, unconfirmed reports and intelligence, the Treasury Department announced last week that Iran had struck an agreement with al-Qa’ida, allowing its operatives and facilitators to function there freely.
“This network serves the core pipeline through which al-Qa’ida moves money, facilitators and operatives from across the Middle East to South Asia,” the Treasury said, adding that this includes providing financial support and recruits for al-Qa’ida in Pakistan.
The Treasury said this “illuminated yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism.”
The most active state sponsor of terrorism putting its good offices at the disposal of the most lethal terror group should ring alarm bells. The fact that Tehran is striving to obtain nuclear weapons with impunity exacerbates this situation.
So how should we meet this threat?
One might expect the U.S. to use everything at its disposal to stop or at least disrupt this unholy alliance.
It would be natural to assume that the U.S. would reach out to Tehran’s opponents to increase pressure on the regime and expose its misdeeds.
Here is where U.S. policy becomes baffling. While Tehran is extending its terror tentacles, the State Department keeps the main Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), on its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, hindering its freedom of action.
On July 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the State Department had erred in designating MEK. The court questioned the Secretary’s evidence, even noting that some of the reports in her analysis “express reservations about the accuracy of the information contained therein.”
The court ordered a review. But the State Department is dragging its feet. Almost 400 days have gone by and the review is not completed.
This unjustified delay in implementing the ruling has not only cost the U.S. strategically, it has also cost innocent human lives because the Iranian regime uses the label tocrackdown on dissidents, while the Iraqi government uses it to perpetrate a massacre against MEK members in Camp Ashraf.
In 2002, a former assistant secretary of State told Newsweek that the MEK’s designation was prompted by a “White House interest in opening up a dialogue with the Iranian government.” In 1997, under the Clinton administration, when the MEK was blacklisted, a senior U.S. official described it as a “goodwill gesture to Tehran.”
The Tehran mullahs saw the “goodwill gesture” as a sign of weakness and grew more emboldened.
Instead of basing its decision on dubious political concessions to Tehran, the State Department should be guided by facts and the law.
What are the facts? First, MEK members in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, are unarmed and “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Second, MEK renounced violence more than a decade ago. Third, they were all interviewed by several U.S. agencies in 2004, which concluded that none had violated U.S. laws. Fourth, the MEK has been removed from E.U. and U.K. blacklists after seven court rulings in its favor.
In 2007, a British court characterized the U.K. listing as “perverse” after reviewing all open and classified evidence. In 2008, Britain’s highest court revealed that, after examining secret evidence provided by the government, it was even more convinced that the MEK was not involved in terrorism.
The same finding is echoed in the U.S. At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on July 7, Congressman Ted Poe of Texas said, “I have seen the classified evidence and it is unconvincing. The State Department has not made its case that the MEK should stay on the FTO list. The MEK should not be used as a political tool to appease brutal dictators.”
Dozens of senior former officials from the past three administrations, including three Joint Chiefs of Staff, two CIA directors, an FBI director, a homeland security secretary, an Attorney General, and other national security, intelligence, diplomatic and military leaders have urged Secretary Clinton to revoke the MEK’s designation. They join more than 100 members of Congress and 4,000 parliamentarians across the world.
Let us remember that politics is always local, even for the mullahs. That is what worries Tehran and its lobbyists and has prompted them to launch a demonizing campaign against the MEK and its removal from the list.
Secretary Clinton should do the right thing and remove the MEK from the terrorist list. Long overdue, it would send a strong signal to Tehran’s mullahs and change the equilibrium to which the mullahs have become accustomed.
Lord Alton of Liverpool, a cross-bench member of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords, is a member of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom.
