By Dan Rabkin
Source: Global Politician
Soona Samsami, a leading Iranian women’s rights and pro-democracy activist, joins me for an interview. She is the Executive Director of Women’s Freedom Forum and was the U.S. Representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) until its U.S. offices were closed by the State Department in 2003.
It was during Ms. Samsami's tenure that the NCRI was the first to expose to the world the true intentions and purposes of Iran’s nuclear program by revealing the existence of a secret uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak.
Her work has appeared in numerous media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the National Journal, C-SPAN, and the Boston Globe. Additionally, her advocacies have led to numerous actionable items for the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons and violence against women in Iran. Daniel Rabkin interviewed her for the Global Politician.
——————-
Rabkin: Soona Samsami, thank you very much for joining me today.
Samsami: Thank you for giving me this opportunity Dan. I’d also like to send my sincerest greetings to all women in the world, including the women of Iran who have persevered against all odds and resisted oppression, misogyny, and gender discrimination.
Rabkin: Can you start off by telling us a bit about your background and your role in the Iranian opposition?
Samsami: I was born in the city of Isfahan, Iran and am a graduate of Michigan State University. Currently, I serve as the executive director of Women's Freedom Forum. WFF is an organization that has networks with women in Iran and Iraq that confront fundamentalism and champion women's rights. In line with that objective, I represented 15 exiled Iranian women’s organizations in the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. In 1998, I was also appointed the U.S. representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The NCRI is an assembly that works to establish a secular and democratic government in Iran.
Rabkin: Could you please comment on the plight of women inside of Iran today? Why do you think so many Western women’s organizations stay silent on this crucial matter?
Samsami: First of all, I think the most important factor in the silence is the West’s policy of appeasement towards the Iranian regime. This appeasement has prepared a climate where brutality is ignored and oppressors are legitimized. Secondly, the Iranian regime has exhausted enormous capital, in terms of both money and propaganda, to cover its tracks. Thirdly, the Islamic Republic has tried to frame the mistreatment of women within the context of Sharia law and by perverting cultural norms. Collectively, this has led to a misinformed international psyche on the true plight of Iran’s women. The daily discrimination against women and the suffering of these women is, therefore, not heard in its totality within the Western women’s movement.
Islamic fundamentalism is a medieval phenomenon with monopolistic, suppressive, dogmatic, misogynous, and terrorist characteristics which works to preserve and expand the velayat-e-faqih (absolute rule of the clergy). A significant pillar of this school of thought is gender distinction and discrimination against women. Iran is a unique country because it is the first country where fundamentalists managed to attain absolute power and were able to institutionalize their perverted worldview in all social, political, and cultural spheres.
Rabkin: In your mind, what is the best way to bring real change to Iran?
Samsami: It is important to mention here that for 30 years the Iranian people have been protesting and demonstrating to do just that. In 2007 alone, there were some 5,000 demonstrations in Iran by students, workers, teachers, bus drivers, women, and others. All of this signifies enormous potential for democratic change within Iran.
Presently, the least costly and most effective way to bring about change in Iran is to rely on the strength of the Iranian people and their organized resistance. Over 60% of university students in Iran are women. The Iranian resistance is also led by women and is capable of galvanizing the enormous potential of the Iranian people. This is the only way to ensure democratic change in Iran.
In the past 100 years, there have been 3 popular uprisings against tyranny in Iran: We had the constitutional movement in 1906, and then the rise of the nationalist movement led by Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq who became Prime Minister in 1951, and finally the 1979 revolution which ousted the Shah and his secret police, SAVAK, but was unfortunately hijacked by Khomeini. Therefore, the Iranian people have experience and are capable of bringing about a democratic government today.
Presently, and against all odds, over 3,400 members of the Iranian resistance live under the protection of coalition forces in Ashraf City, Iraq. They have been instrumental in exposing Tehran's destructive influence across the border. Ashraf residents continue to play a significant role in promoting reconciliation in Iraq and they continue to help in the formation of a front against Iranian extremism. I must mention that nearly 1,000 of these Ashraf residents are women. Their triumph against Iranian led terrorism continues to inspire the students in Iran that are rising against the regime.
Sadly, misconceptions and erroneous analysis of the relevant circumstances by Western policy makers have led to a tendency towards either appeasement or war. The fact is that appeasement policies have facilitated Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Others, on the other hand, think that they can bring about change in Iran by relying on foreign intervention. Both are wrong.
In a speech delivered at the European Parliament, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI, said that neither war nor appeasement of the regime in Iran is the answer. She called for a “third option” of “democratic change in Iran by the Iranian people and their organized resistance.”
As I just mentioned, appeasing the dictators essentially whitewashes their crimes and, indeed, even empowers them. Western nations’ policies towards Iran have failed because they are centered on placating the regime. In 1997, when the State Department designated the main Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khaq (MEK), as terrorist, it was done, as conceded by a senior Clinton Administration official, "as a goodwill gesture to the Iranian regime and its newly elected moderate president Mohammad Khatami." That misguided policy did not moderate Tehran's behavior. Instead, it heightened Tehran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons and eventually led to the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. If such a policy continues the outcome will further embolden Tehran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons and exporting Islamic extremism to the wider Middle East.
Rabkin: Why do you think the U.S. and Europe continue to keep the NCRI and MEK on the terror list? (In Europe the MEK is designated, while the NCRI is not; in the U.S. both are.)
Samsami: To answer your question, Dan, I need to point out a few facts.
First, two competent European courts, the U.K.’s Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (POAC) and the E.U.’s Court of First Instance, have ruled that the terror listing of the MEK has no legal justification and should be annulled. Their findings have confirmed that the terror listing of Iran’s largest opposition group has no legal or factual basis.
Second, since 2003 Iranian opposition members living in Ashraf have been protected by coalition forces. A detailed 16-month investigation by several U.S. government agencies found no MEK member, living in Ashraf, to be in violation of American law. All Ashraf residents were granted protected persons status under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
As I stated earlier, MEK members in Ashraf played a significant and constructive role in the battle against Iranian fundamentalist influence in Iraq. In addition to exposing Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the MEK has made public valuable information on the violent activities of the Qods Force in Iraq as well.
Many members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, argue that if the 1997 designation of the MEK was meant to appease Khatami – to no avail – then the continued designation of the MEK is politically counterproductive because the appeasement policy has been a failure. These members of Congress believe that the State Department has yet to give up hope on this policy of appeasement and, due to that, continues to keep the MEK on the terror list, in addition to renewing its packages of incentives for the Iranian regime.
History has provided plenty of guidance on the topic of appeasement. Before World War II, and as Churchill cautioned against appeasement of Hitler’s regime, many, including Neville Chamberlain, advocated engagement with Germany. Britain ultimately signed an agreement with Hitler. This agreement allowed Hitler's expansionist machine to prepare before he violated the agreement and launched his aggression on Europe.
The principal problem is still the incorrect and naive understanding of Tehran's malign intentions by the West, as well as its gravitation towards maintaining the status quo. This is happening despite proof of Tehran's unreformable and expansionist ideology as seen in the streets of Baghdad and Basra. In Iraq, and with regards to its nuclear weapons program, Iran has exploited the West’s inability to adopt a decisive policy.
Having said that, the limitations placed on the Iranian resistance, as a result of the terrorist designation, have acted as the main obstacle in facilitating democratic regime change in Iran. To correct this mistake, the State Department should adopt a neutral attitude towards the Iranian resistance.
Rabkin: I have spoken to many of your colleagues from the various organizations that make up the Iranian opposition. A few of them have said that while the Iranian people are vastly young, freedom-seeking, and pro-American, the NCRI and MEK are unpopular inside of Iran. Due to that, I was told that supporting the NCRI and MEK could end up backfiring. What are your thoughts on that argument?
Samsami: In November 2003, NCRI President-elect Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, who by the way has lost two sisters to the last two dictatorships in Iran, called for a referendum on regime change in Iran. Her proposition is the best way for changing the current regime of religious dictatorship.
The ballot box is the only criterion for legitimacy and would solve the multitude of issues that have arisen as a result of the mullahs’ illegitimate rule. Unfortunately, the regime does not have the legitimacy or capacity to allow a referendum to take place. Otherwise, the people of Iran would have already answered your question.
Mrs. Rajavi has repeatedly stated that the Iranian resistance only asks that the West take a neutral stance towards it and stay out of the people’s path to democratic change in Iran. Neither the NCRI nor the MEK have asked for explicit U.S. backing. The central point is not support but interference. Current U.S. policy actively inhibits their activities against the mullahs via the terror listing – this is wrong.
As your War with Iran II article correctly pointed out, hundreds of members of the U.S. Congress have called the NCRI a “legitimate resistance” working to overthrow the regime in Iran. The European Parliament has also echoed this sentiment.
When Ahmadinejad came to New York in 2006, some 20,000 NCRI supporters gathered in front of the U.N. to protest his presence on American soil. Over 50 media outlets covered this event. In June 2007, according to several media reports, as many as 50,000 Iranians gathered in Paris to express support for Mrs. Rajavi and the NCRI.
This all shows that Iran has a viable, organized, and self sufficient resistance which has had 120,000 of its members executed. Thousands more are also imprisoned in the mullahs’ prisons. The people of Iran have already attested to their popularity with blood and tears.
Rabkin: Realistically speaking, if the MEK and NCRI do get delisted from the terror record and are free to pursue their agenda against the mullahs, how would they bring about regime change?
Samsami: Excellent question Dan.
Let’s first look at this question from reverse. Blacklisting an organization is meant to demolish its structure, destroy or limit its activity, freeze its assets, and restrain its members from travel. In other words, the purpose of the designation of the PMOI/MEK, by the West, was to assure Tehran that its main legitimate opposition would be restrained from threatening its theocratic rule and establishing a secular democratic system in that country.
Let me remind everyone that in October 1997, the Los Angeles Times quoted a senior Clinton administration official who said that the designation of the PMOI/MEK was done as a “good will gesture” to the Iranian regime. This blacklisting legitimized the arrest and execution of hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy youth activists for their association with the PMOI/MEK within Iran.
Additionally, millions of dollars of the resistance’s assets were confiscated by governments curtailing the resistance’s activities abroad. Even the NCRI’s US assets were frozen.
In other words, in designating the PMOI/MEK, the West essentially sided with the regime against its democratic opponents. But, despite the repression inside Iran and all of the restrictions imposed on it abroad, the resistance has never lost touch with the Iranian people. To this day, it serves as a counterforce to the regime’s brute force. The movement has maintained its structure, its supporters inside Iran and abroad, and its networks in Iran, enabling it, for example, to expose the regime’s secret nuclear program with intelligence from sources inside Iran.
If it was able to accomplish all of this in shackles, imagine what it is capable of achieving unobstructed. And if you have any doubts about the resistance’s ability to change this regime, just ask the ayatollahs! At any negotiation abroad, at any forum, in any circumstance, the first and foremost demand of Tehran’s rulers is for harsh restrictions against the PMOI/MEK.
Delisting the MEK would send a strong message to the Iranian regime: Its bullying of the global community will no longer be tolerated. Delisting the MEK, the main engine for change in Iran over the past 3 decades, will also send a strong signal to Iranian youth, and the rest of the defiant population there, that their efforts to affect change are welcomed. Delisting the MEK will significantly empower that group and increase its potential which, already at this point, has created immense fear amongst the mullahs.
Let me add a few additional points here:
As the international community’s psyche increasingly finds Iran’s rulers illegitimate, it must also recognize the legitimacy of its democratic alternative. Doing so will demoralize and weaken an important pillar of the regime’s stability: The Revolutionary Guards.
Delisting the MEK and NCRI will also foretell the final end of the West’s appeasement policies. The Iranian regime will also no longer be able to execute MEK members with impunity under the pretext of fighting “terrorism,” when it is the world’s top sponsor of real terrorism.
One must honestly ask this question: How can any opposition group, be it inside or outside of a democratic system, mount a nationwide campaign? Is it not true that it requires resources in terms of both money and people? Is it not true that it requires legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the international community?
As I have noted earlier, the NCRI and MEK have both credibility and legitimacy with the Iranian people. Recognition of that legitimacy by the United States and Europe is what is needed now because that will enable the NCRI and MEK to intensify their efforts to bring change within and outside of Iran.
Earlier, I also mentioned that there were 5,000 protests within Iran in 2007. In addition to the regime’s brutality, a lack of adequate organization can be blamed for the lack of an even more cohesive protest against the regime within Iran. The MEK, by all accounts, has this desperately needed organization.
Despite all of the limitations placed upon it, the MEK has been able to inform the international community about Iran’s nuclear program. At the same time, the MEK works politically to inform Western policy makers about all of the problems the mullahs are causing around the world. The ability to know about Iran’s most secret nuclear projects is a vivid example of the MEK’s capabilities within Iran. The international response to that secret information, and the three U.N. Security Council resolutions because of it, all attest to the worldwide credibility the MEK has.
Rabkin: I understand that the MEK received some very good news recently. Could you please comment on the U.K. Court of Appeal’s recent ruling in favor of the MEK?
Samsami: On May 7th, Britain’s Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court ruling that ruled that the PMOI/MEK should not be listed as a terrorist organization. The three judges that make up the C.O.A. rejected an appeal by the government to that lower court ruling from last November. This ends a seven-year long legal battle and is an indication of the legitimacy of the resistance, and its activities that have been waged against the regime in Iran.
After the ruling, Mrs. Rajavi said, “The ruling proves the terror label against the PMOI was unjust” and that “Western governments and the UK owe the Iranian people and the resistance an apology for this disgraceful labeling.”
On May 8th, the New York Times wrote: “To the extent that the PMOI has retained networks and supporters inside Iran since, at the latest, 2002,” the judges said, using the abbreviation for the group’s full name, “they have been directed to social protest, finance and intelligence gathering activities which would not fall within the definition of terrorism for the purposes of the 2000 Act.”
After all of that, a spokeswoman for the U.K. Home Office said, “the government would delist the MEK.”
The C.O.A. had seen all of the classified materials with respect to the MEK and ruled that there was no evidence that they had been involved in terrorism, and that the PMOI no longer satisfied any of the criteria for appearing on the blacklist.
It is important to note here that the petition to delist the MEK/PMOI was brought forward by 35 distinguished British politicians. With their support of the Iranian resistance, they have acted as the aware conscience of the people of Britain.
This ruling will hopefully have an effect on future U.S. policy as well. On May 7th, the Wall Street Journal quoted a U.S. official who said, “The MEK’s listing will have to be reassessed during the current calendar year, as under State Department guidelines, the designations have five-year life spans.” The official also added, “It’s something we’ll have to deal with.”
I believe that the United States should take into account the findings of the U.K. high court and indeed remove the MEK and NCRI from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations.
Encouraged by the ruling in the U.K., numerous members of Congress, who have on a number of occasions called for the removal of the MEK from the terror list, renewed their efforts to finally overturn the terror tag. Congressman Bob Filner said, “I support the decision of the British Court to recognize the legitimate nature of the MEK.” Congressman Tom Tancredo also noted, “I am confident that if the U.S. State Department looks objectively at these same facts, they will come to the same conclusion.”
Such a delistment is the best way America can promote democracy in Iran and avoid the necessity of a military conflict.
Rabkin: As someone who is very familiar with the intricacies of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, what kind of a timeline do you put on Iran going nuclear? What will be the consequences of an Iran with nuclear weapons?
Samsami: Following the release of the latest (November 2007) National Intelligence Estimate (claiming Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003), the NCRI issued a statement warning the international community about the regime’s deceptions and concealment. The statement also noted that the regime "probably would use covert facilities – rather than its declared nuclear sites – for the production of highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.”
Remarkably, in February 2008, relying on intelligence from MEK sources in Iran, the NCRI revealed that Iran was in fact engaged in covert “uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity." The information suggested that Iran was actively pursuing the production of nuclear warhead in an area called Khojir. Additionally, the NCRI report identified previously undeclared nuclear command and control sites. Collectively, these revelations point to an expedited Iranian nuclear project. Clearly, as long as this regime is in power, the threat of it obtaining nuclear weapons will be constant and imminent for the Iranian people and the world.
To answer your second question Dan, as the world’s number one state-sponsor of terrorism, a nuclear armed Iran would be a disaster for mankind. Currently, Iran actively uses terrorism as leverage in conducting foreign policy. Armed with a nuclear arsenal, Iranian mullahs will waste no time in bullying their way to regional and international hegemony. Moreover, the Iranian people will have to continue to suffer under the ayatollahs’ brutal rule for years to come.
Increased international pressure on Iran is a positive development and should continue. However, as I have previously noted, the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is to empower the Iranian people and their most organized resistance movement, in parallel with stepping up international pressure against the regime. Iranians know the mullahs best and are the only ones capable of uprooting this barbaric, extremist, and medieval regime.
Rabkin: You have said that neither appeasement nor war are good policies with respect to the Iranian regime. However, if there is actionable intelligence indicating that Iran is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons what should be done?
Samsami: As I have noted earlier, Iran’s nuclear threat is imminent. We are already in the very critical time horizon you are referring to. This regime is an entrenched regime and can only be brought down by people who have roots within the fabric of Iranian society and have the capability to organize the people against the regime.
The clock is ticking Dan. The United States and Europe cannot waste time. A policy of decisiveness and firmness towards the mullahs must be adopted. Additionally, they must reach out to the Iranian people and their leading opposition groups who are already calling for regime change.
Rabkin: Hopefully, the Iranian people and their opposition groups get the support they need to finally overturn their regime and send the mullahs to the bone yards of history. Ms. Samsami, thank you again for joining me.
Samsami: I hope so too Dan. It was my pleasure to join you today.
——
Dan Rabkin is a Middle Eastern affairs and national security analyst based in Toronto. He was awarded Canada's Governor General's Medal in 2005. He was also a short-listed national finalist for the Rhodes Scholarship. Dan's expertise lies in Middle Eastern and security affairs, but he is also knowledgeable about the situation in the former Soviet Union and speaks fluent Russian.
