Daniel Pipes Blog  

Latest Posts  |  Archive  |  Entries by Topic  |  

Washington Puzzles over the Mujahedeen-e Khalq

by Daniel Pipes
Sun, 17 Aug 2003
updated Mon, 26 May 2008

Print

Send

Comment

RSS

Share:

It finally happened. The Treasury Department on August 15 (1) listed the National Council of Resistance in Iran as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and (2) "clarified" that the National Council of Resistance and People's Mujahedin of Iran are aliases of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK). This step has the effect of "freezing all assets and properties and prohibiting transactions between U.S. persons and these organizations." Meanwhile the State Department closed the MEK's two U.S. offices.

This is not quite what Patrick Clawson and I called for three months ago in our article on the MEK. Rather, we recommended that the U.S. government "should come to the sensible conclusion that [the MEK] poses no threat to the security of the United States or its citizens, and remove it from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations."

Others feel the same way: "This group loves the United States. They're assisting us in the war on terrorism; they're pro-U.S. This group has not been fighting against the U.S. It's simply not true," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House International Relations Committee's Central Asia and Middle East Subcommittee, has said.

In contrast, the Islamic Republic of Iran bestowed some rare unadulterated praise on Washington, calling this action "a positive step that conforms to its international responsibilities." The regime's reaction certainly did nothing to contradict the MEK's furious reaction (in an unposted statement by Alireza Jafarzadeh) to the recent steps: "The rush to take this action can only be interpreted in the context of a back-channel and dirty deal offered by the religious fascism ruling Iran and in response to its public demands to close down this office."

Despite the seeming finality of the U.S. government's decision, it still appears to be less than whole-hearted. Today's Washington Post reports Jafarzadeh saying that "those who support the group are being left alone by the U.S. government, and non-U.S. citizens are not being deported." So maybe there is still hope against hope for a less than total appeasement of Tehran. (August 17, 2003)

Nov. 9, 2003 update: Despite its being on the terrorism list, the MEK remains in an odd limbo, as described in today's Washington Post:

"The problem is they're still labeled as terrorists, even though we both know they're not," said [U.S.] Sgt. William Sutherland, explaining why a reporter could not enter [the MEK installation in Iraq known as] Camp Ashraf. "Much as I'd like to go and do a story myself on how they're not terrorists—rather, they're patriots—it's not going to happen until they get put on the green list." …

Last month, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell wrote Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to remind the Pentagon that the mujaheddin's forces in Iraq are supposed to be U.S. captives, not allies.

At Camp Ashraf, however, U.S. soldiers idling in the chalky dust outside the compound said they were uncertain even whether they were guards. "It's kind of hard to say," said a sergeant who declined to give his name.

Do prisoners invite guards over for dinner? The mujaheddin hosted a banquet for the Americans, laying out a spread of chicken and French fries after showing off a new museum dedicated to the history of their struggle.

As these contradictions suggest, the U.S. government has yet to figure out its relationship with the MEK. The result is policy chaos. Let's hope this means that something constructive might yet come out of it.

Nov. 13, 2003 update: Responding to the above-referenced article on Nov. 9, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice gave an interview insisting that the Bush administration sees the MEK as "part of the global war on terrorism" and its members "are being screened for possible involvement in war crimes, terrorism and other criminal activities." She went on: "I just want to be very clear that the U.S. remains committed to preventing the MEK, which is now contained in Iraq, from engaging in terrorist activities, including activities against Iran, and its reconstitution inside Iraq as a terrorist organization." Will the policy stick this time?

Dec. 21, 2003 update: In a new twist, Paul Bremer announced last night that "We want to involve the UN High Commission for Refugees in settling the mujahideen in three countries," without specifying which countries. But his implication was clear; the roughly 3,800 MEK members in Iraq would be expelled, but not to Iran as the Tehran authorities have been demanding. Predictably, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting reports on the howls of outrage this decision has elicited from Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi, who called it "unacceptable" and again pointed out that the U.S. government does not treat MEK members like real terrorists: "The US has detained a group of people who are accused of collaborating with the Al-Qaeda in Guantánamo, and on the other hand allows another group of terrorists to freely walk around the world." So, it looks as though good sense is prevailing and the MEK, a would-be if imperfect U.S. ally, is not being sent to its doom in Iran.

July 9, 2004 update: David Ignatius reports in the Washington Post about a secret meeting in May 2003 in Geneva, where U.S. and Iranian officials explored an exchange of their respective captives - Al-Qaeda for Mujahedeen-e Khalq. The Iranians promised amnesty to most of the 3,800 MEK members and not to apply the death penalty for the roughly 65 leaders who would be tried. According to Ignatius, who rues that this deal did not go through, it failed because the Bush administration (surprise!), "bowing to neoconservatives at the Pentagon who hoped to use the Mujahedeen-e Khalq against Tehran," opposed it. (Note how the neoconservatives are implicitly not part of the administration but some alien force.) The muj, it appears, survived another near-miss.

July 27, 2004 update: After 16 months, the State Department and FBI have found there is no basis to charge the 3,800 MEK members held in de facto American custody in Camp Ashraf with violations of American law, reports the New York Times. Then, after MEK members signed an agreement rejecting violence and terrorism, the deputy commanding general in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, wrote in a July 21 letter, addressed to the "people of Ashraf," that the U.S. military had designated MEK members "protected persons," giving them new rights of protection against collective punishment and immunity against expulsion. ("Protected persons" are covered in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with civilians in wartime.) Miller wrote that the agreement not to resort to violence "sends a strong signal and is a powerful first step on the road to your final individual disposition." The letter includes General Miller's indicating he was "writing to congratulate each individual living in Camp Ashraf" on their new status.

Nonetheless, the State Department (ever-intent on appeasing the Islamic Republic of Iran) insisted that this determination does not affect the MEK's designation as a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Say again? Well, an unnamed "senior American official" told reporter Douglas Jehl that "A member of a terrorist organization is not necessarily a terrorist. To take action against somebody, you have to demonstrate that they have done something."

Muhammad Mohaddessin of the MEK unsurprisingly took issue with this logic: "the fact of the matter is that there is no reason for keeping the Mujahedeen on the terrorism list at all because if these thousands of people who are in Iraq are not terrorists - when they all have been screened, and no terrorism link has been found - then really there is no basis whatsoever for accusing the Mujahedeen of being a terrorist organization."

July 29, 2004 update: MEK's winning the "protected persons" status, reports Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor, "underscores the divisions in Washington over US strategy in the Middle East and the war against terrorism. It's also a function of the swiftly deteriorating US-Iran dynamic, and a victory for US hawks who favor using the Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization … as a tool against Iran's clerical regime." Certainly, Tehran reacted with predictable fury: "We already knew that America was not serious in fighting terrorism," noted Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, adding sardonically that the U.S. government had created a new category of "good terrorists." For good measure, he denounced the American use of the Geneva Conventions as "naïve and unacceptable."

Peterson also quotes Ali Ansari of the University of St Andrews going so far as to predict that it "will be interpreted in Iran as another link in the chain of the U.S. determination to move onto Iran next," adding that "US-Iran relations are drifting into very dangerous waters at the moment." And for good measure the reporter gives space to the hare-brained notion of Mohamed Hadi Semati of Tehran University, now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, that the MEK's change of status is related to the U.S. presidential election. "This whole dynamic is tied up with [US] domestic politics...and not about the [MEK] itself."

Oct. 18. 2004 update: Paulo Casaca, a Portuguese Socialist MEP and president of the European Parliament's delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, writes in the Wall Street Journal about visiting the MEK in Iraq:

Arriving at Camp Ashraf after traveling around Iraq felt like reaching an oasis. Traffic police who imposed fines on speeding; Ashraf was the only place I found in Iraq where traffic rules were respected and enforced. People could move in peace and freedom. The urban infrastructure, such as water, sanitation and electricity, was very well maintained by the Iranians themselves.

The sprawling enclave looked like a microcosm of another Iran. Here, where all the road signs are in Farsi and English, I found an extraordinary collection of mainly middle class, university-educated activists united by their hatred of the Islamic fundamentalist regime in their homeland.

I was also struck by the cultural diversity: Dozens of well-stocked libraries, several theaters and movie halls, five orchestras and, according to Kamyar Izadpanah, a U.S.-educated composer, one of the best Persian music conservatories in the world. Two universities—set up with the help of professors from Baghdad University—teach a wide array of subjects from law to engineering.

Comment: While five orchestras and two universities sounds a bit rich for a community of under 4,000 persons, the lawfulness and orderliness of Camp Ashraf bely the notion that its denizens present a threat to the Americans or Europeans whose governments have placed the MEK on their terror lists.

Dec. 21, 2004 update: Keeping things murky, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday reinstated charges (that a lower court had thrown out) against seven Los Angeles-area residents accused of raising funds for the Mujahedeen-e Khalq. The five Iranians and two Iranian Americans were charged with violating a 1996 anti-terrorism law by providing "material support" to the MEK with funds solicited at Los Angeles International Airport.

Dec. 30, 2004 update: Further confusion. We read back in June 2003 that the French government sent out 1,300 police to invade the MEK's international headquarters in Auvers-sur-Oise and arrest 165 MEK members as well as seize its assets. Anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguière ordered the raids on the basis of the MEK's "criminal association aimed at preparing terrorism acts and for financing a terrorist enterprise." So, why have I just received a particularly elegant New Year's card from Maryam Rajavi and a season's greeting card from Muhammad Mohaddessin, both sent from its headquarters in Auvers-sur-Oise? (Of note too is the Rajavi card bearing a large French stamp of Vincent van Gogh's La Méridienne d'après Millet.)

Feb. 14, 2005 update: Perhaps things are sorting themselves out. Newsweek reports that the Bush administration "is seeking to cull useful MEK members as operatives for use against Tehran, all while insisting that it does not deal with the MEK as a group. … Some Pentagon civilians and intelligence planners are hoping a corps of informants can be picked from among the MEK prisoners, then split away from the movement and given training as spies" Maryam Rajavi, the MEK leader, acknowledges these efforts but dismissed them: "There have been efforts to recruit individuals, or to dismantle parts of the movement. These have failed."

Apr. 11, 2005 update: Capt. Vivian Gembara, Esq. worked for American forces as a military lawyer with the MEK in Iraq; she has now published an account of her experiences at GlobalPolitician.com and drawn some conclusions from them. Referring to the MEK forces as the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA), she recounts how U.S. Special Forces were the first to encounter the NLA and understand "their value as potential human intelligence sources." But the NLA was classified as a terrorist organization, what Gembara calls "an outdated and inaccurate label," and that ended the possibility of the cooperation proffered by the NLA. Instead, U.S. forces disarmed NLA soldiers and placed them in Camp Ashraf, where they remain to this day, and where they will remain "until they can shed their terrorist label," something she does not expect to happen soon.

Gembara characterizes the rejection of the NLA's offer to help as "naïve," arguing that "It would have been a far more useful to our troops, and our intelligence efforts, to work with the NLA" than the hold them captive.

Under our direction, they could have secured buildings and provided us with another set of eyes and ears within the communities. Surely their feedback and willingness to help in this capacity far outweighs any information we could have hoped to reap from Camp Ashraf interrogations. Adding insult to injury however is the inconsistent and uneven handling of other militias in Iraq. Despite known ties to the Iranian regime, U.S. officials permitted the Badr Corps, a militant Shiite wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution, to remain both intact and active.

Given the NLA's potential as an "indispensable intelligence source on Iran," and especially its nuclear capabilities, Gembara considers it "reckless to continue to detain and alienate the NLA."

Apr. 15, 2005 update: Another former U.S. military officer who dealt with the MEK in Iraq has come out in its favor. Eli Lake reports in the New York Sun that the former military police commandant of Camp Ashraf, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Cantwell, expressed solidarity with fighters he used to guard at a Washington, D.C. rally: "If there is a terrorist group in Ashraf, where are the terrorists?" He explained to reporters his belief that MEK fighters sincerely intended to cooperate with American soldiers after their voluntary disarming after the coalition forces entered Iraq in March 2003. "Our assessment was that the Mujahadin represented a minimal threat to U.S. forces. There were no incidents of violence. They complied with everything we told them to do."

May 22, 2006 update: The Wall Street Journal's Jay Solomon takes up the question of taking the MEK off the terrorism list in "Iranian Exile Group Aims to Build Bridges":

Some U.S. diplomats say that to delist the MEK now would make Washington appear inconsistent on terrorism and could further incite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They also believe Iran's leadership could use U.S. support of the MEK to further strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad's position, due to what is perceived as widespread antipathy toward the MEK inside Iran. "It could be incredibly provocative in Iran's eyes," a U.S. official said.

The article also includes a strong statement by Rep. Brad Sherman (Democrat of California): "It's the only group on the terrorist list that's been more helpful to the U.S. and more harmful to our enemies. It played a very important role in telling us what happened [at the Iranian nuclear installation] in Natanz. We should be clear on what we expect of them to get off the list."

June 18, 2006 update: Three years and one day after the French government took over the MEK's headquarters and arrested 165 of its members (on which, see the Dec. 30, 2004 update, above), a French appeals court lifted restrictions on 17 members, including Maryam Rajavi, imposed back then. The 17 can now freely communicate between each other, move about France, and travel abroad.

July 5, 2006 update: Tehran inadvertently betrayed what a valuable tool the MEK offers the West when it postponed crucial nuclear talks with the European Union, apparently angry at a visit by Maryam Rajavi, the MEK leader, to the European Parliament. An Iranian official admitted that the visit "could have had a negative impact on the meeting."

Comment: If a mere visit can so disrupt the Islamic Republic of Iran's plans, imagine what a warmer embrace would do to push it in the right direction.

Aug. 24, 2006 update: For a fascinating and candid first-hand account by an American sergeant of his interactions with the MEK, see the comment on this page by Russell Wohlford, "I met these folks." He concludes that the U.S. government "caged the wrong bird."

Sep. 30, 2006 update: "U.S. citizen found in Iraq charged with supporting terror group" reads an Associated Press headline. But it turns out that the group in question is the MEK. Zeinab Taleb-Jedi, 51, a naturalized citizen of Iranian origins, resident in Herndon, Virginia, is accused of going to Iraq in 1999 to attend an MEK training camp. "During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Taleb-Jedi was discovered by coalition forces in an MEK training camp called Ashraf Base," northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles asserted in a statement. Taleb-Jedi has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Brooklyn for providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization and faces up to 15 years in prison.

Comment: The charade of calling the MEK a terrorist group not only impedes policy toward Tehran but exacts a human price. Taleb-Jedi should be released; the MEK has not engaged in terrorism for decades and her enemies are our enemies.

Oct. 18. 2006 update: Paulo Casaca, a Portuguese Socialist MEP and president of the European Parliament's delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, writes in the Wall Street Journal about visiting the MEK in Iraq:

Arriving at Camp Ashraf after traveling around Iraq felt like reaching an oasis. Traffic police who imposed fines on speeding; Ashraf was the only place I found in Iraq where traffic rules were respected and enforced. People could move in peace and freedom. The urban infrastructure, such as water, sanitation and electricity, was very well maintained by the Iranians themselves.

The sprawling enclave looked like a microcosm of another Iran. Here, where all the road signs are in Farsi and English, I found an extraordinary collection of mainly middle class, university-educated activists united by their hatred of the Islamic fundamentalist regime in their homeland.

I was also struck by the cultural diversity: Dozens of well-stocked libraries, several theaters and movie halls, five orchestras and, according to Kamyar Izadpanah, a U.S.-educated composer, one of the best Persian music conservatories in the world. Two universities—set up with the help of professors from Baghdad University—teach a wide array of subjects from law to engineering.

Comment: While five orchestras and two orchestras sounds a bit rich for a community of under 4,000 persons, the lawfulness and orderliness of Camp Ashraf bely the notion that its denizens present a threat to the Americans or Europeans whose governments have placed the MEK on their terror lists.

Dec. 13, 2006 update: The MEK got a major boost towards its rehabilitation yesterday, when the European Court of First Instance, the second highest court, annulled a 2002 European Union decision that froze its funds, along the way raising doubts about the MEK being a terrorist organization.

Mar. 14, 2007 update: Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the MEK remains in limbo, report Ernesto Londoño and Saad al-Izzi of the Washington Post in "Iraq Intensifies Efforts to Expel Iranian Group," unwelcome in Iraq but living there under the protection of the U.S. military, deemed a terrorist group by the State Department but valued for its information by the Pentagon.

American soldiers chauffeur top leaders of the group … to and from their compound, where they have hosted dozens of visitors in an energetic campaign to persuade the State Department to stop designating the group as a terrorist organization. Now the Iraqi government is intensifying its efforts to evict the 3,800 or so members of the group who live in Iraq, although U.S. officials say they are in no hurry to change their policy toward the MEK, which has been a prime source of information about Iran's nuclear program. … The case highlights the occasional discord between the U.S. and Iraqi governments on matters related to Iran. While the U.S. government has accused Iran of supplying Iraqi Shiite militias with sophisticated weapons that it says have been used to kill American troops, Iraq's Shiite-led government has expanded commercial and diplomatic ties with its majority-Shiite neighbor.

The article also contains a first-hand description of Camp Ashraf in January 2007: "It is a largely self-sufficient compound, and the majority of members haven't left in years. It has shops, a swimming pool, an ice cream store, a bakery and a soda factory that makes a cola- and orange-flavored drink locals call Ashraf Cola."

July 10, 2007 update: I today published "Unleash the Iranian Opposition[, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq]," urging the Bush administration to take three steps. "First, let the MEK members leave Camp Ashraf in a humane and secure manner. Second, delist the organization from the terror rolls, unleashing it to challenge the Islamic Republic of Iran. Third, exploit that regime's inordinate fear of the MEK."

Nov. 30, 2007 update: The MEK got a major boost today, as the Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission in the United Kingdom rejected the Home Office's request to keep it on the UK list of terrorist organizations. The Home Office plans to appeal.

The Associated Press calls this decision "an important victory" for the MEK, which the U.S. government and the European Union still consider a terrorist organization. It comes a year after the European Court of First Instance (see Dec. 13, 2006 update, above) unfroze MEK assets, though without removing it from the terrorist list. (Complicated, no?)

Dec. 1, 2007 update: Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (and my co-author of a 2003 article on the MEK, "[Mujahedeen-e Khalq:] A Terrorist U.S. Ally?") had this to say to the Los Angeles Times about the British decision:

I think this ruling would be a substantial boost to the organization, but I don't think they stand a bat's chance in hell of being able to unseat the regime. But I would also say that is irrelevant to our consideration of whether or not to list them as a terrorist organization. If the Mujahedin want to keep on trying to overthrow the regime, that's their privilege. And we should certainly not base our decision on whether we list organizations as a terrorist organization on whether we approve their political goals, or whether their political goals will facilitate or complicate U.S. foreign policy.

Dec. 2, 2007 update: More on the British court's decision and how the UK government's knickers are just as twisted on this subject as its American counterpart: Christopher Booker reports in "Iranians freed from ban" in the Sunday Telegraph that the decision leaves the Brown Government "in a deep double embarrassment. Not only were ministers found to have acted illegally in outlawing the chief Iranian opposition group, the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI), as a terrorist organization; they now face searching questions from their EU colleagues as to why they have twice incited the European Council to a unique act of defiance by ignoring a ruling from the European Court of Justice."

Booker goes on to tell a "shameful story" that he portrays as "one of the most baffling riddles of contemporary politics: why should our Government have repeatedly acted in breach of the law, to appease the murderous regime in Teheran, which has played a key part in arming the insurgents who are killing British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?" The details:

This murky tale goes back to 2001 when Jack Straw, as home secretary, branded the PMOI, alongside al-Qa'eda, as a terrorist organization. As Straw himself admitted in 2006, he did this "at the behest of the Teheran regime". … In 2002, at British instigation, the EU added the PMOI to its own list of terrorist groups, a decision that last December was finally ruled "unlawful" by the ECJ. Unprecedentedly, in January, again at British instigation, the Council of the European Union agreed to defy the ruling of its own court, a decision it confirmed last June - even though by then the Foreign Office admitted the Revolutionary Guards were actively aiding the insurgents fighting British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In August, 35 MPs and peers, led by former ministers, including Lord Waddington, a former home secretary, asked the Proscribed Organizations Appeal Committee, a branch of the High Court, to rule that the proscription of the PMOI was unlawful. Their lawyers produced a mass of evidence to show that the PMOI was not a terrorist organization. The Home Office could produce no evidence to show that it was anything other than a non-violent movement campaigning for democracy. On Friday all three judges ruled in the PMOI's favor, finding that the Home Office had ignored important facts, misunderstood the law and reached a "perverse" decision. It told the Home Secretary to lay an order before Parliament removing the PMOI from its list. Home Officer minister Tom McNulty weakly responded that the Government would seek leave to appeal.

Booker concludes by calling this "A good day for British justice, but one that leaves Mr Straw and his colleagues with some very uncomfortable questions to answer."

Dec. 14, 2007 update: "The Home Office plans to appeal," I wrote two weeks ago, of the Proscribed Organization Appeal Commission's decision to require it to lift a ban on the MEK. The Home Office did appeal, and today comes the news that it lost that appeal. It can still try one last time, petitioning the U.K.' s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

Apr. 25, 2008 update: Patrick Clawson notes in "A Roadmap for the Foreign Terrorist Organizations List" the lack of clarity about the process for revoking a terrorist designation. "Even after organizations have renounced terrorism for many years, their designations persist without a clear explanation, and are based on the assumption that historical violence indicates future potential." He then offers some sound advice:

Any designation review should be based only on terrorism issues, not on the general U.S. government view of the organization in question. If the decision to designate a group is made on foreign policy considerations rather than evidence, then the list will be branded as a political instrument, thus reducing its utility as a means for encouraging other governments to take action against certain terrorist organizations. This is what happened to the list of terrorism-sponsoring states, which simply looks like a set of countries the U.S. government does not like.

In the MEK's case, its designation should not be based on the group's political stance or worries about U.S.-Iranian relations, nor should it be a reward for its reports on Iran's nuclear activities. Over the past three years, the State Department's Country Reports on Terrorism have cited no alleged MEK terrorist activity since 2001, yet have increased allegations pertaining the group's non-terrorist activities.

This advice is operational because an in-depth review of the MEK by the State Department is due by October 2008. Clawson wants that review's decision to be based on two factors.

First, the State Department should only decide if the group is or is not a terrorist group, and not bring in irrelevant information. The criteria should be used in an unbiased, professional manner, relying on evidence rather than prejudice or rumor. Second, the decision should be based on clear set of rules regarding how the U.S. government revokes this kind of designation. At present, it seems that past terrorist activities—no matter how old or far removed—are susceptible to being interpreted as evidence of future potential, consequently justifying a group's continued designation.

May 7, 2008 update: The MEK ended a seven-year legal battle when the three-judge UK Court of Appeal rejected a government challenge to the ruling on November 30, when the Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission rejected a Home Office request to keep the MEK on the list of terrorist organizations. Lord Nicholas Phillips, the lord chief justice, dismissed the Home Office appeal as having "no reasonable prospect of success." He concluded that "The appropriate course is to dismiss her application." Maryam Rajavi replied that "The ruling proves the terror label against the [MEK] was unjust. Western governments and the UK owe the Iranian people and the resistance an apology for this disgraceful labelling. It's time for them to recognise the Iranian people's struggle for democracy." She noted that the immediate practical implication is to unblock frozen MEK assets in Britain and permit it to raise funds there.

May 13, 2008 update: Building on the British momentum, two U.S. representatives, the co-chairs of the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus, Bob Filner (Democrat of California) and Tom Tancredo (Republican of Colorado), hosted a press conference calling for the State Department quickly to follow suit and take the MEK off the terrorist list.

June 23, 2008 update: The British government removed the MEK from its terrorism list.

July 17, 2008 update: I take up the issue of Bush administration policy toward the MEK, especially its Camp Ashraf headquarters, in an article today, "Will Washington Betray Anti-Regime Iranians?"

Related Topics: Counter-terrorism, Iran, Iraq, US policy

TrackBack URL for this post: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/trackback.php/80/5988a/833

Reader comments on this weblog entry

Comment on this weblog entry

Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage