2013-05-22T04:50:03-04:00 Lord Maginnis http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=lord-maginnis Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Lord Maginnis Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3258668 2013-05-11T08:19:37-04:00 2013-05-13T13:10:59-04:00

Lord Maginnis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lord-maginnis/
Tensions between the outgoing President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Ali Khamenei, the regime's supreme leader, have continued to build over the past year with Ahmadinejad threatening to expose the depths of the regime's corruption as his term in office comes to a close. There are also growing signs of further fissures between Khamenei and Ali Akbar

Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President and a stalwart of the regime. Khamenei is increasingly being backed into a corner both at home and abroad and faces a catch-22 with every decision before him.

Should he choose a close confidant as the winner of the sham 'elections', it could set off further internal divisions and feuds, with marginalized factions exposing the regime's corruption and fanning the flames of dissent. A move like this would mean even more repression, censorship and purges within the regime. By running a tight ship Khamenei could ensure that his foreign policy objectives are implemented with little debate or criticism, but such intransigence towards the West and any heightened drive to acquire nuclear weapons would bring added economic embargoes with added internal unrest.

But Khamenei knows that to make a half hearted attempt at an open election with diverse candidates may set the stage for his own eventual demise. It could embolden politicians who have already begun to defy him, and further undermine his legitimacy even within the ruling establishment. It could also create further divisions over the regime's foreign policy and strategic goals, as evidenced by the recent criticisms voiced by a number of politicians.

The nuclear issue is a two-edged sword. For the regime to continue to defy the international community and withstand increasingly tough sanctions must inevitably exacerbate domestic unrest and criticism of Khamenei's rule. Alternatively, for the regime to belatedly attempt to come to an agreement with the West must imperil its prestige. This would weaken the resolve of the regime's supporters at a crucial time. Both paths are fraught with peril. Hence, elections are not the only tough choice facing Khamenei.

The imminent collapse of the Syrian regime is yet another dilemma that Tehran faces, and the recent involvement of Hezbollah in the conflict demonstrates just how desperate Iran has become to delay this reality. The loss of its main regional ally Bashar Assad would be such a disastrous blow to Iran that it is willing to risk its legitimacy in the Arab world just to stave off the inevitable.

Above all, Khamenei fears a repeat of the protests that followed the 2009 presidential elections. The radicalization of the youth and the chants of "down with the supreme leader" will surely leave Khamenei trembling. He fears popular calls for regime change and an increasingly organized opposition. It comes as no surprise that the regime's biggest fear is the National Council of Resistance of Iran and its charismatic leader Mrs. Maryam Rajavi.

Mrs Rajavi's proposals for a democratic, secular, non-nuclear republic in Iran with an end to the current and futile open-ended negotiations and appeasement but, at the same time, rejecting any foreign intervention or military action, offers the West and the region a structured way forward and the opportunity to avoid the chaos that besets Syria.

Last summer, some 100,000 Iranians attended a global gathering in Paris to echo the demands for change. They were joined by a broad coalition of political and senior ex-military personalities from the United States, Europe and the Middle East. The gathering showcased the broad support for, and legitimacy of, the opposition and its vision for the future of Iran.

In recent weeks, supporters of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the pivotal force in the NCRI, have stepped up activities throughout Iran propagating regime change as the ultimate vote of Iranians. Despite a widespread crackdown, graffiti and posters denouncing the sham elections and the regime have appeared in the streets of Tehran and other cities.

As Khamenei scrambles to find temporary solutions to keep his sinking ship afloat, the Iranian people and their Resistance move closer to achieving their dreams of a new Iran. The time is come when the world community needs to cast aside false hopes of dialogue with the mullahs and should give tangible moral and diplomatic support to the Iranian people and the NCRI to replace this regime and to make Iran a better place.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1956353 2012-10-11T19:22:28-04:00 2012-12-11T05:12:01-05:00

Lord Maginnis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lord-maginnis/
The regime will go to any lengths to demonise the PMOI precisely because it is native Iranians under the inspired leadership of Mrs Maryam Rajavi who are offering a viable democratic alternative. It was this organisation that first revealed the regime's nuclear program in 2002, (has followed up with further damning revelations), and has, at considerable cost in lives and personal freedom, challenged the regime for the last 30 years. The regime's greatest fear is that the Iranian Resistance will be recognized as an alternative to the Islamic Republic and will attempt to marginalise and eliminate it.

The regime has continually used the labels 'terrorist' and 'cult' in order to dehumanise the members of the PMOI and to neutralise its impact. Such accusations have been repeated by the regime's sympathisers and advocates and those who have interest in maintaining the status quo - all in the foolish belief that Ahmadinejad & co may yet be amenable to reason.

One quite sinister campaign has been pursued by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), an organisation that many now view as the de facto lobby of the Iranian regime in the United States. It was the NIAC that actively and openly opposed the inclusion of Iran's oppressive Revolutionary Guards in the US terrorist list. The IRGC ruthlessly suppresses not only the ambition of ordinary Iranian people in their struggle for freedom and justice, but has also played a key role in supporting Assad's dictatorial regime in Syria. Trita Parsi, the President of NIAC claimed the de-listing of the PMOI was a "gift" for Ali Khamenei - the mullahs' supreme leader - clearly maintaining its solidarity with Tehran.

Clear evidence is available within diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. One striking example from a leaked UK cable refers to the subject of the PMOI's imminent de-listing by a UK court having been raised with Iran's lead negotiator on the nuclear issue, Saeed Jailili. The cable describes the manner in which the British government sought to assure Jailili that they had been looking to appeal the ruling in every way possible. The cable confirms Tehran's uncompromising stance on the matter; "Iran-specific policy concern...is that any Iranian perception of Western support for PMOI could endanger resolution of the nuclear issue."

One of the main demonising sources of the PMOI is the RAND Corporation. One report was prepared in 2009 by James Dobbins, who has a long history of involvement with NIAC and Trita Parsi. Dobbins, far from being a disinterested third party, was a member of the Campaign for a New Policy on Iran, an organization linked to NIAC, and campaigning for the removal of sanctions on Tehran.

One fact that the mullahs' and apologists consistently ignore is that the PMOI has won victories in every court it has petitioned (18 in all), including those decisions in EU and UK courts. Those decisions are all a matter of public record, and were based solely on evidence. As the walls begin to close in around a regime known for its outlandish lies and propaganda, it will continue to lash out in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable. Such reactions will not be of any surprise.

But the people of Iran, who took to the streets again last week, know who their enemy is. Despite the mullahs' desperate attempts, the inevitable fall of their cruel regime will come at hands of the Iranian people and through their resistance. The Middle-East, indeed the world, will be a better and safer place.

The question is where do the world's leaders want to be; can they properly read the runes and be ready to seize the opportunity when it comes?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1871947 2012-09-10T16:55:22-04:00 2012-11-10T05:12:01-05:00

Lord Maginnis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lord-maginnis/
What was once thought to be a political necessity has proven to be a political fiasco as Iran's mullahs' regime moves ever closer to producing a viable nuclear bomb. It is now time to put an end to this fruitless and unjust policy, and remove the terror label that was placed, unjustifiably, on the PMOI at that time.

The flawed reasoning at that time can be traced to Tehran's precondition that the PMOI had to be branded as terror group if the regime were to engage on negotiations and the belief that ensuing negotiations would find the regime amenable to give concessions. Hence, in 1997, the United States placed this dissident Iranian group on the FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) list as what one senior Clinton administration official termed "a goodwill gesture" to the then perceived reformist Mohammad Khatami, who was the President of the Iranian regime at the time.

While the EU and UK followed suit, they faced inevitable legal proceedings, which resulted in the de-listing of the PMOI in 2008 and 2009 respectively. Interestingly enough, Wikileaks documents have revealed the U.K. Government's apparent apprehension towards the de-listing of the PMOI as assessed within the Britain's own judicial system.

However, the U.S. government's contempt for its own judiciary's findings was mirrored by the actions of the State Department. A ruling by the DC circuit court of appeals in 2010, found that the groups due process rights were violated, and ordered the State Department to review the designation and respond. Instead of paying heed to this court ruling, the State Department has continued to procrastinate.

Nearly two years later, in another ruling, the DC circuit court of appeals ordered a strict fourth month deadline for a response from the State Department. In its ruling, it found that the State Department "has failed to heed our remand." They added that "the delay has the effect of nullifying our decision while at the same time preventing the PMOI from seeking judicial review."

It seems that the threat of disturbing relations with Iran is of more importance to the West than following the rulings of the judiciary. But is this policy really a political necessity? Interestingly enough it was the PMOI that first revealed Iran's secret nuclear program in 2002, providing a stream of intelligence on Iran's clandestine nuclear activities and egregious conducts in other countries.

To date, and despite countless rounds of failed negotiations, overtures, and resolutions, all have yielded little in terms of concrete changes. Other tactics including computer viruses, sanctions, and isolation have slowed but not stopped Iran's nuclear program.

With the increasing urgency to act before major and disastrous military confrontation becomes unavoidable, the US is searching for options to rein in Iran. Why then is the United States not using this opportunity to abandon its self-defeating policy of suppression of the PMOI and, instead, empower an Iranian opposition group whilst placing real pressure on Tehran? Even this belated change of direction could not only serve US interests but could finally end a legal battle which has served as an embarrassment for the State Department and its respect for the rule of law.

Furthermore, it would remove the greatest obstacle to the relocation of 3,500 PMOI members from Iraq. Third countries are unable to coordinate such an operation until the terror label is removed. Meanwhile, the Government of Iraq has, at behest of Iran's clerical regime, used the U.S. 'terror' designation as an excuse for two massacres against defenceless Iranian dissidents.

Presidential elections or otherwise, the United States is now at a crossroads; with the court deadline approaching, and an urgent need for a more effective policy shift towards the Iranian threat, the time for action is now. De-listing carries no cost, either to taxpayers, or soldiers overseas, yet it must signal a powerful message to the tyrants in Tehran and indicate a U.S Government capable of critical decision-making. Whether in terms of geopolitics, jurisprudence, or humanitarian consideration, the time to de-list of the PMOI is now.

It is time to end this political mistake, and send a strong message to Tehran. Surely, it is obvious that this is the new political necessity!]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1506466 2012-05-10T12:01:22-04:00 2012-07-10T05:12:16-04:00

Lord Maginnis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lord-maginnis/
This week, at a federal court hearing about the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, we witnessed the State Department turn Justice on its head. Despite the public testimony of their own military commanders it was prepared to employ a brazen and blatant lie in order to keep the MEK listed as a foreign terror group (FTO).

Throughout the hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Robert Loeb, the lawyer who represented Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, referred to the dissidents' home at Camp Ashraf as a "paramilitary base". He went further by saying the U.S. government has no way of knowing that the MEK is not a terror group since its members have never allowed a thorough inspection of the 15-square-mile Camp Ashraf. "They say that they have turned over a new leaf, but that has never been verified by the US military," Mr Loeb said.

This claim is so far from the truth that it undermines the very concept of Justice. That because, sitting in the very courtroom were at least two US military chiefs who had done exactly that - inspected Camp Ashraf, searched it with a fine tooth comb, and concluded that its people were not terrorists.

Brig. Gen. David Phillips and Col. Wesley Martin, who took charge of Ashraf after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, could only look at each other in disbelief. For years they have testified to the real truth of the MEK.

Brig. Gen. Phillips personally oversaw the voluntarily disarmament of the dissidents in 2003, accepted by MEK in return for a solemn guarantee of American protection. He was in charge of the in-depth identification and investigation of every single man, and woman at Ashraf. Each one was interviewed by a Joint Interagency Task Force, and a board of officers adjudicated each case. Not a single shred of evidence was found that any of them were linked to terrorism, or indeed any form of criminality.

As a result, it fell to Brig Gen Phillips to inform the MEK leadership that they were classified as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that his unit was charged with their safety and security. Nor is he the only authority on the matter.

In June 2003, then-Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno announced that the MEK "have been completely disarmed. We have taken all small arms and all heavy equipment."

And in July 2006, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV described Camp Ashraf as "a secure military facility that the coalition forces guard on a 24/7 basis. [The residents are] under continuous surveillance and control."

In total, 21 individuals - including more Ashraf commanders like Col. Martin and Lt. Col. Leo McCloskey - have signed an amicus brief attesting to the fact that U.S. forces had complete access to all buildings and personnel at the camp and repeatedly conducted unannounced inspections.

Moreover the U.S. Government also knows that in April 2009, as part of the handover of control over the Camp to Iraqi forces, the incoming 'guardians' thoroughly searched Ashraf, using bomb-sniffing dogs, and provided a written certification that they had found neither weapons nor ammunition.

So how could Mr. Loeb have the bare-faced effrontery to stand before the court and make such a blatantly false statement? No such claim had ever been part of the Government's declared position regarding Ashraf, nor was such an allegation made even in the discredited 2009 decision denying a delisting petition.

What is clear here is that the State Department, in an election year, are continuing to procrastinate - and to adopt any excuse possible means to defend their lack of action. But such indifference to a group of dissidents has very serious consequences.

A year ago, Iraq forces, acting on the behest of the Iranian regime, entered Ashraf and massacred 36 innocent, defenceless residents. To this day, as the dissidents move to another base, ironically called "Camp Liberty", they are subject to ritual humiliation, bullying and intimidation from Iraqi forces.
In the federal court, Judge Stephen Williams accepted that the Iraqi government justifies its actions against the MEK partly due to the fact that the U.S. continues to designate them as a foreign terror organization.

Viet Dinh, who represented the MEK at the hearing, accused Mrs Clinton of "indifference and lassitude" toward the group and said that every day the dissidents remains on the FTO listing is a violation of its Rights.

It cannot be otherwise and lives of thousands of innocent people, to whom America had given its guarantee of protection, depend on it. Election year or not, such procrastination and selfish indifference must end and the MEK should be delisted. The U.S. demeans itself by its legal manipulation of the known facts and by its callous disregard for others - in this instance the MEK.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1354760 2012-03-16T19:03:54-04:00 2012-05-16T05:12:01-04:00

Lord Maginnis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lord-maginnis/ Casting a slur on Fellow Americans who speak up for Tehran's victims

Blaming the victim has been the strategy of oppressors as far back as anyone can remember. Now, in the ongoing struggle to protect the 3,400 Iranian dissidents trapped in Iraq, the strategy has taken an even more perverse turn - to blame those who would help the victims. This is a strategy being pursued, not just by the oppressors, but by "double agents" within the State Department.

A little background: A quarter of a century ago the Iranian dissidents, after they fled the ayatollahs who turned Iran into a theocracy, built Camp Ashraf, inside Iraq, and since then have lived there in peace. They are members of the People's Mujahedin of Iran/Mujahedeen e-Khalq (PMOI/MEK), the leading opposition group to Iran's terrorist regime.

In 2003, after the US-led coalition deposed Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Camp Ashraf residents agreed to disarm and underwent screening by the U.S. agencies, which cleared every single resident. They then accepted the status of protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention and continued to live peacefully in Ashraf - a self-contained community with shops, schools, hospitals, amusements, etc. - just like any small city anywhere.

However, by 2011, when the US Forces withdrew from Iraq, they left responsibility for safeguarding Ashraf vested in the Nouri al-Maliki government. But by then the new Iraqi Administration was little more than a puppet of Iran's mullahs and Maliki, almost immediately, sought to simply drive the dissidents out of Ashraf.

With nowhere to go, other than to be scattered across Iraq or to return to Iran, where they faced death or imprisonment, the Ashraf residents appealed to the free world and the UN. Twice, Maliki's armed forces attacked - killing around 38 defenceless men, women and children and wounding hundreds. Maliki then set a 31 December, 2011 deadline for them to leave Ashraf.

The US and the UN did succeed in brokering a deal that would have them moved to a former U.S. Army base near Baghdad, called Camp Liberty, where they were then to be screened by the UN refugee agency as part of preparation to relocate them in third countries. One immediate obstacle to any smooth relocation was, of course, the State Department's persistence in listing the PMOI/MEK as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The origin of this dated back to the 1990s - a failed gesture to appease Tehran's rulers but it had since been removed from the UK and EU lists and had won a US District Court order to the State Department to "show cause why their listing hadn't been reversed".

In the meantime the "new" Camp Liberty was turned into a virtual prison, with degrading and dehumanising conditions. The first 400 residents who had agreed to go there had no running water, overflowing sewage, and Iraqi armed forces in their midst. Still, in a demonstration of good faith, another 400 agreed to move last week, sharing the already overcrowded quarters that have turned out to be a virtual "concentration camp".

Yet, in spite of this, it is the victims, not the oppressors, who are being blamed for any and all problems. Unbelievably, the most recent injustice came at the hands of a supposedly fair-minded journalist named Josh Rogin and was based on (mis)information from a source(s) within State Department, no less.

Rogin: "Two ... attempts by the Iraqi government to enter the camp (Ashraf) resulted in bloody confrontations." Truth: The Iraqis didn't "attempt" to enter the camp; they stormed it with US -made Humvees, guns and batons. The only blood was that of the totally unarmed residents!

Rogin: "... the UN and the State Department's efforts have been made exponentially more difficult due to the MEK's surprisingly strong base of support in Washington. Retired U.S. officials and politicians ... have mounted a sophisticated media campaign accusing the U.N. and the U.S. government of forcing the group to live in subhuman conditions against its will at Camp Liberty, an accusation US officials say is as inaccurate as it is unhelpful."

It would be interesting to know who these faceless officials are, but we probably never will. On the other hand, we do know the names of the congressmen and women, diplomats, generals, White House advisors, and respected human rights activists and others who support the Iranian dissidents - because they're proud to stand openly for freedom and justice.

And to cap it all Rogin quotes a US official as saying, "The Americans who ought to know better and claim to be on the side of good solutions are really damaging it. Either they are too lazy or too arrogant to actually do their homework. They don't spend the time to learn facts, they just pop off. We have a plan that has a chance to work and the Iraqis want it to work."

Sorry "Official" - I know quite a few of your "lazy and arrogant" folk - some of them are the very people who faithfully served their country in Iraq (and elsewhere); who faced and endured suffering while you grew 'bureaucratically fat' sitting behind your desk. I've served with people like these and I know their worth and trust their word. They support the MEK because they have seen evidence at first hand - more so than any of Rogin's "sources".

The MEK/PMOI has shown good faith given the great risk to those who have gone to Camp Liberty. It's time for the US to back up its pledge to reconsider the FTO listing. It's also time for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to find out who, among her advisors, seems to have a separate agenda that smacks of treachery.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1301720 2012-02-25T20:30:23-05:00 2012-04-26T05:12:01-04:00

Lord Maginnis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lord-maginnis/
Speakers at the conference included: David Amess MP (Con); Lord Clarke of Hampstead, former Labour Party Chairman; Dr. Matthew Offord MP (Con); myself; Lord King of West Bromwich (Lab); Gen. David Phillips (US), former Chief of Military Police and former Commander of all Police Operations in Iraq, which included the protection of Camp Ashraf; Col. Wes Martin (US), former Antiterrorism/Force Protection Officer of all Coalition forces in Iraq, and base Commander for Camp Ashraf; Professor Sara Chandler, Chair of the Law Society's Human Rights Committee; Geoffrey Robertson QC, former President of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone; Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, distinguished Professor from Oxford and expert in refugee matters in international affairs; Christina Rees, member of the General Synod of the Church of England and Chair of Watch (Women and the Church); Martha Jean Baker, representing the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF); Malcolm Fowler, of the Law Society's Human Rights Committee; Lady Corbett, wife of the late Lord Corbett of Castle Vale; and Dowlat Nowrouzi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

Conference chair David Amess MP said: "Camp Liberty is nothing but a prison. It is not a refugee camp. There are armed police inside the camp threatening the residents. There are surveillance cameras and sound bugs installed all around the camp to spy on the residents. There is no water at the camp. There is no electricity. And there is no basic infrastructure. The residents were not allowed to inspect the site before going there.

"Despite all the residents' goodwill to go there to begin the process of having the UNHCR re-confirm their refugee status, there has been a systematic effort to lay blame for the appalling situation at Camp Liberty on the residents themselves. But we will not remain silent against such demonization", Amess said.

Lord Clarke said: "We demand to know who is behind the demonization of the camp residents. We plan to create an investigative committee to find out who okayed the infrastructure and conditions of the camp for the first 400 residents to be transferred. We will expose the motives of those who knew about the conditions of the camp but still approved the residents' transfer, not least because we had warned time and again that the relocation of Ashraf residents to Liberty without minimum assurances by the UN and US would lead to great dangers and could be misused by the mullahs' regime in Iran".

Gen. Phillips described Camp Liberty as a "horrid gulag" and "concentration camp", and he urged the UN and US to intervene to prevent further violations of the rights of the residents there.

Lord King said: "We demand that the 400 residents at Camp Liberty are either immediately returned to Ashraf or transferred to third countries. But we will not accept their current worse-than-prison-like treatment. And we demand the immediate removal of all police, cameras and spying equipment from Liberty".

Col. Wes Martin said that the truth at Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty was being trampled upon for the sake of appeasing the Iranian regime.

Speaking for the Law Society, Sara Chandler said: "The Law Society is committed to seeking the protection of the residents of Ashraf. We have seen the photos of [Camp] Liberty. It's a prison camp. It can't be called Liberty. It's a concentration camp. An investigation needs to discover and expose what kind of decision-making took place to create this abomination. We need to know what the participation of the United Nations was in the setting up of this camp".]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1233671 2012-01-26T10:08:44-05:00 2012-03-27T05:12:01-04:00

Lord Maginnis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lord-maginnis/
Merriam-Webster describes it as a "problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule, an illogical, unreasonable, or senseless situation."

In the real world, the plight of the 3,400 Iranian dissidents still besieged at Camp Ashraf in Iraq is a Catch-22. They are members of the People's Mujahadin of Iran (PMOI/MEK) who have agreed to leave Iraq for safety in third countries. The Catch-22 is that they can't be accepted by most of those countries while the MEK remains on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organisations (FTOs).

This is exactly what dozens of prominent international figures including Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and the U.S. presidency candidate; General Hugh Shelton, former Commander of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff; Judge Michael Mukasey, former US Attorney General and Porter Goss, former Director of CIA, and many others, reiterated in an international conference in Paris on January 20 where I took part.

What is ironic about the situation surrounding the MEK is that after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, they agreed to be disarmed; then, American officials vetted each and every one of the 3400 and cleared them of any terrorist activity. They were designated 'protected persons' under the Fourth Geneva Convention and lived in relative peace under American oversight for several years.

But when the U.S. agreed to leave Iraq in 2009, the government of Nouri al-Maliki took over their 'protection' and has continually harassed, persecuted and attacked them, all at the behest of Iraq's new-found friends, the mullahs in Iran.

From intimidating loudspeakers blaring round-the-clock to armed attacks that cost dozens of lives; deprivation of basic medical and others necessary supplies, and demands that they leave Camp Ashraf by last December, life has been intolerable for the dissidents, who really wanted nothing but to be left alone.

Finally, at the urging of Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the charismatic president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an umbrella organization that includes the MEK, they agreed to leave Camp Ashraf for Camp Liberty, a former U.S. Army base close to Baghdad's international airport, on the proviso that there would be supervision by U.S. and UN monitors.

There, they would be screened by the UN refugee agency as a first step toward being classified as political refugees who could emigrate to third countries.

Of course, Iraq never has explained why Camp Ashraf - near no populated area - had to be evacuated, or why the UN screening couldn't be conducted there. Even so, the Ashraf residents are willing to go the Camp Liberty, but only with some guarantees that Iraq has already reneged on.

For instance, the Maliki government insists on reducingthe area for the MEK members from 40 square kilometers to just one and to build a prison-like wall around it.

In reality it seems that the mullahs' regime and the Government of Iraq are intent on defying UN proposals and to transfer the Ashraf residents from a threatening situation to a disastrous one akin to a concentration camp of the worst kind. The Government of Iraq is neither willing nor able to live up to its pledges to the UN and the international community. Nouri al-Maliki is totally in thrall to the mullahs in Iran. Yet, inexplicably, the UN has kept silent. To be credible the U.N. cannot abrogate or shirk its responsibility and agree for transfer of residents to Camp Liberty, while the conditions there are so utterly inhumane.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would claim to be strong in her support of the Human Rights of the Camp Ashraf residents, as have scores of world leaders and a bipartisan cadre of congressmen and former U.S. government officials.

But the Catch-22 - the terrorist listing of the MEK, an action taken in 1990s in a failed effort to appease Tehran-s rulers - remains. While the MEK's hands were tied behind their backs the mullahs were gloating, knowing full well what the effect at home would be if these dissidents were unshackled to inspire a resistance movement towards democracy and would mobilize Iranians at home and abroad at a time when there already is considerable unrest among Iranian youth.

The world needs the Leadership of Iranian resistance to be as strong as possible. And the 3400 residents of Camp Ashraf need their path cleared towards achieving that democratic objective.

In defiance of the world community, Tehran has continued nuclear research and demonstrates a clear intention to develop a bomb that would threaten the entire region and, indeed, the world. It plotted to assassinate a Turkish diplomat on U.S. soil, causing a major embarrassment for Washington. It is currently threatening to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, the world's major route for Middle Eastern oil shipments. It continues to tighten its grip on the Maliki government in Iraq, leaving that 'new democracy' on the brink of civil war.

What is Secretary Clinton waiting for? Her State Department is actually in conflict with a 2010 U.S. court ruling that has sanctioned the delisting of MEK.

The European Union and United Kingdom acted in 2008 and 2009 to delist the PMOI, after successful court battles. In 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed that the listing was unreasonable and asked the State Department to reconsider.

A simple action by the State Department to remove the PMOI/MEK from the list would resolve the Catch-22 that has existed for far too long in contravention of U.N. objectives.
]]>