On April 8, 2011, Iraqi forces raided Camp Ashraf, killing 36 residents and wounding 345 others. The scenes of this inhumane act shocked the world. Waves of condemnation by the politicians and others were momentous.
Camp Ashraf is home to 3,400 members of Iran’s main opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). Many of the residents were political prisoners in Iran who survived years of captivity and sought refuge in Iraq before being re-arrested and executed. Some 1,000 of the Ashraf residents are women.
The truth behind the statement supposedly written by 37 experts on Iran advocating for the continued black listing of the Iranian opposition group MEK by the U.S. State Department.
In recent days a statement supposedly written by a group of 37 experts on Iran (from 6 countries including Iran, Scotland, England, Canada and US) has surfaced on the cyberspace. The statement itself is a repeat of many recent articles and declarations by NIAC and its president Trita Parsi, who have embarked on a hysteric campaign against the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI or MEK). In the statement, the "experts" advocate for continued black listing of the MEK by the State Department.
Tehran hates the message so is now shooting the messengers. Cronies of the Iranian dictatorship have claimed that the many high-profile US and EU public figures speaking out over the plight of the disarmed Mujahidin-e Khalq Organisation of Iran (MEK/PMOI) – living at Camp Ashraf in north east Iraq – are doing so just because they are on its payroll.
Or is a less cynical explanation more likely to be the case? That these figures are attempting to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe that would result if a US plan to relocate the 3,400 residents deeper inside Iraq goes ahead, placing them at risk of further harassment and attack by Iraqi military in league with Tehran.
To claim that US figures such as including former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former congressman Patrick Kennedy are on some sort of pay-for-hire basis for an organisation still listed by the US as “terrorist” is extremely derogatory to people of their reputations and standing. It is merely saying that they are open to being bribed, and in a highly blatant fashion. This is unacceptable propaganda and the National Iranian American Council should hang its head in shame.
In recent weeks, the Iranian American Community of Northern California has been hosting a number of symposiums in Washington shedding light on the need to remove the Iran’s principal opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK).
These events which feature senior officials from a number of previous administrations, with various backgrounds, ideologies, and areas of expertise are calling on the Obama Administration to change its policy in regards to the MEK, and remove them from the FTO. In response, the National Iranian American Council has launched a full-fledged campaign opposing the de-listing of the MEK, complete with an entire section on their web site dedicated to the issue, and even “tweeting” about it non-stop. Is this really the biggest issue on the table for Iranian Americans? And if so whose side is NIAC on?
I don't claim to know much about American law, but under British law I think that some of Ambassador Butler's comments on the American supporters of the People's Muhahedeen of Iran/Mujahedeen-e-Khalk (PMOI/MeK) would count as libel.
Legal: All opinions stated are that of the Author and not this website’s and its editor. Also as a policy, we do not use copyrighted content on our website. If you notice such content, please contact us and we will remove the copyrighted material within 10 working days.