Here you will find a lengthy letter from
the
Iran Policy Committee, complaining about my coverage of a
pro-MEK
event in Washington, DC. Below that letter is my point by
point
rebuttal.
One for the archives.
Reprinted from
NewsMax.com
Response
to
‘Terrorist Group Supporters Meet in
Washington'
NewsMax.com
Tuesday, June 6,
2006
Myths and Facts about The Second Annual
National Convention for a Democratic, Secular Republic in
Iran,
Washington D.C.
This article is in response
to Ken
Timmerman's article Terrorist
Group Supporters Meet in
Washington
from May
26th, 2006.
By Clare M. Lopez
Kenneth Timmerman got many
things
mixed up in his article, "MEK, Iranian Terrorist Group
Supporters
Meet in Washington," May 26, 2006, NewsMax.com Web site. His
article
requires my response, as some of the inaccuracies involve
the Iran
Policy Committee and its research on the issue of the
Iranian
opposition.
Timmerman's actions serve to strengthen the regime by
attacking
the First Amendment rights of Iranian expatriates as well as
targeting Iran's main pro-democracy opposition—the National
Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its member
organization, the
Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK).
Timmerman is a modern-day version of the so-called
"useful
fool" or Communist sympathizer of Cold War years, one who
provided
support, wittingly or not, to the repressive Soviet regime.
Timmerman's description of the Second Annual National
Convention for
a Democratic, Secular Republic in Iran is a template of
naïve,
foolish, factual distortion that is already greeted with
satisfaction
by Tehran's terrorist clerics, as it has already appeared on
websites
operated by Iran's Ministry of Intelligence.
Below are some of the Timmerman myths followed by the
facts:
Asserts that Professor Raymond Tanter, who chairs the Iran
Policy
Committee (IPC), addressed the Convention, and calls the IPC
"a
private group in Washington that is lobbying Congress and
the Bush
administration to remove the MEK and its front groups from
the
terrorist list."
In fact, although Iran Policy Committee (IPC)
President
Professor Raymond Tanter and Executive Director, Clare
Lopez, were in
attendance at the Convention, neither one addressed the
group. The
IPC is a leading Washington think tank, established in 2005,
which
conducts extensive research on policy issues related to Iran
as well
as engages in educational efforts about Iranian topics
through
publication and speaking activities.
The IPC complies with all relevant regulations of the
District
of Columbia, where it is registered as a non-profit
organization, as
well as those of the Internal Revenue Service, which
requires annual
disclosure about donors, funding, expenditures, members, and
directorship.
Asserts that the only member of Congress who addressed the
rally was
Representative Ted Poe, R-Texas.
In fact, Member of Congress Bernice Edie Johnson,
D-Texas, also
spoke, and the Chief of Staff for Senator Tom Coburn,
R-Okla.,
addressed the event. The IPC obtained copies of messages of
a
bipartisan group of members of Congress to the Convention,
among
them, House International Relations Committee members, Tom
Tancredo,
R-Colo., Michael McCaul, R-Texas, as well as Judiciary
Committee
member, Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas. In attendance,
moreover, were
many congressional staffers from the House and the Senate.
Ambassador Pierre Prosper, former Ambassador-at-Large
for War
Crimes (2001-2005) and Ambassador James Akins, former
ambassador to
Saudi Arabia, also addressed the event.
Claims that the MEK took part in the 1979 revolution against
the Shah
but only lately has become anti-regime
Asserts that the MEK allied with Saddam Hussein during the
1980-1988
Iran-Iraq War
Favorably cites a 1994 report to Congress, where the State
Department
explained that it had designated the group as a terrorist
organization because it had taken part in the 1979 taking of
the U.S.
embassy in Tehran and had murdered Americans working in Iran
under
the Shah
In fact, research by the Iran Policy Committee finds
that the
MEK had nothing to do with the 1979 attacks on the U.S.
Embassy in
Tehran or with the subsequent hostage crisis.
IPC research concludes that the MEK neither
participated with
the Iraqi army nor lent support to Saddam Hussein's brutal
suppression of Kurdish and Shi'ite populations after the
First Gulf
War in 1991.
Such IPC research also finds that the MEK was not
responsible
for the killing during the 1970s of several American
military
officers and defense contractors.
The MEK is the oldest, largest, and best-organized of
all
surviving Iranian opposition groups, despite its 1997
placement on
the U.S. Department of State Foreign Terrorist Organizations
list as
a conciliatory gesture to incoming Iranian president
Mohammad
Khatami.
The MEK today counts some 4,000 of its members who
live at
Ashraf City in northern Iraq under the protection of the
U.S.
military and enjoy Protected Persons status under the
provisions of
the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Favorably cites a description by the Shah of Iran that the
MEK were
"Islamic-Marxists"
Cites the Marxist Organization of the People's Fedaii
Guerillas of
Iran as rejecting the MEK
In fact, the State Department Country Reports on
Terrorism,
2005, finds that a Marxist element of the MEK murdered
several of the
Shah's American security advisers prior to the Iranian
Revolution.
Indeed, Marxists hijacked the MEK name, killed Americans,
murdered
the legitimate Moslem leaders of the organization, and
sought to pin
the blame on the core leadership of the MEK.
The term "Islamic-Marxists" was coined by the Shah and
must be
dismissed as meaningless jargon with regard to the MEK, an
organization that adamantly calls for separation of religion
and
state and whose leadership has been a staunch proponent of a
free
market system since the early 1970s. In this regard, then,
rejection
by a genuinely Marxist organization logically must count as
a point
in the MEK's favor.
Founded in the 1960s by Iranian university students
who opposed
the rule of the Shah and called for democratic reform, the
MEK
initially joined Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1979 Revolution
before
breaking away to enter into armed opposition when it became
clear
that Khomeini opposed MEK principles of democracy,
separation of
religion and state, and gender equality.
Claims that the rally of May 25, 2006, was a pro-MEK event
and was
sparsely attended compared to similar events in the past
In fact, the Convention drew a sizable group of people
to the
Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in downtown Washington.
Organized in the
style of an old-fashioned American political convention,
complete
with delegations from most states, food, music, slogans, and
chants
in support of democratic change in Iran, the event featured
dozens of
speakers, including human rights and women activists,
student groups,
and religious leaders from a range of faiths.
Delegates viewed a video highlighting activities of
Iranian-American communities in various states, including
state-wide
conventions in California and Texas, major rallies in New
York City
and Washington, to protest Ahmadinejad, as well as meetings
and
briefings on Capitol Hill.
Several calls, amplified by large speakers, were made
from Iran
by activists, who reported about their anti-government
activities and
urged the Iranian Diaspora to support the cause of democracy
in Iran.
Punctuating the crowd's calls for an end to police state
repression
was the showing of an extraordinary series of video images
taken
inside Iran just the day before, in which thousands of
Iranian
university students poured into the streets to protest
against the
regime.
A video message from National Council of Resistance of
Iran
President-elect Maryam Rajavi to the Convention was the high
point of
the program. Madame Rajavi said that "the mullahs' nuclear
program is
totally against Iran's national interests," and added that
"Democracy
in Iran serves the interests of the peoples in the region
and global
peace and security."
A bravura performance by the legendary Iranian singer,
Marjan,
provided the closing notes of the program. Marjan's moving
tribute to
the Iranian opposition "What will you do with the roots?"
brought the
cheering audience to its feet. Its message of challenge to
the
theocratic regime in Tehran and reaffirmation of hope for a
free and
democratic future for the people of Iran offered a leitmotif
for the
Convention itself. The Convention was organized into two
sets of
platform presentations:
The first speakers described the challenge to
international
security posed by Tehran's nuclear weapons program and
aggressive
Islamist ideology.
The second platform was dedicated to the theme of
democratic
change and emphasized the urgency of empowering the Iranian
people to
take charge of their own future.
A sea of waving placards throughout the hall
proclaimed "No to
Negotiations, No foreign war, Support the third option," to
highlight
the assembly's preference for civilian action to bring about
democratic change. Among the placards could be seen many
with the
pictures of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, the husband-wife
elected
leadership of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
(NCRI).
The bottom line is that Timmerman's article
strengthens the
regime by attacking the First Amendment rights of Iranian
expatriates
as well as targeting Iran's main pro-democracy
opposition—the
National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its member
organization, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK).
Clare M. Lopez is the executive director of the Iran
Policy
Committee and a 20-year veteran of the CIA. Additional
information
about the IPC, its platform, publications, and members may
be found
at its Web site: www.iranpolicy.org
The following is author Ken Timmerman's
response to the Iran Policy Committee's article above:
In response to a 650 word news
story,
Clare Lopez has contributed a literary effort of more than
1,400
words. It is difficult to separate the ad-hominen attacks
from the
substantive comments in her letter.
In the category of "ad hominen" attacks, Ms. Lopez
accuses me
of "serve[ing] to strengthen the regime by attacking the
First Amendment rights of Iranian expatriates," of being a
"useful
fool" to a repressive regime, and for giving "satisfaction"
to
"Tehran's terrorist clerics" because my article was cited on
Web
sites "operated by Iran's Ministry of Intelligence."
Her message can be summed as follows: Anyone who
exposes the
activities of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, the group that was the
subject
of my article, must be a servant of the regime in Tehran.
This has
been a constant theme of MEK propaganda for many years, and
as Ms.
Lopez correctly points out, this is the type of analysis
that
flourished among communist sympathizers during the Cold War
years. It
is a purely Marxist technique.
As to the substance of her comments: Ms Lopez
criticizes me for
"targeting Iran's main pro-democracy organization – the
National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its member
organization, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK)."
But the MEK cannot claim to be a pro-democracy
organization, or
a component of any pro-democracy coalition in Iran.
In Maryam Rajavi's "16-point Platform for a Democratic
Iran,"
for example, the MEK pledges "complete freedom of parties,
assemblies, political groups . . . except groups loyal to
the
dictatorships of the shah and Khomeini." That is a
definition that
sums up just about every opponent to the current regime –
including the Mujahedin! Like the Bolsheviks of 1917, the
MEK
believes that it alone can confer political legitimacy, and
prefers
revolutionary purity over coalition-building.
The MEK refers to Mrs. Rajavi as the "president-elect"
of Iran,
because a party congress elected her as party leader in
August
1993.
If a similar criterion was applied to the United
States, Howard
Dean would be the "president-elect" of the United States,
because he
is leader of the Democratic Party.
Many former MEK members have described the group as a
"cult,"
devoted to its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. They have
testified that the group compels members to divorce their
husbands
and wives, live in collective dwellings, and raise children
in
common. In response, the MEK accuses these defectors of
being "agents
of the Tehran regime," its solution to virtually any form of
dissent.
When Human Rights Watch published a 28-page report
last year
with defector testimony of MEK human rights violations
inside its
military camps in Iraq – camps set up under the auspicious
of
Saddam Hussein's regime – Ms. Lopez and the Iran Policy
Committee rejected the allegations on similar grounds.
In addition, Ms. Lopez claims that "research by the Iran
Policy
Committee finds that the MEK had nothing to do with the 1979
attacks
on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran or with the subsequent hostage
crisis."
A tortuous 102-page defense of the MEK published by
her
committee last year cites a number of sources to buttress
this claim,
including Ervand Abrahamian's definitive 1989 book, "The
Iranian
Mojahedin."
In a selective use of sources, however, Ms. Lopez's
committee
failed to note massive evidence presented by Abrahamian of
the MEK's
anti-American positions and actions, including its "full
support to
the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line who had
taken over
the U.S. embassy" [Abrahamian, p 196].
During his trial on terrorism charges in 1972, for
example, the
MEK's Rajavi told the court that U.S. imperialism was "the
main enemy
of Iran." Thus, Rajavi insisted, "the main goal now is to
free Iran
of U.S. imperialism" [Abrahamian, p134-135].
This is a theme reported ad nauseum in MEK
publications after
the 1979 revolution as well, but absent from the IPC papers
on the
MEK.
For example, in "Mojahed" daily, the following
statement
appeared under the headline: "Let's create another Vietnam
for the
U.S." "MEK congratulates the Iranian nation for breaking
diplomatic
ties with the U.S. and calls for a total break-off [in
relations]. As long as we enjoy the anti-imperialistic
decisiveness of Imam Khomeini . . . the imperialists and
their
mercenaries are the ones who should be fearful of creating
another
Vietnam for themselves" [Mojahed, Vol 1., No. 36, April 9,
1980].
Ms. Lopez claimed that "IPC research also finds that the MEK
was not
responsible for the killing during the 1970s of several
American
military officers and defense contractors."
This is a curious assertion, given the fact that the
MEK
publicly celebrated the anniversary of these murders, at
least
through the late 1980s (Source:"Mojahed" daily, June 4,
1980;
testimony of FBI informant during Operation Suture, who
related
anniversary celebrations at the MEK's military training
camps in Iraq
in 1988).
The definitive answer on these events comes from a
48-page
Department of State report, dated Oct. 28, 1994, that was
requested
by Congress as part of the FY 1994-195 Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, PL 103-236:
"The Mojahedin collaborated with Ayatollah Khomeini to
overthrow the former Shah of Iran. As part of that struggle,
they
assassinated at least six American citizens, supported the
takeover
of the U.S. Embassy, and opposed the release of American
hostages,"
Page ii, Executive Summary.
"The very day that 400 university students overtook
the U.S.
Embassy, the Mojahedin issued a proclamation headlined,
‘After
the shah, it's America's turn.' Following the seizure of the
embassy,
the Mojahedin participated physically at the site, assisting
in
holding and defending the embassy against liberation. They
also
offered political support for the hostage-keeping," Page 5,
"Mojahedin Support for Hostage-Taking."
Ms. Lopez also claims that several members of Congress
addressed the
May 25 event, not just one.
I wrote in the dispatch: "Organizers said the only
member of
Congress who addressed today's rally was Rep. Ted Poe, R,
Texas."
I phoned Mr. Poe's office several times to verify that
he
addressed the rally, but his press spokesman said she was
unaware
that he attended. Additional messages were not returned.
This is why
I quoted the individuals who said they had organized the
event as
saying Mr. Poe was the only Member who attended. (A chief of
staff
for a U.S. Senator is not yet a Member of Congress).
Similarly, Ms. Lopez claims that I erred in stating that
"Raymond
Tanter, who chairs the Iran Policy Committee (IPC),
addressed the
Convention."
Mr. Tanter arrived just as I was leaving the
conference with a
thin dossier in one hand. If he did not address the group,
as I was
told he intended to do, then the relevant paragraph in my
story
should be corrected to read: "Also attending the conference
was Prof.
Raymond Tanter . . ."
The IPC Web site features a link to a video-clip of
Mr. Tanter
addressing a similar conference in San Diego, from a head
table with
a prominent sign, "Democratic Change with Maryam Rajavi."
The IPC Web
site also features press releases on events featuring Mr.
Tanter in
joint appearances with Alireza Jaafarzadeh, who is cited in
an August
28, 2002 FBI report to the State Department's
Counter-terrorism
office as "a NCRI representative." The NCRI for many years
was the
overseas political wing of the MEK.
Ms. Lopez apparently objected to my characterization of the
IPC as "a
private group in Washington that is lobbying Congress and
the Bush
administration to remove the MEK and its front groups from
the
terrorist list."
In fact, virtually every public appearance and report
issued by
the Iran Policy committee includes a plea to remove the MEK
and its
front groups from the terrorist list.
For example, the 102-page report cited above presents
"an
evaluation of political benefits that would accrue to the
United
States if it were to remove the MEK from the FTO [foreign
terrorist organization]" [p. 4].
Similarly, a Feb. 10, 2005 white paper from the group
argued
that "a review of U.S. policy concerning the MEK and the
overall
Iranian opposition is in order," and asserted that "Removing
the
terrorist designation from the MEK could serve as the most
tangible
signal to the Iranian regime, as well as to the Iranian
people, that
a new option is now on the table" [p. 19].
In a March 20, 2006 press conference at the National
Press
Club, posted to the group's Web site, Mr. Tanter again made
the same
argument. "While the U.S. government considers Iran the top
state
sponsor of terrorism, the $64,000 question is why Iran's
main
opposition is on the American terrorist list."
Finally, Ms. Lopez, was irritated that I pointed out that
the May 25
event "was sparsely attended compared to similar events in
the
past."
By my count, there were three sections of the
auditorium, with
roughly 30-40 persons in each section. However, as I noted
in my
dispatch, the audience had been given noise-makers and signs
of
Maryam and Massoud Rajavi to give the impression to the
cameras
filming the event of a much larger crowd.
As a newsman, I felt the sparse attendance was
significant,
especially when put in context of the much broader support
the MEK
managed to garner in the past.