[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 173 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2242-E2243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COUNTERING IRAN'S NUCLEAR & TERRORIST THREATS, THE OPPOSITION'S ROLE: 
                   WHAT ARE THE U.S. POLICY OPTIONS?

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. TOM McCLINTOCK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 22, 2010

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to insert into the Record 
excerpts of remarks made at a symposium sponsored by Executive Action, 
LLC: ``Countering Iran's Nuclear & Terrorist Threats, The Opposition's 
Role: What Are the U.S. Policy Options?'' held at the Willard 
Intercontinental Hotel in Washington, DC on Friday, December 17, 2010.


     Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General of the United States

       This is one of those moments in history when we know that 
     future generations are going to ask what we did to advance 
     good and what we did to resist evil . . . .
       I'm a lawyer, and lawyers make their cases with facts and 
     law and policy. So let's look at some facts, and some law, 
     and some policy, and see whether the case is there. The 
     history of the relationship between the United States and the 
     Iranian regime since the 1979 revolution can be summed up as 
     a series of attempts by the United States to, as the 
     diplomats say, engage the Iranian regime, each attempt less 
     successful than the one that preceded it. I'm not going to go 
     through that entire history, but an important part of it 
     begins in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, when 
     the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, also known as 
     the MEK, was designated by the Secretary of State under U.S. 
     law as a foreign terrorist organization and that designation 
     regrettably continues to this day . . . .
       The MEK is the only organization of Iranians, both inside 
     Iran and outside Iran that opposes the current regime that 
     favors a government in Iran that is democratic, secular, non-
     nuclear, and a republic. Again, this is not one of the few 
     organizations that fit that description; it is the only one . 
     . . .
       If in fact MEK has renounced violence, as it has; if in 
     fact it presents no threat to any U.S. personnel or interest, 
     in fact it presents no such threat; and if in fact it has 
     been of affirmative assistance to the United States, as it 
     has; and is not regarded as a terrorist organization in the 
     United Kingdom or the European Union, then why was it placed 
     on that list and why does it continue to remain on the list 
     of such organizations that is kept by the Secretary of State? 
     Well, I think, it's pretty openly acknowledged that the 
     reason MEK was placed on that list during the Clinton 
     administration was to curry favor with Iran, and to use the 
     designation as a way of entering into dialogue with the 
     Iranian regime. And I am sorry to say that even during the 
     administration that I served in, it is reported that MEK 
     continued to remain on the list for the same misguided reason 
     . . . .
       The Iranian regime is now in the enviable position of 
     having the United States designate as a terrorist 
     organization a group of Iranians who are a threat to that 
     regime, and of limiting that group's activities. In other 
     words, the Iranians now have the great Satan working for them 
     . . . .
       The continued designation of MEK as a terrorist 
     organization gives great comfort and legitimacy to the 
     Iranian regime, by putting on the sidelines an organization 
     that is potentially a grave threat to the regime. What's to 
     be done? Well as I'm sure many of you know there is an 
     ongoing case in which MEK has challenged the designation. In 
     July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     circuit issued an opinion essentially sending the matter back 
     to the State Department and to the Secretary of State and 
     asking her to re-evaluate whether MEK should be on that list. 
     But the court did something more than that. It expressed a 
     good deal of skepticism at least about the non-classified 
     information that was put before the court and shared with 
     MEK, and which MEK could therefore rebut. Without getting 
     into a whole lot of detail, the Secretary of State may choose 
     to base her determination entirely on classified information 
     if she wants, and then nobody knows why she made the 
     decision, but she didn't do that in this case. She said she 
     based her decision on both the classified information and the 
     non-classified information and the court discussed in some 
     detail some of the non-classified information, and it showed 
     that a lot of it consisted of unsubstantiated, anonymous 
     rumor, whose reliability was unknown and could not be tested. 
     And all we can say is that if the classified part of the 
     record, which MEK has not been allowed to see and to which it 
     cannot therefore respond to directly, consists of the same 
     kind of information as the non-classified part, then the 
     Secretary of State's decision would be based on absolutely 
     nothing substantial. Time will tell. But this is about more 
     than a case in the District of Columbia and more than MEK. 
     This is about the posture of the United States toward the 
     Iranian regime . . . .
       When succeeding generations consider the question I 
     presented at the beginning of these remarks, of what we did 
     to advance what is good and to resist what is evil, they will 
     find an answer that we and they can live with.
                                  ____



            Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security

       At one point in time, we talked about and we put the MEK on 
     the terrorist list because we thought it might enhance and 
     improve the dialogue, change the dialogue. There might be 
     some noticeable improvement in our relationship with Iran and 
     I think history concludes so far in the past several years 
     since we put that organization, which by the way disarmed 
     itself, consolidated itself and has been a source of some 
     very important intelligence for this country's use and the 
     rest of the world's knowledge. If the goal was to improve 
     engagement and to solicit a different response from the 
     Iranian government, that hasn't worked out very well either. 
     So, you say to yourself at the end of the day, these efforts 
     during the past several years have been fruitless, and some 
     say through some organizations that are basically feckless, 
     not terribly effective. What happens if they become even 
     further emboldened by having nuclear capability? One, we know 
     what it says about Iran--if you think that part of the world 
     is unstable now, we can only imagine what the consequences 
     will be then . . . .
       And you know what is probably even more alarming is that 
     we're starting to see more and more analysts accept in their 
     writings the notion of a nuclear Iran and how we would deal 
     with it. Think about that, ten years ago we were worried and 
     trying to figure out how we could make sure that didn't 
     happen and now we have some pundits and some analysts in the 
     international community saying, it's almost a fait 
     accompli, ``now what are we going to do?'' Let's just 
     pause for a moment and think what that means to the rest 
     of the world vis-a-vis America. What does it say about our 
     ability to influence geopolitical events? What does it say 
     about how our allies and friends in that region look to 
     us, and our ability to affect change that affects their 
     lives and the security of that particular region. . . .?
       So how do we go forward? What do we do next? I think the 
     Attorney General very clearly identified probably one of the 
     most significant things we can do and that is delist as the 
     UK has done, and the European Union has done, MEK. They did 
     consolidate. They did disarm. They were a source of 
     considerable intelligence for us, and if we are to look for 
     peaceful means of encouraging a regime change, it seems to me 
     that one of the first and most significant steps we could 
     take, I guess it's under review right now by the State 
     Department, but as you well know in January of this year I 
     think the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said that, based on the 
     information you presented in this court right now (and 
     unfortunately you had to go to court, everybody goes to court 
     in the United States, but to get them delisted from the State 
     Department) the court said preliminarily, the information 
     that you've at least shared with us in court today doesn't 
     warrant them being listed as a terrorist organization. I 
     think the consequences of that particular decision, the State 
     Department as I understand it and perhaps others on this 
     panel can give us a more enlightened and more recent point of 
     view that they're actually honestly and actively considering 
     that outcome.
       What's the benefit of that outcome? First of all it's the 
     strongest possible signal that our approach toward Iran is 
     changing. It's saying that 30 years of peaceful engagement 
     hasn't been effective, and I think everybody around the world 
     knows that. But I'm going to give you a different perspective 
     if I might because I think it has as much to do as how we're 
     viewed around the rest of the world and why I think we should 
     do it as soon as possible. I've always thought that, if 
     America was considered to be a product that we look to sell 
     around the world then our brand is based on our value system. 
     Think about that for a moment. For 200+ years, more recently 
     we have tried to promote the notion of civil society, and 
     civil institutions, and believing that in the heart of all 
     men and women everywhere around the world there is a desire 
     to be free, a desire to control your own destiny, to raise 
     your own family, to share in hopefully, the opportunities 
     that your society and your government would provide for you. 
     In inheriting all of that, we have many of those discussions 
     as it relates to how we are engaged in our effort against 
     terrorism around the world. We challenge ourselves around Abu 
     Ghraib, we challenge ourselves around Guantanamo, we 
     challenge ourselves with regard to due process. We know what 
     we stand for. It's part of the American brand. We are our 
     strongest allies; we're also our strongest critics. We know 
     what we believe in and when we seem to deviate, if some of us 
     seem to think we deviate from that brand, we take a close 
     look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves ``What are 
     we doing?'' Well, part of that American brand I think is 
     being consistent with our values overseas as well. And when 
     we see a repressive theocracy, day in and day out, 
     imprisoning, torturing, executing men, women, entire families 
     because they've been brave enough, courageous enough to stand 
     in opposition to the theocracy. In their hearts, not

[[Page E2243]]

     necessarily looking to the institutions of government like 
     America but looking to the value system of freedom and 
     liberty, speech, assembly, peaceful opposition. So I frankly 
     think one of the most important things this country can do, 
     and hope we will do it as soon as possible is to delist. 
     Delist the People's Mujahedin of Iran. It's not a terrorist 
     organization. And after that, be part of a sustained, public, 
     rhetorical, and as well diplomatic embrace of our brand, with 
     the hope of convincing the rest of the world that the loyal 
     opposition, those pro-democracy warriors, individuals and 
     families in Iran can at least look to the United States not 
     with casual and occasional criticism of the Iranian 
     government and how it treats its citizens, but a sustained 
     clamor for change, aggressive diplomatic efforts to at least 
     pull some of our friends and allies into the chorus of 
     opposition to this regime. Time is running out. There aren't 
     too many options left.
                                  ____



Frances Fragos Townsend, former advisor to President George W. Bush on 
                           Homeland Security

       Our policy goals in this country really must be a 
     reflection of our values. It must be consistent and it must 
     be fundamental to how we build a policy process. It struck 
     me, when you go back and look at the current, when we heard 
     Tom Ridge and others talk about the sanctions regime, we can 
     debate its efficacy we can debate its impact, but the 
     statement of the goal right now as we sit here today in 
     Washington the goal of the sanctions, which have not been yet 
     successful, is to get the regime to the bargaining table. Is 
     that really all? To describe that is as humble and modest in 
     terms of an objective, that's not enough. So, when you look 
     at all the other things we've talked about just so far this 
     morning that the MEK is still listed as an FTO all of that 
     stems from ``what are you trying to achieve.'' If you're not 
     clear, and you're not ambitious, and your goals don't 
     represent your values, you are doomed to failure. . . .
       The FTO designations, as you can imagine during my time in 
     the government (I was in the Justice Department for many 
     years and then in the White House), monitoring the FTO 
     process, the Foreign Terrorist Organizations designation 
     process, working with the State Department was among my 
     responsibilities. I must tell you that having traveled 
     throughout the Middle East and around the world, talking to 
     our allies, the FTO designation process (we should just be 
     honest) is disrespected by our allies. It is ineffective. It 
     is corrupted by politics, and I don't mean, ``corrupted'' in 
     the criminal sense, but it has been pervaded by political 
     debate, which is part and parcel of a foreign policy 
     discussion when you're setting foreign policy goals. The fact 
     that we permit domestic politics in foreign policy concerns 
     to come into what is supposed to be an objective process, 
     that is the designation of a foreign terrorist organization, 
     undermines US credibility. . . .
       Not only, having disarmed, and renounced violence and 
     assisted the United States, should the MEK come off the list, 
     the US Congress should abolish the list because I frankly 
     think in many respects because of how it's operated, it does 
     more to undermine our credibility on these subjects. So, I 
     would both take MEK off the list and I would ask Congress to 
     abolish it. . . .
       The other thing that I would say and hasn't been spoken 
     about, again I'm sensitive to this because of my 
     responsibilities in the White House is, I frankly think, as 
     part of the delisting process one of the things that would 
     enable or open the potential for is permitting MEK leaders 
     who are outside of Iran to get visas and come to the United 
     States. That's an entirely, again, separate process. It would 
     be treated separately. Delisting does not necessarily mean 
     that those leaders would be able to apply and get such a visa 
     that ought to be part of this process. Those people ought to 
     be able to come here and speak about the atrocities, they 
     ought to be able to speak about the human rights abuses and 
     what's happening inside Iran to those advocates for democracy 
     and freedom. And they ought to be able to be their own 
     advocates. Right now, we are their advocates, but they are 
     entitled to make their own case both before the American 
     Congress and the American people, to raise money, to raise 
     support, and to raise awareness. So, for me, it's: take them 
     off the list, abolish the list and grant visas to expatriates 
     and exiled MEK leaders so that they can come and make their 
     own case.

                          ____________________