Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Giuliani’s Ties to an Iranian Resistance Group
 |
Giuliani |
Last week, Politico published an article critiquing the Mujahidin e-Khalq, or MEK, an
Iranian resistance group, and the U.S. politicians who support it, especially
former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. As a former Democratic member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and someone familiar with the MEK and
Giuliani’s work on the organization’s behalf, I can say unequivocally that
Benjamin’s assertions are outrageous—so outrageous that I must respond.
First, I want to be clear about one
thing: This isn’t about Rudy Giuliani. Arguably the broadest and most
impressive bipartisan coalition in a generation has supported the MEK in its
campaign for regime change in Iran. This includes two former chairmen of the
joint chiefs, two former CIA directors, a former attorney general and the
former chairs of both political parties. The ideological range includes
everyone from Howard Dean and Patrick Kennedy to Newt Gingrich and John Bolton.
From this perspective, the outlier isn’t Rudy Giuliani; it’s Daniel Benjamin.
Let’s review a little history: The MEK was part
of the coalition opposing the shah of Iran in the late 1970s, where it resisted
the regime through political and military action. Its leadership was devastated
by the shah’s secret police both by execution and imprisonment. The vacuum of
leadership was briefly filled by a Marxist group that was rejected by the
incarcerated MEK leaders. Many of these Marxist leaders were killed by the shah
or by the mullahs after their ascent to power in 1979, and the MEK eventually
regained its original leadership. As soon as it became clear that the mullah’s
ambition for Iran was a theocracy, the MEK became an opposition group and fled
into exile in Paris and Iraq.
Throughout this time, the MEK did take part in
legitimate political and military action against the Iranian regime, but I have
seen no evidence to support the assertion Benjamin makes that it took part in
terrorist activities against Iranians or Americans.
The refugee camps of the MEK in Iraq in the
1980s were, by necessity, under the protection of the government of Iraq. MEK
fighters were aligned with Iraqi Army during Iran/Iraq War. But Benjamin’s
claims that they assisted in Saddam Hussein’s repression of the Kurds have been
denied by both MEK and U.S. Army leaders in Iraq. Upon the arrival of U.S.
forces in 2003, the MEK willingly handed over its weapons, accepted U.S.
protection and actively exposed the Iranian regime and its proxies’ terrorist
activities. This included saving American lives by identifying IED locations.
This, more than anything, explains the group’s support by former U.S. military
personnel, including the former army anti-terror officer and the U.S. military
police general assigned to the camp.
This is where the American foreign policy
establishment begins to divide. The MEK provided critical intel on the Iranian
nuclear program that was invaluable in countering Tehran’s efforts to develop
atomic weapons. The leader of the movement, Maryam Rajavi, committed herself
publicly to a democratic, non-nuclear, secular Iran at peace with its neighbors
with gender equality and a ban on capital punishment. By organizing thousands
in the Iranian diaspora and building political support in Congress and
parliaments across Europe, it became the most organized and disciplined of the
Iranian opposition groups.
Some current and former State Department
employees, including Mr. Benjamin, have a different concept. They remain
committed to the idea that the MEK was a terrorist organization—a notion, I
believe, which stems from an illusion of American reconciliation with the
mullahs. In 1997, a group at State succeeded in convincing President Bill
Clinton to place the MEK on the State Department list of terrorist
organizations. Some claimed at
the time that this decision was mainly intended as a goodwill gesture to Iran. The State Department
gave as its reasons the MEK’s long record of violence, but I can tell you that
as a member of the Foreign Relation Committee, I reviewed the State Department
file on the MEK and found no evidence, no testimony and no reason for the
designation except placating Tehran.
Thousands of Iranian-Americans and literally
hundreds of members of Congress protested. In 2011, as a private attorney, I
led a team of lawyers in a State Department inquiry to resolve the issue. After
four hours of testimony, we yielded to the State Department to present their
contradictory evidence. They had nothing.
With no evidence and the threat of an order by
the U.S. District Court, Secretary Hillary Clinton removed the MEK from the
State Department list of terrorist organizations in 2012.
Defeat came hard for the Iran apologists within
the department. Mr. Benjamin isn’t the first to argue that the broad coalition
of former U.S. intelligence, military, diplomatic and congressional leaders
can’t be believed because some accepted speaking fees to attend MEK meetings
around the world. The fact that these people faced combat for or dedicated
their entire careers to our country, and are among our most respected leaders
seems to be of no consequence. It's an argument that requires no rebuttal
except to note that by this standard the views of Thomas Paine, Elie Wiesel and
Winston Churchill—all of whom accepted speaking fees from various international
organizations—would have been silenced as well.
Not the least of those who spoke out was Rudy
Giuliani. In 2012, the 3,000 MEK refugees settled along the Iran/Iraq border
were under imminent threat. The tension was complicating Iraqi relations with
the United States. Secretary Clinton requested that I assemble a persuasive
group of distinguished Americans to travel to Europe and persuade Mrs. Rajavi
to relocate the refugees to a former U.S. military base near Baghdad. I
appealed to Louis Freeh, Ed Rendell, Michael Mukasey and Rudy Giuliani. Each
accepted, canceled commitments, paid his own transportation to Paris and argued
persuasively that the MEK assist the United States by relocating.
Like any broad coalition in a large diverse
country like ours, the perspectives of the Americans in this coalition vary.
Some believe that in the political vacuum following an economic or political
collapse in Tehran, a determined and well-funded political opposition like the
MEK could seize power. Others believe that the MEK might simply be part of a
broader coalition, a simple pressure point or just a source of continuing
intelligence. The rationale for support might differ, but this diverse group of
Americans is united in two ways: All believe that the MEK is a genuine
democratic force and that regime change in Tehran is the best option to keep
the peace, avoid a nuclear Iran and advance American interests.
This leaves us with the central theme of Mr.
Benjamin’s argument: Rudy Giuliani’s participation in this coalition
disqualifies him for consideration as secretary of state.
Experience and participation in public policy
issues was once a condition for high government service. It’s now a
complication, because a record of advocacy creates controversy. But the
selection of secretary of state needs to be different. Among the most likely
crises facing the new president is an escalation in the struggle with the
fundamentalist Islamic Republic of Iran. Rudy Giuliani has lived that struggle
for a decade. Mr. Benjamin may quarrel with his efforts but it's important to
note that voices in the American foreign policy establishment as diverse as
Senator McCain, Secretary Clinton, Deputy Secretary Blinken and John Kerry’s
own personal representative on the MEK, Jonathan Weiner disagree. Each has
thanked Rudy Giuliani and the other Americans involved in these efforts.
The president-elect may or may not choose Mr.
Giuliani as secretary of state. What shouldn’t happen is for countering Tehran
and assisting our country to be seen as anything other than a valuable
contribution to his consideration.
