Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Iraqi Raid of Iranian Dissident Enclave May Signal Tilt Toward Iran

A neocon think tank blames President Obama for an Iraqi raid on an enclave of Iranian dissidents that killed several members of a cultish opposition group.

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

A raid by Iraqi security forces on a camp of Iranian dissidents is widely seen as a sign that as the U.S. occupation winds down, Iraqi authorities are establishing their independence —and tilting instead towards Iran.

There are unconfirmed reports of injuries and abuses coming from Camp Ashraf, the enclave populated by members of the cultish Mujahadeen-e Khalq (MEK), also known as the People's Mujahadeen of Iran, an Iranian opposition group the United States has considered terrorist since 1997.

The MEK said that security forces killed 12. After initially denying any deaths, on July 30 the Iraqi government confirmed seven deaths , according to the Reuters news agency. Hundreds are believed injured.

That same day, the U.S. State Department confirmed that Iraqi forces had restated a pledge to treat MEK members "humanely," and that U.S. forces had been allowed into the camp to administer medical help to those injured in the raid.

The MEK has enjoyed limited support from U.S. proponents of regime change in Iran —mostly a small cadre of neoconservatives. It was a former MEK spokesperson who first made public the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz in 2003.

However, the group is extremely unpopular in the Islamic Republic because it fought with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1980s during the bloody Iran-Iraq war.

The raid is seen as something of an embarrassment to the Obama administration, which had opposed action against the camp. The attack occurred while U.S. Defen se Secretary Robert Gates was visiting Iraq, though he had no advance knowledge of the large operation.

The top U.S. military officer in Iraq, Gen eral Ray Odierno, told reporters on July 28 that he had no advance knowledge of the attack.

A uthority for the camp ultimately belongs to Iraq.

"Although the U.S. government remains engaged and concerned about this issue, it is a matter now for the government of Iraq to resolve in accordance with its laws," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on July 29, urging "restraint on both sides."

Amid reports that the Iraqi government intends to close the camp, U.S. officials say they’ve received assurances that MEK members will not be deported to Iran because they would likely face mistreatment there.

The human rights group Amnesty International called on the Iraqi government to look into allegations of excessive force, release the whereabouts of 50 detainees who are apparently missing , and "ensure that they are protected from torture or other ill-treatment, as well as from forcible return to Iran."

The clashes were set off by an Iraqi request to allow national police into the camp. After the MEK rebuffed the demand, Iraq entered the unarmed camp by force. Videos shot by MEK members circulated online showed people being sprayed with hoses and beaten by soldiers with batons.

When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, the MEK was disarmed. The 3,400-member group reportedly possessed more than 2,000 tanks, and other artillery and large weapons.

After being disarmed, the group was protected by the U.S. under the Geneva Conventions. However, the camp came under the Iraqi government's authority as part of the U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) approved late last year.

With the U.S. presence in Iraq winding down—exactly one month ago, U.S. forces withdrew from Iraqi cities and security was handed to the Iraqi government as part of the SOFA —Iraq has been acting boldly to bolster its sovereign credentials.

The raid is also widely seen as a part of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's balancing act between his U.S. allies and Iran, a fellow Shia Muslim regional power seeking to expand its influence. Iran housed Maliki's party in exile and has continued to support it since it returned to Iraq after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein.

On Jul y 10, five Iranians detained by the U.S. military in Iraq for over two years were suddenly released. The move was seen as a bow to pressure from Iraqi politicians who are seeking closer ties with Iran.

Iran has long sought the expulsion of the MEK from Iraq, where Camp Ashraf lies about 100 kilometers from the Iranian border and 96 kilometers from Baghdad.

Though Iraqi authorities denied on July 29 that they had raided the camp at Iran's behest, Iranian parliamentary Ali Larijani lauded the move.

According to news reports, Larijani said, "Although this measure was taken late by Iraq, it is admirable that they have decided to clear Iraq of terrorists."

Maryam Rajavi, the Paris-based leader of the Iranian opposition group the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said that the Iraqi government is doing the bidding of Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The NCRI is an umbrella group whose most significant member is the MEK, for which it is believed to be a front.

On her website, Rajavi called the raid "a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a futile attempt by Khamenei to compensate for his defeat in the face of the nationwide uprising" —referring the recent unrest in Iran over the disputed reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

When Iranian authorities cracked down on protesters, the MEK was one of the foreign-based groups they accused of fomenting demonstrations. Iranian authorities refer to the MEK by the Farsi word for "hypocrites," as Larijani did.

Some U.S. neoconservatives and their allies, who have long advocated regime change in Iran, think that despite the group's unpopularity in Iran, it would make an ideal vehicle for creating a viable exiled opposition.

One longtime supporter of the MEK, Raymond Tanter, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a Georgetown University professor, formed the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) in 2005 with the aim of building support for Iranian dissidents.

On July 29, the IPC released a statement condemning the attacks, and suggesting  that responsibility for them lies with the Obama administration.

"After all the American blood spilled and U.S. treasure spent on the transformation of Iraq into a moderate American ally in the Middle East," Tanter said in the release, "it would be the height of irony if the Obama administration remained silent in face of the humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding in Iraq with the assault of Iraqi Security Forces on unarmed Iranian dissidents."

According to retired General Thomas McInerney, chair of IPC’s advisory council,  though the U.S. was not in control of the camp at the time of the raid, " those who transferred responsibility may be subject to being prosecuted for committing war crimes."

"The Obama administration may be ultimately prosecutable for dereliction of its responsibility to make sure the Iraqi Security Forces treat those formerly under U.S. protection in a humane fashion," McInerny said. "As the Iraqis attack Iranian dissidents, it opens the door to prosecutable offenses on the part of the Obama administration."

In 2005, Tanter suggested using nuclear "bunker-buster" bombs against Iran's underground facilities, noting that while the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) bans the use of such weapons against non-nuclear states, "such a prohibition might not apply as much to Israel." Israel is not a signatory to the NPT.

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and PRA’s Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

John Yoo is a former deputy assistant attorney general known for his extreme views on executive wartime powers and for helping author the George W. Bush administration’s infamous “torture memos.”


Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Contrary to some wishful thinking following the Trump administration’s decision to “put Iran on notice” and seemingly restore U.S.-Saudi ties, there are little signs of apprehension in Tehran.


Print Friendly

“The fundamental conflict at the heart of Israeli-Russian views on Syria is that Israel’s redline is the establishment of a permanent Iranian presence in Syria and Russia’s redline is the elimination of a permanent Iranian presence in Syria.”


Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


RightWeb
share