Iran: Foreign Policy Challenges and Choices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Iran: Foreign Policy Challenges and Choices Empowering the Democratic Opposition Caption: Si-o-Se Pol, Bridge of 33 Arches, Esfahan, Iran Photo: Simon Richard Iran: Foreign Policy Challenges and Choices Empowering the Democratic Opposition November 2006 Neither the DLA Piper nor the GlobalOptions reports were prepared under the direction, control, or with any financing from MEK or NCRI. © DLA Piper US LLP 2006 Table of Contents Illustration: Map of Iran ....................................................................................... 2 Table of Acronyms ............................................................................................... 3 A New Approach to US Iran Policy: A Response to the Failure of Engagement ......................................................... 5 Independent Assessment of the Mujahedin-e Khalq and National Council of Resistance of Iran .................................................... 109 DLA Piper US LLP was retained by an American citizen to examine the threat that Iran poses to the United States and to evaluate various policy alternatives for a prospective response. DLA Piper has produced Iran: Foreign Policy Challenges and Choices. Further, DLA Piper subsequently commissioned GlobalOptions to produce its own report, Independent Assessment of the Mujahedin-e Khalq and National Council of Resistance of Iran. Both reports are included in this publication. IRAN: FOREIGN POLICY CHALLENGES AND CHOICES 1 Map of Iran L Bonab L Ramsar L Natanz Arak I Saghand I Bushehr L Research reactor Arak (heavy water Esfahan (uranium plant) conversion plant) I Uranium mine Bushehr (nuclear Natanz (uranium reactor) enrichment plant) Source: 1155/New Scientist Global Security 2 IRAN: FOREIGN POLICY CHALLENGES AND CHOICES Table of Acronyms ALF Arab Liberation Front APC Armored Personnel Carrier ANO Abu Nidal Organizaton CIA Central Intelligence Agency DFLP Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine EU-3 United Kingdom, France, and Germany FPMR/D Manual Rodriguez Patriotic Front Dissidents FTO Foreign Terrorist Organization IACNV Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICCO Islamic Culture and Communications Organization IED International Educational Development IRA Irish Republican Army IRNA Islamic Republic News Agency (official news agency of Iran) IRP Islamic Republican Party (party of Ayatollah Khomeini) JAG Judge Advocate General Corps KDP Kurdish Democratic Party MEK Mujahedin-e Khalq MIPT National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism MP Member of Parliament NLA National Liberation Army (part of MEK) NPT Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NSC National Security Council NSDD National Security Decision Directive NCRI National Council of Resistance of Iran PLF Palestine Liberation Front PLO Palestine Liberation Organization PMOI People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (also known as MEK) PUK Patriotic Union of Kurdistan RIRA Real Irish Republican Army SAVAK Organization for Intelligence and National Security (Iran), from the Farsi Sazeman-i Ettelaat va Amniyat-i Keshvar UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees EMPOWERING THE DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 3 4 IRAN: FOREIGN POLICY CHALLENGES AND CHOICES A New Approach to US Iran Policy: A Response to the Failure of Engagement Prepared by DLA Piper US LLP, November 2006 Foreword Many Americans today are understandably concerned over the increasing power of the fundamentalist Islamic Republic of Iran and the rapidly growing threat that it poses to the United States’ security interests. Especially disturbing are the regime’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons technology while it acts as the leading state sponsor of global terrorism. This concern has been underscored in recent months by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose rhetoric has increased the level of tension throughout the region. In that context, DLA Piper was retained by a concerned Iranian American to objectively examine the threat that Iran poses to the United States and to evaluate various policy alternatives for a prospective response. This report takes on particular relevance in the aftermath of the 2006 Congressional elections as decision-makers grapple with the question of Iraq policy. A relevant question in the debate centers on the role of Iran’s expanding influence over affairs in Iraq and the short- and long-term consequences of Tehran’s projection of Islamic fundamentalist power in Iraq and throughout the region. Our conclusion is that the two most frequently cited options for addressing the Iranian threat – direct military confrontation and continued “soft” engagement – are untenable and will offer no effective solutions. We believe, as do many others, that a response which has significant potential is the adoption of a policy of regime change through active support for organizations that advocate for democracy in Iran. There are a number of these organizations but one of the groups is the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an organization currently listed by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), and currently located primarily at Camp Ashref, Iraq. Belief in the MEK and its goals has attracted a substantial body of informed opinion and international support. Indeed, since the MEK was first designated an FTO in October 1997, the public support for removing it from the list has been widespread, including a non-partisan group of 220 members of the US Congress, 331 members of Parliament and 122 members of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, and many EMPOWERING THE DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 5 European Union parliamentarians, as well as Iraqi officials and members of the US military forces in Iraq. As a result of the contradiction between the MEK’s designation as an FTO and the strong international support it has attracted, we were also asked to compile and analyze publicly available materials and to assess whether the designation is valid and should be maintained. In the course of our review, we have examined a wide range of documentary sources. These sources include print media, reports by major foreign policy think tanks and NGOs, statements by US and foreign government officials, and comments by US military personnel in Iraq. Based on this review, we have prepared a detailed report which analyzes the situation based on the historical record. As a result of our analysis, we believe there are ample grounds to conclude that the MEK and a broader coalition of organizations of which the MEK is a part, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), should be removed from the US list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Because the pace of events is so dynamic in the region, we will continue to update this report as developments warrant. – Dick Armey – Neil Livingstone 6 IRAN: FOREIGN POLICY CHALLENGES AND CHOICES Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................ 10 I. The Iranian Threat to the United States ....................................................... 12 A. Iran’s Nuclear Program............................................................................... 12 B. Iran as an Obstacle to Peace .................................................................... 21 1. Iran’s Support for Terrorism .................................................................... 21 2. Iran’s Terrorism and Meddling in Afghanistan and Iraq ........................... 25 C. Iran’s Abysmal Human Rights Record ........................................................ 30 1. Iran’s Exploitation of Islam....................................................................... 30 2. No Freedom of Speech and Association................................................. 31 3. Violations of Religious Freedom.............................................................. 32 4. Denial of Women’s Fundamental Rights ................................................. 33 5. Torture and Inhumane Treatment by Iranian Officials ............................. 34 II. Options for Responding to Iran...................................................................... 36 A. The Risk of US Military Intervention........................................................... 36 B. Continuing the Policy of Engagement ........................................................ 39 C. Supporting the Iranian Opposition.............................................................. 44 III. Removal of MEK/NCRI from the FTO List .................................................... 50 A. The MEK/NCRI ........................................................................................... 50 1. The Formation and Subsequent Destruction of MEK ............................. 52 2. Re-establishment of MEK........................................................................ 53 EMPOWERING THE DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 7 3. MEK’s Opposition to the Theocracy ........................................................ 54 4. Exile in Paris ............................................................................................ 55 5. Movement to Iraq ..................................................................................... 55 6. MEK at Camp Ashraf ............................................................................... 56 7. MEK’s Response to US Invasion of Iraq in March 2003 ......................... 57 8. International Support for MEK ................................................................