Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker

Religious fundamentalism, whether it is Muslim, Jewish, or Christian, results in the same unfortunate phenomenon: a closed mind and a view of life that ascribes the truth only to the self and those that accept that same truth. In effect, the fundamentalist frequently says: "God has whispered in my ear and in my ear alone." Sadly the recipients of such "unique" revelations frequently believe that nothing should be allowed to interfere with what they perceive as their divinely commanded duty to spread the word, and that such a crusade or jihad justifies the use of force against any that would dare oppose it.

Speech given on 23 September at the fifth annual "No-to-Ahmadinejad" rally held in Dag Hammerskjöld Plaza by Iranian supporters of the NCRI, protesting the appearance of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN.

The article is an exact copy of a letter sent to President B.H.Obama about the vicious Iraqi army attack on unarmed Iranian exiles in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, on July 28, 2009. It calls upon President Obama to act swiftly to stop this human catastrophe, and points out that further inaction on his part will call into question the reliability of the U.S. to fulfill its promises to aid those in the region to whom it has made security promises.

In what is becoming a regular routine, the beleaguered Iranian regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is using U.S. media to attack its arch-enemy, the popular People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI, aka Mojahedin-e Khalq, MEK). Last month it was Jacob Laksin of Front Page Magazine. who wrote the poorly researched "Terrorists as Freedom Fighters"[1]; this month it's Antiwar.com's Charles Davis whose "US Lawmakers Call For Supporting Terrorists In Iran"[2] shows even less research, and could have been written by a freshman writer in the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security's "Disinformation Department"[3]. Mr. Davis: you have been fed a boat load of the regime's disinformation, and like Jacob Laksin, you swallowed it whole. Next time, do your homework and research your sources; it will prevent the egg-on-the-face syndrome that you now suffer. There is an element of extreme irony in Charles Davis' article being published in Antiwar.com: the PMOI renounced violence in 2001; it signed a disarmament agreement in May 2003 and disarmed. The Iranian regime, on the other hand, has demonstrated very clearly its propensity to violence during this last month of popular demonstrations against the rigged "election" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who continues to threaten Israel with destruction on a weekly basis.

It´s a shame when good, conservative, socially responsible journalists like Jacob Laksin fail to do their homework, neglecting to research their material carefully enough and publish disinformation about a group put out by its enemies in an effort to discredit it. Such is the case as regards Mr. Laksin´s recent "Terrorists as Freedom Fighters", published in Front Page Magazine on June 25, 2009, where Laksin serves as a senior editor. Had he done his research properly, he would have read reports which serve to set the record straight about the leading Iranian opposition group. Instead, he swallowed the disinformation swill concocted by the Iranian regime—as the saying goes, "hook, line, and sinker"—and regurgitated it in his recent essay.

Iran´s presidential elections, scheduled for the end of this week (12 June 2009), are an elaborate charade, intended to give the appearance of democracy as well as the ability of Iranian voters to choose between hard-line conservatives and reforming moderates. It is a charade because the election is neither free nor fair, and the outcome already has been pre-determined by the decision of one man, and one man alone. For those unfamiliar with the electoral system in the Islamic Republic of Iran, let me elaborate.

The Obama administration and the U.S. Department of State share a delusion with the former government of Israel led by the hapless Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and elements within the Israeli Foreign Ministry: both groups believe that President Bashar al-Assad can be convinced to break with the Islamic Republic of Iran and be brought into the fold of civilized nation states, if only the right selection of carrots can be offered to woo him away from the embrace of the Iranian terror-masters. Maybe a combination of the Golan Heights, immunity from prosecution for the Hariri assassination, or better yet, forgetting that it ever happened , and a very healthy dosage of foreign aid, trade and debt-forgiveness by the U.S. and the West might just do the trick…with control of Lebanon thrown in as the cherry on top! When pigs fly, and hell has frozen over several times, Assad still will not abandon his alliance with Iran. Why? On what basis do I make such a tough prediction? ...

President Barack Obama, the Quartet´s Middle-East Emissary Tony Blair, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have it backwards: attempting to solve the Palestinian statehood question will not solve the Iranian problem; in fact, it will exacerbate it, as it permits the Tehran regime to continue to play the role of spoiler by its supplying of weaponry, training and funding to its rejectionist Arab proxies: Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. On the other hand, if the Iranian problem is solved—whether through application of the military option or through the application of very stringent sanctions and embargoes-whatever causes the Iranian government to change its tune, the result will mean that the support for the Arab rejection front—especially the jihadists—will disappear. When that happens, Palestinian moderates could once again make their voices heard.

The American author Mark Twain once noted: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Ms. Ana Gomes, a Euro MP from Portugal was trying to best Mark Twain on April 24 at the European Parliament as it was discussing the humanitarian situation of Iranian dissidents in Iraq. She tried to inject a bunch of lies under the stamp of the European Parliament, representing the European population, in two minutes. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Iranian mullahs were the ones cheering her on. But this time the brakes were put on by scores of MEPs who in recent years have visited Camp Ashraf, among them some fellow Socialist MEPs. To the dismay of Ms. Gomes and her allies in Tehran, these MEPs have seen Ashraf first hand and were able to provide detailed mission reports, refuting all the allegations that she had amassed. Thanks to vigilant MEPs, this time the truth caught up with Ms. Gomes' lies and the European Parliament rejected all of her amendments containing false allegations against the PMOI, foiling the mullahs´ attempted disinformation campaign against the Iranian Resistance. But what does that tell us about Ms. Gomes and her role?

President Barak H. Obama made many declarations of his strong sense of obligation to return American policy to a deeper commitment to the maintenance of human rights, something that he implied had been missing in the policies of the prior administration. One of his first acts as president was to sign an order for the closure of the federal detention program at Guantanamo Base. Another test awaits the Obama administration: the status of the residents of Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province in Iraq, the home of 3,418 members of the Iranian resistance organization, the People´s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) or as it is known in its native Farsi—the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The PMOI/MEK is the largest, best-organized, and oldest group opposed to the theocratic rule of the ayatollahs in Iran. The safety of Ashraf´s residents now is in a state of grave peril. The current Iraqi government, headed by Prime Minister Dr. Nouri Kamal al-Maliki from the Islamist Da´wa Party , the largest faction in the ruling United Iraqi Alliance—the Shiite fundamentalist parliamentary block—which has long been aligned with the Islamic government of Iran, continues to take orders from Tehran concerning the status and welfare of Ashraf. Dr. Muwaffak al-Rubaie, National Security Advisor to Prime Minister al-Maliki, wishes to expel the PMOI from Iraq. President Obama: we are asking you to fulfill your promise to the maintenance of the human rights of the 3,418 Iranian exiles who continue a three decade struggle to return democracy and freedom to their homeland, Iran, the cradle of religious toleration as developed by Cyrus the Great of Persia over 2,500 years ago. Ashraf is like a candle flickering in the darkness—the darkness of intolerance and fanaticism that engulfs present-day Iran; its light inspires hope in the hearts of millions of Iranians and non-fundamentalist Iraqis alike. Mr. President: you have the power to keep the flame–the light–of freedom alive. Don't let the torch of liberty fall from the hands of the Iranian people.

Now it is time for the new administration of Barak Obama to demonstrate that the president means what he says—that he does respect the aspirations of the Iranian people—and that he levels the Iranian playing field by taking the PMOI and NCRI off of the FTO, allowing the people of Iran to take back their country from the Islamic fascists that hijacked their revolution three decades ago. If Obama has the strength of character to do this single action, he will show the Iranian people that he believes in them and not their corrupt leaders. He will allow the Iranian people the chance to change their regime by themselves, without intervention by outsiders.

Should Israel stops its attacks on Hamas at this point, Hamas will emerge much stronger than it was—claiming victory in exactly the same way that Hezbollah claimed victory in Lebanon in 2006. If Israel allows Hamas to continue its control of Gaza, Iran will use the opportunity to reconstruct Gaza. The Islamic Republic of Iran´s reconstruction of Gaza will include the installation of an Iranian-controlled microwave communications system and rocket bunkers in exactly the same way that it did in southern Lebanon and South Beirut. If Iran gets its way in Gaza, it will not need a nuclear weapon to attack Israel; it will have Grad and Fajr missiles close enough to target major Israeli population centers, and with the use of chemical or biological agents, create the destruction of the Jewish State, all accomplished through its Hamas and Hezbollah proxies so that the Islamic Republic can claim total innocence.

Based on commitments made in May 2003, the United States remains responsible for the safety of the residents of Camp Ashraf, especially since in November 2004 every member of Ashraf´s population received "Protected Persons" status under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which thus guarantees them the right of non-refoulement—that means they are not be expelled against their will from their homes in Ashraf. Given the closeness of the al-Maliki government with the Islamic Republic of Iran, it would be irresponsible and immoral for the US to turn over responsibility for Ashraf to the current Iraqi government.

The average world citizen would consider the foods which we throw away as incredible feasts. For that matter, our pets—and even such scavengers as rats—eat better here in America than the malnourished millions and millions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We Americans contain in our clothes-closets—counting only the fashions of this year—more clothes than an individual from a Third World country will see in his or her entire lifetime. People are dying daily for want of the proverbial crust of bread. Is this unpleasant, distressing, revolting, causing the stomach to turn?—maybe. But it´s true none-the-less. If we consider ourselves religious and/or moral people—and most Americans would seem to identify themselves as one or the other, if not both—we cannot fail to realize our obligations to our fellow human beings. If we forget their plight, or Heaven forbid, turn a blind eye to it, we commit blasphemy, for in denying the one made in the image of God, we deny the One who made the image—we deny God. Our faith in God demands action from us; we must care!

The residents of Camp Ashraf, Iranian dissidents classified as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and protected for the past five years by the US Army/Multi-National Force-Iraq, have been threatened with arrest and deportation by the Islamist-led government of Iraq which is being pressured by the Islamic Republic of Iran to deport them. If the MNF-I carries out projected plans to turn security operations for Camp Ashraf over to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, himself an Islamist and an ally of Iran, the PMOI residents of Ashraf will be in grave danger of arrest, torture, and execution by agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran which has placed a fatwa upon their heads calling for their swift execution.

Mr. President, for once I find myself in complete agreement with you, which is a great surprise, given our different backgrounds and views on religion, politics, and life. Israel's Jews should return home. Absolutely; every last one of them should go home! Wait a minute! I just realized something: they are home. Jews have returned to their ancient ancestral homeland. This people began its history there in the land of Israel over three thousand years ago, long before the Philistines, the Persians, the Arabs or the Moslems came to that land, After an hiatus of many hundreds of years, they have returned home due to the reception we Jews received in the lands of our dispersion by nice people just like you.

Commentator Micah D. Halpern wrote an interesting column this week for his blog—The Micah Report—entitled "The Qualitative Edge", in which he suggests that Israeli deterrence of enemies no longer can be accomplished through maintaining superior military power in an age of asymmetrical warfare. In effect, Halpern is asking: how does a military power confront the true-believing enemy that is not only willing to die, but actively seeks death as a way of psychologically defeating the superior power it faces? Halpern suggests that Israel and the West need to find a new model to confront this "new" type of enemy. A new model is not needed. However, what is needed is the resolve to fight relentlessly against those that use terrorism—especially against innocent non-combatants—as a method of gaining an advantage in the psychological aspect of war.

The recent article[1] by Dr. Shlomo Ben-Ami—formerly Israel´s Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of Ehud Barak and currently vice-president of the Toledo International Centre for Peace—and Dr. Trita Parsi—president and founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and formerly Foreign Affairs advisor to Ohio´s disgraced Congressman Bob Ney—entitled "The alternative to an Israeli attack on Iran", and published in the Christian Science Monitor on July 2, 2008, is an example of a gullible peace maker being beguiled by an agent of a regime that wishes to erase the peace-maker´s (Ben-Ami´s) homeland from the world map. Teaming up with Trita Parsi is the 21st century version of joining Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels—Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda—to write an article in 1933 about the Jewish contribution to German culture—which thoughtful Jew would have agreed to do so?

Cultural exchanges between peoples is a good way to break down the barriers that are so easily erected when alien cultures like those of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America collide, as they have done for the last twenty-nine years. Surely that is the reasoning behind the current contemplation within the Department of State to open an interest section in Tehran. But if the reason for opening an interests section in Tehran is to reach out to the Iranian people, Dr. Rice and her colleagues in Foggy Bottom have been breathing too much of the local vapors down there. They seem to have forgotten that in a totalitarian state like the Islamic Republic of Iran, not just anyone is permitted to apply for a visa to visit the USA or the West.

David Igantius, wrote an Op-Ed entitled, "The Right Iraq Footprint" In it he suggests that we follow the advice of Lt. Colonel Dr. David Kilcullen , an expert in counterinsurgency. Kilcullen suggests that the U.S. begin the process of redefining our relationship with the Government of Iraq. The heavy presence that we are maintaining in Iraq is not sustainable over an endless period— economically it will exhaust our resources. Kilcullen recommends that we transition to a lighter force, one made up principally of Special Operations forces—both the "black" SOF that will hunt terrorists, and the "white" SOF that will train and fight alongside the Iraqis. He says that we will also need a strong intelligence presence. Timing is everything. It is time to carefully begin to lay the groundwork for the changes that Kilcullen correctly suggests. But we probably are a year to fifteen months from starting to implement those changes. Iraqis first need to see that their transition to democracy really is beginning to pay off, and that the U.S. is not about to revert to the Viet Nam syndrome of cut and run

Reaction by the Islamic Republic of Iran was swift; the regime mobilized its Iraqi allies among the Shiite fundamentalist camp, including Abdul Aziz al-Hakim´s SICRI/SIIC and the al-Dawa Party of Prime Minister Dr. Nouri al-Maliki and Moqtada al-Sadr, in order to avenge and counter the demands of the 3 million Shiite anti-fundamentalist supporters of the Solidarity Congress of Iraqi Peoples that Iran cease its interference in Iraqi affairs. Tehran insisted that the Iraqi government introduce legislation in the Iraqi National Assembly banning contact with the PMOI and calling for the removal of the Multi-Force protection of the PMOI´s Camp Ashraf, as well as the expulsion of PMOI personnel from Iraq.

Monica Duffy Toft, professor of public policy at Harvard´s Kennedy School of Government, recently published an article in the Christian Science Monitor entitled, "Why Islam lies at the heart of Iraq´s civil war" . In her article, Toft, a recognized scholar on civil war, especially in the modern Arab world, suggests that it is the Sunni-Shiite divide that fuels the war in Iraq—that the war essentially is a religion-centered civil war. I am not an expert in civil wars, but my contacts in the Middle East and amongst Iraqis, both Sunni and Shiite, cause me to see things differently, although I agree that Islam is a major factor in the civil war in Iraq. As I see it, that which fuels the war it is the friction between those that view Islam in a fundamentalist manner, and wish to establish an Islamic, Shari´ah–based government, and those that wish to produce a secular democracy. There are Shiites and Sunnis—as well as Kurds—on both sides of the conflict. Without realizing it, Toft has admitted as much when she writes: "But today, the conflict has grown to include Shiites against fellow Shiites."

The truth is that Hezbollah is not subservient to Syria, but rather to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Syria, which dearly desires to regain control of Lebanon, if not to actually swallow the Levantine coastal nation outright, just saw Beirut become a satellite of Iran. With Iran controlling Lebanon through its Hezbollah proxies, Syria now is further from its goal of retaking Lebanon under is influence and control. Assad lost, and lost big time, when Hezbollah won. The Lebanese commentator Nizar Abdel-Kader, former deputy chief of staff of the Lebanese army, put it aptly when he wrote last week: "…the future role of Syria will be reduced to serving as a conduit for Iranian logistical support to Hizballah."

Andrew Silow-Carroll, editor-in-chief of the New Jersey Jewish News, published an Op-Ed column in the NJ Jewish News that was also published in the May 25, 2008 edition of The Jerusalem Post, entitled "Please appease me: What´s your Iran plan?" As Silow-Carroll noted, despite the vehemence of the politicians´ interpretations of each others words, we have received very little in the way of a detailed plan, nary even a clear outline, of their respective positions on how to successfully solve what we might term as "the Iranian problem". Hence, Silow-Carroll´s title includes the pertinent question: "What´s your Iran plan?" I want to suggest the answer that Andrew Silow-Carroll and about 220 million other American citizens want and need to hear from our presidential contenders. There is another way to solve our problems with the belligerent tyrannical Islamist regime in Iran that does not require us to go to war, nor does it continue our nearly thirty-year failed policy of appeasement; it's called the "Third Option" and it involves regime change by the Iranian People.

On Monday, May 26, 2008, 16:23 local time, agents of the Sepah-e Qods (Qods Force), the Islamic Republic of Iran´s elite secretive unit of the Sepah-e Pasdaran (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), the regime´s military organization tasked with executing IRGC extra-territorial terrorist operations, and the section that was proscribed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization this past October (2007) by the U.S. Department of State, in an unprovoked attack, fired a Grad missile at Ashraf City in Diyala Province, Iraq.

Hezbollah's power grab in Lebanon is part of Iran's plan to dominate the Levant through an elaborate Microwave Communications system that gives Tehran total fire and telemetry control over Hezbollah's missiles in Lebanon. This system poses a major threat to Israel and the West.

Whether the subject is parenting or confronting an recalcitrant adversary, be it Israel dealing with the Palestinians or the G5+1 attempting to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from going nuclear, the same principles are at work: it is a mistake to continually seek negotiations, make concessions and offer ever greater rewards for compliance, as the opposition quickly learns that rejection of the current offer is advantageous—it results in a bigger prize being proffered in the next round of talks.