728 x 90

Hand delivered letter to President-elect Trump, the need to revise Iran policy

-

23 American officials and dignitaries write a letter to President-elect Donald Trump for Iran policy revision
23 American officials and dignitaries write a letter to President-elect Donald Trump for Iran policy revision

A letter to the US President-elect, Donald Trump has been written by 23 bi-partisan American officials and dignitaries urging him to revise US-Iran policy. They called on the president to adopt a policy in which not Iran regime, but the rights of the Iranian people are recognized.
The 23 American dignitaries say the time has come to end the Iranian fundamentalist regime's unjustified influence in the US affairs and instead a new dialogue channel is established with the Iranian Resistance and the NCRI.

 

The full text of the letter is followed:

 

President‐Elect Donald J. Trump
BY HAND
Dear Mr. President‐Elect,

 

Congratulations to you and Vice President‐Elect Pence on your election. As Americans, many of us with years of public service, we urge your Administration to adopt and pursue an Iran policy that recognizes the interests and inalienable rights of the Iranian people, and not just the clerical regime ruling over them.
President Obama’s administration and other countries made commitments to Iran on the nuclear issue. In granting to the Iranian government major financial, legal, political and security‐related concessions, the US and its P5+1 negotiating partners expended their available leverage. Your Administration will want to hold Iran to its obligations for which so much was given, work with the IAEA and other governments to close loopholes in the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA), detect Iranian efforts to violate its commitments, and otherwise deter Iran from threatening its neighbors’ security.
President Obama expressed the hope that nuclear negotiations would induce Iran’s leaders to act with greater consideration of American interests. It is now clear that Iran’s leaders have shown no interest in reciprocating the US overture beyond the terms of the JCPOA which gained them significant rewards. Through their extremely high rate of executions at home, and destructive sectarian warfare in support of the Assad regime in Syria and proxy Shiite militias in Iraq, Iran’s rulers have directly targeted US strategic interests, policies and principles, and those of our allies and friends in the Middle East.
To restore American influence and credibility in the world, the United States needs a revised policy based on universally shared norms and principles reflecting the ideals of peace and justice. A policy highlighting, and demanding an end to, Iran’s domestic human rights violations and malevolent regional actions will attract broad support and generate needed leverage against Iran’s threatening behavior.
In June 2015 and July 2016 a large, bipartisan group of former US officials and policy experts, including most if not all of the undersigned, issued specific recommendations for a more principled, comprehensive and effective policy (Attachments 1 and 2). You will see that we have consistently advocated a policy that, by recognizing the basic rights of the Iranian people to exercise their sovereign franchise free of brutal repression, would put the United States on the right side of history.
The Iranian Supreme Leader’s interest in pursuing a nuclear weapons capability is based not on legitimate concerns of self‐defense for his country, but on preserving a vulnerable system of dictatorship
that has lacked legitimacy from its violent inception, and dares not hold a truly free and open election.
The world’s Shia Muslims have overwhelmingly ignored, abandoned and rejected the religious authority claimed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei under the post‐1979 constitution; regime writings reflect his perceived need of a nuclear weapons capability to compensate for his failure to inspire followers with religious charisma as Ayatollah Khomeini had done. Our policy must make clear that the clerical rulers in Tehran will be denied any opportunity to develop or obtain nuclear weapons.
By now it is clear that neither Iran nor its Syrian or Russian allies are committed to defeating ISIS. Although ISIS is Sunni, its rise was abetted by Assad, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards led by its elite Qods Force, and Iraq’s then‐Prime Minister Maliki to divert international focus from achieving a negotiated transition of power in Damascus which could have ended the civil war and the exodus of refugees to neighboring states, Europe and North America. Iran fears a scenario that would bridge sectarian differences and accord a legitimate political role to Sunnis as well as Shia and Kurds in Syria and Iraq, as this would leave Iran and Russia with reduced influence and no military role in either country. Our most respected experts have consistently warned against relying on Iran’s cooperation in the fight against ISIS.
The critically important goals of promoting a legitimate political settlement in Syria, enabling humanitarian relief for endangered and displaced Syrian families, and ending the politically destabilizing flow of refugees fleeing horrific violence for Europe and North America, are unconnected to the nuclear agreement; no longer can these strategic interests be held hostage to a concern that Iran might renege on its commitments under the JCPOA. The Iran policy will have to change, including a long‐overdue focus on gross internal human rights violations and the lack of democratic legitimacy which is at the core of the Tehran’s regime's lawless and destructive role.
The execution of nearly 3,000 people in Iran, including many women and juveniles, since the self‐proclaimed reformist Hassan Rouhani became President in 2013 is exceeded by no other country today in per capita terms. This is not an “internal” matter that the world should ignore: the US, along with most countries, is legally bound by the International Bill of Human Rights. America’s commitment to universal principles is not negotiable.
Along with these policy adjustments, we repeat the call for the US Government to establish a dialogue with Iran’s exiled resistance, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Headquartered north of Paris, the NCRI, along with its component entities including the Mujahedin‐e Khalq (MEK), was for several years listed by several western governments as a foreign terrorist organization; the US designation ran from 1997‐2012. All such designations of the resistance were terminated pursuant to comprehensive judicial reviews in the EU, UK, France and the United States.
We now know that these designations of the resistance as a terrorist group by Western governments were not made in response to confirmed terrorism; all were diplomatic gestures taken at the request of Tehran. Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security has for many years impaired the exiled opposition by covertly spreading false and distorted claims through third parties in the West.
Other governments like Germany and the Netherlands closely monitor Iran’s influence operations on their soil; a thorough counter‐intelligence investigation by the US is clearly needed and long overdue.
Some in the US media and policy community continue to recycle defamatory allegations from decades past – notably the claim that the MEK killed several Americans in Tehran during the 1970s – that have been independently researched and authoritatively debunked (Attachment 3). A sixteen-month investigation in 2003‐2004 by several US intelligence and law enforcement agencies of every MEK member residing in Camp Ashraf, Iraq yielded no charges against any person. While several governments continued after that to label the resistance as a terrorist organization, the MEK and all those supporting the organization have now been comprehensively cleared and vindicated by judicial investigations. A French magistrate concluded in 2011 that armed resistance by the MEK against the regime from the 1980s until it ended such activities in June 2001 had been legitimate resistance to tyranny, with no acts meeting the definition of terrorism. The mass jailing, torture and execution of family members and MEK sympathizers during the same period for their opposition to fundamentalist dictatorship remains a largely untold story in the US. The truth is that no member of this group has ever been convicted of terrorism in a court of law.
History aside, no one disputes that the resistance effort since 2001 has been entirely political in nature, including discovering and revealing Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program in 2002 – an act for which President George W. Bush publicly credited the resistance. It is time to end the fundamentalist regime’s undue influence over US policy and establish a channel of dialogue with the NCRI, as many other governments have done, consistent with the longstanding US diplomatic practice of dialogue with political opposition groups worldwide.
Given the opportunity to engage directly with the NCRI, unfiltered by regime propaganda, US officials will learn that in the 1980s, as a political strategy to challenge Iran’s harsh fundamentalism that denies all rights to women, the resistance adopted a policy of gender equality – rare in the Muslim world – and elevated women to leadership roles. In the ensuing years, the group developed several elements of a policy platform. In 2006, the leader and President‐Elect of the group, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, unveiled a 10‐point plan (Attachment 4) describing the group’s aspirations for Iran, which has remained the NCRI’s policy agenda ever since. All 10 points reflect principles equally shared by Americans.
Like the resistance, we envision an Iran in the future where all men and women have the right to vote, regardless of ethnic group or religion, and where freedom of speech and assembly are guaranteed, with no Internet monitoring and censorship. We can imagine an Iran where church and state are separated, and religious freedom guaranteed, with an end to the death penalty. Iran’s women should have equal rights and opportunity to those of men, with guaranteed freedom in their choice of clothing and in marriage, divorce, education and employment.
Iranians in the 21st century deserve to live under the rule of law, consistent with contemporary – not Shari’a – law, applied equally to all, with due process and the presumption of innocence, and an independent judiciary. Property rights and market economics would be respected in an Iran no longer ruled by religious dictatorship.
Of the ten points advocated by the NCRI, the last may be the most consequential. Like the resistance, we believe that it is still possible for Iran to renounce and forego any pursuit of a nuclear weapons program, and that given the opportunity to exercise popular sovereignty through free and fair elections, the people of Iran would embrace a non‐nuclear posture, as countries including Brazil and Argentina have previously done. To contemplate such an evolution in Iran is to recognize how modest and tenuous are the nuclear program restraints negotiated into the JCPOA, and how little effect it has had on the adverse strategic trends impacting our security and national interests.
In sum, Mr. President‐Elect, we believe that a clearer reflection of US interests and principles must now shape our policy toward Iran. With a more enlightened grasp of the Iranian regime’s priorities and vulnerabilities, your Administration will be equipped to exert leverage enabling the US to oppose Tehran’s repression and adventurism while standing for the fundamental values both our peoples share.

Wishing you success as our 45th President, we thank you for your consideration.

Attachments:
1 – June 13, 2015 statement by US delegation at Paris rally
2 – July 9, 2016 statement by US delegation at Paris rally
3 – Correcting false and distorted allegations against the MEK
4 – NCRI President‐Elect Maryam Rajavi’s 10‐point plan


SIGNED:

Amb. J. Kenneth Blackwell – Former U.S. Representative, United Nations Human Rights Commission
General (Ret.) James L. Jones ‐ Former USMC Commandant, NATO Commander, National Security Advisor to the President
Hon. Edward Rendell ‐ Former PA Governor, DNC Chairman
Hon. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr.,Former Special Envoy and Asst Sec State
Hon. Robert Joseph Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
Hon. Tom Ridge – Former PA Governor, Secretary Homeland Security
Hon. Linda Chavez ‐Former Assistant to the President For Public Liaison; Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity
Hon. Patrick Kennedy – Former Rhode Island Congressman
Hon. John Sano ‐ Former Deputy Director CIA National Clandestine Service
Gen. (Ret.) James Conway – Former Commandant U.S. Marine Corps
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) David Deptula – Former Deputy COS For Intel, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force
Hon. Louis J. Freeh – Former Director FBI
Hon. Rudy Giuliani ‐ Former NYC Mayor, Presidential Candidate
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman – Former Connecticut Senator
Colonel (Ret.), U.S. Army Wesley M. Martin – Former US Military Commander for Camp Ashraf, Senior Antiterrorism Officer – Iraq
Hon. R. Bruce McColm ‐ President, Institute for Democratic Strategies
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey ‐ Former US Attorney General
Hon. Mitchell B. Reiss (Ret.) ‐ Former Ambassador, Special Envoy to the Northern Ireland Peace Process
General (Ret.) Hugh Shelton‐ Former Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff
Hon. Eugene R. Sullivan – Retired Federal Judge
Hon. Raymond Tanter ‐ Former Personal Representative of Secretary of Defense to Arms Control Negotiations
Hon. Robert Torricelli ‐ Former NJ Senator
General (Ret.) Charles (Chuck) Wald‐ Former Deputy Commander U.S. European Command


Policy Initiative on Iran
Breaking the Stalemate, Engaging with the Iranian Opposition
June 13, 2015


With a long history of serving the American people and the U.S. national interest, we stand together today to call for a new approach in our country’s policy toward Iran and the Iranian opposition.
Ours is an independent initiative, motivated by our concerns for United States national security, as well as justice and opportunity for millions of Arab and Persian citizens whose futures are being shaped by current events, and the unending suffering of the Iranian people, who have been deprived of their most fundamental rights for over 35 years under the tyrannical regime ruling Iran.
We are also concerned about the safety and security of the approximately 2,500 Iranian opposition members trapped in Camp Liberty in Iraq, whom our government, through its military, has pledged in writing to protect. Their safety while being processed for onward relocation by the United Nations remains a moral obligation for the United States, arising not only from our written guarantee but also from the valuable help and intelligence – including information about Iran’s nuclear program – provided by these opposition members. Our country’s failure to uphold its solemn promises to these defenseless men and women is inexcusable, and is a by-product of our government’s misreading of the Iranian regime’s intentions.
We are united in our understanding of the nature of the regime in Iran, a subject about which many of our colleagues in Washington seem uncertain. While we share the goal of seeking an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons activities through diplomacy if such an outcome can be negotiated, we believe it is a mistake for Iran’s actions in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere to be overlooked, minimized, excused or even welcomed. We also believe it will better serve our country’s interests to pay closer attention to the human rights and aspirations of the Iranian people.
Today we call for an end to the misguided position of those in Washington who seek to isolate, exclude or otherwise ignore Iran’s largest, most established and best organized political opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, led by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi. In recent years we have come to know Mrs. Rajavi and the NCRI, and we know the resistance far better than many in Washington who believe that the NCRI should be kept at arm’s length for one reason or another.
We call as well for immediate pressure by our government on the government of Iraq, which depends on United States military and financial aid, to end the systematic torment of the MEK members still in Iraq that has thus far resulted in 142 deaths (101 outright murdered, 15 victims of rocket attacks, and 26 denied access to proper medical treatment) and the ongoing denial of livable health, sanitary and nutrition conditions. This cessation of harassment should be followed immediately by their physical removal from Iraq to countries in which Iranian opposition members are already leading productive lives, including the United States.
Mrs. Rajavi’s steadfast message, to political and religious leaders around the world over a period of many years, is a 10-point plan for the future of Iran that would resolve Iran’s most dangerous and destabilizing challenges. The plan would restore political legitimacy through universal suffrage, guarantee rights for all citizens and particularly women and minorities, end the cruel excesses of the judiciary and establish the rule of law, end the nightmare of fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship by once again separating church and state, protect property rights, promote equal opportunity and environmental protections, and – last but certainly not least – seek a non-nuclear Iran, free of weapons of mass destruction. The idea that Washington should continue in 2015 to disregard a worldwide group of Iranians promoting such a platform is indefensible. The United States should be maintaining a vibrant and constant dialogue with the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
It is by now beyond dispute that the regime in Tehran is fomenting instability and conflict throughout the region, most notably in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. Its campaign to undermine stability was launched because the regime sought to enhance its influence throughout the region and because it feared the emergence of more open political systems in nearby countries that could revive the democratic forces behind the Persian Spring of 2009. Iran shares responsibility for the rise of ISIS; this phenomenon was cynically facilitated by Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad and then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq to divert the focus from their own divisive sectarian actions, supported by Iran, about which we have repeatedly warned in previous years.
Iran’s regime has sustained a leader in Damascus guilty of major war crimes against his own people and in defiance of a Presidential “red line,” a UN-brokered transition process and the united stance of Arab League governments insisting on his departure. It has supplied military-grade weapons to Hizballah, a Lebanese non-state actor with the blood of American diplomats and Marines on its hands. It has supported and led sectarian militias in Iraq assaulting Sunni villages and towns. It has provided longrange rockets to Hamas in Gaza to be aimed at population centers in Israel, destabilizing efforts at a negotiated two-state solution. And it has supplied arms, explosives and funds to an insurgent group in Yemen that has driven out foreign Embassies, including our own, seized power and provoked a new regional military conflict.
In all of these actions, while the US Administration has exercised restraint in the apparent hope of moderating Iran’s behavior, Iran’s leaders have shown nothing but contempt for longstanding American, European and Arab interests throughout the Middle East. They have also clearly demonstrated that money is no object in their efforts to quell popular movements for more open and democratic governance, both domestically and in neighboring Arab countries.
Inside Iran, while many Americans have for years detected signs of moderation, the regime has become, if anything, more repressive since Hassan Rouhani became President in 2013. Imprisonment and executions have increased. Information, including access to the internet, radio and television as well as social media, are now substantially controlled by the Revolutionary Guards. The 2013 elections were carefully managed by the regime to avoid a repeat of the open rebellion in the streets in 2009, after which many were executed and more have been imprisoned.
The editors of The Washington Post, writing about its reporter, whom they say is “entirely innocent of the charges” for which he has been imprisoned in Iran since July of 2014, write that this “blatant abuse of the human rights of an American journalist” raises “disturbing questions about a regime that Mr. Obama is counting on to implement a complex and multifaceted accord limiting its nuclear activities.”
The Post editors ask, “If [Foreign Minister] Zarif and President Hassan Rouhani either countenance or cannot stop such blatantly provocative behavior by the Iranian intelligence services and judiciary, how can they be expected to overcome the entrenched resistance to limiting Iran’s uranium enrichment?”
We share these concerns. We also recognize that the fundamentalist regime in Tehran, in violating so many norms of political governance and international behavior since the 1979 revolution, survives not through the ballot box but only by absolute suppression and its false claim to religious authority – a formula which has now been repeated by Sunni extremists attempting to create an Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. No one should misunderstand why the National Council of Resistance of Iran is the single entity feared most by the rulers in Tehran: it is because the MEK and NCRI directly challenge the religious claim of authority that the mullahs have used to exercise and maintain political power.
The ayatollahs’ thirty-five-year war against the MEK and the NCRI; the repeated deadly assaults against the residents of Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty; their intelligence services’ covert influence and propaganda campaigns against the Resistance in Western countries; their constant diplomatic requests over the past two decades for the US, France and other governments to place the MEK on their lists of terrorist organizations; their confiscation of satellite dishes and jamming of Iran National TV signals reaching the population inside Iran; their arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and execution of anyone supporting the Resistance – all these aspects of the regime’s obsessive focus on the Resistance are due to one fact.
This is not about terrorism, not about culture, not about the Iran-Iraq war or the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. All the propaganda generated by the regime to defame and criminalize the Resistance has now been exposed, and the NCRI has challenged every terrorist listing and won. No, this obsession of the mullahs with the Resistance is about Islam, and the desire of millions of Iranians to exercise their faith while living in a modern society with higher education, and economic and political empowerment for women and men alike. The concept of Velayat e-faqih in the new regime’s constitution – forcefully imposed by Ayatollah Khomeini after the fall of the Shah to place total religious and political power in the hands of one man – has been a disaster for the Iranian people, for Iran and for the world. You will not hear any debate in Washington that ISIS must be stopped; it is high time Americans also recognized that if ISIS succeeds, what the world will get is a Sunni version of Khomeini’s Iran.
We recommend the following four initiatives to our government and to presidential candidates and prospective candidates in both parties, aimed at de-escalating conflict throughout the Middle East, in part by recognizing these realities, standing for American principles and basic international norms, and opposing the destructive role of Iran in the region.
First, on the nuclear issue, we support a peaceful solution if it can be achieved through diplomacy.
However, we strongly believe that such a solution cannot be achieved by making concessions to Iran but rather by making clear that Iran will be denied any potential opportunity to obtain a nuclear bomb. Iran under the ayatollahs has consistently shown that it cannot be trusted. Verification, not blind trust in the Iranian government to fulfill conditions of the agreement, must be an unconditional reality.
Furthermore, western negotiators must clarify what is meant by Possible Military Dimension (PMD) activities of Iran before a comprehensive deal can be signed.
Second, Iran’s destructive role throughout the region must be curbed and deterred. Far from being part of the solution, Iran is a major part of the problem. There should be no direct or indirect cooperation with Iran under the pretext of fighting ISIS. Iran has been a major engine of the spread of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism. It is globally recognized to be the primary state sponsor of terrorism.
The success of a long-term stabilization strategy in the region hinges on ending Iran’s cynical and destructive meddling in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and other countries.
Third, we should be more vigilant and vocal about the serious human rights abuses by the regime that continue inside Iran. Our policy on Iran’s internal and external transgressions against universal international norms can no longer be held hostage to the nuclear issue. Indeed, our failure to stand for basic principles and rights only encourages the regime to violate them further with impunity. Nuclear negotiations, which many have taken as an indication of moderation within the theocratic regime, must not inadvertently provide it an undeserved veneer of legitimacy and abet its suppression of the Iranian people. During Mr. Rouhani’s tenure as President, the human rights situation in Iran has measurably deteriorated while illicit arms trafficking and support for terrorist non-state actors has continued unabated. A successful policy toward Iran and the Middle East cannot be based on denial of these realities.
Ultimately, the core of our approach is to side with 80 million Iranian people and their desire, along with people everywhere, for freedom and popular sovereignty based on democratic principles. Engaging with the democratic opposition has been the missing piece of US policy for many years under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Thus, as our fourth initiative, we call on our government to break the stalemate and engage in respectful dialogue with the Iranian opposition, consistent with our country’s policy of dialogue with all political groups. Whatever the outcome of nuclear negotiations and in virtually any possible scenario, the wishes of the Iranian people and their desire for change must be taken into consideration.
The fact is that Washington officials, experts and expatriates cannot possibly know what Iranians living under a violently repressive dictatorship truly believe about their circumstances or whom they would support in an open political process. We disrespect a great people by assuming that a democratic and non-nuclear Iran is impossible. It is not impossible; to the contrary, it is the only way to a future of regional stability.
Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, as a Muslim woman advocating a tolerant and democratic interpretation of Islam enabling Muslims to be accepted and respected by all cultures and faiths, represents the very opposite of the misogynous Iranian regime’s dictatorial nature and that of all Islamic fundamentalists and extremists. We need to align our policies with our principles, and begin listening to the voices of brave Iranians, many of whom have waited more than three decades, as their loved ones endured torture and death in the mullahs’ prisons, still believing in the promise of America. All of us here today stand with them in solidarity with their deepest aspirations for a respectable, just and democratic Iranian government worthy of its people.


Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell – Former U.S. Ambassador, UN Human Rights Commission
Hon. Marc Ginsberg – Former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) David D. Phillips –  Former US Military Commander For Camp Ashraf
Hon. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr., Former Special Envoy and Asst Sec State
Hon. Rudy Giuliani - Former NYC Mayor, Presidential Candidate
Hon. Mitchell B. Reiss (Ret.) – Former Ambassador, Former Special Envoy to the Northern Ireland Peace Process
Hon. John Bolton- Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN
Colonel (Ret.) Thomas V. Cantwell, Former US Military Commander for Camp Ashraf
Hon. Porter Goss – Former Director of CIA, Former Chairman of House Intel Committee
Hon. Newt Gingrich – Former Speaker of the House
Hon. Edward Rendell - Former PA Governor, DNC Chairman
Hon. Bill Richardson – Former NM Governor, Secretary of Energy, UN Ambassador, Presidential Candidate
Hon. Glenn Carle Former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Transnational Threats, National Intelligence Council
General George Casey - Former U.S. Army Chief of Staff and Commander of Multi-National Forces – Iraq
General (Ret.) James L. Jones - Former USMC Commandant, NATO Commander, National Security Advisor to the President
Hon. Robert Joseph Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
Hon. Tom Ridge – Former PA Governor, Secretary Homeland Security
Hon. John Sano - Former Deputy Director CIA National Clandestine Service
Hon. Linda Chavez -Former Assistant to the President For Public Liaison; Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity
Hon. Patrick Kennedy – Former Rhode Island Congressman
General (Ret.) Hugh Shelton- Former Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff
Gen. (Ret.) James Conway – Former Commandant U.S. Marine Corps
Hon. Howard Dean - Former VT Governor, DNC Chairman, Presidential Candidate
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman – Former Connecticut Senator
Colonel (Ret.), U.S. Army Wesley M. Martin – Former US Military Commander for Camp Ashraf, Senior Antiterrorism Officer – Iraq
Hon. Eugene R. Sullivan – Retired Federal Judge, Lt. Colonel (Ret.), U.S. Army
Hon. Raymond Tanter - Former Personal Representative of Secretary of Defense to Arms Control Negotiations
Dr. Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law Harvard Law School
Lt. Col. (Ret.) Leo McCloskey – Former US Military Commander For Camp Ashraf
Hon. Robert Torricelli - Former NJ Senator
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) David Deptula – Former Deputy COS For Intel, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force
Hon. Paula J. Dobriansky – Former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
Hon. R. Bruce McColm - President, Institute for DemocraticStrategies
Colonel (Ret.) Gary Morsch - Former Senior U.S. Army Medical Officer, Camp Ashraf
Hon. Frances Townsend – Former Homeland Security Advisor to the President
General (Ret.) Charles (Chuck) Wald- Former Deputy Commander U.S. European Command
Hon. Louis J. Freeh – Former Director FBI
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey - Former US Attorney General