Retired U.S. Marine Corps General James Jones, who also served as U.S. National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2010, has retired from public and military service but continues to work in the private sector supporting sovereign partners on national defense and security issues.
Jones, 80, is the founder and president of Jones Group International, whose mission statement includes “an unwavering commitment to freedom and respect for human rights in all our work.”
The former four-star general was most recently in France to attend the 21st edition of the Free Iran Summit, hosted by the People’s Mojahedin.
The groups have their headquarters in Paris and their largest following lives in the Ashraf-3 base in Albania (the previous bases Ashraf-1 and Ashraf-2 were in Iraq).
The goal of these groups is to weaken and eventually overthrow the Iranian government led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Their aim is to replace it with a government based on a ten-point plan authored by Maryam Rajavi, the NCRI’s president-elect.
This plan includes commitments to freedom of speech and the press, individual liberty, the separation of church and state, and the creation of an independent judiciary.
Jones spoke with Eric J. Lyman of “Just the news” in an exclusive and wide-ranging interview that touched on a range of topics, from the international role he believes the MEK and NCRI should play, to US policy toward Iran, to the war in Ukraine, and even the lessons of the Vietnam War.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Just the news: When did you first become aware of the MEK and the NCRI?
General Jones: I was President Barack Obama’s first national security adviser for two years, until 2010. After I left the White House, I was invited to a panel to talk about the administration’s Iran policy program. That was in early 2011. It was a big panel with a lot of respected people, and it was sponsored by the MEK. That was the first time I had heard anything about them. For me, it was an educational experience.
Later that year, I got a call from someone at Camp Ashraf in Iraq telling me that the base had been attacked by Iraqi soldiers using American Humvees and weapons and ammunition that we had provided them. They were attacking mostly unarmed women and children. That was my first real indoctrination with them and what I found out was morally indefensible.
JTN: The group has a controversial past. We know that the US government designated the MEK as a terrorist organization from 1997 to 2013, so it was delisted not long after you learned about it. Were you involved in changing that designation?
General Jones: Yes, after I left the Obama administration, I continued to put pressure on various people, including (now U.S. Secretary of State) Tony Blinken, who was then the national security adviser to Joe Biden, who was then vice president. I told them about what I saw as the clear and present danger to innocent people and urged them to remove the MEK from the terrorist list. I can’t say that it started with me, because there was already a legal process that was paving the way through the justice system. But as soon as I found out about it, I did everything I could to make it happen.
JTN: MEK and NCRI see themselves as a kind of government in exile. But from the US perspective, are they more valuable in this role – as a potential successor state in Iran or as a source of information about what is happening in the country?
General Jones: Actually, both. One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that they have provided valuable intelligence about the Iranian nuclear program and everything that was going on in the country. That information hasn’t always been used the way it should have been used, but it is a source of valuable intelligence.
JTN: How could a group like the MEK take on a government role? How can one know what will happen if the mullahs fall? The MEK has also been out of the country for a long time. Do young Iranians even know about the group?
General Jones: This is where the international community comes in. Remember that the 10-point manifesto that Mrs. Rajavi is putting forward is very democratic. I use the term “Jeffersonian democracy” because it contains everything we could want. Look at it this way: we live in a world where the struggle between autocracies and democracies is ongoing. It’s not just about the MEK or the NCRI. It’s about Africa, it’s about South America. It’s certainly about the Middle East, it’s certainly about China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
There is a real battle going on. And it is very, very important for us that the democratic side of the issue prevails. Otherwise, our way of life will be dramatically affected in the future if, to give an example, Russian President Vladimir Putin prevails in Ukraine.
JTN: You mention Ukraine. To what extent do you think the current situation in Iran is one of the biggest crises in the world? Of course, most things are connected in some way. But taking that into account, how high do you think the risks emanating from Iran are compared to those between Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan, the problems in Africa or the events in Gaza? Where does Iran fit in?
General Jones: That’s an important point. It’s something that’s been going on for a long time, and I think it’s gotten worse because the U.S. government’s attitude toward Iran, the MEK, and the NCRI has been wrong for a long time.
JTN: Can you explain that in more detail?
General Jones: The policy of appeasement toward Iran is deeply flawed. I mean, it is fatally flawed. But you can trace it back to several administrations. Under President Clinton, for example, the MEK was designated a terrorist organization under his leadership. And why? Well, probably because the policy of appeasement had started. Basically, the idea is that if we do this for Iran, maybe there will be good people and they will stop their nuclear program. At the core of the policy of appeasement is that. We have to realize that this Iranian regime is never going to change.
JTN: So what is the alternative?
General Jones: I think we should be much tougher on Iran. Not just sanctions, I think we should respond with overwhelming force to anything they do that we don’t like. You know, in terms of attacks on merchant ships or supporting terrorists like Hamas or Hezbollah. I think there are many ways to convince dictatorships that you’re serious and to convince them to change their behavior. Anything else is a waste of time.
JTN: When you say overwhelming force, do you mean sending US soldiers into battle?
General Jones: There are a number of measures we could consider to change the behavior of a country like Iran. I have to leave it at that.
JTN: When Mahsa Amini died in police custody in 2022 for not wearing her headscarf correctly, there were widespread protests. Why didn’t this have a bigger impact internationally?
General Jones: Who knows? For me, this is also a symbol of a policy of appeasement that says, ‘You know, they won’t do that again.’ We have to do more. We have to be determined. We have to be stronger and more energetic in the face of adversity.”
JTN: I would like to change the subject and talk a little more about Ukraine. I know that you have been urging the West to provide more aid to Ukraine.
General Jones: Not just more help, but more help at the right time. If we had done that from the beginning, the war would be over now.
JTN: The two main arguments against handing over the most modern military technology to Ukraine are, firstly, that it could lead to escalation, that Russia could respond with tactical nuclear weapons or that other countries could intervene, and secondly, that these technologies could fall into Russian hands. What is your opinion on these two reservations?
General Jones: At the beginning of the war, we thought Russia had the second-best army in the world, but we quickly realized that in Ukraine they only had the second-best army. That’s where the West should have intervened. Many people saw Ukraine’s early success and thought they would do just fine if they went on the offensive. But from a military point of view, you need three times as much force to wage an offensive war as you do to wage a defensive war. But when Ukraine went on the offensive, it had to do so without an air force. That’s like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. That’s what I mean by that, we were too slow and too limited in giving them the means they needed to wage a successful offensive war.
JTN: I’m going to be provocative now. I know that your military career began in Vietnam. Weren’t the North Vietnamese successful without an air force?
General Jones: It was a complicated situation, a different kind of war. I remember a story from a journalist who interviewed North Vietnamese General (Võ Nguyên) Giáp after the war. The journalist said, “You know, you never defeated a US force in Vietnam.” And the general took a drag on his cigarette and said, “Yes, that’s true. But it’s also irrelevant.”
JTN: Can Ukrainians learn a lesson from this?
General Jones: No, I think the US can learn a lesson from this. The lesson is that if you support the Ukrainians, you must not limit their options too much. You know, fighting the Russians inside Russia is not necessarily a bad thing. The risk associated with tactical nuclear weapons, which Putin keeps talking about, is just talk.
The worst that could happen in Ukraine is that Putin somehow emerges victorious from this and we hear, “Welcome back to the family of nations as leader of the Russian Federation,” and “Oh, let’s leave bygones behind.” That would be devastating for the struggle between autocracy and democracy raging elsewhere in the world, because other leaders like President Xi in China on the Taiwan issue would learn from it. Opposition groups believe that the West is in decline and does not have the strength to fight a long battle. In fact, that is what Putin thinks today. He believes time is on his side and that European countries and the US do not have the ability to hold out. We must prove him wrong.
