Alana Goodman is correct to highlight the current battle between Attorney-General Eric Holder and a bipartisan array of prominent former U.S. officials who have accepted hefty honoraria from Mujahedin al-Khalq (MEK) front groups, even though the State Department lists the MEK as a terrorist group. While cultivating prominent endorsers is one front in the group’s public relations battle, the largest war – and the reason the MEK has spent millions on former American officials – is for their support in its battle to be delisted as a terrorist entity.
There is no doubt that in the past, the MEK engaged in terrorism against Americans and that it has embraced a fiercely anti-Western ideology. Proponents of delisting the MEK, however, argue that the group has not engaged in terrorism against the United States or its interests for decades. The State Department may eventually be forced by the letter of the law to delist the MEK. That does not mean the group is entitled to any American support. The group’s culpability in recent terrorist attacks in Iran is murkier. Still, it would be a mistake to boil the MEK issue—and the question of U.S. support—down to the terrorism listing, however. Working with the MEK is simply bad policy.
Military action against Iran would delay the program only by a few years. True, the same estimate was made before Israel’s strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor and Saddam Hussein never managed to rebuild his program, but it would be foolish to assume the same would occur. After all, the Iranians will not be stupid enough to invade Kuwait.
The problem in Iran today is not simply the regime’s nuclear ambitions, but rather the regime itself. To use the military to delay Iran’s nuclear program—effectively kicking the can down the road—would be an irresponsible use of the military unless there is a policy in place to take advantage of the time won in any strike.
The problem with those who would embrace the MEK is that it would undercut the chance for regime collapse. To ally the United States with the MEK would be as shameful as President Obama’s moral inaction during the 2009 protests.
Iranians living under the regime’s yoke hate the MEK. That is not regime propaganda; it is fact, one to which any honest analyst who has ever visited Iran can testify. Ordinary Iranians deeply resent the MEK’s terrorism, which has targeted not only regime officials, but also led to the deaths of scores of civilians. During the Iran-Iraq War—a conflict that decimated cities and led to tens of thousands of civilian deaths—the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein. No Iranian will ever forgive that treason. Iranians see the MEK in the same manner that Americans view American Taliban John Walker Lindh.
If the MEK is delisted, let the MEK celebrate. But whether listed as a terrorist group or not, it would be wrong and counterproductive to embrace the group unless, of course, the goal of those for officials on the group’s payroll is simply to aid the current regime in its efforts to rally its subjugated masses around the flag.
When the MEK get delisted, Iranian people will celebrate. You still carry misinformation that NIAC and other Iranian lobby groups provided you in the past.
I wonder if Mr. Rubin has visited Iran? I doubt it. But he seems to know everything about Iran, MEK, etc. He must know a lot of "honset analysts". nMEK should and will be delisted. Let the people of Iran decided whether they want to embrace it or not. They don't need advise from the likes of Michael Rubin.
I wonder how Mr. Rubin has concluded that the MEK is hated by the Iranian people? If MEK is hated by Iranians because they opposed the regime's continued war against Iraq, then Ahmadinejad and all other Revolutionary Guards commanders who fought Iraq would be most popular figures in Iran today–they are not. The young generation of Iran were not even born during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq. I wonder if the MEK were not popular, why would the regime be so paranoid about them, and why would Tehran ask every country in the world to designate the MEK? If the MEK were unpopular, how have they consistently exposed the major nuclear sites of Iran? And how is it that most of those who were sentenced to death or executed after the summer 2009 uprising in Iran were actually MEK members? That is why I am skeptical, to say the least, about Mr. Rubin's very definitive assertion that delisting or embracing the MEK would actually help the regime stay in power? After all, how has MEK terrorist designation over the past 15 years helped us alter the behavior of Iran?!
Michael there you go again, must have just got paid….Let’s follow your detestable lies and “logic” here; “ MEK recent …is murkier…” , well, why don’t you call for the government of Israel to be NUMBER one on the FTO list then? It must be a better policy for U.S. nThen you baselessly add “ Iranians living under the regime’s yoke hate the MEK “, well, amigo why do we have this much back & forth, all this ado, courts, lawyers, media…….ONLY 3400 CULT people that are misguided by bad leaders, the highest, most honorable statesmen & policymakers of US & World involved on daily, nay hourly discussions for what??????
GlobePolicy n nI am amazed at the lack of logical argumentation by Mr. Rubin, as well as the contradidictions in his presentation. n nAt least he does make a case for the legal accountability on the part of State Department to delist the PMOI/MEK. n n nGlobePolicy
Yeah, I wish this site did not arbitrarily/unfairly cut & select from my reply of 629 words to an incomplete state of 115 words……..
I do not know where the author gets his information that "Iranians living under the regime’s yoke hate the MEK". This is propaganda from Iranian regime. Remember that MEK was blacklisted as a political gesture of good will toward the Iranian regime. You can not discredit the main Iranian opposition that has resisted against one of the most barbaric regime in the past 33 years. How can delisting of MEK help the regime?
Mr. Rubin, have you considered joining NIAC? I see that you finally decided to use the acronym MEK (not the terrorist Iranian regime's version, the MKO) n nStop uttering nonsense and slander against the MEK. The Iranian regime, with its multi billion dollar propaganda war has been unable to tarnish the MEK image. You will have to go a long way yet. The MEK lives, and it will help the Iranian people replace the religious fascism ruling Iran with a democratic government. n
Nothing could be further from the truth than Rubin's claim that "Iranians living under the regime’s yoke hate the MEK. That is not regime propaganda; it is fact, one to which any honest analyst who has ever visited Iran can testify." This is fact that the Iranian regime has fed into Mr Rubin's mouth. Not a fact on the ground. n nIf a journalist is stupid enough to accept open interviews about PMOI in Iran, where expressing slightest support for the group or even for just being family with a member of the group would put you behind bars and possibly up the gallows, as fact, that is his prerogative. But trying to sell such assertion and presumption as a fact to intelligent readers is in my view deception and should be persecuted in a genuine democracy. Under the massive repression in Iran if a reporter asks Maryam Rajavi's brother what he would think about her, he would probably deny knowing her as St Peter denied knowing Jesus when they were taking him for crucifixion. n nTo analyse the importance of PMOI in Iran's political landscape all you need to do to look at Iranian regime's hysteria about the group. Even if one country wants to sell butter to Iran they are asked to first limit the PMOI/MEK in their country. Does this tell you something Mr Rubin?
Hey Michael Rubin, nI am very jealous, I work very hard to make earnings and some days I work over 12 hours and you just spent 20 minutes and write junks and get paid millions by the mullahs in Iran. n