How should Western governments deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Washington labels “the most active state sponsor of terrorism”?
Iranian aggression began in 1979, with the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and the holding of some of its staff as hostages for 444 days. Major subsequent attacks included two bombings in Beirut in 1983: at the U.S. embassy, killing 63, and at a U.S. Marine barracks, killing 241.
Advertisement
More recently, U.S. secretary of defense Leon Panetta stated, “We’re seeing more of those weapons going in [to Iraq] from Iran, and they’ve really hurt us.” Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added, “Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups, which are killing our troops.”
American responses fall into two main camps: tough and diplomatic. The first sees Tehran as irredeemable and counsels a policy of confrontation and even force; it assumes that diplomacy, sanctions, computer viruses, and threats of military strikes have no chance of dissuading the mullahs from going nuclear, and it speaks of regime change or a military option against the Iranian bomb. The diplomatic camp, which generally controls U.S. policy, accepts the permanence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and expects Tehran to respond to diplomatic overtures.
A main battleground in this dispute is the question of whether or not the most prominent Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK), should remain on the U.S. government’s terrorism list. The tough camp generally views the MeK, founded in 1965, as a lever against the mullahs and (with a minority dissenting) wants it delisted. The diplomatic camp argues that delisting would anger the Iranian leaders, hampering efforts to improve relations, or (contradictorily) would limit Washington’s ability to reach out to the Iranian street.
The pro-MeK side argues that the MeK has a history of cooperating with Washington, providing valuable intelligence on Iranian nuclear plans and tactical intelligence about Iranian efforts in Iraq. Further, just as the MeK’s organizational and leadership skills helped bring down the shah in 1979, these skills can again facilitate regime change. The number of street protestors arrested for association with the MeK points to its role in demonstrations, as do slogans echoing MeK chants, e.g., calling Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a “henchman,” Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “dictator,” and shouting “down with the principle of Velayat-e Faqih” (that a religious figure heads the government).
A number of fomer high-level American officials advocate delisting the MeK, including a national-security adviser (James Jones), three chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Hugh Shelton, Richard Myers, Peter Pace), a secretary of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge), an attorney general (Michael Mukasey), and even a State Department coordinator for counterterrorism (Dell Dailey). A chorus of prominent Republicans and Democrats favor delisting, including a bipartisan group of 80 members of Congress.
The anti-MeK faction does not address the benefits of delisting but argues that the U.S. government must continue the listing on the basis of allegations of terrorism. Their indictment notes that the MeK killed six Americans in the 1970s. Whether or not these allegations are accurate, a terrorist incident must have occurred within two years to continue with the terrorist-group designation — rendering discussion of the 1970s completely irrelevant.
What about the past two years? The pro-MeK side points to three main U.S. terrorist databases — the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI), the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), and the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) — and notes that in each one the MeK comes up clean since 2006 or earlier.
What about capabilities and intentions? The State Department’s 2006 “Country Reports on Terrorism” accused the MeK of maintaining “capacity and will” for terrorist acts but the 2007, 2008, and 2009 reports omitted this statement. Britain’s Court of Appeal derided proscription of the MeK as “perverse,” and the group was removed from the U.K. terrorist list in 2008. The European Union cleared the group of terrorism charges in 2009. The French judiciary dismissed all terrorism-related allegations against the group in May 2011.
In brief, the argument to maintain the MeK’s terrorist designation is baseless.
Following a court-mandated review of the MeK’s terrorist designation, the secretary of state must soon decide whether to maintain this listing. With one simple signature, the Obama administration can help empower Iranians to seize control over their destiny — and perhaps end the mullahs’ mad nuclear dash.
Ah, the 1953 coup again. Yeah, Samir, something that happened decades before anyone alive was in power totally justifies all of Iran's current day aggressions against the U.S.
The fact that you guys have to go back nearly six decades to find an example of "U.S. aggression against Iran" says everything.
My captcha for this post reads "nice job", and that totally sums it up, Samir.
I agree with Mr. Pipes as an Iranian. We need change in Iran and this kind of label just paid from people struggle and helping more of tyranny in Iran. Good luck Mr. Pipes for awareness public.
I absolutely agree that maintaining the MeK’s terrorist designation is baseless.
If Obama & Clinton keep this movement in the black list, there will not be any credibility left for either of them. Many Iranians who do not even support MeK, think that this terrorist designation gives legitimacy to the Ayatollahs to repress inside Iran and gives a green light to the Iraqi government to launch another attack and massacre in Camp Ashraf.
I'm not a big fan of Mek, largely because they're Marxists who were allied with Saddam Hussein and who have killed Americans in the past. However, if they have truly renounced terrorism since at least 2006, then perhaps Mr. Pipes's argument is persuasive. There is some truth to the old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", and if MeK can truly be used as a lever against the horrible regime in Tehran, then maybe we should give them another chance.
After all, Kim Jong-Il's North Korea and Muammar Ghadafi's Libya have both sponsored direct attacks against the U.S. and/or its allies much, much more recently than MeK, and we removed both of them from the state sponsors list within the last decade. Those decisions are morally unsavory, and in hindsight their wisdom is questionable, but they are understandable within the context of our larger strategic objectives.
The main error in your argument is equating the MeK with the Iranian people.
MeK's history speaks for itself. Your argument fails because of the fact that most Iranians (I mean close to 100%) consider MeK leaders and members as "traitors". Many have written on why that is the case, so I won't waste my time.
The other fallacy in arguments like yours is believing that the MeK is a democratic organization. If you speak to former members (top and low ranks), they will tell you otherwise. In fact, they believe in oppression. They have tortured and killed many of their members who wanted to leave. And more than half of their "members" in Camp Ashraf consider themselves prisoners.
And your argument against Iran being labeled as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism" because of the embassy and the marine barracks, assuming that is true and Iran was behind it, what should that say about the US? Is the US a state sponsor of terrorism also? Need I list the terrorist and murderers that were sponsored and trained by the US?
I will offer a different solution: lift the sanctions on Iran, make good with the people of Iran, help them with the economy. That will be good for both US and Iran. Once that happens, democracy will slowly flourish in Iran.
The more we butt heads with Iran, the nastier it gets.
Mr. Irani,
Since you are clearly defending the Iranian regime, then your views on the Iranian opposition group, the MEK, whose stated goal is to overthrow this regime, is very understandable.
However, you need to be a bit more sincere and tell the readers what you truly stand for: The Islamic Republic of Iran; rather than calling those who oppose the Iranian regime as traitors and terrorist.
Mr. Pipe enumerates a few purported Iranian acts of terror. Well, besides the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, how about the shooting down of the Iranian passenger airline in 1988 by the US and the ongoing CIA sponsorship of the Jundullah terrorists in southeast Iran, just to name two examples?
As far as the MKO is concerned, they are indeed a terrorist group. More germane is the fact that they are actually a "cult" of crazy and brainwashed people completely controlled by their leaders. They are like zombies that follow every command of the Rajavis. It is similar to the David Koresh cult. Besides, they are universally hated by Iranians for their traitorous collaboration with Saddam Hussein. Ignorant politicians and clueless journalists are being bribed to support this dangerous cult.
These are a group of islamo-marxist who have no support in Iran.
It's a cult ran by a polygamist men.
US support of MEK will not serve the US interest in the region. Average iranians are the most pro-american population in the region. Most Iranians see MEK as traitors and agents of Saddam.
The US supporting will only diminish US' long term interest in the region.
Supporting MEK is similar to funding and training the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. 9-11 and trillions of dollars later, I don't have to remind you how big of a mistake that was!
The fact that the debate in Washington is over whether to delist and support a terrorist group or not, only goes to prove how fundamentally bankrupt our Iran policy has become. THIS is the best we can do? Really?
I agree- special Iranian women need more support from women living in democratic couturiers - they are the forefront of this struggle - watch the documentary we have put together her External Link
I wish those who oppose mek who are the most organized group against the most barbaric regime in the world. Could come clean and explain why they prefer mullah against mek
You don't seem to be believing in a free Iran, where different people can express their views. To the contrary, you seem to be in a position to dictate to others, and pre-sentence other opposition groups even while the Ayatollahs are in power. You should be tolerant of other people's views and stop making the Iranian regime look less evil than it already is.
while the entire Middle East is engulfed in uprisings, and while the Iranian people have proven to be seeking democracy, it is criminal on the part of the Unites States, to say the least, to keep the one group that the Ayatollahs fear, namely the MEK on the terrorist list.
This wrong needs to be corrected now. The mullahs are laughing at the stupidity of America which seems to be doing the bidding for our own number one enemy. Pipes is brilliant
As an Iranian who has been following all the news about Iran and everything beening said for and against MEK I find amazing similarity between anti MEK and Iranian regime points of argument. The question is; should MEK stay on FTO list because of their actions in recent memory or not. The quesion is not do you like MEK or they are Marksist or cult or whatever else.
I totaly agree with Mr. Pipes point of view and think not only MEK should be removed from the list but also they should be compensated for all the expanses they had to go through to get themselves of the list.
Thank you Mr. Pipe for such a courageous analyses on MEK. The label to MEK was based on Islamic government request in 1997. It was an olive branch that Clinton administration was offering to mullah Khatami. I think dust has been settled and appeasement policy toward mullahs' tyrannic regime has failed in its entirety. It is time for our policymakers to make up and take MEK off the FTO list. Some people are saying that MEK has no support among Iranians. If this is the case why should we keep them on the list and violate their human rights. Keeping MEK longer on this list, it is a support of mullahs'tyranny. How can our policy makers let with a clear conscious this Mullahtaria government that wants undenyably to wipe out Israel, denies Holocust and works hard to obtain nuclear weapons to have a free hand to lobby in our congress and give advise to state department? NIAC has a free hand in Washington DC to lobby for Mullahs' regime. I think justice has to be served to restore MEK rights as a legitimate opposition to mullahs' regime. It is time for a wise policy on Iran.
This wrong needs to be corrected now. The mullahs are laughing at the stupidity of America which seems to be doing the bidding for our own number one enemy. Pipes is brilliant
while the entire Middle East is engulfed in uprisings, and while the Iranian people have proven to be seeking democracy, it is criminal on the part of the Unites States, to say the least, to keep the one group that the Ayatollahs fear, namely the MEK on the terrorist list.
