MOJAHEDIN
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
For the Sake of Reconciliation
16-Aug-2011
As the US Department of State is contemplating whether to remove the Iranian Islamic Mujahedin-e Khalq group (MEK) from its terrorist list, a debate is taking place among pundits with some arguing for the removal and some for the status quo. The MEK has already been taken off the terrorist list of the EU, and in the US the group is being treated as if it is not listed.
Opponents of delisting rightly remind us that the MEK has been involved in acts of violence against Americans, Iranians and their own members, and that the group is a cult-like and anti-democratic force. Founding members of the MEK murdered several Americans in Iran in 1970s, and the group actively supported taking Americans hostage in Tehran in 1980.
The MEK supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran in 1980. That “long war,” when Iraq also used chemical weapons, left some 500,000 Iranians dead and maimed, destroyed about 120 Iranian cities and towns, and caused close to $120 billion in economic loss. The MEK also helped Saddam Hussein to suppress the Kurdish rebellion in 1991 following the first US war with Iraq.
It is no wonder that the MEK is despised in both the US and Iran. It is a terrorist group to the Americans, a “Monafegh” (hypocritically Muslim) group to the Islamic Republic, and a “khaen” (traitor) group to most Iranians. Even MEK’s past members have charged that it forbids internal democracy and treats members critical of the group’s activities quite savagely.
While the MEK is building support among western officials, it is still censured by most Iranians. This was not the case in its formative years in 1970s when the guerilla group was a hero to young Iranians contesting dictatorship of the Shah and American domination. The original MEK included Islamists and Marxists; before long they split violently and the Islamists took over.
The tragic conversion from a loyalist to a traitor group began in 1979 when the MEK parted with the Islamic Republic, murdered state officials, including a president and a prime minister, and joined Saddam Hussein. Ever since those early blows, a tragically vicious cycle of violence has continued between the Islamic Republic and the MEK, resulting in several thousand deaths.
Opponents of delisting rightly suspect that the group may never become democratic or even pragmatic. However, it is ridiculous to assert, as they do, that removing the MEK from the US terrorist list will strengthen the Islamic regime, demoralize the Iranian reformers, threaten the freedom of Iranian-Americans, and give the MEK the power to impose a US war on Iran.
First, Iran’s “rising” power and reformers’ adversity occurred while the MEK was on the terrorist list. Second, a delisted MEK could hardly bully Iranian-Americans in a democratic America. Finally, the US’ Iran policy is designed to avoid war while intensifying “targeted sanctions.” Short of an accident, failure of sanctions can be used to justify a war - a la Iraq.
Not all opposed to delisting are genuinely concerned about its upshot; some are moved by sheer self-interest - anti-Iran activism is a business. These people use MEK as a facade to conceal their own deleterious acts, e.g., supporting sanctions and calling for the surveillance of Iranian scientists. Delisting will expose these foul-crying groups who deceptively single out the MEK as the only wicked force.
Enemies of the Islamic Republic have often used the MEK as a bogyman even if the group has been a failure. To them, delisting will mean public funds and more power. More money sure, but delisting will weaken the MEK as it becomes one among many contesting opposition groups. The Islamic regime will publically scorn the US, accusing it of hypocrisy in fighting terrorism; privately, however, Tehran will welcome delisting as it pacifies the MEK.
Delisting the MEK might indeed be a step in the right direction. Iranian patriotism has suffered for the fact that a group among them has been on the terrorist list of the US, a nation which many of them cherish. The MEK in the past was the most anti-American of all Iranian groups. US delisting the MEK is then a step toward normalizing relations between Americans and Iranians.
The Iranian people will welcome any moderating influence on the MEK, which has been a source of extremism, violence and fear in a nation that is longing for peace and reconciliation. A delisted MEK will have to transform itself from a paramilitary into a political group. If this were to happen, the Iranians would be relieved and Iran’s vilified image will be somewhat rectified.
By delisting the MEK the US will lose a useless bogyman, but gain a redundant anti-Iran propaganda machine. This can cost America tax dollars, image and a better Iran policy unless the delisted MEK is put on a tight leash. This control must begin by demilitarizing the MEK, which along with delisting helps resolve the humanitarian crisis in Camp Ashraf in Iraq where some 3400 reside including children.
Delisting will make the US look hypocritical for supporting human rights in Iran given the MEK’s dreadful human rights record. Yet, delisting can advance US-Iran relations and Iranian reconciliation - the musts for democracy in Iran. To strike such moral victory, the US must also renounce regime change and use of force while incrementally lifting sanctions and easing Iran’s security concerns. In return, Iran must gradually address American/IAEA’s nuclear concerns.
The ball is in the US court of goodwill.
AUTHOR
Hooshang Amirahmadi is a Professor at Rutgers University and President of the American Iranian Council. hooshang@amirahmadi.com ; www.amirahmasdi.com
| Recently by Hooshang Amirahmadi | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
حذف مجاهدین از لیست تروریستها و سود و زیان احتمالی آن | 2 | Aug 25, 2011 |
| Green Ideas Survive Movement | 26 | Feb 28, 2011 |
| No Rush | 7 | Feb 15, 2011 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Vildemose Great quote...
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:40 AM PDT"Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe." Robert Browning in 'Ceuciaja'
Pity some people don't know the definition of simple words like justice, i.e. "for crimes that were committed". No Bother. I have a feeling we will be dealing with people that quote great poems and thoughts with out having any understanding of their meaning for a long, long time to come.
Oh Jesus, where to start.
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:30 AM PDT**** Banning any group for the threat they COULD pose IF they come to power in Iran is neither reasonable nor fair.
The MEK leadership needs to be captured and put on trial. Not because I disagree or agree with their views, or the threat they could pose, but because they killed people.
Politically, sure... the members who did not committ any crimes, can go free and reconstitute anything they wanted and if they kill people, its off to jail like the prevous group. Reflect on the nazi leadership and crimes they did committ before coming to power. Banning is due to threat they did committ and should be only used as a last resort in exceptional circumstances. Not threat they could pose. There has to be justice first.
JJ: you're spot on. It's
by vildemose on Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:29 AM PDTJJ: you're spot on. It's unfair. It's is like
invading a country on the pretext that it might develop weapons that might one
day threaten the U.S; not a moral or valid argument at any level.
"Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe." Robert Browning in 'Ceuciaja'
I see reason doesn't work with everyone, no bother
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:17 AM PDT*Delisting does not mean an endorsement of the Mojahedin's ideology...
Have you seen the endorsements top political leaders in the US have given Madame President? That's exactly what they want to do, like they endorsed Khomeini as a man of peace, a ghandi figure.
**The Mojahedin are no longer an armed group.
Well that's exactly what the Cia says, yet the FBI thatis legally bound to protect Americans has provided numerous reports proving they are still armed, committing crimes and dangerous.
(Yes in Iraq they don't have weapons because the US Military took them away to give them the ability to remain legally in their camp in Iraq.)
*** However, it is ridiculous to assert, as they do, that removing the MEK from the US terrorist list will strengthen the Islamic regime.
You're right here, it won't strengthen the islamic regime, it will severly weaken it to the point where it could be replaced it with a North Korean style regime.
If they are delisted, the CIA can actively support the MEK "Irans Khmer Rouge," without anything to worry about from the FBI (since it won't be illegal)
I prefer the FBI thoroughly investigates the MEK and brings charges against the Cia for unlawfully supporting them. It's good for the FBI to be in the position of humiliating any US administration that supports the MEK. Like they did during Iran contra affair where they caught the CIA red handed and charged people.
The only reason to delist them is if you want the cia to be able to help them. I don't. And this whole thing about making them more human, peaceful, loving, democracy, peoples rights etc is just a Crow. FBI says they are still active in terrorism despite denouncing it publically.
Makes sense
by Jahanshah Javid on Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:32 AM PDT"Opponents of delisting rightly suspect that the group may never become democratic or even pragmatic. However, it is ridiculous to assert, as they do, that removing the MEK from the US terrorist list will strengthen the Islamic regime, demoralize the Iranian reformers, threaten the freedom of Iranian-Americans, and give the MEK the power to impose a US war on Iran."
I agree.
Delisting the Mojahedin would not be a threat to Americans or Iranians. Delisting would allow the U.S. to mediate in closing down Camp Ashraf without further bloodshed. It would force the group to act within the law. It will bar members from being armed or resorting to violence.
Banning any group for the threat they COULD pose IF they come to power in Iran is neither reasonable nor fair. The Islamic Republic is the biggest REAL and EXISTING threat to Iranians.
Delisting does not mean an endorsement of the Mojahedin's ideology or policies. Just as supporting the rights of monarchsists, marxists or Bahais cannot be seen as approval of what they stand for or believe in.
The Mojahedin are no longer an armed group. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing democratic about them. But that does not justify them being banned.
Nonsense.
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 09:56 AM PDTThey would become a political group with no base of support, what the point for the MEK?
Moderating influence? Yes maybe, the thing is she or he, might and i'm not entirely sure may get 1 seat between them in a parliament. Is that what they are really after?
And in exchange for what price?
With your line of thinking, you truely set iran up for worse possibilities. The last person I can think of that used terror in politics and got to power was hitler. Can leaders like Maryam and massoud be reformed as humans???? What of yours are you willing to risk for that.
Surely capturing the MEK and putting them on trial is what countries like the USA/Germany/France/UK should be doing if they had any consideration for the human rights of Iranians.
But wait a minute, they are nefarious terrorists that were created and given all kinds of support by these countries, to harm Iranians from within.
I guess Houshang Amirahmadi is one of those Iranians that left Iran and became british, "american", french or german and serves others, wow he has a professorship, what a surprise and is the president of the us government funded AIC.
Please focus on other countries Houshang, we Iranians certainly don't need your help, we already have one group of unpatriotic people in power all we need is advice from another US raised protege to give us all a lesson on the good of democracy.
Just like a fox teaching chickens the virtue of openness and why the best thing for them is openness and they really should protest living in a cage and come outside and enjoy the free air. No more advice on democracy from America.