Two actions at the end of last week, involving two different branches of the U.S. government, continued a pattern of unthinking support for anything that gets perceived as opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
One such action was passage by the U.S. Senate in the middle of the night of a resolution declaring that the United States and other countries have a “vital interest” in working “to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.” The resolution “rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.” Never mind that this resolution buys into Benjamin Netanyahu's “red line” game of talking about “nuclear weapons capability,” which by some measures Iran already has now, rather than possession of a nuclear weapon, which Tehran consistently disavows. The most disturbing thing about the resolution is its categorical rejection—in the wee hours of the morning, no less, as Congress was rushing into its pre-election recess—of an entire category of policy options with no consideration whatsoever of the alternatives or any weighing of advantages and disadvantages in comparison with the alternatives. All we get to accompany the rejection is a string of “whereas” clauses that repeat a familiar litany of things people don't like about Iran.
Evidently some members who might otherwise have had reservations about this resolution were reassured by a clause stating that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.” The resolution passed 90-1, with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) casting the only vote against. But if the P5+1 (the countries of the UN Security Council plus Germany) continue refusing to offer any significant sanctions relief in return for major restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities and as a result the negotiations with Tehran go nowhere, we will inevitably hear voices loudly proclaiming that military force is the only way to abide by the policy objectives that this resolution declares.
Congressional statements such as this midnight resolution have a parallel from prior to the Iraq War: the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Although most of the members who voted for that legislation and the president (Bill Clinton) who signed it may have had no intention of facilitating a war, it became a benchmark that promoters of the war repeatedly referred to as a bipartisan statement that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the United States.
The other piece of anti-Iran posturing last week was the decision by the Obama administration to remove the Iranian cult-cum-terrorist group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK, from the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations. Adding groups to that list or removing groups from it is supposed to be a dull process of administrative and legal review, and usually it is. But the MEK's case became the subject of an lavishly funded public-relations campaign, unlike anything seen with any other group in the fifteen-year history of the list. Prominent figures, including well-known Democrats as well as Republicans, reportedly received five-figure fees to speak on behalf of delisting the group. Many members of Congress and others, even if they did not prostitute themselves through such arrangements, naively believed that anything or anyone opposed to the Iranian regime must be worth supporting.
No good will come out of this subversion of the terrorist-group list with regard to conditions in Iran, the behavior or standing of the Iranian regime, the values with which the United States is associated or anything else. The regime in Tehran will tacitly welcome this move (while publicly denouncing it) because it helps to discredit the political opposition in Iran—a fact not lost on members of the Green Movement, who want nothing to do with the MEK. The MEK certainly is not a credible vehicle for regime change in Iran because it has almost no public support there. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime will read the move as another indication that the United States intends only to use subversion and violence against it rather than reaching any deals with it.
Although the list of foreign terrorist organizations unfortunately has come to be regarded as a kind of general-purpose way of bestowing condemnation or acceptance on a group, we should remember that delisting changes nothing about the character of the MEK. It is still a cult. It still has near-zero popular support in Iran. It still has a despicably violent history. As for more recent chapters of that history, given how public the delisting issue became with the MEK, it probably would have been appropriate for the Department of State to address publicly the press reports, sourced to U.S. officials, that the MEK has collaborated with Israel on terrorist assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. But that, of course, would have required the politically inconvenient act of publicly addressing Israeli terrorism.
Comments
CNGS:
This is the land of laws and in this case a law not applied so severely by the Honorable Three-judge Panel of the DC Court of Appeals, in some greater than 200 years, when the Writ of Mandamus "Marbury VS Madison" was filed.
Let us not engage in intrigue, a profession we may have been involved in for some time now. It's all right if we engage in independent work in the aftermath of our undercover years; but engaging in malicious and totally venomous yellow journalism for the sake of money from a gang of savage and barbaric thugs, is at best dishonorable and at worst, violation of the rights of the American people to be aware and informed of the truth.
There is still time for us to restore and regain our dignity by telling the truth about a regime that has dominated and enslaved a glorious land for more than three black decades. Stoning women to death, amuptating limbs, hanging innocent people day by day, sending tens of thousands of Iranian people to death, is threatening to wipe off countries off the face of the earth, and killing your your own comrades in the region and around the world.
Please display an iota of decency and tell at least a small part of the truth. And as a former clandestine operator, you certainly are aware of the unspeakable atrocities this domination of Satan has done to servicemen and servicewomen of the United States of America.
CNGS
In the annals of history, the ruling by the DC Court of Appeals in favor of the PMOI/MEK, is perhaps unprcedented, except the case fild by Marbury some 200 years ago.
Speaking of engagement with the mullhahs!!! We have appeased them, coddled them for more than three decades, and specifically, since 1997 when the Clinton Administration placed the PMOI/MEK in the FTO listm to supposedly appease the so-called reformist faction of the savages of Tehran, led by then-president Muhammad Khatami. We said then and we say now the viper never gave birth to the dove, and we were proven right ... the outcome turned out to be a nefarious and illegitimate creature called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, thee man of 1000 bulltes, who shot the last bullet in the temple of the innocent political prisoners ...
Have we no shame to still advocate appeasement of the barbarians of the Middle Ages? History will not judge us kindly if we take the side of the predator as opposed to the prayed.
Though, the FTO list has cost the Iranian people and their main resistance, the PMOI/MEK, many lives and caused the more than 50 people to be massacred at Camp Ashraf, and many politiical prisoners inside the mullahs' dungeons of torture and massacre, WE DO WELCOME WHOLEHEARTEDLY, THE WISE AND TIMELY DECISION BY THE SECRTARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, ON THE EVE OF THE ARRIVAL OF AHMADINEJAD TO THE US.
CNGS
I wonder why Mr. Pillar didn't mention how the MEK killed Americans - working in Iran - in the '70s. The group's assassination and bombing campaings are mentioned often. I'm suprised the US families didn't file a lawsuit against the group. I don't understand why I keep seeing pictures of women when I read a page now related to the MEK?
I do trust Secretary Clinton, though, and maybe this has to do with Camp Ashraf in Iraq (move the members away from the Iranian border) or the group used clever legal tactics to force a decision and remove its name from the list (my speculation). Thanks, T.
One aspect of this Israeli and now Congressional insistence denying Iran the "capability" of having nuke weapons that I at least find never mentioned is the truly breathtaking nature of it that should shock people. In the first place of course while today limited to Iran there's no doubt Israel and the U.S. Congress believe this would apply to all other ME countries surrounding Israel too. And yet, just think of it: The U.S. pledging itself to *forever* keep on bombing or otherwise keep making war on other countries trying desperately to dictate to them what precise stage of stage of intellectual, technical, scientific, economic, engineering, military and commercial development they have to stop at, because some combination of those things could constitute gaining nuke weapon "capabability." Again, in perpetuity, presumably, or so long as Israel exists. We are to keep entire nations' development under our thumb. All the while we of course proceed ahead unhindered with any kind of development at all. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are unhinged, not least as to *our* capabilities, but even moreso as to our titanic sense of self-righteousness and authority. It's truly hard to think of another time in history when some great power embarked on such a sustained course of sheer delusion and arrogance.
Sin Nombre, yes, "capability" can be so vague, you can conceivably define any rubicon as the "red line" you want. Q: Does the IAEA treaty allow members 20% uranium or is that a weapon grade material? (it's never clear). Also: Once and for all, Iran has to admit it needs energy production to make up the shortfall in oil and gas. Maybe there are reasons for not saying it, but right now we don't understand why it's pushing nuclear science.
Do you remember the conversation soon after WWII? (I'm not old enough, but I vaguely recall a documentary showing MaCarthur arguing for using nuclear bombs against the Soviets to bring their downfall until Kennan's argument for containment prevailed (my memory). I don't know if the period is comparable. To me, the intensity of communism was like a religion, and the clique was pretty brutal too. The comments made me think; thanks, T.
tonyframe: Yes, uranium enriched to a 20% degree or less is considered "low enriched" material and because research reactors (and I believe some of the medical tech devices that use radioactivity) have have in the past generally needed/used such LEU stuff it's been considered by the NPT as being okay due to being used for such "peaceful purposes." And Iran has repeatedly said it wants a robust nuke electrical generating capability because, after all, its oil is essentially a wasting resource. Once gone, it's gone. As regards your analogy with the "containment/rollback" argument concerning the USSR after WWII I agree that for the same reasons containment was (and proved to be) a good idea with the Soviet Union it's a good idea with Iran. Indeed, even better with Iran: After all the Soviet Union *had* nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't, and says it doesn't even want them, but clearly the one way to ensure that they *will* want them and will work like hell to get them is to now start off on a campaign bombing them to try to stop them having a mere alleged *desire* to acquire same, and the promise that you'll feel free to continue bombing them into the future. What country or people in the *world* would *not* say "screw you" to being subject to that kind of arrogance, and *not* then move heaven and earth to *get* nuke weapons so as to relieve itself from being that kind of perpetual whipping boy? No matter how much they otherwise wouldn't want nuke weapons? So not only is the "bomb not contain" idea not needed, it's positively counter-productive. Moreover it's all just a sham on Israel's part. It isn't afraid containment wouldn't work to stop an Iranian first strike: If that were the case how come it's *Israel* that says it will not even talk about entering into a rigorously verifiable Nuke-Free Mideast Accord ... while Iran (as well as most if not all other ME states) says it will? After all *that* would 100% guarantee Israel wouldn't be suddenly attacked with nukes by Iran. So this isn't about Israel worrying about being surprise annihilated by one of its neighbors or even threatened with same. It's about Israel wanting to be the *only* one in the Mideast to be able to threaten the annihilation of everyone *else* in its neighborhood with impunity, period. And it's a sad, disgusting thing that the U.S. is going along with this sham hypocrisy, the same sort of which has proven so costly to us already in our blood and treasure, which can only get worse.
Ok; thanks for feedback. -T.