Note: The author has not received any compensation whatsoever from the MeK or related groups.
There is an escalating war for influence over U.S. policy toward Iran: It is a dispute among university scholars, think-tank analysts and former American officials. Reverberations of this war are not confined to the Washington beltway but have profound significance for the Middle East. As Arab republics like Egypt and Tunisia fall from popular protests, internally inspired regime-change scenarios abound. While largely peaceful protests brought down regimes in Cairo and Tunis, state suppression resulted in violent pushback in Libya, Syria and Yemen.
Although Arab republics are the immediate targets of their populations, Arab kingdoms like Bahrain, and to a much lesser degree Jordan and Saudi Arabia, are feeling the heat of popular unrest. Because there is generally a lack of consensus on how to transfer power in Arab republics, they are less stable than kingdoms. “The king is dead; long live the (new) king,” does not easily translate into “The president of the republic is dead; long live his son.”
Just as conflicts over succession occur among the Arab republics, so a succession crisis is likely to arise in the Islamic Republic of Iran. We should use the lens of such a conflict in Iran when viewing the war in Washington about an Iranian dissident organization—the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK). Saddam Hussein’s takedown by foreign militaries highlights the need for a homegrown antidote to Iranian rulers because external regime change is off the table in the aftermath of the Iraq War.
Secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton is poised to announce the MeK designation in fall 2011, a decision long overdue. Nothing is likely to be more decisive in reducing the strategic threat from Tehran than having a vigorous democratic opposition in Iran; it is critical to have a coalition of prodemocracy dissidents working together to weaken the regime from within and replace it; the MeK can play an enhanced role in the prodemocracy movement if it is removed from the State Department terrorist list. But above and beyond the potential international benefit of facilitating internal regime change for Iran, the MeK simply deserves to be delisted on the basis of facts and law alone.
A search of U.S. government and private electronic and media sources by scholars in the Iran Policy Committee reveals an absence of evidence to support the inference that the MeK engages in terrorist activities or terrorism or has the capability and intent to do so. The databases are: the U.S. Worldwide Incident Tracking System; Department of Homeland Security-sponsored Global Terrorism Database; and U.S. government-supported RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents. In these major databases, there are no confirmed associations of the MeK with any military action after 2001.
Given the absence of unclassified evidence of MeK involvement in terrorist activities during the course of nine years (2001-2010), any countervailing evidence in the classified record should be viewed with skepticism and subject to scrutiny for credibility. An assumption here is that terrorist incidents are too public not to appear in databases or in newspapers of record.
On 4 December 2008, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities issued a judgment annulling the MeK designation, and the European Union cleared the MeK of terrorist conduct in January 2009. The United Kingdom removed the group from its list of proscribed organizations in June 2008. In addition, the French judiciary dismissed all terrorism and terrorism-financing charges against the group in May 2011.
Two issues before the American court have been whether the State Department provided due process of law to the MeK and credibility of evidence in support of allegations against it. In a July 2010 ruling regarding a MeK appeal of its continued designation in January 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC circuit faulted the decisionmaking process of the secretary of state.
Comments
The US should re-establish its credibility in the middle east. And it should do so with a bold move. First, stop appeasing the Iranian regime. The appeasement policy that started in late 1990's when a so-called "reformist" president, Khatami, was "elected" in Iran, has shown to be fruitless. Khatami has since stated multiple times that he was no policy maker and that all decision were made by Khameneii. He described himself as a facilitator, nothing else. Two byproducts of that appeasement policy have been as follows: (1) placing the largest and most organized Iranian resistance opposition, the MEK, on the US FTO list (the same FTO list that also included Nelson Mandela but not Alquade nor the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurd Corp which killed hundreds of American servicemen in Lebanon and Khobar Tower and has been killing the American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan). The second byproduct was for the US to turn his head away from gross human right violations in Iran. Times have changed. The appeasement policy has shown to be totally bankrupted. Iran is run by revolutionary guard thugs. The "terrorist" label never fit the MEK. Dozens of courts in Europe (where the US allies had followed the US in labeling the MEK as terrorists) have issued verdicts in favor of the MEK. No link was found between the MEK and terrorism. The MEK resistance in Iran was found to be legitimate. It is time for the US to do the right thing. Remove the MEK from the FTO list. Establish credibility with the Iranian people. Show that the US policy is not dependent on what the Iranian regime prefers. Respect the law. Let the Iranian people and their resistance bring about change in Iran. A democratic and peaceful government in Iran will be in long term interests of the US.
Excellent and factual article thanks Professor Tanter.The unjustified, wrong, and futile policy of appeasing mullahs should have never been initiated during Clinton's Administration as Goodwill Gesture to Incapable, Criminal mullahs " from the pockets of innocent MEK & Iran's Resistance ". The immense negative impact of this illogical, unfair, unlawful accusation of the MAIN resistance opposition and democratic force after 20 years is plenty obvious on Iran's abilities to properly resist and fight this very tough/real fight against the most savage, barbaric, terrorist regime of religious and hypocrite dictatorship. You see when ALL your resources are blocked, taken away, restricted and banned, in every aspect, RESISTANCE looses potentials, energies, means to the WRONG side of DIRECT opposing and resisting mullahs who HAD benefited repulsively from this to detestably survive longer. It is TRULY not fair. THIS MUST STOP IMMEDIATLEY. It is in fact amazing HOW much this resistance has achieved with all these restrictions unfairly tied to its body (other than being 100% popular & correct on its Principals, Policies, Visions and Goals, in 110% contrast to criminal mullahs, I have no other explanation). You see this resistance, if left alone to continue to oppose, resist & fight the incapable mullahs, would have gotten rid of these barbaric, backward, criminal dictators LONG time ago to bring about a secular, democratic, lawful government of peace and tranquility to Iran, region and the world.RespectfullyCarlos Azad, San Diego
What a compelling article! Torally agree with the writer.I just hope that Obama listen to these prominent politicians who have served their country for years and have invaluable expertise on their field work.The unjust and unfair terror tag must be removed from the MEK that is Iran's major opposition movement. It is this unlawful terror tag that continues to encourage the mullahs to execute their opponents inside Iran and for the new Iraq dictator, Nouri al-Maliki to massacre members of this organisation in CampAshraf.The State Department should de-list MEK Now or you will be responsible for further bloodshed in CampAshraf. If this immoral terror tag continues, it will be a deadly blow for Secretary Clinton herself.
A well argumentarat article. U.S. has made many mistakes on his Iran policy. Now is the time to put right. Remove the Mojahedin from the list.
The only thing crazier than this article is the comments. Mr. Tanter did not mention one time that this is a Marxist group. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But it is significant.They want to be clean and free of their past with the same leadership. I think not. Mr. Mililani wrote within this publication recently, "The organization’s members and their advocates tell the world they have jettisoned their past and are now dedicated to democracy. In cults, however, leaders remain unchanged. The reality is that the MEK has fought the clerical regime more effectively than any other group. It is also true that throughout nearly all of its history, the same couple has ruled the organization, and there are many claims that they rule it with an iron fist."We are talking just about a decade here. Well after MEK was disarmed by the US in 2003, there was little crime they could commit, no? Tell you what, let’s entrust their well-being with the Kurds and hope that they haven’t read all the awful, recycled stuff about them. No?A few contrary observations for Mr. Tanter's indulgence:Support in IranMEK joined Saddam when he was in war with Iranians. Iranians didn't like that; hence, the lack of support for MEK in Iran, notwithstanding solid evidence to the contrary, is apparent. I agree that MEK is the best and perhaps largest Iranian expatriate group. That doesn't make them big. Even the Green movement within Iran was rather disorganized. The next best organized group of expatriates is the monarchist, and the two have produced some good things together.CultSeveral of Ms. Rajavi's followers set themselves on fire to protest her arrest in France in 2003. That is not evidence of a cult. It's a club for pyro enthusiasts.DemocracyThe most offensive statement by Mr. Tanter in this article is referring to the MEK as a "vigorous democratic opposition in Iran". Ayatollah Khomeini also advocated democracy in Iran while he was in exile, not afterwards, and the MEK has never done anything democratic.I agree that MEK is helpful to the US for covert activities in Iran. But they should be kept on a short leash.
It's very interesting that while Professor Tanter claims here that others such as Paul Pillar are practicing some political disingenuousness about the MeK, there's a rather large uncommented upon elephant in the Professor's own piece that he somehow never gets around to mentioning which is why he wishes the MeK to be delisted as a terrorist group. Instead if you read his piece carefully and discount the irrelevant anti-Iranian jabs all we really get substantively is a legalistic argument that the MeK should be delisted because it hasn't committed any terrorist acts within the last two years. (Which, as Paul Pillar points out in his response piece, isn't the sole U.S. legal criteria anyway, and of course would be beyond stupid too given that it would mean that if al Queda now quit for two years we'd just have to let bygones be bygones over 9/11.) So how come the Professor wants the MeK delisted? Gee, could it be ... to enable the U.S. to work with it to try to overthrow the Iranian regime? Because ... as he seemed to take such primary offense over, it tries to "delegitimize Israel"? But the Professor would then have to explain why the U.S. should essentially engage in an act of war with Iran and very possibly get us into such a war so as to serve the interests of a foreign power. So say it ain't so, Professor. Say you weren't being the faux innocent here and truly have no ulterior motives such as helping beat the war drum. Tell us, for instance, that you're really only concerned with maintaining the legal integrity of the State Department's terrorist listing process. (And then admit that you're wrong about the legal criteria that you cited for same too.)