Doctor Zin: MEK not an option.
Iran freedom activist Gary Metz, better known as "Doctor Zin", takes issue with an article by David Johnson at FrontPage in a Sunday post at Regime Change Iran. Johnson had advocated support for Maryam Rajavi's organization, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), as a means of bringing about regime change. Critics of this plan, including Doctor Zin, contend that the NCRI is an alias for the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (People's Mujahedeen Organization, variously abbreviated MEK, MKO, PMO) which is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. In this view, support for the MEK (under whatever name) would be tantamount to a repetition of the "enemy of my enemy" fallacy, for while the MEK are opposed to the current islamist regime in Tehran, they are no friends of freedom and democracy. Doctor Zin writes:
Since I have been publishing all the major news on Iran for several years now, I am well aware of the various options in regards to the Iranian threat. I know most of the leaders of the Iranian expatriate community and there is little support for the MEK among them. I believe the MEK may have a place at the table in a future Iran, but a limited one.
I have also been aware of the massive campaign the MEK have been waging to legitimize themselves in the eyes of our government. I also understand the only way they will ever be in power inside of Iran is if the U.S. were to back them in an overthrow of the Iranian government.
It appears that is exactly what the MEK are seeking. David reported on the MEK's recent conference in Washington D.C. (attended by a few hundred Iranian, virtually all MEK supporters) saying:
[Their] plans for Iran remain ambitious. Mrs. Rajavi's [leader of the MEK] position as an interim president is planned to last for only six months after the fall of the current Iranian regime. At the end of her interim term, free and monitored elections would be held throughout Iran.
It appears the leader of the MEK is seeking U.S. help in replacing the Islamic Republic with herself as the new leader, for six months.
So who are the MEK? Here is the DiscoverTheNetwork.org's own report on the MEK:
Islamist-Marxist terrorist group that seeks to topple the Iranian regime
Served Moscow as a source of information on Iran during the Cold War
In the early 1970s, murdered five American military technicians working with the Iranian army
By the late 1980s, created a 10,000-strong fighting force in Iraq to aid Saddam Hussein ...
The MEK was founded in 1965 after a split in a Marxist-Leninist movement that had waged a guerrilla action in northern Iran. Its ideology emerged as a mix of Islam and Marx, with ingredients from the Iranian religious sociologist Ali Shariati, who advocated an "Islam without a clergy." The MEK, with KGB help, engaged in a campaign against the Shah and sent cadres to Cuba, East Germany, South Yemen, and Palestinian camps in Lebanon to train as guerrillas.
Yes, they have money (from places unknown), weapons and organization. Is David actually advocating that we "install" the MEK, even if only temporarily? The Khomeini regime was supposed to be a temporary regime.
Read the full post at the link for detailed information on the MEK. Doctor Zin believes that Washington must support the Iranian people in their struggle against the mullahs, but he opposes involving the MEK in this process. The post concludes: 'The MEK will likely play a part in a post Islamic Republic, but they need to find their way in a real democratic government. I hope that FrontPageMag.com will rethink its support of the MEK.'
Ledeen: Regime's hand, Washington's silence.
Michael Ledeen sees the hand of the mullahs as far afield as Iraq and Lebanon (where the vacuum created by the Syrian withdrawal may be filled by the eager Hezbollah) while President Bush retreats into silence: 'We know this is going on, yet we are fighting a purely defensive war in Iraq alone.' And yet, Ledeen argues, it doesn't need to be this way:
The terror masters hoped and expected that they would be able to turn Iraq into a replay of Lebanon in the 1980s, when they drove American and French armed forces out of the country. But they have failed. Contrary to their hopes and expectations, we — and the Iraqi people — have not been spooked by the wave of terror, and the Iraqis have demonstrated grit, bravery, and patience far beyond most expectations. Indeed, as the slaughter of innocent Iraqis grows, the people are manifestly becoming more resolute; dead national guardsmen and soldiers are quickly replaced with new volunteers, and the murder of government officials has not deterred Iraqi citizens from participating in government. The Iraqis are fighting back.
Worst of all, from the standpoint of the terror masters, the ultimate threat — freedom — is growing stronger, just as the president wishes, and freedom is spreading even though, despite his constant promises to support democratic revolution, he is doing virtually nothing to help it. He, along with Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld, has not rallied to the side of the Iranian people, even though the Iranians have abundantly demonstrated their desire to be rid of the mullahs. Two weeks ago there were massive demonstrations and work stoppages in the oil-rich regions, centering around the city of Ahwaz. The demonstrators called for an end to the regime, scores of people were killed, and hundreds were beaten and arrested. On May Day, workers again demonstrated against the regime, this time in all the major cities. In Tehran, strongman and likely president-in-waiting Hashemi Rafsanjani was hooted down by the crowd, and pictures of him and Supreme Leader Khamenei were torn down and trampled. Yet no one in the American Government spoke a word of support for the demonstrators ...
Ledeen is getting tired of saying "Faster, please." Read the article at the link.
