Flirting With Disaster: Why Not to Support the MEK

Numerous appeals have been made to remove the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq from the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list, as many consider the group to be a viable opposition against the Iranian regime. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The release on November 8, 2011, of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report detailing further advancement of Iran’s nuclear weapons program makes clear the escalating security threat of the Iranian regime against the United States. In this context, a many prominent politicians within the United States from both sides of the aisle support recognizing the validity of the expatriated Iranian opposition group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) as a counterforce against the Iranian regime. While these politicians support removing MEK from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), the United States would only lose from such an action. The complete lack of support for the group in Iran, growing logistical issues, and the terrorist tendencies of the group all accentuate the unnecessary risks of overtly supporting this organization.Central to this issue is the 1997 classification of the MEK as a FTO by the State Department. The reasoning for this classification was the MEK’s repeated willingness to use violence against civilians in its operations. However, public opinion has shifted in recent years and some consider the MEK to be a viable alternative to the regime.Unfortunately, the MEK is not a viable alternative. First, the group lacks any significant support from the Iranian public and is despised by most. This reality stems from the Iran-Iraq War that lasted from 1980 to 1988. During this conflict the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein and openly waged war against the Iranian people, a betrayal that was never forgotten. If the U.S. aligns itself with such an internally despised organization, it will significantly undermine democratic efforts and stability in the country. The hardliners in the Iranian regime would most likely use the declassification as another attempt to delegitimize the Green Movement by associating it with the MEK. The Green Movement collectively represents the pro-democratic elements in Iran that emerged following the June 2009 Iranian Presidential elections and remains the only viable alternative to the regime in Iran.Secondly, the MEK does not have the capabilities to support a large-scale revolution. While it continues to hold thousands of members in various positions throughout western democracies, its activities have been reduced in recent years and it faces a growing problem with recruiting younger generations. Coupled with this, the U.S. military has weakened the MEK’s militia and limited its operation to Camp Ashraf in eastern Iraq. However the Iraqi government’s decision to shut down the camp by the end of the year uproots the MEK from its only position near the Iranian border. These are but a few of the logistical issues that restrict the MEK’s involvement in Iran.Lastly, regardless of recent reforms, the MEK is a terrorist organization that has knowingly killed Americans. This organization actively promoted and supported the U.S. embassy takeover in 1979 and opposed releasing the hostages. If the MEK decides to engage in terrorist activities in the future, the aftermath would be detrimental to the United States. It would both harm the United States’ image in the region and be propagandized by the Iranian regime as a reason for greater defense. The high risk of such an event makes legitimizing the MEK illogical.Although supporters present the fact that the MEK has not conducted terrorist operations for the past ten years, they neglect to mention that during the majority of this period the U.S. military has monitored and contained the organization’s militant wing at Camp Ashraf. Even if the MEK is genuine in turning over a new leaf, the Green Movement remains a more attractive alternative.As the Iranian regime continues to inch closer towards its goal of attaining nuclear weapons capability, the growing threat to the United States is apparent. However, elevated threats do not require unnecessary action. The United States has nothing to gain from supporting the MEK. The chances of the MEK succeeding in taking power in Iran are minimal at best, and lending support will only alienate and undermine the pro-democratic movement already developing in Iran. While the United States should certainly engage in attempts to subvert the Iranian regime and obstruct Iranian defensive capabilities, it should not attempt to do so by legitimizing the MEK. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iranian public, supporting the MEK is not only counterproductive—it’s dangerous.

Photo courtesy of jonmallard via Flickr.